Taking a tangent off this thread:
787, 797... Then What? (by Yflyer Mar 4 2007 in Civil Aviation)
Here's an open-ended question for everyone.
Has utilizing the number "8" discriminately in aircraft type identifications for marketing purposes, when it's not simply the next number in the fleet's sequence, actually been proven to be effective in terms of aircraft sales swinging one way or the other? What if the aircraft had no competition to begin with?
Would the A380 have sold any less if Airbus simply went with the next number in the sequence at the time (A350)? And going deeper, would the -800 derivative have sold any less if it simply was labeled accordingly as the first subtype in the fleet (-100)?
The 787 title aside (because it merely followed the 777)...Would the -8 derivative of it have sold any less if it also was simply labeled accordingly as its position in the fleet?
Would the -800 derivative of the A350 have sold any less if it too was known as the A350-100?
And for that matter, has an aircraft manufacturer ever gained a *single* order because instead of starting the subtype classification at -100, it began at -200?
In the grand scheme of things, is this just an unnecessary step on the part of aircraft manufacturers, in that aircraft sales are really gained by the financial / mechanical merits of the aircraft themselves, or by airline capacity / fleet renewal need, or by some other outside political pressure, etc?
I'm curious to hear your responses.