Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc.

Date:         25 Nov 97 03:26:08 
From:         fidevos@eduserv1.rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos)
Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium
References:   1 2 3 4 5
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Malcolm Weir (malc@mci2000.com) wrote:
>On 20 Nov 97 02:53:39 , fidevos@eduserv1.rug.ac.be (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!

I attempted to say that an engine for a proposed ultra-long range 777-200X
or 777-300X could also be used for a hypothetical stretched 777-400. This
increases the uses and potential market for the engine.

>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?

Hey this is Usenet, too much reality is bad for the discussion! :-)
Seriously, I think the Jumbo, and its high-by-pass turbofans were a lot
more of a scale-break than what we are discusing right now. With the
exception of the Galaxy military trnasport, their were no other projected
uses for such engines. The engines and the aircraft were deeloped
concurrently.

>Has anyone (in the industry) even *talked* about a 777-400?

I have no doubt :-)

>>: 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
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^
...            that should have been         'developing'

>>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...

Wouldn't be the first time, remember the 747? _All airports had to be
adapted for that one, just like the previous time, when 707 and DC-8
jet-transports were brought into service.
At Amsterdam, two gates at a dedicated Jumbo-pier had to be re-build,
because the over-wing-airbridge was too low for the 777. At this dedicated
facility, one airbridge conventionally connects to one of the doors
forward of the wing, while another is suspended over the wing, and
connects to a door after the wing, or possibly the overwing door on the
747.
I look forward to your comments about the future 747 stretches or the A3XX
or NLA :-)

And finally I bring under your attention that not a single airline ordered
Boeing's foldable wing-tip 777s. Instead, airports and airlines adapted to
the airplane, not the other way round.

>>: 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

Why not? Those extra pax will appeal in the same way operators ordering
757-300 or 767-400 like their extra capacity. Surely JAL and ANA will
prefer to fly 500 passengers between HND and KIX with only two, new,
low-consumption and low-maintenance engines instead of four older and
more costlier ones?

>by  B777-400, which is rather against Boeing's best interests....  Why build

It is in Boeings best interest to offer diverse solutions to customers'
problems. Look at the fortunes of McDonnel-Douglas, which cut the DC-8 so
as not to compete with the DC-10.

>a B747-400 replacement when you're (frantically trying to sort out) building
>B747-400s?  8-)

Boeing right now is extending just about all product lines so they
overlap: 737-900/757-200 757-300/767-200 767-400/777-200

Assuming that it will do the same for the top of the range requires no
stretch of the imagination.

I think Boeing will first get 737, 757 and 767 stretches into the air,
then concentrate on the 747, and only then return to the 777. As I recall,
the 767 was designed for the second stretch (the -400) and TOW of up to
400.000 pounds right from the start. I would be surprised Boeing did not
build this capability into the 777 airframe.

--
      Filip De Vos                        FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be

          There are plenty of ways to empty a solar system.
                       --   John S. Lewis   --