Guest

777-100 vs. 767-400ER

Tue Feb 16, 1999 11:36 pm

Why did boeing design a 767-400ER if maybe that market could have been covered by a shorter version of the 777 (777-100)?

Anyway, is the 767-400 going to have a 767-x cockpit or a 777-x cockpit?

Is Boeing planning to offer a 777-100 any time soon?

Regards,

Jesus Brezmes
 
Guest

RE: 777-100 vs. 767-400ER

Wed Feb 17, 1999 12:11 am

You have a point, a smaller version of the 777 would have longer the range than the 767-400 and might make sense for airlines. I think the 767-400 only has a range of 4,000 miles which will not allow it to operate on many of the routes the 300s serve.
Boeing is not planning to make a 777-100, ever since the 757 they have been starting with a 200 model. To answer your question about the cockpits, the 767-400 has an updated cockpit but it has commonality with the other 767s.
I love the 767 and am very happy to see this new derivitive.
 
Guest

RE: 777-100 vs. 767-400ER

Wed Feb 17, 1999 12:14 am

You have a point, a smaller version of the 777 would have longer the range than the 767-400 and might make sense for airlines. I think the 767-400 only has a range of 4,000 miles which will not allow it to operate on some of the routes the 300s serve.
Boeing is not planning to make a 777-100, ever since the 757 they have been starting with a 200 model. To answer your question about the cockpits, the 767-400 has an updated cockpit but it has commonality with the other 767s.
I love the 767 and I am very happy to see the 400.


-MEB-
 
Guest

RE: 777-100 vs. 767-400ER

Wed Feb 17, 1999 12:42 am

I agree with what Meb just said. However, if Boeing is going to shrink the 777 for real, I think the engines will be downgraded at the same time. As a result, probably a shortened 777 frame with engines used on A330s. Therefore, shortening the 777 becomes a far more complex project than stretching it. Also, Boeing is now finding itself in financial trouble due to bad management decisions and too many variations and types of planes in its product line.
 
CX747
Posts: 6107
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: PW4056

Wed Feb 17, 1999 1:19 am

What do you mean to many products? That is what sells customers on Boeings. They have a great product range.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Guest

RE: PW4056

Wed Feb 17, 1999 2:01 am

I am saying some conflicts in its product line, like the 717-200 and the 737-500. They have almost the same capacity, but totally different design and assembly line.
 
JZ
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:55 am

RE: 777-100 vs. 767-400ER

Wed Feb 17, 1999 3:05 am

The 767-400 is an high capacity version of the 767. It's aimed at the current 767 operators that needs more capacity. Range is not its primary concern, capacity is. That's why Delta order the 767-400 to replace its L-1011s. On the other hand, Boeing projected the 777-100 to be the the ultra-long range version of the 777 family. It's for the airlines that have the need to go the long distance, yet don't have the passenger demand to justify a 777-200 ER or a 747-400. Therefore, these 2 types can't replace each other.
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

RE: PW4056

Wed Feb 17, 1999 3:30 am

I agree with PW4056 and I already have talk about this in a previous post.
Boeing vs Airbus competition is a fact but think in Boeing internal competition between models with almost the same range a passanger capacity.
Boeing is spreading into many different models trying to cover the market but is also spreading resources.
Spreading resources is not good because Boeing is losing strenght.
Building a new model isn't dangerous with about 50 orders from airlines? I think it is a big risk.

Mirage, Faro, Portugal
 
TP343
Posts: 364
Joined: Sun May 23, 1999 9:01 pm

RE: PW4056

Wed Feb 17, 1999 3:40 am

I agree with Mirage.
In my opinion, Boeing is losing control...over itself!
Boeing has too many products, and it's REALLY dangerous to an industry.
Look it:
717 vs. 736
739 vs. 752
753 vs. 767
764 vs. 777
and an old 747, without descendents.

It's, at least, strange!
Compared with Boeing, Airbus is selling more, and with less products. It's REALLY strange who Boeing lost control over itself.
 
JZ
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:55 am

RE: PW4056

Wed Feb 17, 1999 5:20 am

I don't agree with TB343. Boeing's product line evolution is shaped by its recent merger with MD, its desire to keep as many customers as possible within a product family, and its strategy of keep its competitive advantage over Airbus. Let's just go over the examples TP343 mentioned here:
717 vs. 737-600:
Obviously, the NG 737 designers didn't imagine the MD95 would one day become a Boeing product. In fact, Boeing gained SAS as the launch customer for 737-600 by beating MD95. But if Boeing discontinues either product, it's going to offend either AirTran or SAS. By keeping 717, Boeing can appeal to the loyal MD product followers and the major DC-9 operators (e.g. NW). By having the 737-600, Boeing gives existing 737 operators possibility to go down the product line.
737-900 vs. 752, 753 vs. 767:
first, comparison between 767 and 757 is meaningless because one is a wide body, the other a narrow body. Boeing designed 753 to give additional capacity to the existing 757 operators, particularly the European charter airlines. The same idea applies to 737-900. If Boeing chooses only one product, instead of offering both, it is in fact forcing the existing operators of either type to have a mixed fleet. This would surely turn some of the airlines to Airbus.
767-400 vs. 777, older 747s:
767-400 is to provide increase capactiy for the 767 family. The 777 is designed to replace the older 747s.
The airlines want to have as much commonality as possible in their fleets. Boeing is trying hard to satisfy this. Just imagine Southwest, the largest 737 operator in the world, wants to have transcontinental range and bigger capacity, and all Boeing can do is suggest 757? On the other hand, when dropping one product makes sense, Boeing was not hesitant to do so. Just look at MD-11 and MD-80/90 series. Also, by creating a complete family of product, Boeing is forcing Airbus to do the same. For example, Airbus designed A330-200 and A318 in response to 767-300 and 717/737-600, respectively.
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

JZ

Wed Feb 17, 1999 6:09 am

JZ wrote:
".... Also, by creating a complete family of product, Boeing is forcing Airbus to do the same."

As far as I know, it was Airbus to first introduce the "family" conceipt, not Boeing.
 
Guest

Range Correction

Wed Feb 17, 1999 6:31 am

I just wanted to correct what I said before about the range on the 767-400. It turns out to be 6,475miles I mixed it up with the 757-300 and thought it was 4,000. This makes what I said before about the 767-400 not being able to fly a lot of the routes that the 300 can because of range not as true as I thought. The 300 has a range of 7,080. While there is a difference between the ranges it is not as dramatic as I thought.

-MEB-
 
sv11
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 6:26 am

RE: 777-100 vs. 767-400ER

Wed Feb 17, 1999 6:52 am

I think if BA shortened the 777-200IGW, they would get a plane that can do 10,000 miles using the existing 92K engines. Only RR seems to be committed to developing a 104K engine for the 777-200X. But BA hasn't had much luck shortening aircraft like Airbus-look at the A319 and A330-200 which are selling well. BA has better luck lengthening aircraft so maybe they went to stretch the 767-300. But both the 757-300, 767-400 haven't been selling well.
 
User avatar
hawaiian717
Posts: 3370
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

717 Orders

Wed Feb 17, 1999 7:02 am

It was mentioned that the 717-200 has about 50 orders. Wrong! The order breakdown is as follows:

AirTran: 50 firm/50 options
TWA: 50 firm/50 options
Pembroke Capital: 10 firm
Bavaria Leasing: 5 firm

Also, TWA ordered both the 717 and the A318. The A318 is to be used on longer routes while the 717 will be on shorter ones. The A318, as a shrink of the A319, which is a shrink of an A320, will be less economical on the short routes. Similarily, the 737-600 is intended for longer flights than the 717.

That's a total of 115 firm orders and 100 options. Compare this to the 757-300, which I believe has something along the lines of 15 orders, from Condor, Icelandair, and Arkia Israel Airlines.

And yes, the 717 is inherited from the McDonnell Douglas merger. Obviously, Boeing thinks there's a market for this aircraft separate from the 737-600, otherwise they would have discontinued it along with the MD-11, MD-80, and MD-90.
 
TP343
Posts: 364
Joined: Sun May 23, 1999 9:01 pm

RE: PW4056

Wed Feb 17, 1999 7:18 am

In response to your comment, I'd like to add the following:

1) You are right concerning the problem Boeing faced when bought MDC. Of course Boeing had to accept the orders MDC had for its MD90 family. Here, obviously, it's included the MD95, now B717. But, everybody must agree on one point: B717 definitly has no future; It's almost 100% sure that Boeing will not, let's say in a 10/15 years period explore an advanced version to it.

2) About competition between 739 and 757: Both airplanes have the same capacity and are created to fit the same market, although the range of the 737NG family member is superior.

3) About competition between 753 and 767:
753 can be used with the same objective as 767. It's easy to see, for instance, in 2 examples:
Condor (German charter) will fly its 753 (and even its 752) in routes to Brazil and Caribe, both
regions in a 10 hour-flight distance from Germany. Normally, an airline operating Boeings would choose to fly 767.
An other example is Icelandair, which is going to use its 753 on Reykjavik-Boston/JFK/Washington services, transatlantic services, which, again, would be normally operated by 767.
And, both 757 and 767 were created simultaneously, in order to provide complementary services. But, if the smaller one (757) became bigger and with an extended range, 757 and 767 became suplimentar, and no more complementar.

4) About 764 and 772: The increased capacity for a 767 operator that the 764 is created to give can easly be replaced by an expansion to a next level: the 772.

5) The 777 has 2 engines. The 747, 4. ETOPS restrictions are applied, and if I could choice to fly a transcontinental flight between 2 airliners - a 2 and a 4 engines - I'd choose immediatly the 4 engines one. So, the 777 doesn't replace perfectly the 747.

6) NorthWest is an Airbus client.

7) The 318, before being an answer to Boeing's 717, is a complement to the well-succeded 320 family.

8) With 777, Boeing doesn't answer the aspiration of companies that want an bigger airliner than 744. Airbus does (A3XX).

Cordialy, TP343.
 
FLY777UAL
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: 777-100 vs. 767-400ER

Wed Feb 17, 1999 8:17 am

As Boeing pointed out in an article I was reading in Aviation Week (I think that's it), the 777-200X (777-100) was planned to be directed towards the Asian Airlines, such as Singapore and Malaysia, who both have 777's, so they would be able to operate non-stop flights from their hubs to North Amercian cities, ie: LAX, SFO, JFK, etc. However, with the new concept of increasing seat pitch, and lowering seat numbers on aircraft, the 777 would only hold around 100 people in Singapore's wanted configuration (Actual fact). Thus, Boeing, who had already thrown the 767-400ER out on the table long before the 777-100, was commited to developing the 767-400ER, with the 50+ confirmed orders from Delta and Continental. I believe, however, I am not sure, that the 777-100 was scrapped until sufficient orders could come about.
I think that the 777-100 would have been much better than the 767-400ER, as the engines were already 'beefed up' to 90,000+ lbs. of thrust. In addition, the 777-100 would also be able to hold the standard LD-3 containers v.s. the 767's LD-2 containers.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos