Re: The Sporty Game -- Boeing 757

From:         gregory@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Greg Wright)
Organization: Boeing
Date:         01 Dec 92 00:13:23 PST
References:   1 2
Followups:    1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1992.27@ohare.Chicago.COM> kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes:
>
>I'm *still* surprised that Boeing hasn't made much noise (maybe none)
>about plugging this obvious hole by offering a 757-100 or whatever --
>a shortened 757 like the original proposal and a real replacement for
>the 727-200.  Even with United it never seemed to come up, instead all
>the discussion focussing on a massively stretched and pulled and re-
>designed 737-600.  True, a 757 is more expensive (~ $45 million versus
>$30 - 35 million) but the changes embodied in the 737-600 would surely
>have added tremendously to the price.
>
>-- 
>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

 I think that you will find that every attempt at a shortened version
of one of our planes has had limited success. Take the 747SP for example.
Airlines tend not to like the sorted versions very much. In $/seat or $/mile
these versions are too expensive to run. There is a real problem having
too much engine or wing with them. We find it is better to stretch if
anything....

Greg


-- 
 ________Greg Wright____________     "I struggle to be brief     
| gregory@bcstec.ca.boeing.com  |     and become obscure."         
|     gregory@halcyon.com       |                             
|____uunet!bcstec!gregory_______|               NOT A BOEING SPOKESPERSON.