Re: Boeing naming convention for 777

Date:         16 Aug 99 22:28:23 
From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>Just a little side note here. I was recently at an airport for my FAA
>Class 3 physical and saw a magazine at the airport that had WA001 up
>for sale. There was no price in it, but, it seemed to indicate that
>Boeing was in a 'dealing mood' to sell this one.

Boeing has had a "for sale" sign on WA001 for a while now.  The trouble
is, they *aren't* in a dealing mood -- I don't know how much they want
for it, but apparently it's a lot closer to a brand-new one than you'd
expect.

In a similar vein, United has a need for some 777s dedicated to domestic
flying, with two-class configs instead of the three-class international
config on all their current 777s.  Even at a comparable weight, Boeing
wants a premium for a B market 777 over an A market version, which for
now is all United needs.  Since Boeing hasn't built an A market 777 in
a while now, you'd think they'd just offer a paper-limited ER (the B
market plane) in order to keep their production line flowing smoothly.
This is what they did when United recently ordered domestic 767-300s --
but for the 777, Boeing would rather dust off the old drawings and put
a blip in their production flow (and forgoe the possibility of selling
an upgrade in the future) than make a deal.  United was even willing to
pay a bit more, but Boeing wants nothing of it.  It's stupid if you ask
me.

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