Date: 01 Mar 97 02:44:59 From: "Alvin W. Law" <email@example.com> Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, California References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Followups: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
[ Message to moderators: I'm cross-posting to m.t.a-i since I think readers there are also interested in this topic ] Karl Swartz wrote: > > >Fridays 16th, Le Monde had a very interesting article on the battle > >between Boeing and Airbus for the >500 class. > ... > >Boeing is now offering a brand new aircraft for 2006 to avoid > >airlines choosing the Airbus product. It is also reported that Boeing > >is threatening it's sub-contractors if they should participate in the > >A3XX project. > > Sounds more like propaganda than educated reporting. Boeing people > seem to know nothing about offering a brand new aircraft. Quite the > contrary, Boeing seems to be focusing its efforts on derivatives of > its large twins, the 767 and 777. See the current (February 17, 1997) > Aviation Week, p. 60, for an article on the subject including several > quotes from Michael B. Bair, Boeing's VP for Product Strategy and > Development. > > One project, according to Bair, is a 777-200X with 720,000 lbs MGTOW, > allowing a range of 8,500-9,000 nm. (From Chicago, Perth is about the > only interesting city outside that range. New York to Singapore or > Auckland are possible, with Sydney being within reach if the 9,000 nm > range is achieved. London to Perth is even possible, though the more > commercially interesting eastern cities of Australia, and New Zealand, > are still out of reach.) > > The article notes a Boeing market analysis that determined that most > 747s have been purchased for range, not capacity. Here's how they > broke down the choices: > > 60% range > 30% capacity > 10% Japanese domestic (obviously capacity, albeit specialized) > > Given the dramatic shift in the trans-Atlantic market from large > planes flying between major hubs to smaller planes linking far more > city pairs, overflying the hubs, this shouldn't be too surprising. > With more liberal aviation agreements in the Asia/Pacific countries > and planes with sufficient range, the same thing is inevitable in the > Pacific. Isn't the -500X the longer range derivative (similar capacity to -400) while the -600X the larger capacity derivative (similar range)? The 777 derivative mentioned above will have a similar range compared to the -500X but with much reduced capacity. Assuming that the cost of developing derivatives are roughly the same (order of magnitude). I have no idea about the projected operating cost of the -500X compared to the 777 derivative, but if Boeing is willing to suspend a program which is on the verge of launching (with enough demand), and instead opted for more time studying a reduced capacity option, it seems Boeing is sending a message that improved range is what the market needs.