Is next airliner a single or dual aisle?

By Bjorn Fehrm

19 Feb 2015: There has been much speculation over the last weeks and months what Boeing is up to in the segment 200 to 250 seats, also know as the “757 replacement market“. The speculations over Airbus response are also vivid. One of the reasons is that apart from this segment the landscape of which civil airliners will be produced over the next 10-15 years is pretty much settled; Cseries is on final stretch of development, A320neo is flying while 737 MAX flies next year. A330neo will fly 2017 as will 787-10. A350-1000 start testing in 2016 with deliveries in 2017 and 777-9X flies 2019 with deliveries 2020.

Apart from an announcement by Russia and China that they will design a 250-280 seat widebody there is only the “757 replacement” segment which can result in a clean sheet approach from the major OEMs. Around this questions has arisen a lot of speculation about possible short and long term solutions. Having done a lot of checking of these alternatives with our proprietary model, we have learned that:

  • The 757 has an attractive capacity but is around 25% less efficient than the new generation of single aisle, A321neo or 737 MAX9, on the routes they can fly.
  • Airbus could stretch the A321 into something we called A321neoLR and indeed Airbus was working on it, it is now in the market as A321LR.
  • While 737 MAX9 limitations prohibited a response from Boeing we compared Airbus A321neoLR to what Boeing might come up with in their clean sheet design studies NSA (New Single Aisle) and NLT (New Light Twin)
  • Subsequently a 757 MAX was proposed but Boeing immediately declared that it does not work for them and we explained why.
  • Based on Boeing’s statement that the market is looking for something “a little larger than a 757” we looked into a 767 MAX with 767-200 as the airframe (it would be readily available from the KC-46 program) with GEnx-2B engines (from 747-8, they would fit). Once again it does not pass the first check, efficiency would not be much better than 757.

As we started to analyze the results from all these checks we saw a pattern emerging which gave strong arguments where a single aisle is the solution and where the aircraft should be dual aisle. The argumentation has several dimensions. We have therefore decided to collect it all in an article series that we kick of next week.

In this we will present data collected from all these simulations combined with new facts that we generate using aircraft conceptual design techniques. It will shed new light on the work that is going on at Boeing, Airbus and now also United Aircraft and COMAC.

We will go through some of the fundamental trades that these teams are faced with and what the likely outcome will be for different market segments. In the end it shall be pretty clear if we will see a New Single Aisle (NSA) or New Light Twin (NLT) as replacement for today’s aircraft in the segment 200 to 250 seats or will it have to be both?

58 Comments on “Is next airliner a single or dual aisle?

  1. It will have to effective to make the long range/high capacity 737 obsolete or make the the 737 available as the rock-bottom single-isle beginner Plane.

    Replacement should cover a broad spectrum ( increased MTOW /stretches/range-wise with low take-off runway length requirements) against all the single-isle competition for decades to come. But then again………a re-engined (GenX ?) 767 could be low-buck solution to the defunct 757 and revamped A320 Long range Series

    • The 767 is dead for several reasons. One is no LD3 and another one is a not so well wing in comparision with A330.

      Also the single seat more adds a lot of dead weight. The empty 757 weights 10 t more than an A321 and 30 t for a 767.

      If a 767NEO might work then an A330 should do better …

      • There is only one option on a 767-baseline, and that is to go 8-abreast. Anything else just won’t work.

        Of course a new small and structural light twin could be build for 18″ 20″ aisles 7-abreast long-haul (up to 5-6000 nm) and 8-abreast 17″ 17″ aisles for intra-asia dense routes.

        The plane has to designed the way that it’s so light and restricted by MTOW that 8-abraset won’t work on Long-haul (to heavy).

        Cargo Problem will stay anyway, but could be used to make it even lighter /smaller (only LD3/45).

  2. The next generation small airplane will be based on a single aisle tube too,because it is much lighter than a bigger one with 2 aisles and only one seat more,no matter what you do and how far the progress went!Airbus for example could put a new wing under the stretched fuselages of A320 and A321 in 10 to 15 years time, and still have a very competitive airplane program in the near future.

  3. Re “Cseries is on final stretch of development, A320neo is flying while 737 MAX flies next year.”

    C Series is flying too (like the A320neo).

  4. Everything else equal, the structural weight is increasing like the square of the fuselage diameter. Assuming that a seat and an aisle have the same width :
    – a 2 aisles – 7 abreast plane will have 65% more weight (9 x 9 = 81 vs 7 x 7 = 49) with only 16.7% more seats than a single aisle – 6 abreast, or almost 4 times more additional weight than seats
    – a 2 aisles 8 abreast will have 102% more weight (10 x 10 = 100 vs 7 x 7 = 49) than a single aisle – 6 abreast for only 33% more seats, or about 3 times more additional weight than seats.

    So an single aisle will always have better economics than a 2 aisles and a 2 aisles 8 abreast than a 7 abreast.

    • It’s not that easy. The structurale strange of a thin-walled tube regarding bending growth with exp2 in comparison of the distance of the wall to the neutral-axis/bending axis. With CRP it’s even more severe, because CRP Needs to be mixed up with metal for interlinks/ load Transfer etc. which is why CRP works better the larger the structures.

      A single-aisle will have better economics anyway, but not as much. Furthermore, Boeing constantly talking about 20% more capacity or even a 200-300 Pax plane for intra-asia. To build such a plane on a 6-abreast configuration will give you an extreme Long thin tube, wich has nonoptimal Fitness Ration and Need thick walls to sustain bending stress. That would be even more of a challenge if this ultralong tube should be part of a NSA.

      • An A32X derived aircraft having the same fuselage fineness ratio 😉 as that of the 757-300 would be as long as 57m. FWIW, the current A321 is 44.5m long.

        Now, if one’s willing to look at other fuselage concepts than that of the current conventionl tube-and-wing configuration — where, among other things, the constant diameter section is either made in one piece, or by the use of long panels without any circumferential joints — designed with no major fuselage cut-out in the fuselage/wing junction, then you may have a viable option of using composites for a single aisle aircraft.

        Strength of carbon fiber fuselage within the preliminary design was evaluated analyt ically. Weight estimation of the composite fuselage in Lampassenkonzept option proved that with flexural and torsion rigidities almost equal to those of A320 aluminum fuselage, the weight can be reduced by ~29.9%, with maximum level of normal strain (around 415 MPa) in ‘strip’ cover plates made from titanium carbon fiber. The weight of wing and fuselage juncture was not taken into consideration in process of calculation.

  5. Arbus could develope a larger carbon wing, which could house a taller gear to possibly enable a further stretch over the 321, that would also give a larger fuel capacity. The airframe is already wider than the 73/75’s. I think this would be a win win for eads!

    • I agree. First, Airbus could go for an A322X (i.e. seven frame stretch of the A320; same wing as on the A320), and A323X (i.e. 10 frame stretch of the A321; same wing and MTOW as that of the A321neoLR). Then, a new A32X derived family (e.g. A324X, A325X and A326X), incorporating a new 160m2 composite wing using folding wing tips. Range about 5000nm for all three versions. Overall length: A324X ~ 47m; A325X ~ 52m and A326X ~ 57m. The extra payload range would allow for a significant increase in the underfloor cargo capability over that of the current A321s, and would have a large available volume for the efficient usage of double contoured, full width A32X-standard LD3-45 containers (e.g. containers that have a height of 45 inches instead of the 64 inches of height on the standard LD-3 containers)

      NB: An A326X would have about the same fuselage fineness ratio as that of the 757-300. Boarding would be through door 1L and optimally placed door 2L*, and two passenger boarding bridges. There would be about as many passengers boarding through 2L as that of a current A321 with boarding through door 1L only (i.e., having a premium light seating configuration)

      *Doors 2 are not positioned optimally on the 757-300. IMJ, they should have been positioned about 7 fuselage frames further aft in order to effectuate a more efficient boarding process by the usage of two passenger boarding bridges

  6. In the end its about moving people as efficient as possible. Doing that for 150 people over 1000NM will not lead to the same design compromise as moving 230 people over 3500NM.

    Competition is fierce so the successful “one solution for all” 737 and A320 like platforms will probably be something of the past. Technical feasible, cost wise clever, but no longer efficient enough to beat capacity-range tailored platforms.

    I think the next airliner will be single aisle, and it will be the Boeing NSA. Boeing is looking brave with the MAX, but it has become a one trick pony (-8), doesn’t have pallet/LD3-45 capability and space to use real efficient engines. Boeing reached that conclusion years ago but AA/SW/DL forced their hand. Going for a bigger twin aisle compromises them too much in the huge 150-180 seat segment.

    IMO there will be a 757/767/A300 sized platform and likely it will be a light 2-3-2 accross with LD3-45 capacity, >240 seats and 5000NM range. Maybe Airbus will be first, because apart from MAX, NSA and 777X, Boeing has another, neglected issue: 320-360 seats long haul. 787-10 & 777-8 aint it..

    • I predict that the solution is what you describe in your last paragraph, but Boeing will do it first. It will give them 1) Time regarding the NSA 2) Don’t challange the 787-8max and 787-7max, which isn’t dead as the A319neo.

    • Keesje:

      I would say that Boeing has beaten the 737 horse to death rather than a one trick pony (sad as its one of my all time favorite airplanes).

      However, they continue to sell 737-900 and the 9max. Its not a A321 class machine, but it does compliment airlines that have the 800 or 8 and need more capacity.

      Alaska Airlines has a combined 82 of the 900s and 9 max order and or in service.

    • Boeing might become more like Douglas bit by bit. Having done the 727, then the 757 and finally widraw from 200pax singel aile is a bit strange.
      A new 3+3 or 4+3 single aile with 4 + tail boarding doors and 220-240 pax. Getting an engine that can produce 40k and stay on wing for 15000 cycles might not be readily available. Just remember the PW2000 entry into service..

  7. Looks like a well laid out 200 seat single aisle has already been built. Five lavs, plenty of closets and luggage storage too.

    I find the 175 seat single aisle to be a slow boarder and an unpleasant interior as a long single zone tube. When the widebodies came out in the 70s, it was a night and day improvement over the claustrophobic cabins of the 707 and DC-8. Recreating a modern 757-300 is not the answer.

    Twin aisle(2-2-2) is the way to go. Build one model for 200 with 33 rows(150′) for shorthaul. Put on a 36m wing or a 40m wing with folding tips to fit into existing gate infrastrucure. Use the same fuselage and stretch it to 180′ for longhaul. Put on a 48m wing.

    • TC

      It doesn’t matter what you like, what maters is what is lowest cost.

      A twin aisle gives up a certain percentage efficiency to a single aisles in head to head.

      Can you get that back with a more efficient boardingg process? Maybe maybe not. Can you make it as cheap?

      Boeing looks to be going for something with more range and capacity so more a split between the two current single aisle and 787 twin aisle.

      I think its two different markets. I don’t think the 3000 mile range an under lends itself to a twin aisle cost wise or operational wise so you will see both eventually with the twin first if there is enough market perceived and the use of common system to come out with something all new in single aisle.

      • I suppose it all boils down to cost, so the single aisle is tough to dethrone. Most flights are one or two hours, so turnaround time is part of the cost equation. Looking at small high volume airports in the future, three 150 seat or two 225 seat flights? Which is better considering cost, maximizing volume through the gate, or pilot needs?

        • While no longer the crossroads of the world (they overfly us now) I do get to see Alaska Airlines operation and how they manage it.

          Realistic Ak is now Seattle Airlines. One of its still heavy routes despite the expansion elsewhere is the Seattle Anchorage run.

          I would guess they have at least 15 departures a day between the two cites.

          they stick with the single aisle when you would think a twin aisle (nice low cost 767-200 say) would halve the cockpit crew and allow less frantic service and turnabouts as well as fewer things to go wrong

          they continue to stick with the 737s solely (and formerly MD jets)

          It seems to work not so much for a single route but the average and not stuck on a single route as they can fly onto or into any one of the other destinations on their network (all the way across the US now to DC)

          The odd part is the AK to Seattle is only 1500 miles or so direct (2500 miles by road!). So it suits a single aisle. Across the US is 3000 miles and that’s still suited though some big airline routes justify a 767/

          So it is all about price but its also about averages. It may not be perfect for a given route, but it works to be the best overall for all the routes (until they get down to the real thin ones and then they fly the Q400s on those, but use the faster Q400 rather than the slower ATR as I assume it allows them faster turnaround and utilizing in the longer Western US market (nothing East of Idaho as far as I know.

          Its a pretty amazing balance that goes on. I see UPS and FedEx, UPS uses 747s, FedEx wants nothing to do with them but the both work.

  8. Where would the 787-3 have fit into all of this. It now seems like an ideal aircraft.

      • Keesje snakinesss aside (grin) as he is a devoted Airbus Fan!

        The 787-3 was a sop to the Japan market where they need to move a lot of pax over relatively short and not an economical operation route for twin aisle distance.

        Due to that special market and what they can charge (and dense pack in) they can make it work for that market (Boeing made a special 747 for those routes at one time)

        Boeing would seem to have had some indication others would use it as well. Did not pan out if they did.

        What Keesje is saying is despite the different wing, its still an 8000 mile range aircraft trying to work on a short route.

        What he does not say is that one or both do use the 787-8 in a Japan domestic configuration and apparently it works there.

        Airbus is proposing the same thing with the A330 regional.

        Airlines ops are not about perfection, they are about average balance what works best through the system (mostly). I do wonder about Lufthansa with their 747 and A380 mix.

        • I did a bit more checking on the Japan market

          It looks like ANA is usinb both 7878 ad 9 for domestic routes (from the numbers of passengers listed, long distance iteration is a significant lower number)

          JAL is not from what I can see, they are using 777-200s for that high density domestic ops. Its well paid for but lots of fuel use even with lower fuel quantity in the tanks.

          Interesting mix and take on what works for whom and why.

  9. How many new programs has McNerney ever green lighted? I’m not sure where the “Boeing will go first” analysis really comes from, but it seems to be based on a belief Boeing must capture the market between 739-788. Unless something fairly incredible happens, I’d have to guess Boeing execs want nothing to do with the labor drama the NSA/757RS or whatever you want to call it will bring, in the next 5 years.

    Airbus does have options; keesje is right. Boeing might as well wait and see which ones they exercise and then muster up some energy for a fight (after the current CEO retires). The labor environment and prospects of a CEO approving a massive new capital project should improve by then.

    • They are constantly talking about that marked, 20% bigger than 757, 200-300 including intra-Asia traffic. They seem to be in talks already.

      Off until McNerney retires (and gets cashed out with stock) that won’t happen.

  10. Single or twin aisle, there is also an inbetween. While having this discussion a while ago (’07) a 1.5 aisle came up, specially for seat requirements above 220 seats and longer flights. The cross section would add structural effienciency to a long tube and make single aisle/ seating more acceptable on longer flights.

    It would allow wider seats and/or a wide aisles enabling people /trolleys to pass each other, offer 18+ inch seats (19 inch middle seats) for long flights, more overhead stowage and a spacier cabin experience.

    A narrow 2-2-2 configuration is optional for short haul 250-270 seat flights without the inevitable traffic jams of a single aisle.

  11. I read all the stuff on it and it looked to be an individual who had an idea that no one was buying.

    Cold fusion

  12. Looking at 20% bigger than a 757, might be 140t MTOW. One option is 7 abreast with an LD3-45. Instead of the 767 at 16-6 wide by 17 -9 deep, reduce that to a 16′ cirlcular fuselage. That would save about 7% in skin area and 15% in frontal area. Get the empty weight down to 65t? Shortest model would be 50m with 245 seats in 35 rows at 32″ pitch. Would it work for 2-5 hour flights?

  13. I still feel the lowest cost option for a 757 replacement would be the 767-200. 220 seats, 5000 mile range, reduce some weight, and new engines along with some other tweaks could yield a 10%-12% reduction in fuel burn. The 767 line is still up and running and even if a small number were sold, the cost would also be small compared to a clean sheet design.
    It would also top the A321LR in range and also be able to do Europe and South America without weight restrictions and unscheduled fuel stops.
    Apart from Dublin and Lisbon, I don’t see the A321LR doing well on Europe flights and I would imagine the runway requirements would be very high.

  14. Agreed that it seems to be viable, but both Boeing willing (read that McNeneary) and technically viable.

    I have often seen bureaucracies use excuses to do nothing because they want to do nothing.

    It is a real issue though it also can be an excuse to do nothing. Do you change existing hardware (737 line) or do you go in all new ?

    767 would be close to about as far as you can take an aluminum structure though obviously you can do composite parts (vertical and horizon stabilizer ) as well as other weight reduction.

    And how far do you go? New wing? Fuselage with li-aluminum and requires a lot of structural changes.

    How costly is the excising and new and what can you sell it for and make money?

    Can anyone undercut it with a update of excising A330NEO)?

    What kind of airline interest?

    And you have the dilemma of they express interest and don’t buy….

    Recall the A330, offered up with some great mods early on, every0one including Hazy dissed it all to heck, then he is the biggest supporter saying the A330NEO will sell 1000.

    Talk is cheap, money is what counts and you still have to put it on the line. Tim Clark does not care of the new A380 rocks Airbus as long as he gets what he wants, the aircraft mfg execs have to make it work for them (not that I am any admirer of current Boeing mgt, it is a legitimate issue)

  15. “Recall the A330, offered up with some great mods early on, every0one including Hazy dissed it all to heck, then he is the biggest supporter saying the A330NEO will sell 1000.”

    You have a point there.. 🙂

    Someone should ask him about this.

  16. It is as if “the market” and “aircraft sales” dissociate into mutual unpredictability, the latter driven by a world of itself. But there are common denominators : service dispatch reliability is a strong sales factor, as is inter-family commonality (training, maintenance, spares …). Another factor is learning curve maturity, which determines unit production cash costs, itself driving discounting flexibility in the hands of the shrewd Salesman … but the most potent sales driver is SLOT AVAILABILTY, therefore the best 757R strategy is A321/A322 FAL ramp-up (Tienjin and Mobile included) : whatever move Boeing can come up with, the Airbus White Horse avenue is 13 or 14 x 5 = 65 – 70 A32X Series narrowbody family units per month, asap ? And move MTOW further beyond A321LR towards 104 + metric tonnes, with more NEO thrust, towards 40 + klbf, whilst relaxing floor densities going HQR (Premium 1+2+1 and Y-class 1+3+1) on typical 752 or 753 applications ? … and only if required ?? consider a new wing for A322 (= A321 + 10 frames), that’s my wrap-up of Björn’s posting, for whom it may concern ?

    • IMJ, your “HQR” would work better for a longer airframe similar to an A326X as described above. Such a 57.3m long A326X would have an additional 24 fuselage frames over that of the A321, an all new wing and MLG. The cabin between doors 1L/1R and 2L/2R should be set aside for premium seating, but in a single aisle configuration. Aft of doors 2L/2R you could have your Y-class HQR, twin aisle 1+3+1 seating configuration. That would enable enhanced ingress/egress for Y-class, but would not waste any space on an additional aisle for business and first class — where frankly, an additional aisle is not required.

      For example, American Airlines’ A321 transcons have only 72 Y-class seats, 20 business class seats (2+2) and 10 first class seats (1+1). On a conceptual A326X in an AA transcon configuration, business and first class seats should be located forward of doors 2L/2R, but in a single aisle configuration. Boarding would be through door 1L. Aft of doors 2L/2R, they could at least double the number of Y-class seats over their A321 transcons — and that even in a twin aisle configuration (1+3+1).

  17. I think we can not neglect the complications and inefficiency of narrowbodies when you make them very long. To make it stiff enough extra material / weight must be added to the fuselage.

    Also moving around the cabin with passengers doing bins, crew, trolleys and lavatory visitors becomes a real issue above 200 seats. The aisles are so narrow passing each other is not possible. On longer flights more people move around.

    Growing aisle width from typical 19 inch to 30 inch would help a lot IMO. And is a much lighter compromise then a second aisle. Also it greatly improves structural efficiency on longer single aisle airframes. Longer flights require premium cabins too, using a significant part of the cabin. 10-12 inch extra cabin width gives flexibility and new options there (e.g Business 4 abreast with aisle access or First 1-1-1).

    For Airbus such an aircraft cross-section would expand the portfolio. The A320 series <220 passengers up to 3500NM, the "A360" family from 200-280 passengers up to 5000NM.

    E.g. ATL-Milano (4150NM)×360&PM=*

    P.S. 757 service on the Atlantic today was a drama again. As said before, for UA the 757s 3900NM range, undeniable ain't enough for a reliable time table.

  18. Bjorn,

    Is nobody thinking about how the dangerous consequences of global climate change — due to excessive man-made carbon emissions– will affect air transport planning and decisions by say 2020, a mere five years away?

    This is likely to become a matter of greatly increasing importance and urgency to the public and governments everywhere — year by year. Will air transport CEO’s be several years ahead of the curve or several years behind (at their peril)? Are they believers yet or are their heads in the sand?

    Highest priority emphasis by 2020, maybe sooner, will be on reducing airline fleet fossil fuel burned and carbon generation as quickly as possible — with motivations well beyond today’s standard economic metrics.

    It’s hard for me to see how any all new Boeing mid range 4000 nm, .85 mach, 200+ passenger airplane would be a high priority airline acquisition item by 2020. It simply won’t save enough fleet fossil fuel through the years in comparison with 1) what Airbus will evolve their A321 neo LR and especially in comparison with 2) an all new NSA family of 200 passengers, .75 mach and say 2000 nm range — covering over 90% of 737 missions.

    Would the new NSA sell 10x as many airplanes as the new midrange airplane over say 20 years and altogether, also considering its short range missions with a lot more takeoff and climb time and probably greater daily utilization, save 15- 20X the fuel burned and carbon generated as the global midrange fleet ? You could scope this out.

    I think the NSA should have two aisles for 1) faster turnaround time; 2) better customer comfort and appeal and 3) differentiation from the A320 neo family and its continuing evolution. Boeing will need some advances in fuselage weight technology and body lift — and, as I keep mentioning, why not folding wingtips: 118′ span at the gates, ~134′ in flight.

    We need the NSA in service in 2025. The engines will be available.

    The right NSA will not be obsoleted five years later by an Airbus design using aft mounted counterrotating two stage open rotor propulsors.

  19. Jim, fyi, the earth hasn’t warmed over the past fifteen years. The solar cycle has confounded the warmists though.

    I for one am not real concerned about warming. Most governments aren’t either, except for where it helps them gain power and money.

    • “Jim, fyi, the earth hasn’t warmed over the past fifteen years. The solar cycle has confounded the warmists though. ”

      Having a long interest in history, I can categorically state that we have been in a warming trend for thousands of years.

      You can argue the recent history and cause, but reality is it is getting warmer and we are seeing the issues. All our pollution has to be a contributing factor, how much is open to debate but a factor regardless

      Alaska is particularly impacted by ocean acidification though ultimately it affects everyone as 80% of the planets oxygen is generated there.

      So, while I may not know exactly what factor has caused what warming, I do know I for one am damned concerned about it.

  20. Jim, agree with you an excellent NSA is probably the highest priority. After the A321LR there will other A320 variants.

    Problem is Boeing will have to show its cards/choices first giving Airbus time to see, discuss and come up with an answer.

    Regarding global warming, as an aviation guy I know we are polluting the environment in a big way. No need to dive away or points to others. In todays world we are however driven by market demand.

    People want to preserve our world for our children and fly to exotic destination as often as possible.

  21. keesje has proposed the “extra wide aisle option”, going 2+3 all through the cabin, except for Premium 2+2 in the fwd section, or First Class 1+1 (possibly 1+1+1 ?) up front …

    Not to confuse the “extra wide aisle option” with the existing “wide aisle option” (as applied by eg SAS of Sweden, using 737-type triples (59″ wide) times two to arrange a (3+3) cross-section the the A32X cabin, with 25″ single central aisle instead of the normal 19″ aisle.

    The implicit question that comes up here is : does said “extra wide aisle option” solve the airport quick rotation conundrum ? Does it garantee “freer” cabin in-flight movements ? Better in-flight servicing efficiency ?

    The answer to these questions leads us to consider the ROOT CAUSE for cabin jamming.

    Experts trace the referred ROOT CAUSE to cabin EMF (Excuse-Me Factor).

    EMF for the 2+3 cross-section is 4 per each row, whereas EMF for the 1+3+1 cross-section is 0.5 (1/2 or one half) per each row, a world of a difference.

    When the aisle-seat passengers are seated, 40 % of the aisle traffic in the 2+3 cabin are cleared, vs 80 % in the 1+3+1 (against only 33 % in the 3+3 cabin). These key numbers drive ground turn-around efficiency, in-flight service efficiency and in-flight cabin mobility ease :

    For additional details/explanations, go to then press “Latest Reports” icon, wherein you select the “Wider Aisle Option” sub-icon …

  22. Boeing might be at an advantage more than a disadvantage since they have the opportunity to have the first offering before Airbus would. It is in some ways similar to when Boeing responded to the A35J with 2 models of the 777. Rather than just update the 77W, they also went one above with the 779.

    In this case I believe Boeing will offer both a single aisle and dual aisle aircraft that fills the gap in n between the 739 and 788.

    The resurgence of the 787-3 is good for conversation but not reality. As good as CRFP is, I don’t see Boeing or Airbus churning NSA’s or NST’s out at the current rate of production. The technology isn’t there yet.

    • Boeing was about ready to launch a CFRP aircraft, you can debate if it was really a cost issue or they chickened out but it was at least viable.

  23. 3+3 with extra wide aisle at 30″ means trim-to-trim interior width of minimum 2 x 59″ +30″ = 148″ (using 737-type triples) which implies you are talking of an all-new design. With A32X-type triples, we’d need 2 x 62″ + 30″ = 154″, which is more or less the C919 cabin width … Therefore, your idea of 3+3 with an extra wide aisle of 30″ cannot be matched with a cabin re-configuration based on A32X Series or 73X Series as of today. You’re talking NSA, ie we’re into the post-2025 time-line. HQR Twin Aisle Quick Rotation reconfigurations are done using the existing fuselages. It’s a three-year to EIS job from go-ahead, with undiscontinued FAL throughput in the transition from classic 3+3 to the twin aisle 1+3+1. Airbus would corner the feeder market with no other possible retaliation available to Boeing than necessarily some NSA (maybe with a NLT New Light Twin companion) which means ten-twelve years and 15 + G$ development until they can reach meaningful FAL throughput … Whence H21QR and/or H22QR are winner strategies available to Airbus only. H39QR (whether NG or MAX) has an Achilles’ heal : bulk loading !

  24. Frequent Traveller, putting 5 people per seatrow instead of 6 slams efficiency by 20%. That won’t go unpunished.

    On top you significantly would reduce luggage space, against the trend, and complicate catering service.

    The trend is to cram more people in a hull, not less. Comfort has to be acceptable for the flight, that’s enough.

  25. @ keesje, quote/On top you significantly would reduce luggage space, against the trend, and complicate catering service. /unquote

    Overhead stowage volume for A32X Series “enhanced” interior (3+3) @ 32″ pitch is 2,045 cuft/pax. Compare this with 1+3+1 @ same pitch = 3,25 cuft/pax 0r 59 % better. HQR means MUCH MORE carry-on per passenger. The result is you gain two additional AKH for payfreight underfloor. With four aisle seats and one “one-off” seat (accessible from both aisles), the HQR cabin offers troublefree in-flight service efficiency, eliminiating MSD and stress for the average Flight Attendant, not needing anymore to extend herself twice 70 times right and left (tray hand-out then retrieval to seats A and F) in a time-limited marathon, 60+ inches off the aisle centreline in the 3+3 configuration. Talk about complicating catering service ?

  26. Frequent Traveller, have you considered 1-2-1? Passenger comfort will boom, no more dreaded middle seats, lots of luggage space available for each passengers, relaxation for the crew and new cargo opportunities because of available payload! Or reduced fuel consumption because of lower take-off weights. A320 Airlines can simply order longer A321s if they need more capacity! 😉

  27. Notably, the larger the Premium fwd cabin section (2+2 in A321 vs 1+2+1 in H21QR), the lesser the loss of seats in the Y-class aft cabin section (3+3 in A321 vs 1+3+1 in H21QR). The APEX equivalence says : [3+3 @ N” pitch] equates in APEX to [1+3+1 @ N-2″ pitch] – whereby the operator easily gains another two rows (ie 10 pax) vs 3+3 at identical APEX. Further, the 1+3+1 product is perceived as SUPERIOR vs the 3+3 product, attracting a ticket yield bonus through Retail Psychologist (CRS) auctioning, with the overall result that maindeck revenues will match, with a lower deck payfreight bonus for H21QR vs the sister A321. Better 24h productivity, quicker airport turn-arounds and special IFE (Home Cinema) revenues are cherries-on-the-cake … A piece of cake, said Adam Pilarski, refer to the Runway Girl comment above !

  28. I got a secret recipes for boeing NMA dubbed the 797 3 abreast in business class 5 abreast in premium economy class and 6 and 7 abreast in economy class or coach class in a twin aisle widebody. it looks pretty big than the Boeing 767-200 and boeing 767-200er. remember more
    Airlines might need it. if the airlines ordered.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *