Hi folks,I’m new to the forums but I read Airliner World and Flight International on a regular basis to keep up with what’s new etc. but please feel free to comment or correct me.Anyway I’ve always thought that Boeing should really expand the 777 family quickly with more variants to compete with Airbus.I personally feel that the 747 despite being such a grand machine has really seen it’s day and it’s future use would increasingly be that of cargo or military purposes.
Right now we have the 777-200 and 777-300 families offering various payload and range options but I think that a third family of 777s should come in and supplement the market.The 777 is going to be Boeing’s main long range heavyweight for the future.
By: greekdude1 - 22nd April 2004 at 08:13
I personally don’t see an immediate viability for a 777 Freighter. The reason being is that you still have the 747-400F, now in an improved -ER configuration. Especially when you consider that the 747 was purposely designed to be a freighter with its raised deck and upward swinging nose door, it allows for larger container types to be loaded from the front that other freighters can’t take in the side door. With this available, there’s no way Boeing is going to bother developing a 777F to compete with one of its own products. Now if there is some aftermarket company that potentially con convert pax 777 into freighters, that’s a whole different argument.
By: omar - 22nd April 2004 at 08:00
r.e.
I agree with you realistically that the 777 family has probably reached it’s growth potential,but to truly compete with the A330/A340s,Boeing should’ve introduced 3 different sized models from the start.This is what I would’ve liked:
777-200(300 passengers/6,300 mls range)
777-200ER(300 passengers/8,700 mls range)
777-200ER(stretch)(330 passengers/8,500 mls range)
777-300(380 passengers/7,300 mls range)
777-300ER(380 passengers/8,700 mls range)
777-300F(100 tons of freight/6,000 mls range)
777-400(330 passengers/10,200 mls range)
span length height
777-200 200ft 209.1ft 60.10ft
777-200ER 200ft 209.1ft 60.10ft
777-200ERS 200ft 223.2ft 60.10ft
777-300 212.8ft 247.3ft 62ft
777-300ER 212.8ft 247.3ft 62ft
777-300F 212.8ft 247.3ft 62t
777-400 212.8ft 222.9ft 62ft
I think that with these revised configurations the 777 would be clearly ahead of Airbus.
By: greekdude1 - 22nd April 2004 at 00:09
Welcome Omar. I think it’s pretty obvious that Boeing is going to be very dependant on the 777 family in the future, along with the new 7E7. They have made it clear in the past that the ‘Superjumbo’ is not viable and they favor long-range twin jets as opposed to 4-holers. However, how much more can the 777 family grow? With the 5 versions currently on offer, they can really only shrink it to make it super long range. As it is, I think they’re pushing the envelope with the 777-200LR. I just think that ranges in upwards of 8,000 statute miles should be flown by 4-holers, but that’s just my opinion, and I surely don’t work for Boeing. If they were going to do this, they should have never made the initial ‘A-market’ version, or they should have classified it as the -100 series. That way, the ‘B-market’ model would have been the standard -200 and this new longer range model would be the -200ER. As it is, other than those initial orders, not too many of the ‘A-market’ versions have been ordered. United has a handful that they use on their domestic and Hawaii routes. SQ has quite a few, as well. Clearly the ‘B-market’ is the model of choice, as sales for any versions of the -300 haven’t been great, either.
Sign In
April 21, 2004 at 11:41 pm