Boeing Considers Developing a 757-PLUS Instead of New Mid-Market-Airplane Dubbed 797

[GlobalNav]

Another "Here we go again." By the time it happens, the certification basis will be 40 years old. Come own, FAA, amend
14 CFR 21.101 Changed Product Rule so this "new" airplane meets the current safety standards the 797 would have had to.

And while they are ait, amend the delegation processes, particularly with regard to ODA.

[Banana Joe]

Source?

10 char.

[tdracer]

Already discussed here:
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/632015-boeing-cut-10-workforce-amid-staggering-641-million-loss-first-quarter.html#post10767748

BTW, can someone provide a link to said article(s)? I personally find the idea of re-introducing the 757 to be silly - is this really something coming out of Boeing, or is it fanciful speculation by an ignorant media?

[DaveReidUK]

That headline could have been written (and has been) at any time in the last 10 years, with as much likelihood of it happening.

[Tango and Cash]

Persistent fanboy rumor on another aviation forum. The 757 production line is dead, the tooling has been scrapped, and it's going to stay that way. Amazing airplane for its day, but that day is passing.

[Spooky 2]

I think this is where this reumor got starts,,,,again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/aircraft-projects/planemakers-slow-plans-for-new-jets-as-they-focus-on-survival-idUSL5N2CF5PN

[tdracer]

I think this is where this reumor got starts,,,,again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/aircraft-projects/planemakers-slow-plans-for-new-jets-as-they-focus-on-survival-idUSL5N2CF5PN

That's actually decently insightful article. Funny how some people read:
Since then, Boeing has been looking at distilling the two-aircraft NMA programme into one new 757-style plane, while studying a more modest 767 upgrade, sources said.
and
A 757 replacement would counter strong sales of the Airbus A321 and allow Boeing to pioneer systems needed in future replacements of all small and medium jets - notably cockpits.
somehow think that means Boeing is going to reintroduce the 757...
Interesting to see that (at least per the linked article) Boeing is again looking at my preferred option for the mid-market - a '767X' with a new wing, engine, and avionics...

[Pugilistic Animus]

That's actually decently insightful article. Funny how some people read:

and

somehow think that means Boeing is going to reintroduce the 757...
Interesting to see that (at least per the linked article) Boeing is again looking at my preferred option for the mid-market - a '767X' with a new wing, engine, and avionics...

I said the same thing so ago now. That Boeing needs to bring back the 757 instead of trying to force a Boeing 737 to be a 757... cancelling the 757 was a very bad decision...just upgrade avionics, engines and wings.

[tdracer]

I said the same thing so ago now. That Boeing needs to bring back the 757 instead of trying to force a Boeing 737 to be a 757... cancelling the 757 was a very bad decision...just upgrade avionics, engines and wings.
The problem with simply replacing the 737 with the 757 was that the 757 cost much more to build. During the 757 development, it was assumed that jet fuel would be well over $5/gallon by the year 2000, so nearly every trade of cost vs. weight (or fuel burn) fell on the side of less weight/higher cost. For much of the next 20 years the focus went the other way - making the aircraft heavier but less expensive to build - but it still cost far more to build relative to the 737NG. Which is why the 757 eventually died - it's better capabilities relative to the 737NG didn't justify it's higher cost.
I really hope that whatever Boeing eventually replaces the 737 with has a new, wider fuselage. The 707/727/737/757 cross section is simply obsolete for the current generation of larger, wider passengers.

[CargoOne]

I said the same thing so ago now. That Boeing needs to bring back the 757 instead of trying to force a Boeing 737 to be a 757... cancelling the 757 was a very bad decision...just upgrade avionics, engines and wings.

757 line was stopped more than 15 years ago purely due to a lack of demand. How people can keep kicking the dead horse...

[Momoe]

757 was and is still a good aircraft, however 737 Max was (hopefully) the ultimate upgrade to an aircraft in continuous production since the 60's. Resurrecting an aircraft that first flew only 15 years later than the first 737 isn't going to happen.
Boeing have to develop world class solutions to make the 737 Max work and restore confidence in the brand.

[Pugilistic Animus]

PA is full of puerile wishes...

[Check Airman]

I really hope that whatever Boeing eventually replaces the 737 with has a new, wider fuselage. The 707/727/737/757 cross section is simply obsolete for the current generation of larger, wider passengers.
:)
It's all about the widebodies!

[vikingivesterled]

That is the Reuters article, and another websites referal to it, I looked at wen when this was discussed on the "Boeing to cut 10%" thread.
"Any replacement would have slightly more range and seats, with one source nicknaming it “757-Plus” " was seen to be a reference to that 757-Plus was an internal workname used in Boeing.
There is more to this than can just be brushed off due to missing tooling. It can't all have been lost. The plane is still flying and one can still get spares. You can be sure the plans haven't gone missing.
The 767 is a widebody and can never be a quick and oversized fit straight into the airport parking spaces own stairs no belly containers 737 ExMax replacement. The 757 with a bit of more modern, economically optimized manufacturing, lighter composits and modern methoods of glueing and the latest most fuel efficient engines can. And the engines will fit actually under the wings. Also rumoured it can take off sanz tail scraping even without landing gear trickery.
Boeing don't need a mid market replacement. It has the 787. What it needs is a bread and butter plane it can sell and make in big volumes, within 3 to 4 years. Hopefully start preselling in 2 when the market comes back. Then having a tried and tested starter to modify speeds up the process.

[PAXboy]

They can develop a brand new mid-size machine and CALL it the 757. It does not have to be BASED on the 75 other than approximate size and range. The 757+ could be a clean sheet design. They might just want to reuse the number to keep '9' for the future.

[Una Due Tfc]

This is all based on the success of the evolutions of the A321. As TDRacer says, can Boeing really compete by evolving a very old design (757) ? There is generally a huge love of the 757 because it is an aesthetically pleasing design (especially with winglets), the love pilots have for it due performance, and the unintended niche in TATL flying it found in later life. How big is this market? Can it sustain 2 competing airframes when we consider crew currency? IE the crew can fly a Boeing equivalent of the A320 on a 2 hour sector today, then an 8 hour sector with an A321XLR equivalent overnight tomorrow on the same rating? Is it actually worth Boeing's expense to divide this market with Airbus? In a similar fashion to the B748 vs A388 argument....have both manufacturers lost...or have Boeing lost "less" because the B748 has the freighter variant.

I think we're mixing possibilities here. The 757 achieved what it did because of powerful engines, big wings and double bogey gear to get good runway performance and range at the expense of fuel burn due those thrusty engines at the expense of weight. In the modern world, are you better with two different types to achieve same mission or one type compromised in one to accommodate the other? No doubt a new bespoke design in the niche would knock Airbus' socks off, is the market in that niche big enough to justify the expense?.....

[tdracer]

That is the Reuters article, and another websites referal to it, I looked at wen when this was discussed on the "Boeing to cut 10%" thread.
"Any replacement would have slightly more range and seats, with one source nicknaming it “757-Plus” " was seen to be a reference to that 757-Plus was an internal workname used in Boeing.
No where does it say the anonymous source was Boeing, or someone inside Boeing. And even if it was, any internal designations at this point are pretty much meaningless - the aircraft that became the 777 was initially called the the "767-X".
There is more to this than can just be brushed off due to missing tooling. It can't all have been lost. The plane is still flying and one can still get spares. You can be sure the plans haven't gone missing.
No, the tooling is long gone (except for some of the fuselage stuff common to the 737). The really expensive stuff is for the wing and that was the first to go to make space for expanded 737 production. Heck, most of the tooling for the C-17 is gone, and it's only been out of production for a few years. If you need primary structure for an existing 757, you'll probably have to go to the boneyard, or find someone that has the expertise to make one-off stuff. Yes, the drawings still exist, but not in the form necessary for 21st Century production methods. Developing and producing the tooling and manufacturing for a new aircraft costs a fortune - often more than the total engineering and development costs. Besides, you're still going to need a new wing and engines or you're going to end up with the same operating economics of a 737NG but with a bit more range... Avionics will nearly all need to be replaces simply because you simply can't buy avionics that were designed 40 years ago - keeping the avionics in the existing 757/767 fleet going is a never ending battle because nobody makes the components that were used 40 years ago.

[mattyj]

Problem is McDonald Douglas execs shmoozed their way into the top jobs at Boeing..displacing all the engineer types that previously ran Boeing..set fire to the culture of the company and pushed all Boeing’s culture out the door. Now there’s not enough people in Boeing willing to call a spade a spade..and point out obvious flaws in designs..and the culture now punishes people for doing that anyway..so the question is; can Boeing even design a successful clean sheet passenger aircraft anymore..the answer I suspect is no..so that might lead credence to resurrection of old types rumors

[Bend alot]

the answer I suspect is no..so that might lead credence to resurrection of old types rumors

Recent history would suggest that even is doubtful of current capabilities.

[vikingivesterled]

tdracer - I fully agree that it would need a brand new multimodel cocpit updated to modern standards and prepared for the future of more automation. The body sould also be a composite play like the 787.
However, using the 757 as a template would not only create a good looking plane, as some comments have agreed with, but probably shave a couple of years, and associated costs, of the development cycle by reusing some of the principals like aerodynamic shape and and landing gear. Something Boeing desperately needs at the moment.
Personally I don't agree with this trend for ever larger 737's for the bread and butter jobs of short haul flying. The 150 seat aircraft was a more versatile one that encouragede more direct routes and higher frequencies. However the larger planes have been encouraged by slot restrictions, airport fees and increasing pilot costs.

[lomapaseo]

tdracer - I fully agree that it would need a brand new multimodel cocpit updated to modern standards and prepared for the future of more automation. The body sould also be a composite play like the 787.
However, using the 757 as a template would not only create a good looking plane, as some comments have agreed with, but probably shave a couple of years, and associated costs, of the development cycle by reusing some of the principals like aerodynamic shape and and landing gear. Something Boeing desperately needs at the moment.
Personally I don't agree with this trend for ever larger 737's for the bread and butter jobs of short haul flying. The 150 seat aircraft was a more versatile one that encouragede more direct routes and higher frequencies. However the larger planes have been encouraged by slot restrictions, airport fees and increasing pilot costs.

All true, but who really cares? (tongue in cheek)

What do the airlines want?
When will they be interested in buying new planes again and at what price to get 20 years out of them?

[vikingivesterled]

All true, but who really cares? (tongue in cheek)
What do the airlines want?
When will they be interested in buying new planes again and at what price to get 20 years out of them?

There will be airlines looking to renew their fleets. Most customer don't care about cycles and flying hours. Arguments like technically it is 10 years old but this is really an 8 year old plane since it was parked up for 2 years, will not wash in marketing your newish fleet. It is not even an engineering truth since planes need to fly to be kept in top condition.
If you will get 20 years out of them in the northern hemisphere is a different question. It will depend on how persistent the envirnmental question will be after CoVid19. What I see is they have got a taste for the clean air demonstrated with the considerable, albeit temporary, downshift in pollution lately. And the governments in some countries have had to compromise with the environmental parties to get agreement on economical covid measures. These future promises will come back and bite us.
Price level on delivery in 3-4 years: Lightly discounted (nobody think they got a good deal without some discount) ExMax-10 for same amount of seats. A bit more with more seats. Relatively less with less seats. Since brand new cockpit 1 simulator thrown in with every 30 planes.

[Pugilistic Animus]

I agree that the 757 can use a few inches more of cabin width. Just enough to beat Airbus by like an inch. I should be in charge of Boeing because I will try to resurect the 707 and 727 too :}

[Pugilistic Animus]

Like magic this popped up on my message feed
interesting though.
https://simpleflying.com/boeing-757-300-too-long/amp/

[Wickerbill]

Like magic this popped up on my message feed
interesting though.
https://simpleflying.com/boeing-757-300-too-long/amp/
Yes its journalistic bollocks though, isn't it?

[tdracer]

Yes its journalistic bollocks though, isn't it?
Not sure about it being bollocks - particularly this bit:
Additionally, it was disliked by passengers. Records show that it took up to eight minutes longer to board the Boeing 757-300 compared to the -200 series, thanks to the very long aisle. This same aisle meant that onboard service was incredibly slow, and passengers were waiting forever to be served.
I think this is what really hurt the 757-300 - it was simply too long for a single aisle. This made turn times horrible, and on-board service a nightmare - I sat near the back of a 757-300 one time, after we landed I timed it - it took 10 minutes after the door opened before there was even movement where I was sitting (I flew trans-Atlantic on a DC8-60 way back when - it had the same problem).
Direct operating costs per seat mile for the -300 were good, but it took so long to turn that it took a serious hit for productivity. Single aisle becomes problematic when you get much over 200 seats - twin aisle simply works better when you get much above 200 seats.

[DaveReidUK]

Direct operating costs per seat mile for the -300 were good, but it took so long to turn that it took a serious hit for productivity.

But not serious enough to prompt airlines to retire a single one of the 55 delivered.

[vikingivesterled]

I think this is what really hurt the 757-300 - it was simply too long for a single aisle. This made turn times horrible, and on-board service a nightmare - I sat near the back of a 757-300 one time, after we landed I timed it - it took 10 minutes after the door opened before there was even movement where I was sitting (I flew trans-Atlantic on a DC8-60 way back when - it had the same problem).
Direct operating costs per seat mile for the -300 were good, but it took so long to turn that it took a serious hit for productivity. Single aisle becomes problematic when you get much over 200 seats - twin aisle simply works better when you get much above 200 seats.

Not an issue if you are primary a non-airbridge airline that use both doors and serve from both ends using 2 trolleys and 4 crew, plus a microwaveing runner when more than 200 seats.
Even if you use airbridges occasionally you can still use the back door for unloading with stairs and back up again onto the airbridge.

[Wickerbill]

Tdracer makes a good point regarding turn times, but in almost every other respect the aircraft performance and economics are great. The 300 died with the entire 757 line in the depressed airline economics following 9/11. Not because companies, hated it; they weren't buying anything at the time. A bit like the next few years...

[esscee]

Whatever they come up with, it will have to be a wider cabin with 2 aisles, single aisle is not going to be the way forward. Maybe offset seat row positioning so it is easier to get in/out of seats. Plus we may see some more radical or spectacular designs.

[Martin the Martian]

I agree that the 757 can use a few inches more of cabin width. Just enough to beat Airbus by like an inch. I should be in charge of Boeing because I will try to resurect the 707 and 727 too :}

Hey, why stop there. I can see a market for the return of the 307 Stratoliner.:E

[Turbine D]

Should Boeing decide to lengthen the current 757, I hope they do a better structural design than Douglas did in lengthening the DC-8 to the DC-8-61. If you sat in one of the rearmost row of seats and the aircraft was experiencing moderate turbulence, it gave one the feeling the rear section was going to torque off from the sections more forward, it was so visibly noticeable. It scared the heck out of unknowing passengers...

[Go4PoweredDecent]

Should Boeing decide to lengthen the current 757, I hope they do a better structural design than Douglas did in lengthening the DC-8 to the DC-8-61. If you sat in one of the rearmost row of seats and the aircraft was experiencing moderate turbulence, it gave one the feeling the rear section was going to torque off from the sections more forward, it was so visibly noticeable. It scared the heck out of unknowing passengers...

The 757-300 was much the same.

