Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing 747-300 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works X-Original-Message-ID: <1992Nov19.072012.14608@ohare.Chicago.COM> Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:20:12 GMT In article Helen Trillian Rose writes: Karl> == Karl Swartz Karl> Mfr. Type MGTOW seating service Karl> Boeing 747-400 870,000 430 1989 Karl> MacDAC MD-11 618,000 250 1991 Karl> Airbus A-340 559,000 230 1993 Karl> Boeing 777 515,000 ~220 1995 >I hadn't thought the B777 was going to be in between the 757 (~200) and >767 (~250) passengers. I thought it was going to fill the niche between >the 767 and the 747 -- about the size of the old 747SP in number of >seats. Sorry, that was a typo. The correct number should be 290. Note, though, that I said a *three* class configuration, since the topic was long-range aircraft. A 757 is in the 185 to 195 range with only two classes; 250 is the right ballpark for a two class 767-300. The smaller 767-200 is just over 200 with two classes, not much bigger than the 757. With three classes, a 767-200 is aroung 165 to 170 while the 767-300 is about 210 to 220. In the case of the 777, the only numbers I have handy are for United's two class configuration, which has 38+325 for a total of 363 seats. I tried to extrapolate from that number and the ratio of seats on United's two and three class 767-200s. >The 777 ... was meant to fill the market left wide open by the L-1011 >and DC-10 trijets (one big reason why it has optional folding wingtips: >to fit into a DC-10 gate). True, though it ended up significantly larger than either. (Using the United configs again, 363 seats vs. 298 on a DC-10-30 with a below-deck galley.) As for the foldings wingtips, nobody has yet ordered them. I wonder just what they intend to do with all those not-quite-big-enough gates?! >McDonnell Douglas has put a hold on the MD-12 for lack of financing >(lets face it, would *you* get into bed with a company that produced the >DC-10?). I doubt the DC-10 has much to do with it, since the MD-11 has been selling well enough. They simply found themselves in a Catch-22: they couldn't raise the cash without any firm orders and couldn't get any firm orders without a reasonable expectation of the financing falling into place. Their poor financial condition of course means they can't finance it themselves as Boeing could, which greatly complicates the whole matter. Actually, even if they had the financing they probably couldn't get the orders given the current economic situation, and this is exactly what they've said in their announcement of delaying the MD-12. >Only Airbus would create a plane just to compete with Boeing. Hmmm ... seems to me McDonnell-Douglas with the DC-10 and Lockheed with the L-1011 were pretty bullheaded about going ahead simply to compete with each other, knowing full well that with the orders split neither one could really succeed! 8-) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com