Originally Posted by
tdracer
Single aisle become very problematic when you go much over 200 seats because loading/unloading take forever. It's OK for longer range operations since the turn times are less critical, but to be economically viable, a new 200-250 passenger aircraft needs to be economical not just for long haul, but for 1-2 hour flights as well. Otherwise the market is too small.
That was a big factor in the flop of the 757-300. It's operating costs were quite good for the time, but it's turn times were horrid.
I still think Boeing's best bet would be a "767X" - 767 fuselage, updated composite wing, modern avionics, and new state-of-the-art engines. They'd just need to convince an engine company to do a new 45k thrust class engine.
I've got experience of 239 pax A321NEOs. 35 minute turn around is quite possible, the key is ensuring not everybody has their life in a roller bag. Airline fares are increasingly limiting passengers to backpacks, with a limited number of upgraded fares available for rollers. Using both doors helps a lot too, but isn't essential. I think the slightly wider Airbus aisle and bin which is easier to empty from C&D seats marginally help. It's hard to argue the extra weight of a 767 style fuselage is worthwhile on short haul, and I agree that a MOM needs to be economically on short, mid and longhaul.
It sounds like the airlines are asking for a 757-300, ironically one of the least commercially successful designs ever built. The 753 struggles a bit with turn arounds because of the very small overhead bins, which can be designed out.
I do think that it's only a matter of time before longhaul narrow bodies change aviation. It means you needs less capital and a smaller market share to establish a profitable longhaul airline.