[tdracer]

Tdracer makes a good point regarding turn times, but in almost every other respect the aircraft performance and economics are great. The 300 died with the entire 757 line in the depressed airline economics following 9/11. Not because companies, hated it; they weren't buying anything at the time. A bit like the next few years...
While it's true that 9/11 killed the market for just about everything, Boeing didn't pull the plug on the 757 until 2004, at which time the market in general was rebounding. Even with a rebounding market, they couldn't sell 757s because nearly everyone was picking the far less expensive 737NG instead - in fact the NG was selling like the proverbial hot cakes. A big part of the decision to kill the 757 was because all that factory space that was devoted to building one or two 757s per month could instead be used to build another 10 or 20 more profitable 737s per month.

[stilton]

Should Boeing decide to lengthen the current 757, I hope they do a better structural design than Douglas did in lengthening the DC-8 to the DC-8-61. If you sat in one of the rearmost row of seats and the aircraft was experiencing moderate turbulence, it gave one the feeling the rear section was going to torque off from the sections more forward, it was so visibly noticeable. It scared the heck out of unknowing passengers...


On the contrary, that built in flexibility was key to the strength of the airframe, better to bend than break


Look at the incredible longevity of the DC8 and you’ll realize Douglas got it right

[Pugilistic Animus]

I think that NASA owned/owns a DC8 as a general flying testbed for various things

[Momoe]

It's going to very difficult to predict what is going to happen on the passenger side of aviation, it is fairly safe to say that passenger volume will be down in the short-medium term; Other drivers are home working/massive take up of video-conferencing as an alternative to face-to-face meetings and concerns about travel on any form of public transport.

Efficient single aisle will be preferred to keep costs down as volume won't be there. 777 with 300/350 seats, it's efficient but how many seats need to be filled to break even? And that's assuming that social distancing won't apply to airlines.
UK is introducing a 14 day quarantine for international flights which is going to have a massive impact.

The aviation industry is going to contract and Boeing/Airbus will not have the cash flow to launch any new aircraft for a while. Doesn't look good for the Max, even if you were in the market for a new plane, would you buy?

[mattyj]

Combi’s..?

[Pugilistic Animus]

I think that the main issue with a COMBI is smoke abatement and fire suppression

[Less Hair]

Google "Helderberg".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Airways_Flight_295

[beachbumflyer]

I think that the main issue with a COMBI is smoke abatement and fire suppression
But I think that's the same with any cargo airplane. Correct me if am wrong.

[Pugilistic Animus]

But I think that's the same with any cargo airplane. Correct me if am wrong.
It's the same and it's different at the same time. The airplane must pass the certification process for carrying cargo but it's very difficult to certify a COMBI due to proximity to the passengers and some of the procedures to starve fires of oxygen would be quite deleterious and ultimately fatal

[tdracer]

It's the same and it's different at the same time. The airplane must pass the certification process for carrying cargo but it's very difficult to certify a COMBI due to proximity to the passengers and some of the procedures to starve fires of oxygen would be quiet deleterious and ultimately fatal
Further, while they don't talk publicly about it much, the regulators treat cargo operations as more 'expendable' than passenger operations. Examples being the different treatment of Li batteries, and the exemption of cargo aircraft with more than two engines from the requirements of EDTO.
As a result, the fatal accident rate of cargo operations is significantly higher than it is for passenger operations.

[lomapaseo]

Further, while they don't talk publicly about it much, the regulators treat cargo operations as more 'expendable' than passenger operations. Examples being the different treatment of Li batteries, and the exemption of cargo aircraft with more than two engines from the requirements of EDTO.
As a result, the fatal accident rate of cargo operations is significantly higher than it is for passenger operations.

I don't argue with your safety statistics but;

I don't like your examples. Association does not equal causation

There are plenty of other contributing factors that might be considered in the actual causal chains,

[tdracer]

Loma, I'm not talking cause and effect, I'm pointing out evidence that the regulators apply a different standard of safety to cargo operations than they do to passengers. Why else would the rules be different - and they are different as pointed out by my two examples.

[Anti Skid On]

Not sure about it being bollocks - particularly this bit:

I think this is what really hurt the 757-300 - it was simply too long for a single aisle. This made turn times horrible, and on-board service a nightmare - I sat near the back of a 757-300 one time, after we landed I timed it - it took 10 minutes after the door opened before there was even movement where I was sitting (I flew trans-Atlantic on a DC8-60 way back when - it had the same problem).
Direct operating costs per seat mile for the -300 were good, but it took so long to turn that it took a serious hit for productivity. Single aisle becomes problematic when you get much over 200 seats - twin aisle simply works better when you get much above 200 seats.
I think you missed one little aspect; I once travelled on an A319 operated by Air Canada, with atrocious seat pitch. At one point the queue for the toilets, both at the rear, was 50% the way down the aisle. Had the seat pitch allowed 20 less seats this issue would have been better. Post Covid will be see better seating? Here's hoping

[Midland 331]

Should Boeing decide to lengthen the current 757, I hope they do a better structural design than Douglas did in lengthening the DC-8 to the DC-8-61. If you sat in one of the rearmost row of seats and the aircraft was experiencing moderate turbulence, it gave one the feeling the rear section was going to torque off from the sections more forward, it was so visibly noticeable. It scared the heck out of unknowing passengers...
The same in the "75" in certain crosswind conditions. I once nabbed the final seat on a Manchester Shuttle when on a staff ticket, the aisle on the last row, and watched the window pillar in the cockpit move from side to side as we bumped and crabbed onto 06 at Manchester. Interesting views with that cockpit door wide open. It was a while ago...

My former boss at SAS, Willie Mason, used to work on traffic at Prestwick, and mentioned that crews were asked not to park with the nose wheel at an angle on a DC8-63 as occasionally certain doors wouldn't open.

[fitliker]

Zone loading is now the norm . That should cut loading time down . Not quite as quick as playing music and telling everyone grab a seat when the music stops , preferably you own seat Joe ! . We have all played that game and would make last person seated buy the rest of the pax coffee :)

Modern computer Zone Loading and music would help . I would suggest dance music like
Manu Debango Soul Makossa . Or the Jeopardy theme would get people moving .
A good theme music might bring some joy back into the journey process .

Zone Loading saves time .

[Peter47]

Agree about zone loading. Even better if you also load from the back as the locos do, but also KLM at AMS through airbridges. A lot of 753s are used on longer routes likes West Coast to Hawaii where loading times are less important.

The DC8 60s series were good aircraft from a cost viewpoint. The obvious way forward was to replace four engines with two more efficient ones, which gives you, err, the 753. There's a definite comfort gain in having twin aisles though.

[esscee]

Twin aisles, Zone boarding and also make use of the rear doors too, all of which ought to be a minimum design feature. If it saves time and makes pax on/off more efficient then that is a bonus as well.

[SWBKCB]

777-300 is a lot longer than a 757-300 - granted a greater proportion of premium seats and mainly long haul so turnround times less critical, but can't see that being a twin aisle makes that much difference to loading/unloading speeds?

[DaveReidUK]

but can't see that being a twin aisle makes that much difference to loading/unloading speeds?

Gosh, that's going to be a tricky one to explain.

[procede]

Gosh, that's going to be a tricky one to explain.
Not really: Fewer seats per aisle. A 737 has 6, a 767 has 3.5 (2-3-2).

[tdracer]

Not really: Fewer seats per aisle. A 737 has 6, a 767 has 3.5 (2-3-2).
Pretty sure DR was being sarcastic...

[Bend alot]

Is now not the perfect time for Boeing to come up with a complete new family of aircraft?

Selling any new aircraft in the next few years in any numbers will be pretty tough.
The government will not let it fail.
The MAX has issues.
The 747 is pretty much over.
They lack a small regional aircraft.

A complete new series of clean sheet aircraft with much in common could be a long term win & it could be possible to meet the regs for comi configurations on a clean sheet.

[SWBKCB]

Not really: Fewer seats per aisle. A 737 has 6, a 767 has 3.5 (2-3-2).

United 757-300 has about 35 rows of 3-3, EK operates 777-300 with about 35 rows of 3-4-3? So is the 757-300 really too long?

[Wickerbill]

Is now not the perfect time for Boeing to come up with a complete new family of aircraft?

Selling any new aircraft in the next few years in any numbers will be pretty tough.
The government will not let it fail.
The MAX has issues.
The 747 is pretty much over.
They lack a small regional aircraft.

A complete new series of clean sheet aircraft with much in common could be a long term win & it could be possible to meet the regs for comi configurations on a clean sheet.
I think the​ problem for Boeing is the cost; It was hoping to milk the 737 Max whilst recouping the last part of development for the Dreamliner and develop the 777X. It has some awful cost over runs on its military programmes​, so cash for a clean sheet was limited even before Covid19. Now with sales (probably) on the floor, need for government support just to carry on, the ability to develop a clean sheet design from resources available to them ain't gonna happen. The likely collapse in demand will put Airbus in the same spot, even though they don't have the same number of problem programmes that Boeing have.
​​​​​​Maybe in 3 years time things will be easier?

[Less Hair]

On a positive note there is no revolutionary new engine available right now that would be required before starting any uber-competitive new design. So waiting five years or so for it to be ready will do no harm. At the same time oil is too cheap now to trigger much demand for more efficient new airplanes. There are just too many old ones available for cheap now and they will be during the next few years.

[procede]

On a positive note there is no revolutionary new engine available right now that would be required before staring any uber-competitive new design.

Geared turbofan?

[Less Hair]

True but this is already available.
"We" would need something newer and better to top some A321neo with today's latest GTF and PIP by a few percent engine wise. Possibly something with huge bypass ratio and diameter? If a new engine can be integrated from scratch more efficencies will be gained. CFRP wings (maybe a high wing layout?) and fuselage and these new engines with some smart cockpit might make it work one day. I'd say before the late 2020s no new engine like the one needed will be available.

[MarkD]

If the mid2020s airline market is going to have a heavy dependency on freight, could we see a move back towards a 767-200/A310-300 size aircraft with 2-2-2/2-3-2 passenger layouts, especially if post COVID that there is a customer perception that narrower aircraft are more "confined"?

When the 757s got popular again post winglets, I always wondered what the numbers on an updated A310 would look like, but A330 deck and fuselage and something like Trent 500s under a tweaked A310 wing.

[FlightDetent]

You'll also need brilliantly bright engineers, to make a leap two steps beyond the competition, such as the A320 was when developed. Short of those two steps, it might not break even, and deemed risky never launch.

2 points
a) the giant (government) funding is not available
b) the cutting edge designers and visionaries (or the material for) are no longer attracted by aviation engineering.

In the global, evolved consumer capitalism of today, it is trading things not creating them that attracts.

[Less Hair]

There is new talent available. It might be more of an issue to keep those experienced old guys working long enough. A lot of knowledge and hard earned experiences is lost within companys these days and between engineering generations.

[FlightDetent]

Is it the same slice on the Gauss curve?

When the Eagle module has landed 16 years before A320 programme set off, the space race was at full blast.

17 years before now: https://www.onthisday.com/date/2003
16 years before now: https://www.onthisday.com/date/2004
15 years before now: https://www.onthisday.com/date/2005
14 years before now: https://www.onthisday.com/date/2006

What amazing career does the above inspire in 12-18 year olds?

[Chris2303]

Many years ago NZNAC had a 737-200QC. (ZK-NQC)

Perhaps there is a market to convert some of the current passenger fleet worldwide to a QC configuration? True the empty weight would prevent large passenger loads longhaul but the airplane would have a multi-role capability

[beamender99]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdC2vi0Nghw
Shows the change over in action