Date: 11 Nov 96 01:50:36 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Organization: Concentric Internet Services References: 1 2 3 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1996.2334@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Malcolm Weir <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >McElravy wrote: >> The article made no mention of any other orders, but I suspect that USAir >> may yet order some Boeings -- 777s maybe. > >Why? USAir's current route system certainly doesn't justify 777's, and >even assuming USAir wins big in its ploy of getting London routes, most >of the arguments in favor of these routes focus on the smaller markets, >like Charlotte, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (smaller than, say, New >York!). > >For these markets, the 767 and the 757 make a lot of sense, perhaps the >757-300 would be a better candidate for the sort of airline that USAir >is? > >Or perhaps the A330 or A340, offering some cockpit commonality with the >A320 class? Haven't you just said the B777 is too big for USAir? Then, the same argument should apply to the A330 or A340. Unless you are talking about A330-200 and/or A340-200. However, I don't think Airbus has sold many A340-200s for quite a while. The A330-200 is really competing with the B767-300ER. Since USAir already has some B767s, the -300ER makes more sense than the A330-200. Nevertheless, many aircraft acquisitions by airlines don't make common sense. > >The 777 does seem to be just a bit of a status symbol to some people >(for the airline that has everything)! > Nonsense! The B777-200 is an ideal replacement for the L-1011 and the DC-10. The B777-200IGW can do anything that the MD-11 (and the A340) can do. The B777-300 is an excellent replacement for the B747-100/200.