Jump to content


Boeing 797 Launch...Maybe?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, F737NG said:

With the 797, it looks uncomfortably placed between popular short-haul airframes and long-haul ones. Rather than see this as a gap in the market, it could be described as the 'jack of all trades, master of none' segment. Look at the cluster groupings in the diagram below. There is a gap, but can it be exploited?

What makes current types very useful is their ability to be flexible and cover a different mission profile relatively efficiently in otherwise downtime.
Airlines can 'abuse' a 777W to do HKG - PEK - HKG carrying pax volume, before a trip to LHR. A 737 can do DUB - BHX - DUB - LRH - DUB - SXF - DUB - MAN - DUB and still have 7 hours downtime for maintenance.
Could a 797 as currently envisaged really turn-around fast enough for more legs or carry enough passengers on fewer legs to justify the extra capital cost of a new type purchase for airlines over and above 'abusing' what they already own / lease cheaply?

My thoughts exactly.  Up until recently, I was an enthusiastic advocate of Boeing developing the 797, but now I'm wondering if it's worth the cost and effort.  Boeing has enough problems with the 737Max, 737NG issues, 767 refueler issues, etc.  The gap in that chart is very narrow, so the 797 would be filling a small niche in the market.  Plus the 787-10 is about to come on line and that will make the gap even smaller.

I read an article recently that stated Boeing is looking into producing a 767-X which would be a "simple" upgrade of the 767-400ER to use new fuel efficient engines.  However, the article also mentioned the requirement for taller landing gear, which brings back frightening memories of the 737Max tragedy and debacle.  There would be no airframe stretch, however, so perhaps no major aerodynamic changes would result.

The 767-X in my opinion is the way to go for several reasons: 1)the 767 is a proven design and so good that the 767-300F is still being produced for Fedex and UPS, 2)the cost to upgrade would be minimal and existing production lines would only need to be modified a bit to produce the plane, 3)it fills the gap nicely between the low capacity short haul and high capacity long haul aircraft, and finally 4)it would free up resources for Boeing to focus on a 737 replacement, i.e. a brand new, clean sheet design which would blow the Airbus A319/20/21 out of the water.

I have little faith in Boeing executives as of late, however, so I'm not confident they'll make the right decision(which may not be my suggestion - after all, these guys are supposed to be the experts, right?).



  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post

If they go for 767X, then the 797(NSA) would likely to cover 738 to 752 or even 753 size I guess, because 763/4 is quite big for MOM. and 762X doesn't seems promising to me like B783\B37M and A19N.

Wile I'm big fan of 757Max(see my profile and cover photo😛), 767X seem more reasonable as there are still been produced. also 764 wings and avionics seems more suitable for modern upgrade.

It's worth mention I was surprised 767 engines are actually smaller than PW1000 and LEAP on 320NEO and 737MAX, when I first noticed that on my model collections.

Edited by C2615

Share this post

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...