Kevs From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 46 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3068 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
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?
Cancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2953 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."
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2908 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.
752is From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2851 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.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2472 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2760 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.
Flyboy80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1878 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2718 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.