Date: 01 Dec 96 04:08:55 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Organization: Concentric Internet Services References: 1 2 3 4
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1996.2569@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Malcolm Weir <email@example.com> wrote: >H Andrew Chuang wrote (in reply to a post of mine): > >I sometimes wonder whether anybody ever reads any post in its entirety! >8-) > >Would Mr. H Andrew Chuang like to take note of the comment "for these >markets the 767 and 757 make a lot of sense"? > >And by his own words, the A330-200 is a competitor of the 767, it is a >good possibility based on the cockpit commonality with the short-haul >fleet. But you notice the order in which I listed these alternatives? Nevertheless, you listed the A330/340 as alternatives while flatly ruled out the B777 based on your opinions. Furthermore, from your posting, I inferred that you meant A330-300 and A340-300 which are directly competing with the B777. That's why I questioned your analysis. At least, in the press, USAir has expressed interests in the B777 as well as the A330/340. >> >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. > >None of which USAir have in their fleet! I was responding to the person >who hoped "USAir would still order some Boeings, perhaps 777s". To me, your comment did not appear to be specific to the USAir intent. It was a general comment about the B777. You certainly didn't mean the B777 was a "status symbol to some people" at USAir, did you? Mr. Wolf certainly appears to have an ambition to make USAir(ways) a more international airline. IMHO, that's why they are looking at larger planes. >[ And a minor nit: the B777-200IGW is still a "future" airplane. There >are none in service; so, while talking about futures, don't leave out >the A340-8000, which has a longer range than the -200IGW. So the >suggestion that the -200IGW "can do anything that the A340 can do" is >not 100% correct -- although from an airline perspective (esp. USAir), >is probably as near as makes no difference! ] Then why don't you point out that the -300 has not been built, yet? I listed all the B777 models that Boeing currently offers. I did not list the proposed -100X and -200X. Thus, I stand by my statement. BTW, the A340-8000 was "launched" with the A330-200. However, Airbus has yet to find a customer for the ultra-long-range aircraft. Originally, Air Canada intended to order a few -8000, but they decided the aircraft was too small. I doubt you'll see any A340-8000, but I can assure you that you'll seen the B777-200IGW and the B777-300.