Keesje, my comment re the name was really tongue-in-cheek. That sort of thing is usually done by testing random groups of travelers anyway, not by asking a hoary sampling of ppruners.
In your #58 you said
Quote
If this is to be a 737/A320 replacement dedicated for short high frequency flight, as I stated in the opening post, very short airfield performance is not a basic requirement. It could be an optional package.
Unquote
I wonder. My earlier comment about getting the airplane closer to the passenger really meant getting it into smaller regional airports provided the demographics are right. That seemed sensible to me partly from of the fuel consumption aspect: small airports where turnoff to gate is two-three minutes vs big ones where it could be ten, fifteen, plus holding for other traffic to pass. I realise that would require big rethinking of ATC, terminal facilities, who pays for the new navaids etc but with fuel going the way it is, those little things seem likely to make a big difference in overall operating costs.
I'm probably with Atreyu re electric drives if only based on there being one more thing to go tech.
And I’m totally with mcnuggit re the windows. Hell on the spine having to scrunch down to see outside. Yes you can hear me muttering “Viscount, Electra….”