From: email@example.com (Greg Wright) Organization: Boeing Date: 01 Dec 92 00:13:23 PST References: 1 2 Followups: 1 2 3
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 firstname.lastname@example.org >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 email@example.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 | firstname.lastname@example.org | and become obscure." | email@example.com | |____uunet!bcstec!gregory_______| NOT A BOEING SPOKESPERSON.