Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X?

Date:         02 Mar 97 15:18:05 
From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>Boeing wants to devolop twin long range but there are many limits
>(ETOPS, engine,etc...). It can announce, but it can not do yet.

In what way is ETOPS a limit?  Getting airlines to accept ETOPS across
the Pacific?  Perhaps, but it's already being done to a limited extent
and the rapid conversion of the North Atlantic made it quite clear
that airlines would take ETOPS if it gave them cost savings.

The engine manufacturers have long been saying that their initial 777
engines have growth potential to the 100,000 lbs thrust levels needed
for the very long range 777-200.  The surprising rapidity of engine
development is what led Boeing to drop plans for the shorter 777-100X
in the first place -- they realized the engines were growing quickly
enough to make the 777-100X obsolete before it even flew.

Engines were a much bigger concern for the 747-500X/600X, and still
are for the A3XX and A340-600X.

>More, 777 have many difficulties with fly by wire, a part of BQW and
>CPA is grounded.

Would you care to substantiate that, since it completely contradicts
all other indications?  Also, what are BQW and CPA???

>>> 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)
>One year ago, Boeing said the contrary to justify 747 600X. Boeing
>tries to convunce every one there is no market. But many airlines do
>not believe in it, and they are the customers....

Boeing has made some questionable decisions because that's what the
market demanded.  (Lack of cockpit commonality from the 757/767 to the
747-400 and then to the 777 is a prime example.)  To say that Boeing
is trying to dictate to the market is a fantasy.

In any case, Boeing's numbers don't say there isn't a market for a
larger plane, nor is Boeing making that claim.  They are simply saying
that the market is small compared to the market for longer range
planes.  Without any overwhelming urge to build the largest for sake
of national pride or some such nonsense, Boeing is simply pursuing a
rational response to the market -- building the plane for which they
perceive there is the larger market, a plane which not incidentally
will probably be much cheaper to develop and thus combined with the
larger market will be considerably more profitable.

Karl Swartz	|Home
Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills