Date: 30 Apr 97 03:19:08 From: email@example.com (Roger Chung-Wee) Organization: Frontier Internet Services References: 1 2 3 4 Followups: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
On 23 Apr 97 02:58:17 , M Carling <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >On the other hand, Boeing's claim of 8225 miles for the 777-200IGW >appears to be very conservative. I believe it is Boeing's official >policy that the 747-400 has greater range than the 777-200IGW, though >the evidence seems to suggest that the 777-200IGW has a range of at >least 500 miles more than the 747-400. > >At this time, it is very difficult for us to accurately estimate the >range of the 777-300X, but I'm confident that it will exceed the range >of the present 747-400 by at least 1000 miles. This brings us to the >question of why anyone would operate a 747-400 rather than a 777-300X, >given that the latter will certainly have lower operating costs. I would be amazed if the 777-300X will have so much range because Boeing would be shooting itself in the foot. I understand that Boeing makes about $30m on each (expensive) 747-400, so why should it encourage airlines to go for a much cheaper option? Remember, very many airlines that acquired the 747 did it for range rather than capacity, so I'd expect the smaller 777-300X to be hugely popular should the range be greater than the 747-400.