Norwegian business plan shows use of single aisle aircraft

a reply to: aholic

Why couldn't the 777-200ER, 787-9 and A340-500 make it? All of those widebody aircraft have longer range than the A380.

a reply to: Zaphod58

95% of the OLD 757 routes, yes, and I understand why nobody in 1995 jumped on a prospective -ER variant.

I'd also wager that a lot has changed in terms of long-distance air travel over the past two decades (I shudder at the idea that 1995 was 20 years ago).

The transpacific international travel market has absolutely exploded, and unlike travel between Asia and Europe, or the East coast of the US, there's no convenient mid-way stopover point upon which to build the kind of hub-and-spoke service that makes using 787 and 777 or larger-class aircraft feasible for most pairings involving secondary cities.

Even the term "secondary" cities is a misnomer when dealing with China, or even India, as places like Chongqing, Shenzhen, Guanzhou, Chengdu, Tianjin, Harbin, Shenyang, Wuhan, etc are all as big if not bigger than Chicago, Frankfurt, or Paris. As China's economy continues to grow, there will only be more and more demand for direct routes between these cities and major US cities like LA or NYC. At the same time, there will be more and more demand for direct routings between major Asian cities and secondary US destinations like Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Orlando/Miami, etc. That's also before you get to the potential for sales to the southern hemisphere carriers to add more direct routes to bypass the layover hell that Miami or Frankfurt can become.

Routings like this may not be profitable using larger aircraft like 777s, A350s, or even the 787, and that's where a transpacific-capable single-aisle design might be able to carve a niche for itself. I don't fault Boeing for not pursuing it in the 1990s, as the global economic/travel climate was such that the market for such a plane quite simply didn't exist. Times have changed, though, and it seems today like the climate is perfect for a sub-787 size class aircraft that has the potential for 787-type range.

a reply to: aholic

So is it looking like a literal "787 wings, cockpit, and empennage on a 6-abreast fuselage" sort of deal, or is it the all-new design that the MOM proposal hinted at?

And yeah, that's what I've been trying to say. This thing would almost exclusively be for the Chinese/Japanese/Korean and southern hemisphere carriers. Boeing might sell a few to Icelandair and the other scandinavian carriers, and I'd bet that a few would end up flying with Delta/AA/UAL for their low-volume transatlantic routes. But predominantly, these things would be seen flying for Quantas, SA, LAN, NZ, Hainan, JAL, ANA, Cathay, Air China, etc.

a reply to: Barnalby

While single aisle aircraft are popular with airlines, and work for relatively short routes, the chances of this having 787 range, and being used on flights that long aren't good. Passengers aren't overly interested in being packed in that tight on 8 and 10 hour flights, or longer. Most people I know that travel a lot would rather drive or even catch a short haul to where they could catch a larger aircraft and be comfortable on the longer flight.

The airlines talking to Boeing are only looking at a small increase in range, meaning they're going to fly it on similar routes to current 757s, with only a little stretching. There's no need to put a 787 type airframe and wing for something like that.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Consider me a weirdo then, I guess. I'd much rather fly in a 757 than risk getting stuck in the middle of a 5-abreast center section flying economy on a big widebody. The ratio of windows to seats always made narrowbodies feel less confined, to me, and I love flying Icelandair for that exact reason.

Though ultimately, I think the passenger experience has much more to do with seat spacing than it does with rows across, and 6-abreast narrowbodies, seat for seat, never feel any worse than widebodies, and most passengers are just as close to the aisle as they would be in A300/767-width widebody anyways.

a reply to: Barnalby

I've always felt like cattle packed in on 757s. I can barely move, especially in the middle seat. On a widebody, I can't exactly stretch out, but I can at least move somewhat.

a reply to: Barnalby

I think you hit it right on the head. And that's what I'm hearing as well. The pacific/asian/arab airlines are quite interested in a single aisle in the 350 seat class for their longer routes. A 757 with 787 legs fits the bill perfectly. Flying these heavies around all the time isn't exactly affordable to them. They'd rather have more flights and thus more options to the customer than less frequent larger capacity routes. Makes sense to me anyhow.

a reply to: Sammamishman

Which is exactly why the arab airlines are buying up the 787 like crazy. But it still doesn't fill the niche of a smaller volume route. That's where the single aisle comes in and a 737 just doesn't have the seats or the legs.

a reply to: aholic

Neither does the planned 757 replacement from what's been released.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: aholic

Neither does the planned 757 replacement from what's been released.

For which routes? From what I thought we were talking about, it does.

a reply to: aholic

It's 6000 nm+ from the Asia Pacific/Australia region to the ME. According to all the information released so far it will be in the 5000 nm class.