|Quoting FriendlySkies (reply 6):|
So if this thing can fly LHR-SYD both ways, anyone see QF or BA ordering a few?
|Quoting WhiteHatter (reply 16):|
The real action with this derivative is going to be in the freight world. There are so many applications for a 772LRF which can be listed, or even the 772F detanked version with higher payloads
|Quoting Vulindlela744 (reply 19):|
Neither a/c can do Toronto-Delhi because they are not allowed to fly over the Himilayas.
|Quoting FedExA380 (reply 20):|
.. but I would say it is a very safe bet that FedEx will NOT be ordering any 772LR
|Quoting N1120A (reply 10):|
>So if this thing can fly LHR-SYD both ways, anyone see QF or BA ordering a few?<
It can't. In can only go one way non-stop, and even that would take a restriction. Going SYD-LHR would require the plane be about half full of passengers, with no cargo.
|Quoting ConcordeBoy (reply 4):|
It split R&D costs with the 773ER; so theoretically, no more can be sold yet the costs could still be recovered.
|Quoting Leelaw (reply 27):|
Under GAAP, R & D expenses are always expensed as incurred and are never matched with specific revenues, as R & D activities may never bear any fruit. However, no competent cost accountant or financial analyst would ever employ the method suggested to calculate the breakeven point, payback, IRR, ROI, etc.(the standard metrics of financial performance), of a specific product.
|Quoting ConcordeBoy (reply 29):|
..pretty as it is petty. While true that both aircraft technically maintained separate accounting for development/ROI (particularly made evident from the 2001 freeze, hence the "theoretically")-- your fundamental overview of 'general practices' fails to take into account both Boeing and GE's own admittance that the aggregate development (not production) costs were so intertwined such that either benefits from the success of the other.
If I am not mistaken AC is looking at a mix of 772LR and 773ERs