Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Did Boeing Ever Consider A Short Range 777?  
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6414 posts, RR: 17
Posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8836 times:

I miss the days of seeing big fat L-1011s and DC-10s for domestic routes in the USA. DL was using 764 on domestic, but no more. This got me me thinking, did Boeing ever consider or even float to airlines a domestic short range version of the 777-200? Much ligher, weight wise also would be key. An aircraft that could fly into LGA. Less fuel tanks that instead of HKG-LAX, would be well suited for ORD-LGA, PHL-ATL or LHR-FRA. The aircraft would hopefully reduce congestion, thus helping the environment. Instead of 10 MD-80//757 flying DFW-LAX, the airline could fly 7 flights using at least 3-4 of this aircraft. Just wondering if there ever were any proposals.


Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8782 times:



Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):
DL was using 764 on domestic, but no more. This got me me thinking, did Boeing ever consider or even float to airlines
a domestic short range version of the 777-200? Much ligher, weight wise also would be key.

No such demand was present for such a model. The Airbus A330-300 basically fits 100% to the description that you mentioned above.  Wink

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12411 posts, RR: 37
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8786 times:

Well, the A model aircraft, although it was capable of t/a flights, was the nearest Boeing had to that; they need the aircraft to be versatile in order to be saleable, so it had to be able to do reasonably long flights as well.

Most of JAL's and ANA's early 777s were A models and are still used (along with 773s) on domestic flights.

They could, if either carrier so chose, be made ETOPS capable (if they aren't already) and used on longer, transoceanic flights.


User currently offlineTheginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8777 times:

I imagine that the demand isn't there, hence why we don't see one today, even in Japan.
Although if you really wanted to it could be used on Shorthaul but its an expensive shorthaul aircraft!

Not sure if Boeing have ever considered it though.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30619 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 8677 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):
This got me me thinking, did Boeing ever consider or even float to airlines a domestic short range version of the 777-200?

Not really. The original 777-200 was herself a "short-range" plane with a range at MZFW of around 3300nm which is itself 400nm shorter than the 767-400ER though she does carry around a good bit of structure to allow the 777-200ER to fly 2500nm farther at MZFW for only an extra 2t of OEW.

Boeing did offer the "777-100B" as a shorter, lower capacity version of the 777-200 to CO and DL as an L-1011 and DC-10 replacement, but it still would have been heavy for it's size like the 777-200 and they didn't like the cost per seat so instead Boeing developed the 767-400ER for them (and yes, I fully realize Boeing hoped to sell the model to more than just CO and DL).


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 8584 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Boeing did offer the "777-100B" as a shorter, lower capacity version of the 777-200 to CO and DL as an L-1011 and DC-10 replacement,

I thought that the 777-100 was supposed to be the ultra long range model and eventually became the -200LR. But CO and DL seem to do okay with the 764s, so a 777-100 would most likely have become an albatross like the 737-600.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7561 posts, RR: 43
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8468 times:

BA and RG also had A-model 777-200s (non-ERs). I am sure some Asian airlines had or may still have some.


Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30619 posts, RR: 84
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8407 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 5):
I thought that the 777-100 was supposed to be the ultra long range model and eventually became the -200LR.

There were multiple versions of the 777-100 series kicked around, including a few ULR studies done at the request of SQ, AA, BR and others. However, the 777-200ER grew sufficiently in MTOW to allow many of the international missions the 777-100 was supposed to handle.

SQ continued to pester Boeing for the 777-100X to perform LAX-SIN non-stop, eventually they were the only airline to show interest in such a model and they only needed a handful, so Boeing declined to launch it and they went to Airbus for the A340-500.


User currently offlineC5LOAD From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8338 times:

The idea makes sense like Airbus did with the A300 and A310. Build an airplane that can take a whole lot of people medium distances. And I'm pretty sure a 777 can hold more people than a A300 can.


"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8313 times:

I thought i remember a 777-100 model being discussed but airlines didn't go for it. I think the time of large jets for short range have passed, it's more about frequency now. I've always thought that if fuel prices stayed at a record high level we might see the return of large jets on short routes in an effort to cut ticket prices. But right now airlines seem to like a 767 as the largest domestic short flight (think DL in the US).

User currently offlineChrisjw From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8266 times:



Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):
Instead of 10 MD-80//757 flying DFW-LAX, the airline could fly 7 flights using at least 3-4 of this aircraft. Just wondering if there ever were any proposals.

Isn't what you described called a Boeing 767? Creating a short range 777 would be cutting into the 767 market.

The only problem is the American market prefers frequency vs capacity. Thats why regionals have become the norm these days.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30619 posts, RR: 84
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 8156 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Another problem the 777-100X faced on non-ULR missions was the planned 767-400ERX, which would have offered much better economics carrying ~250 passengers (in the standard Boeing three-class configuration) for missions out to 6000nm (at pax+bags payloads).

User currently offlineCAL764 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 376 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8049 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
(and yes, I fully realize Boeing hoped to sell the model to more than just CO and DL)

I should hope so! But it's unfourtionate it's not more popular..DL and CO were at the least what was expected to sell, but..who knows



1. Fly to Win 2. Fund Future 3. Reliability 4. Work Together CO: Work Hard, Fly Right...
User currently offlineArabAirX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8040 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):

We know SQ was interested in the 777-100X concept, but was there ever any interest in the 767-400ERX??

Cant recall any clients off hand.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30619 posts, RR: 84
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7990 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 13):
We know SQ was interested in the 777-100X concept, but was there ever any interest in the 767-400ERX??

Kenya Airlines placed a launch order for three, but Boeing decided not to go forward with the program after they canceled the 747-500X and 747-600X programs.

Part of the problem was the 767-400ER was originally known as the 767-400ERX when it was shopped in 1997. It became the 767-400 when formally launched in 2000 and a longer-ranged 767-400ERX was announced at the same time as a future derivative, carrying a bit over 8000 l of extra fuel in the horizontal stabilizer and using Engine Alliance GP7000-series engines that were also intended for use on the 747X program.


User currently offlineSan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4941 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 weeks ago) and read 7778 times:



Quoting EddieDude (Reply 6):

UA still flies 77A's IIRC.



Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24891 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7714 times:



Quoting EddieDude (Reply 6):
BA and RG also had A-model 777-200s (non-ERs). I am sure some Asian airlines had or may still have some.

As far as I know JL/NH/CX/TG/CA/CZ/EK still opeate the non-ER 777-200, plus BA and UA.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6966 times:



Quoting WINGS (Reply 1):
The Airbus A330-300 basically fits 100% to the description that you mentioned above.

 checkmark 

Quoting C5LOAD (Reply 8):
The idea makes sense like Airbus did with the A300 and A310. Build an airplane that can take a whole lot of people medium distances. And I'm pretty sure a 777 can hold more people than a A300 can.

It's a heck of a lot heavier, though, which cancels out that benefit.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineA380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6317 times:

The A330-300 can land at La Guardia?

It's true that wherever I want to fly within Europe, it feels, like I'm gonna end in an A320 airplane. In the US if you fly places, you have chances to end up in a 767 size aircraft. Why wouldn't there be bigger aircrafts on domestic flights?

How about Japan? Are the high density 747s still flying? What are they going to replace them with? Do 777s fly a lot of domestic flights in the US? Any 747s left on domestic routes?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6268 times:



Quoting A380900 (Reply 19):
In the US if you fly places, you have chances to end up in a 767 size aircraft. Why wouldn't there be bigger aircrafts on domestic flights?

In the US the pendulum has swung very far in the direction of frequency vs. CASM. I don't know if it will ever swing back, but widebodies are few and far between on many US domestic routes and RJs are the norm in many rather large markets.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineProfcalvin From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6197 times:



Quoting A380900 (Reply 19):
How about Japan? Are the high density 747s still flying? What are they going to replace them with?

Yes they are still flying. There are many very short domestic routes especially out of HND that get a wide body. One flight that naturaly comes in mind is the NRT-NGO "international" flight which I flew many times after arriving from DFW. It was operated by a 744 and I think it is a 773 now, but the flight is at the most just 45 minutes.

As for a replacement, I think Boeing's idea for that was the 787-3 but recently JAL canceled their order and the only other one is ANA so we may never see it come to life. It is cool to see widebodies on short flights but the US will not go that path. As mentioned before, they(we) prefer +frequency to +capacity.


User currently offlineSan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4941 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6166 times:



Quoting A380900 (Reply 19):
In the US if you fly places, you have chances to end up in a 767 size aircraft.

At this point, only domestic widebodies are UA inter-hub flights, select West Coast markets from ATL on DL, and a few transcons with AA.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 19):
How about Japan? Are the high density 747s still flying?

Absolutely. The 744Ds are still around.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 19):
What are they going to replace them with?

777s mostly, possibly 787s or A330s.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 19):
Do 777s fly a lot of domestic flights in the US?

A couple on UA, and AA1520 between MIA and LAX.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 19):
Any 747s left on domestic routes?

None scheduled anymore  Sad



Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6093 times:



Quoting San747 (Reply 22):
None scheduled anymore

Once in a while there will be a UA 747 subbed in on a hub to hub route. Plus, there is the ATL-HNL flight on DL and UA has flown them to HNL from SFO (and LAX?) during the holidays.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5677 times:



Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):
This got me me thinking, did Boeing ever consider or even float to airlines a domestic short range version of the 777-200?

That's what the original 777-200 (the non-ER one) was. It basically had the range of a 737, but the capacity of a DC-10 or L-1011. The original launch customers were after a widebody high-capacity domestic.

Tom.


User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3610 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5121 times:



Quoting A380900 (Reply 19):
How about Japan? Are the high density 747s still flying? What are they going to replace them with?

They have replaced many of them already, and many of the replacements are 772's and 773's. You can see these flights on JAL here: http://www.jal.co.jp/dom/time/pdf/dom09_07.pdf

For example, on page 15 you will see 38 flights per day between HND and ITM - all of which are on 772's. This is a 45 minute flight. (Below there are other flights on the same route using other aircraft.) On page 16, you will see a 773 flying NRT-ITM (I have flown this flight - it was actually an ER), also a 45 minute flight. On page 20, there are many flights Sapporo-Tokyo operating with 744's, 773's and 772's. You can read through the rest of the pdf and see many others.

I've never been able to find ANA's timetable as a pdf but their schedule is similar.

When the 787's come, they're not expressing it this way but basically some 787's will replace the remaining 744D's. Really what's happening is that the 777's will just move up to take the 744D's place and the 787's will then take the 777's place, but practically speaking they are retiring 744D's and bringing in 787's.

As for US domestic use, I don't know if anybody has mentioned this yet but Boeing did float a version of the 777 with folding wings specifically to fit into LGA. No airline was interested. I believe this was actually an official option, not just a concept - though someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that. (In fact there's a thread in the "similar topics" below about this - maybe I'll check it out now.)



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
25 BMI727 : I don't know if it was for LGA specifically or not, but I do remember something about the system being offered, although no one has ordered it. I use
26 Stitch : I know the folding wingtips were offered for the Japanese carriers, but I expect they could have been of interest to anyone wishing to park a 777 in
27 OldAeroGuy : Every 777 delivered was ETOPS capable when it left the factory. The folding wingtip idea was driven by AA who, as you say, wanted to park a 777 in a
28 Mir : No. The wingspan is too large. That's not to say that it couldn't be done if it was really necessary - the runways are fine. But it would be too much
29 Spacecadet : Supposedly AA was considering buying them for domestic use. The FAA did a study specifically on the 777 at LGA, including the folding wingtips. I can
30 LipeGIG : In my view it will never happen because the "small" 737 become a bigger plane now with the 737-900 and what a short range 772 could deliver, because
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...
Would Airbus & Boeing Ever Consider RJ's? posted Mon Mar 6 2006 05:35:27 by AviationAddict
Did Boeing Ever Offer Or Float The Idea Of A 744C posted Mon Sep 1 2003 05:09:54 by Jetjack74
Did Boeing Ever Announce New Home? posted Sun Jun 10 2001 05:08:15 by Panamfanatic
Did Air Canada Ever Consider The 777? posted Sun Jun 17 2001 20:43:41 by Teej13
Did FedEx Ever Operate Boeing 727 To Europe? posted Thu Apr 13 2006 12:47:41 by Vfw614
Did Boeing Plan A 777 400 posted Fri Aug 15 2003 01:19:18 by 747400sp
Did Boeing Know 777 Will Canibalize 747 posted Thu Nov 16 2000 16:04:25 by Flybulldog
Did Anybody Ever Order Folding Wings On The 777? posted Tue Jul 20 1999 22:39:45 by DeltaShuttle
Boeing Targets 747-8 Payload/range Boost posted Wed Jun 17 2009 02:49:38 by Aviationbuff
Would G4 Ever Consider Turboprop? posted Mon Jun 8 2009 19:35:08 by Sldispatcher
Did Boeing Ever Consider A 757NG? posted Tue Feb 20 2007 04:36:33 by JAM747
Did TWA Ever Think Of Ordering 777's? posted Thu Sep 29 2011 14:39:02 by planedudea380
Did Boeing Ever Consider The 747SP As A Freighter? posted Sat Sep 24 2011 10:48:24 by American 767
Did Ansett Ever Consider Flights To The US? posted Fri Jun 18 2010 14:12:48 by USAirALB
Would Airbus & Boeing Ever Consider RJ's? posted Mon Mar 6 2006 05:35:27 by AviationAddict
Did Boeing Ever Offer Or Float The Idea Of A 744C posted Mon Sep 1 2003 05:09:54 by Jetjack74
Did Boeing Ever Announce New Home? posted Sun Jun 10 2001 05:08:15 by Panamfanatic
Did Air Canada Ever Consider The 777? posted Sun Jun 17 2001 20:43:41 by Teej13
Did TWA Ever Operate A Boeing 727-100 Cargo Plane? posted Mon Jan 23 2012 17:33:22 by doulasc
Did FedEx Ever Operate Boeing 727 To Europe? posted Thu Apr 13 2006 12:47:41 by Vfw614