Date: 25 Nov 97 03:26:05 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Organization: VTL References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Followups: 1 2 3
View raw article or MIME structure
C. Marin Faure wrote: > For the record, we no longer use the terms A-market, B-market. It was > one of those ideas that seemed good at the time, but.... I am not a Boeing customer, and if I were, I am sure that someone at Boeing would have sat down with me and explained all the numbering schemes for the 777 and the 737, both of which have spawned lots of new numbers in recent years. I have no problems with the 747 because the numbers, except for the SP and SR were pretty well in increasing. The bigger the number, the bigger and better the plane. Same with the 767-200 and 767-300 (some of which have the ER tag). But I got confused with the 777 right from the start. Seems to me that the "200" is wasted text since it is meaningless as there are so many 777-200 variants. If Boeing were interested in preventing confusion in the general public (or enthousiats) it would have stuck to a more logical naming scheme. Sound to me like Boeing got its new super efficient CAD/CAM tools for the 777, and like a kid with a new LEGO set, is building as many variants as it can in the shortest amount of time :-) :-) In the past design time was long enough that one model had been out flying for years before the next one would come along. But now, I think that design times have been tremendously shortened and it gets harder to follow what products are actually out there.