Re: A fascinating tidbit from Boeing

Date:         09 Apr 2001 15:37:14 
From:         "John R Weiss" <jrweiss98155@home.com>
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
References:   1 2
View raw article
  or MIME structure

"Jonathan Thornburg" <jthorn@galileo.thp.univie.ac.at> wrote in message
news:airliners.2001.105@ditka.Chicago.COM...

> Not really, they target different market segments:  A "fastjet" only
> matters on long-range flights (otherwise the travel time isn't
> significantly different).  A large part of the airliner market is
> short- and medium-range.  And a small plane (100-150 seats)
> only makes sense for relativly "thin" routes (low number of
> passengers/week).

Hmmm...  Why is Alaska Air campaigning vigorously for a DCA slot, only to
put a direct SEA-DCA 737-700 in it, if the small plane isn't perceived to
make a profit on the longer-range route?  Long range (domestically speaking)
and low body count aren't mutually exclusive.  Besides, frequency of flights
is apparently a better sell than bigger planes taking more bodies per [less
frequent] flight.

Also, a Mach 0.95 airplane will be a LOT cheaper to fly than an SST.  The
business customer who believes he MUST get from LA to DC 15 minutes faster
than the other guy will be willing to pay the premium.  The casual customer
will be attracted for several years (because there are a LOT of them
compared to the number of airplanes) to the gee-whiz, high-tech looks of the
new airplane ("Heidi, look what's taking us on our honeymoon!).
--
John Weiss
Seattle, WA
remove *nospam* from reply address