Re: Why "IGW" instead of "ER", and other question about 777's...

Date:         30 Apr 97 03:19:08 
From: (Roger Chung-Wee)
Organization: Frontier Internet Services
References:   1 2 3 4
Followups:    1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

On 23 Apr 97 02:58:17 , M Carling <> 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.