B7E7 Dreamliner

pilot602

If specified, this will replace the title that
[ QUOTE ]
Well, management can get all the seats they want and Boeing can still put that ceiling in there.
And are you SURE they want lots of seats? If all they wanted was lots of seats, they'd all be buying the A380.
Why have more empty seats that you can't fill at a profit?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because an A380 is a big aircraft. Big aircraft = more expensive to operate. The airline then needs more seats to be filled just to break even. But a smaller airframe (all things being equal) requires fewer seats to break even. With that in mind any extra seats are pure profit.

Regardless of the size of the airframe the basic operating principal holds true. The more seats you can cram into a given airframe the cheaper that given airframe becomes to operate. Which is why there is no legroom on most flights. Changing the pitch by one inch can sometimes mean an addition - or deletion - of two rows of seating. Thats what I mean by seats. I don't mean an addition of 100 I mean a couple extra rows squezed in.
 

tonyw

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Which is why there is no legroom on most flights. Changing the pitch by one inch can sometimes mean an addition - or deletion - of two rows of seating. Thats what I mean by seats. I don't mean an addition of 100 I mean a couple extra rows squezed in.


[/ QUOTE ]

But you're missing the point. You can still squeeze an extra row of seats in without having to give up the high ceiling and all the other things that Boeing will be putting in the 7E7 (I refuse to call it the Dreamliner, that's just a hokey name.)

Also, I'm not sure that they always want to add another row of seats that they have to sell at prices that they can't make a profit on. Look at American and United with their various more room campaigns.
 

pilot602

If specified, this will replace the title that
[ QUOTE ]
But you're missing the point. You can still squeeze an extra row of seats in without having to give up the high ceiling and all the other things that Boeing will be putting in the 7E7 (I refuse to call it the Dreamliner, that's just a hokey name.)
Also, I'm not sure that they always want to add another row of seats that they have to sell at prices that they can't make a profit on. Look at American and United with their various more room campaigns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really. I'm just failing to adequately explain my view. More seats is indirectly related to the inherent "cheapness" of airline management. Why pay for high ceilings (when it could be filled with overhead bins for the extra two rows of seats) or fancy lights in the ceilings - all that extra expense does is increase the seats needed to break even. Airlines want low cost per seat mile. The more fancy stuff you throw on the airframe the higher the seat costs go. And fancy stuff, while cool, does not relate directly to the capability of earning more money (like extra seats).

That's all I'm saying.

I think the 7E7 is cool. I'd love to see an entryway like that and big open cabins but I just don't think it'll happen.
 

sorrygottarunway

Well-Known Member
dammit Minuteman, I was just about to make a Star Trek crack myself. It does look like 10-Forward or something. If Guinan comes and offers me a drink, I'll know I'm in the right place.

Gaypilot... it is no crime to fall asleep on an airplane. In my dorm I like set up my flight sim jets on LRC and fall asleep to the engine sounds. Not only was it comforting, making me feel like I was on some long exotic journey, it also drowned out my neighbors having sex.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Gaypilot... it is no crime to fall asleep on an airplane. In my dorm I like set up my flight sim jets on LRC and fall asleep to the engine sounds. Not only was it comforting, making me feel like I was on some long exotic journey, it also drowned out my neighbors having sex.

[/ QUOTE ]


Dunno bout that "sorrygottarunway" that is one of the few things me and Everett actually agree on. It is so kool to see other airliners in full 3D flight. As they streak past your plane.


Matthew
 

NJA_Capt

Well-Known Member
Re: Looks Ugly To Me

[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one who thinks it's ugly?

[/ QUOTE ]Gotta agree with you C-kid. I think it shows a lack of originality. The Concorde was original 30 years ago when compared to the B707. The 7E7 isn't very original to me.
It looks like one of the Japanese high speed trains with wings on it. Big stretch for Boeing, a new nose and winglets, not exactly living on the edge. They had it with the Sonic Cruiser.....and they cancelled it.

The 757 was a classic and beautiful design, and they cancelled it instead of the 737asaurus.
 

ready2fly

Well-Known Member
Re: Looks Ugly To Me

You two can think it's ugly all you want, but tell us this:

If either one of you two clowns were offered a job flying the 7E, would you/could you look a recruiter straight in the eyes and say "no thanks. It's ugly."

.......

Didn't think so.
 

BobDDuck

Island Bus Driver
Re: Looks Ugly To Me

I think it looks sort of nice, but looks don't really matter a whole lot. As long as its got at least two wings, and the wheels aren't square (brings back memories of a flight on ValueJet!) That said, one can think the a/c is ugly, but still fly it. I overheard two Northwest Airlink (maybe mesaba?) pilots talking about the Avro RJ85. They both thought the thing looked like crap, and handled about as well, but were very happy to have somthing they could apply their seniorority number to. It's like many of those pointless topics at a.net where people say they would never book a segment that was a boeing or airbus (depending on which one they support). That's absurd. You are going to take whatever is offered to you. Sorry about the ramble. Hunger and cough syrup will do that to a person. And going way back in the post... Aloft, Tonyw is right. Our buddies at the TSA have banned the use of curtains between classes due to the security threat they pose. I guess it has something to do with an unobstructed view of the entire cabin.

Ethan
 

CK

Well-Known Member
Re: Looks Ugly To Me

[ QUOTE ]
You two can think it's ugly all you want, but tell us this:

If either one of you two clowns were offered a job flying the 7E, would you/could you look a recruiter straight in the eyes and say "no thanks. It's ugly."

.......

Didn't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd much rather be flying the Citation X that NJA Capts on then that.
 
Re: Looks Ugly To Me

[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one who thinks it's ugly?

[/ QUOTE ]



Yes Citationkid you are the only one...cause dat plane is one sex a$$ b**ch.


Matthew
 

Prospective_Pilot

New Member
It should be a nice 757/767 replacement, however it doesn't excite me any where near as much as the super jumbo A380 coming out!!!!!


Maybe if it had 3 or 4 engines it would look a bit better.
 

CK

Well-Known Member
Sorry to dig up the past, but I knew that airplane wouldn't look like the pictured one. Wonder if that means me and NJA capt. were right


Here are quotes from the Boeing press releases:

“The basic shape of large commercial jet airplanes has remained essentially unchanged since the introduction of the Boeing 707 nearly 50 years ago,” said Mike Bair, senior vice president of the 7E7 program. “There’s a good reason for that. The shape is optimal for achieving lift, fighting drag and producing efficient, comfortable flight.”

“Airplane designs change during development,” Bair said. “I don’t expect the 7E7 will look exactly like either the baseline image we’ve shown since January or this concept image..."
 
Well here is what I want to know.

The 7E7 has been granted approval to be built and market to airlines by Boeing board members.

It's design and shape has been frozen.

But there still calling it the 7E7.

Are they marketing it as the 7E7 or will the name change to maybe 787,797 when it goes into production?



Matthew
 
[ QUOTE ]
I heard it was going to be called the 808.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 808?

That sounds horrible 7E7 sounds better then that.

I'm really hoping that the plane keeps the designation 7E7.

And if not that 787 at least.


Matthew
 

BoeingDrew

Well-Known Member
The significance behind calling it the 808, was to symbolize the moving into the 21st century. I guess it’s also to symbolize that it’s a revolutionary aircraft that deserves the new numeric code. In my opinion it’s a 767, made largely of composites with new engines, and a sleek design. Don’t get me wrong though, I’m excited for the new plane, just look at my avatar<--------------------------------------
, but I don’t think it deserves the new code. Save that for something like the Sonic Cruiser or BBW (Blended Wing Body).
 
Top