Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:51 From: email@example.com (Malcolm Weir) Organization: Little to None References: 1 2 3 4 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
On 20 Nov 97 02:53:39 , firstname.lastname@example.org (Filip De Vos) caused to appear as if it was written: >H Andrew Chuang (Chuanga@cris.com) wrote: >: Both GE and P&W are unwilling to commit to ~105K-lb-thrust engine >: necessary for the B777-200X/300X program. The argument is the projected >: market size does not justify the development costs. I can >This argument does not play for the engine makers. These engines could be >useful for a future 777-400. A small, long-distance derivate increases the >market for the engine. Sorry? I don't understand this point! The claim appears to be that GE and P&W are being disingenuous when they claim that there is an insufficient market for a engine in the 105K-lb range, although RR think otherwise (or more accurately, RR feel that the cost of producing theirs is worth the risk, and the others don't GIVEN the fact that RR is producing one anyway). This engine would be required for the 777-200X, which doesn't exist AT ALL at the moment, yet Filip tries to justify it based on another product that is even less of an aircraft? Has anyone (in the industry) even *talked* about a 777-400? >: understand that the B777-200X to be very small (which, I belive, Boeing >: estimated at around 200 units for the next 20 years), but the B777-300X > >...while Boeing has to support the cost of delivering the derivate with a >small production run. ... which they are currently conspicuosly NOT doing... Given that Boeing has yet to finalize the plans for a 777-200X, and as far as I know is absolutely NOT talking about a 777-400, it would seem pretty dumb to build an engine just in case Boeing wakes up one morning and decides to build one. Anyway, what would a 777-400 be? A stretched -300? That would be useful... provided you stretched a few airports while you're at it... >: should be a winner. There are about 1,200 B747s ordered. Most of >: them can be replaced by the B777-300/-300X. From a marketing > >Let alone a 777-400. So, lemme see, you are suggesting that, while the average 747 classic can be replaced with a 777-300, airlines would rush out and buy these mythical 777-400's instead? Or are you suggesting that a 747-400 would be replaced by B777-400, which is rather against Boeing's best interests.... Why build a B747-400 replacement when you're (frantically trying to sort out) building B747-400s? 8-) Malc.