Sun May 23, 1999 10:18 pm

why airlines dont hurry to replace 747-100/200 by 777-300?CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHERE I FIND REAL TECHNICAL PERFORMANCES OF 777-300. and other photos

RE: 777-300

Sun May 23, 1999 11:58 pm

Any airline that still flies a lot of 747-100s must be fairly cash-strapped. They can't afford to have, say, a -400, so they're even less likely to be able to spend upwards of $160 million on one 777-300. Besides that, not a single 777-300 has been sold to any U.S. carrier, to the best of my knowledge. The trend that is starting to appear with -300s is that they are going to carriers that are based in Pacific Asia (i.e. Cathay Pacific, China Southern, ANA, etc.) and serving long-haul routes across the Pacific to the two international gateway cities on the West Coast, SFO and LAX. They also serve on routes up and down Asia's Pacific Coast.

As far as detailed specs, try asking Boeing. Maybe they'd send you something.
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: 777-300

Mon May 24, 1999 11:20 am

The 777-300 seems to be quite unsuitable outside Asia, where there are bigger loads on trunk routes. The 777-300 has less range in long-haul ops than the -200, like the 767-300 has shorter legs than it's -200 brother. Perhaps there is a resistance to stretching existing types, as the 757-300 seems to doing extremely badly (Condor, Icelandair, Arkia, a few aircraft for each, not very promising). Boeing are in danger of assuming McDD's role with Airbus taking the technical and sales initiative as Boeing themselves once did, while now Boeing stretch old types (757-300) like McDD did (the DC9 becoming the MD80, DC10 becoming the MD11) while Airbus build new designs (A330/A340, A3XX).
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz

Who is online