Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777 As 747 Replacement?  
User currently offlineKevs From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 46 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3000 times:

I have read many threads that were saying airlines , like UA in the states,
are taking 777 as a replacement for 747

What is the philosophy behind 777 as a replacement of 744?

I can't understand, they are so different in term of capacity.
772/773 can carry around 300 to 380 pax in two classes setting,
while 744 can take, may be 380+ in a three classes setting, and
744 has a longer range than 772/773, except those newer 777 ER/LR
models.

Is it really more economical to operate 777 rather than 744
and these savings are good enough to cover the revenues loss with
less pax? How about ETOPS issue?

Can A345/6 do the same job as replacement of 744?

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2885 times:

2 engines vs 4. anyway, boeing originally developed the 747 for cargo, not pax. thats why its got the hump. im pretty sure that they are planning the 777 as a future eventual replacement for the 747, but i doubt they want it to be now.


"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2862 times:

777s carry more cargo than pax 744s, and the 772ER/772LR/773ER all have longer range than 744As for less fuel*

*barring of course the 772LR's supplementary fuel tanks


User currently offlineCmckeithen From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 617 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2858 times:

The 777 will never take the place of the 747. The 747 is an American icon. Many airlines might use the 777 more, but the 747 will never completly go away. Its Boeings baby!

User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2840 times:

The real issue here is demand. Back twenty years ago United could fill two 747 flights per day between San Fran and Chicago. Then, the popular thing became to offer many flights a day- on smaller planes.

But now the issue is demand. With fewer flying (though the numbers are picking up) the 747 has been too big to fill for a few years. United and Northwest are the only two airlines that operate the 747 in the US. The rest got rid of theirs long ago.

Until hoards of people start flying, the 747 won't be so popular here.

R


User currently offline752is From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2783 times:

At least on the cargo side of it the 747 is the king and for right now nothing is replacing it. I read an intresting article in Air Cargo News about Cargolux and they were asked if the Airbus 380 or 777 would be an option for them in the future and the answer was no unless there would be a nose loading option available on these aircraft. I agree because I've seen 20 foot ship containers miss their ship and been transferred to 747's, and that is impressive. So I think unless this option is available on other aircraft the 747 will be around a long time for the cargo side.

User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2468 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2692 times:

I usually hear about the 777-300 as a replacement for 747 Classics but the 773ER can and often is dispacing the 744, despite its' lower pax capacity. Able to carry more cargo and with loer fuel burn and maintenance costs, it's got to be more economical.

"Can A345/6 do the same job as replacement of 744?:

Just the A346, I'd think. A345, like the 772LR is for the lower capacity, ULTRA-long-range niche.





User currently offlineAA777MIA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 686 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2686 times:

Also what about landing fees? Would they not be higher on a 747 versus 777? Food for thought...

User currently offlineFlyboy80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1876 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2650 times:

The 744 is different then earlier 747 models such as the 742, the 777 was made to replace those aircraft because obviously Boeing doesn't build them any more (this is the -300, and you could aculty count the -200) Although the 772 was aimed more at replacing DC-10 sized aircraft.

User currently onlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7987 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2598 times:

Actually, the 777-300ER is considered a 747-100/200 replacement because its seating capacity is almost identical, except the 773ER has the range more like that of the 747-400.

I personally think that airlines with large older 747 fleets like JL and NH may become candidates to buy fairly large numbers of 773ER's to replace older 747's in international service.


User currently offlineKevs From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2446 times:

now I see.

772 and 773 are considered as 747 Classics, but not the 744..

so at this point of time, there is still no suitable replacement for 744.



User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2381 times:

I would like to see Boeing build a super jumbo with four GE 90's Trident 895 or PW 4095. To bad there is not a market for such because it would make a better replacement for the 747 than a 777.

User currently offlineKevs From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2347 times:

747400sp

wow, 4 GE90 engines, this boeing will be HUGE !!!  Love
Take-off will be very powerful and impressive!!  Nuts

however, I believe there will be lot of troubles for any airport to accommodate
this 4 GE90 engine monster with existing facilities.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Triple Engine 777 As 747 Replacement? posted Wed Jul 16 2003 12:26:55 by Ruscoe
747 Or 777 As Your Favorite. posted Wed Feb 13 2002 03:03:40 by RC Pilot
777; Is It A Replacement For The 747-100/200? posted Sat Jul 28 2001 19:16:14 by Airmale
777 As DC-10/L-1011 Replacement posted Wed Sep 1 1999 17:01:44 by TranStar
777 Vrs 747 When Is The 777 Just Not Enough? posted Thu Nov 23 2006 02:55:54 by JAM747
NWA/UAL Transpacific 747 Replacement Strategy posted Mon Oct 30 2006 11:57:00 by Keesje
BA 777 & 747 At MCO On 10-23? posted Tue Oct 24 2006 07:56:33 by Swatpamike
KLM 641 Yesterday, They Changed My 777 To A 747 :( posted Thu Sep 14 2006 17:20:44 by Dolinja777
Amazing 777 & 747 Crosswind Test Video! posted Thu Mar 30 2006 20:40:05 by SWA TPA
Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement? posted Mon Jan 9 2006 00:53:46 by OyKIE