Originally Posted by
JPJP
Actually, you're both a little bit wrong. If you're referring to the original Boeing justification for the 787 - 'long, thin routes'. As it's turned out, you're not far off.
The "thin" is meant to denote a route that couldn't support capacity (777, 380 etc). But the route did require range. A 767 size aircraft that could go anywhere. Think medium sized city. Remember United's first planned route ? IAH - AKL.
It's turned into something entirely different. But that was the original 'thin'.
Now that actually sounds correct "the number of expected pax are a bit thin to support an aircraft of type X.