Re: 777-100 versus 767-400

From:         Andrew Chuang <>
Date:         30 Jul 95 13:02:06 
References:   1
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1995.1135@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Tassio A. Carvalho (carvalho
@phoenix.Princeton.EDU) wrote:

>     Shortened versions of aircraft have a history of not selling
> very well. It happened with the B720, 747SP, A310 and others.

I think the A310 did okay, at least much much better than the B720 and SP.

>     I wonder what the economics of the 777-100 are when compared
> to a streched, longer-range 767, both from an airline perspective
> and the manufacturer. Both planes could be designed having the
> same mission in mind.

Recently, I have not read any reports related to the 767-ERY.  Boeing
must be concentrating on the 777-100X.  If the -100X is launched, I don't
think there will be an -ERY.

Most of the airlines interested in the medium-capacity, ultra-long-range
aircraft want to use the new aircraft to serve secondary markets between
Europe/N America and the Far East.  Airlines serving the Far East are
experiencing brisk growth in cargo revenue at around 15-20% annual growth
rate.  Airlines like Japan Airlines, Korean Air, Cathay, and Singapore
generate 20-25% of their revenue from carrying cargo.  Therefore, the
-100X will be a much more ideal aircraft than the -ERY because of its
larger cargo hold.  Perhaps the better cargo-carrying capability is the
reason why the A300/310 outsold the B767-2/300 by about 50 aircraft in the
Far East.  More importantly, the A300/310 has a much larger customer base
than the 767-200/300 (since the Japanese airlines owned approximately 1/3
of the 767 fleet in the region).  Therefore, I don't think airlines in
the region will be terribly enthusiastic about the -ERY.

It was reported that American, Cathay Pacific, and Singapore have shown
strong interest in the proposed -100X.  I'm a little surprised that
American, being a large B767 operator, wouldn't be more interested in
the -ERY.  The latter two airlines, one already has ordered the B777,
the other will probably be ordering some by the end of the year, the
-100X is definitely a sounder choice for them than the -ERY.  The -100X
should complement the -200 and -300 very well, and the 777 can be the
backbone aircraft for many many airlines.  Regional to inter-continental,
low-density to high-density routes, the 777 does it all.  IMHO, the 777
will be an extremely versatile family of aircraft.  Airbus will regret
(if they have not already done so) that they rushed the A330/340 to the

  H Andrew Chuang