Re: 777-100 versus 767-400

From:         tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd)
Organization: BUMCH
Date:         08 Aug 95 01:45:12 
References:   1
View raw article
  or MIME structure

carvalho@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Tassio A. Carvalho) wrote:
>    Shortened versions of aircraft have a history of not selling
>very well. It happened with the B720, 747SP, A310 and others.
>    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.

There is a well publicized theory that the birth of the 777-100X will mean
the death of the 767-ERY.  The aircraft would aim for roughly the same
market segment and that would be counter-productive to one if not both
of the models (just ask Mazda about its 929 sales since the introduction
of the Millenia).  The -100X also makes more sense from a technological
point-of-view because the 767's design, avionics, etc. are approaching
20 years old.  It would be far more logical to derive the new ultra-long range,
low capacity aircraft from the more modern predecessor.  This would allow
the manufacturer to take advantage of its more recent advances in aviation
technology.


Thornton