Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?)

From: (DLawler)
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Date:         01 Oct 96 23:56:43 
References:   1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

> Here is my $0.02 worth on this topic.  Remember the 767-X.  It was never a
> 767-X.  It was 777 to start with.  Boeing marketing geniuses did not want
> any of their competitors to think that the company was coming up with a
> totally new very large twin engined aircraft that could dominate the
> segment left open between the 767and the 747.  Boeing 747-500/600/(700,
> 800, whatever) are in my judgement the same ploy.

That is giving too much credit to us.  When I was at Douglas Aircraft, we
were aware of the revolution that Boeing was attempting, so if Boeing was
trying to fool the world it failed.  Boeing is generally pretty
straight-forward about the aircraft designations, although perhaps not
always true to the engineering reality.  Marketing probably uses the
designation that is most logical to the customer and the passengers.  The
new 747s will look like the current 747 and better not to add confusion by
calling it something else, even though the new plans will be nothing like
the current 747.  Of course, the -400 was not all that much like the
earlier versions.

I'm not sure what the original layout was for the 767-X, but I doubt that
it looked like the current 777.  More likely, of several designs for a new
airplane, at least one included a 767 derivation and another included what
came to be the 777.  That is what has (so far) happened with the 747-500,
etc.  Plans for a new airplane included the planned -500, etc. derivations
of the 747 and a totally new design called the 787 (actually, I think we
had a couple configurations of the 787, including a triple deck config).
It was eventually decided that the "new" design, 787, would have to stay
on hold and that the new 747 versions were a go.

- David Lawler
  Boeing Defense & Space (formerly Boeing Commercial Flight Test)