Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No 777-100 Than 767-400er  
User currently offlineAlbird87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6815 times:

I was just wondering why Boeing decided not to build the 777-100 which was a shorter aircraft and desgined for domestic services and also a direct replacement for the L1011s that were in the Delta and Continental fleets. they did get this direct replacement but it was in the form of the 767-400ER. My question is why did they not just stick with the 777-100? I mean both 777 and 767 were in service at this time? was it more about costs or time limits?
Any comments would be great

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6808 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As with many "shrinks", the 777-100 would have been too heavy for the mission profiles she was designed for, which raised CASM too high to make her financially viable for most (if not all) operators.

User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6752 times:

Actually, I believe the -100 was intended to be what is now the -200LR. But technological advances was able to create the ultra long hual aircraft on the -200 platform.

User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2755 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6730 times:

As Stitch said, the 777-100 would have been too heavy to become a good airplane. It would probably cost too much lighten up the 777-100 in order to make it competitive in CASM against the 767-400ER.

IIRC Delta and Continental did not need the additional cargo capability on the routes that they wanted the plane for, and therefore they got the cheaper to develop 767-400ER which shares some components with the 777 with similar brakes, and cockpit.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineDAL767400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6700 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
As with many "shrinks", the 777-100 would have been too heavy for the mission profiles she was designed for, which raised CASM too high to make her financially viable for most (if not all) operators.

Too true, most shrinks have proven to be real slow-sellers, like the A318, 736 or 747-SP.
Add in in the case of Delta that the 777 has too large of a wingspan to operate from LGA. Being able to fit into L1011/DC-10-sized gates was one of the reasons for DL in choosing the 764 over the 777 for domestic routes.


User currently offlineKYAir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 362 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6626 times:

There were pilot pay issues as well, right? Triple 7 captain's pay vs. 76X captain's pay.


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened - Dr. Seuss
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6546 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KYAir (Reply 5):
There were pilot pay issues as well, right? Triple 7 captain's pay vs. 76X captain's pay.

I am sure there were, but if the 771 was a better revenue-generator then the 764, the extra crew costs would have been more then covered.  Smile


User currently offlineEWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5527 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6519 times:

Quoting Albird87 (Thread starter):
also a direct replacement for the L1011s that were in the Delta and Continental fleets. they did get this direct replacement but it was in the form of the 767-400ER

It replaced our DC-10s. We never had the L-1011 (came close with EAs equipment. I was crossed trained on them in 1987 in the event we took them over from EA).



You can't cure stupid
User currently offlineSFORunner From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 325 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6487 times:

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 2):
I believe the -100 was intended to be what is now the -200LR.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1995/news.release.950710-c.html

VerWey said the Boeing 777-100X is an airplane designed in response to airlines' interest in providing direct, non-stop service to new destinations. With greater range, faster cruise speed, more passenger comfort, and better economics than competitive alternatives, the 777-100X could establish new standards in market flexibility including the ability to fly non-stop from the west coast of the United States to Singapore.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
777-100 vs. 767-400ER posted Tue Feb 16 1999 15:36:02 by jbrezmes
Why No F Class On AA 767-300s posted Thu Sep 14 2006 03:20:59 by Albird87
Why No 777-style Pivot Bins On Boeing Narrowbodies posted Mon May 8 2006 21:38:44 by 1337Delta764
Why No 777 For LH? posted Sat Sep 17 2005 13:15:27 by Thaigold
Why No 777-300s In The U.S.? posted Tue Aug 12 2003 19:52:28 by Chgoan
DC9-21: Why No 717-100 posted Tue Nov 12 2002 00:37:23 by BR715-A1-30
Why No 777-200F/-300F? posted Wed Jun 20 2001 14:29:15 by Godbless
Why No 737, 767. 777 For NW posted Tue Aug 29 2006 06:41:40 by FL370
Why 767-400ER No Fbw? posted Sat Oct 16 1999 06:30:23 by Pandora
Headrests On Delta 767-400ER And 777-200ER posted Wed Oct 25 2006 20:31:42 by 1337Delta764
If B757 No More, Why No B767-100? posted Fri Oct 12 2007 13:34:39 by 2travel2know
Why No F Class On AA 767-300s posted Thu Sep 14 2006 03:20:59 by Albird87
Why No 777-style Pivot Bins On Boeing Narrowbodies posted Mon May 8 2006 21:38:44 by 1337Delta764
Why No 777 For LH? posted Sat Sep 17 2005 13:15:27 by Thaigold
Why No 777-300s In The U.S.? posted Tue Aug 12 2003 19:52:28 by Chgoan
DC9-21: Why No 717-100 posted Tue Nov 12 2002 00:37:23 by BR715-A1-30
Why No 777-200F/-300F? posted Wed Jun 20 2001 14:29:15 by Godbless