Re: Development of MD-11?

Date:         26 Jan 98 01:46:15 
From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
References:   1 2 3 4
Followups:    1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>This is a very logical assumption.  727F,757F,767F,747F.  It would be crazy
>not to eventually offer a 777F and C...

Perhaps.  But others have also noted that, despite a high MGTOW (Max-
imum Gross Take-Off Weight), the 777's MLW (Maximum Landing Weight) is
closer to its empty weight than for many other airliners, the MD-11 in
particular.  In other words, while the 777 can lift much more than its
empty weight, most of that weight must be fuel.  That's good if you're
designing a long-range passenger aircraft, but not for a freighter.

None of these means that Boeing cannot increase the useful payload of
the 777, but perhaps they really didn't design it with freighter use as
a concern.  Even if they did, with a popular freighter in their product
line (the MD-11), Boeing may have no reason to produce a 777 freighter.
(The L-1011 has never been very popular as a freighter, either.)

>Airlines love fleet commonality.

True.  But relatively few carriers operate both passenger and cargo
aircraft.  None of the 757F nor 767F operators fly passengers, for
example, and I can't think of any 727F operators that do.  (There
are a handful of 747F operators that fly passenger 747s, though.)

>IF IT'S NOT BOEING I'M NOT GOING!

So, you don't mind flying MD-11s?  :-)

--
Karl Swartz	|Home	kls@chicago.com
		|Work	kls@netapp.com
		|WWW	http://www.chicago.com/~kls/
"The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney