Re: Boeing 747-300

From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:20:12 GMT
References:   1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1992.9@ohare.Chicago.COM> Helen Trillian Rose <hrose@eff.org> writes:
Karl> == Karl Swartz <kls@ohare.Chicago.COM> 

Karl>     Mfr.      Type      MGTOW    seating  service
Karl>     Boeing    747-400   870,000    430     1989
Karl>     MacDAC    MD-11     618,000    250     1991
Karl>     Airbus    A-340     559,000    230     1993
Karl>     Boeing    777       515,000   ~220     1995

>I hadn't thought the B777 was going to be in between the 757 (~200) and
>767 (~250) passengers. I thought it was going to fill the niche between
>the 767 and the 747 -- about the size of the old 747SP in number of
>seats.

Sorry, that was a typo.  The correct number should be 290.  Note,
though, that I said a *three* class configuration, since the topic
was long-range aircraft.  A 757 is in the 185 to 195 range with only
two classes; 250 is the right ballpark for a two class 767-300.  The
smaller 767-200 is just over 200 with two classes, not much bigger than
the 757.  With three classes, a 767-200 is aroung 165 to 170 while the
767-300 is about 210 to 220.

In the case of the 777, the only numbers I have handy are for United's
two class configuration, which has 38+325 for a total of 363 seats.  I
tried to extrapolate from that number and the ratio of seats on United's
two and three class 767-200s.

>The 777 ... was meant to fill the market left wide open by the L-1011
>and DC-10 trijets (one big reason why it has optional folding wingtips:
>to fit into a DC-10 gate).

True, though it ended up significantly larger than either.  (Using the
United configs again, 363 seats vs. 298 on a DC-10-30 with a below-deck
galley.)

As for the foldings wingtips, nobody has yet ordered them.  I wonder
just what they intend to do with all those not-quite-big-enough gates?!

>McDonnell Douglas has put a hold on the MD-12 for lack of financing
>(lets face it, would *you* get into bed with a company that produced the
>DC-10?).

I doubt the DC-10 has much to do with it, since the MD-11 has been
selling well enough.  They simply found themselves in a Catch-22: they
couldn't raise the cash without any firm orders and couldn't get any
firm orders without a reasonable expectation of the financing falling
into place.  Their poor financial condition of course means they can't
finance it themselves as Boeing could, which greatly complicates the
whole matter.

Actually, even if they had the financing they probably couldn't get
the orders given the current economic situation, and this is exactly
what they've said in their announcement of delaying the MD-12.

>Only Airbus would create a plane just to compete with Boeing.

Hmmm ... seems to me McDonnell-Douglas with the DC-10 and Lockheed
with the L-1011 were pretty bullheaded about going ahead simply to
compete with each other, knowing full well that with the orders split
neither one could really succeed!  8-)

-- 
Karl Swartz	|INet	kls@ditka.chicago.com		
1-415/854-3409	|UUCP	uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls
		|Snail	2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA
 Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com