Re: A340-500X/600X and B777-200X/300X [long]

Date:         09 Apr 97 13:26:03 
From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>> Furthermore, with dedicated regional aircraft like the
>> B777-300, operators can configure their aircraft accordingly.

>Operators are similarly free to configure their 747-400s as they see
>fit.

I think Andrew's point was that they can't afford to dedicate the
747-400s to regional services, and thus aren't free to configure them
in an appropriate configuration.

>> If the B777-300X is launched, the new aircraft can be used to
>> replace the B747 on routes like London-San Francisco,
>> Tokyo-Sydney, etc.

>UA are already operating the 777-200IGW LHR-SFO.

Replacing 767-300(ER)s, not 747s, though if you dig back it used to be
one 747-238B, compared to *two* 777-200IGWs starting tomorrow.

Assuming UA wanted to maintain capacity and have just one flight, the
777-200 could not replace a 747 on the route.  The 777-300X could.

>> More importantly, even with the -600X, Airbus still doesn't
>> have an answer for the baseline B777-300 and the proposed -300X.

>I'm not sure why you disqualify the A340-600X as an answer to the
>777-300X. If you just don't think the airlines will buy it, let's let
>the airlines decide. If you think it can't serve the same market, then
>please let us know why.

It seems obvious enough to me that pitching a four-engined plane
against a twin is not likely to garner many sales for the A340-600X.
The market has already made that abundantly clear, with few carriers
swimming against the stream.

--
Karl Swartz	|Home	kls@chicago.com
		|Work	kls@netapp.com
		|WWW	http://www.chicago.com/~kls/
Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills