Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:27 From: email@example.com (Malcolm Weir) Organization: Little to None References: 1 2 3
View raw article or MIME structure
On 03 Mar 98 03:13:14 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) caused to appear as if it was written: >>This is also my opinion, but there has been no order for the 773 for 2.5 >>years. This derivative will really start to be interesting if Boeing will >>stop to produce the 744 which would be a direct rival to the 773X. > >The 777-300 is significantly smaller than the 747-400, thought the >difference is not huge. In addition, the ETOPS issue is real -- Virgin >Atlantic, for example, chose the A340 over the 777 in part because they >would have had to fritter away the 777s for about six months while they >gained sufficient experience for ETOPS. That and size will keep the 747 >in the Boeing catalog for a while yet. In addition, the 744 can carry more weight-per-passenger than the 773 (some of which is used for the fuel for the longer range of the 744). Still, on routes like LAX-SYD this is a major issue for carriers, who can sell more cargo space than they can lift. Given that a hypothetical 773X will first have to deliver the range of the 744 (if it is to replace it), the numbers will continue to favor the 744 and its successors (-400Y) for a while to come. Malc.