MNeo From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2004, 776 posts, RR: 1 Posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3436 times:
Everyday i see more and more airlines who are switching from a 747 to a 777 backbone for thair longhaul (BA,AF,KL-to some extent) service and some who only use the T7 (AA,DL,Lauda) can this be a sign of the 747 declining and being slowely replaced bt the 773 and 777LR.
A3192021 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 20 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3376 times:
I think the 777 is more fuel efficient, although it does have less PAX room. BA still uses 747-4's on it's ultra-long-haul, high frequency flights (e.g. LON-SYD, LON-LAX etc.) although it does use 777's also on the LAX route sometimes and uses both 747's and 777's from LON-NYC.
I personally prefer the 777 - I think it looks nicer and it's nice to be on a more modern aircraft. But then, the 747 is a classic airliner.
Levg79 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 994 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3342 times:
Being a twin-jet, the 777 is more economical than the four engined 747. Most routes do not require the difference in capacity that 747 has over the 777. Therefore, for most airlines, it does not pay to use 747s on the routes where 777s can easily be used. Besides, with the range of 777, it can easily be used on most trans-Pacific routes. Adding the point that it's being more efficient in burning fuel airlines opt for the T7. This is the same reason why the MD-11s are disappearing, airlines are only concerned with making more money.
A mile of runway takes you to the world. A mile of highway takes you a mile.
COEWR2587 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 607 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3040 times:
Dont forget Airbus too
What does that mean. This is a post about 777 replacing the 747, nothing about Airbus.
I think it depends maybe where you live. In the US, clearly YES. But in places like England or Asia were there is High population and high demand, the exrta capacity of the 747 might be needed. (ei: JFK-LHR, LHR-NRT, NRT-HKG)
Flymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7175 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2919 times:
The 747 will be used as a frieghter for decades to come and 747-400 should be in Pax serivce for atleast 15 more years. I still see two daily BA 747-400 comes to MIA. It is not all super long haul flights for BA using the 747-400.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
Bobs89irocz From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 632 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2841 times:
BA flew the 744 into ORD a few days ago. I havent seen that bird here in a long time. They've been flying 3 or 4 daily flights using the 777.
Either way. YES, the 777 is replacing the 747. I do agree however that the 747 will be around for a long time. Frieghter expecially but for pax service as well till we see how good this A380 really is.
Frugalqxnwa From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2721 times:
Yes, the 777 is replacing the 747 on many routes with many airlines, but this was probably destined to be. The primary reason for the 747's success was its range, and at the time, and under regulation, airlines wanted to appear competitive, so buy at least one 747. Things changed when aircraft such as the 777, A330, and A340 came around. These newer types are more efficient and have only slightly less capacity, so airlines are using the more efficient types they have a better chance of filling.
Sad, really, because the 747 is one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built, and will soon loose the title of largest passenger aircraft to a whale. Oh well, as posted earlier, all good things come to an end.
Ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13115 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2645 times:
Like some of the previous posts, I agree that the 777 has replaced the 747 over the last several year to 'right size' to overall year round demand for key flights. I don't think there is much difference in the number of 1st/biz class seats between the 747 and 777, on international long-hauls, which is where the profit is but the difference in seats is that there are a lot fewer coach seats available, especially at peak travel times. Even if there are fewer coach seats vs. a 747, well, most of those seats are probably sold cheap or at a discount anyway so no real loss with fewer seats have to sell. The efficency of the 777 offsets the higher initial costs and with fewer wasted seats on many seats, makes for more profit. Yes, the 747 is a great a/c, but in many routes in the past, still had the overhead costs and had to fill the seats on off peak days at sold heavy discounts (like $149 JFK-LHR + taxes/fees), and dragging down the price of other seats.
QF744 From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 415 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2586 times:
Don't forget there are a number of airlines around the world where the 777 will not replace the 747.
A classic example is Qantas, who have no interest in the 777 and who have high yields on the 744, and don't forget the likes of Japan Airlines, United Airlines (trans-pacific routes), Air France (Asia/Pacific), Lufthansa etc...
To a point, I can see how the 777 is replacing the 747, but I believe there will be 747s around for as long as the T7, perhaps longer!
Such a great plane the 747! QF744
KZBA From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2559 times:
BA does not use a 777 to LAX, in fact just the opposite. You will see a third 744 in LAX as of 1 June (BA279/278). As for ORD, the summer schedule has seen the re-introduction of the 744 on the BA297/296. The remaining flights (BA295/294 and BA299/298), are 777s.
EddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7582 posts, RR: 42
Reply 19, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2535 times:
Fortunately AF, LH and BA are still bringing 744's to MEX. KL still sends 747Combis and JL the 742 (there are plans to upgrade the flight to a 744 I believe). I hope that if all these airlines switch to another type, it is to the A380 and not to the 777, although it is also nice to see one of RG's 772ER's in MEX from time to time... hopefully two of those will join AM's fleet in 2005.
PanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2427 times:
The Queen of the Skies (my favorite plane, always!!) will be around for a very, very long time. Boeing thought within 5-10 years, Supersonic transportation would completely replace subsonic, and therefore, this huge plane would need a back-up life...cargo.
Ironically, this is taking place, not as Boeing predicted by SST's, but by advances in technology unimaginable just 35 years ago. And now, it is time for the Queen of the Skies to gain the title of Dowager Emperess as she moves on into her second life.
As there are still 747-100's plying the skies, some having been in passenger service for 25+ years, now getting their second wind as the world's overnight cargo delivery vans, an important step in technological development. With very new -400 models out there, the empress may surprise us all and outlive us all!
Nah, I'm not biased at all...:D
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!