Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?  
User currently offlineETStar From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 7
Posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 41787 times:

So, what's the real difference between the 787 and the 777? Don't they really fall into the same category? Can it be said that a fleet based on one type could be complemented by the other without overlap?

40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 41766 times:

Well, one is significantly bigger than the other, to start.

N


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4107 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 41754 times:

The 787 is designed for thinner, longer range routes than the 777. It was mainly designed as an A300/767/A330 replacement, with seating covering the higher 767 end to the low 777 end. There is doubt over whether the largest 787s will hurt 777 sales, but IMO, they won't. The 777 offers longer range and higher density options, in the 777-200LR and 777-300ER. I think the two will compliment each other rather than hurt each other. Just my two cents...

User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12189 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 41738 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Both are designed for long-haul flights, 787 seats under 250 passengers for point to point services and the 777 seats 250-350? passengers for hub to hub services

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 41715 times:

So, what's the real difference between the 787 and the 777?

You mean aside from:
  • different fuselage shapes
  • different fuselage compositions
  • different wings
  • different pneumatic structure
  • different engine options
  • different landing gear
  • different empennage
  • different weights
  • different sizes
  • different capacities
  • different operational specifications
  • 15years separation of launch

    ....or was their something else you were looking for?  Big grin


    [Edited 2005-02-08 01:13:44]

  • User currently offlineViveLeYHZ From Canada, joined Dec 2004, 194 posts, RR: 9
    Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 41689 times:

    777ER is exactly right.

    Also, the 787 will be at the cutting edge of fuel efficiency, thanks to composite materials and advanced engine technology. I think of the 787 as the 21-century 767; same spirit, more agile.

    I hope AC gets 787s to replace their 767s.

    Cheers
    ViveLeYHZ


    User currently offlineETStar From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 7
    Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 41660 times:

    ConcordeBoy, Mr SmartPants, I was looking for difference in brakes!

    Seriously though, wouldn't the 787 affect 777 sales especially with airlines that only had the 777 as a choice to provide long haul service? Does this somewhat spell the begining of the end for the 777? What would differentiate these two when looking at the big picture (no nuts and bolts pls).


    User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9661 posts, RR: 52
    Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 41603 times:

    I think that the only 777 model that the 787 will compete directly against is the A market version. A market sales though have been relatively low ever since the ER came around. The 787 long range version will seat far fewer people than the 772. The 787 short range version will have relatively similar capacity compared to a 772, but will not have the range. It will compete with the short range 777 versions, but these sales are already limited, so I don't think Boeing is comprosing 777 program.

    Remember that quotes from manufacturers are usually a large over estimate of the seats in an airplane compared to the actual configuration. Correct me if I am wrong, but Boeing calculations for capacity call for a 60 inch pitch first class and a 40 inch pitch business class. Those are far less then what most airlines actually put in a plane. I would take the 250 seat figure with a grain of salt, because correct me if am wrong, but no airline has announced how many seats they will actually put in the 787.

    It is true that the 787 and 777 compete, but they should complement each other. Many people thought that the 777 would canibalize 767 sales because Boeing didn't have room for another widebody twin. But in reality the 777 has proved to be a success, and the 767 sales didn't die off immediately. 767 sales have dimished recently because it is an old design that isn't competetive and the new Airbus offerings are better and Boeing has committed to the 787 which is a 767 replacement.

    I think both will succeed, but the 777 is a ten year old design so the base versions are getting outdated. Future growth will be with the newer 772ER, LR and 773ER, but the plane will need a more comprehensive update in the coming years; most likely to occur after a 737 replacement is done.



    If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
    User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26534 posts, RR: 75
    Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 41444 times:

    >The 787 long range version will seat far fewer people than the 772. <

    The 788 will, the 789 will actually not be far off and have longer range than the 772ER, let alone the 772A



    Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
    User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9661 posts, RR: 52
    Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 41416 times:

    N1120A, is the 789 really going have the same capacity and more range then the 772ER? That doesn't really make sense to me. I thought the 787 wing was smaller and the plane would either have a comparable capacity to the 777, or have a small capacity and a simlar range. I didn't think it could do both. The specifications from Boeing say:

    Model____# of Pax__Range(nm)
    787-300____296_____3500_(Note that Boeing quotes a 2 class configuration)
    787-800____223_____8500
    787-900____259_____8300

    777-200____301_____5210
    777-200ER__301_____7730
    777-200LR__301_____9280
    (Source: Boeing Company website)

    This puts the only 787 that has comparable capacity to a 777 as the 787-300. It has 1700nm less range though, which makes it have US transcon range, but not transatlantic. Also the figures for the 787-300 are for a 2 class plane, so it is not as large as a 777.

    The 787 is definitely a smaller plane. The 787-300 and 787-800 are definitely going to be different from the newer 772 models. The 787-900 though does get rather close to 777 capabilities.



    If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
    User currently offlineViveLeYHZ From Canada, joined Dec 2004, 194 posts, RR: 9
    Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 41335 times:

    All this talk about the 787 competing with 777 makes me wonder, was the 777 considered a competition to the long range version of the 767 ? Here is how A.net describes the 777, first few lines read:

    The 777 was originally conceived as a stretched 767, but Boeing instead adopted an all new design

    Or was has the 757 constituted a threat to the short-range 767 ? The 757-300 and the 767-200 have almost the same range and capacity (according to A.net descriptions) although the 767 is a widebody, the 757 isn't (and I don't know why).

    I would think that the 787 is not competing with the 777, but rather complementing it, and the 787 would also provide a modern replacement for the 767.

    With the introduction of the 787 and the 777-200LR, along with the 737-NG, Boeing can match the requirements of even the most demanding airlines.

    Cheers,
    ViveLeYHZ


    User currently offlineSpike From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1170 posts, RR: 5
    Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 41314 times:

    The main difference so far is in the order books / interest from major global carriers.

    User currently offlineTimetables From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 43 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 41300 times:

    Yes, there are many differences; they both take care of two different markets.
    All you need to know about the 777 is here: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/777technical.html
    All you need to know about the 787 is here: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/facts_sr.html, http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/facts.html, and http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/facts_stretch.html.



    NO URLS in signature
    User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12189 posts, RR: 18
    Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 41268 times:
    AIRLINERS.NET CREW
    FORUM MODERATOR

    Seriously though, wouldn't the 787 affect 777 sales especially with airlines that only had the 777 as a choice to provide long haul service? No, because as I said in reply 3, 787 seats under 250 passengers for point to point services and the 777 seats 250-350? passengers for hub to hub services

    I think that the only 777 model that the 787 will compete directly against is the A market version. Hardly if any airlines are ordering the B777A, so the B787 is really no threat as the B772A model is basically extinct


    User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
    Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 41093 times:

    Boeing could build (but has not announced any plans to do so) a further stretch of the B787-9 that would have the floor area and seating capacity of the B777-200. Using an overly conservative assumption of no improvement over currently planned models, such a stretch would have slightly better range than the B777-200ER.

    Given Boeing's history of improvements, it is possible that Boeing is hoping to delay the introduction of such a model until it can have the range of the B777-200LR. This would involve increases in MTOW, thrust, and fuel capacity.

    The recent increase in the size of the wing for the B787-8/9 to within one foot in length that of the B777-200ER supports the idea that Boeing may be preparing for a further stretch in the future. I expect that eventually the B777-200ER (and perhaps even the B777-200LR) will be replaced by a future version of the B787.

    When Boeing increased the wing size for the B787-8/9, did they also increase the range estimates?


    User currently offlineTockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 950 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 40753 times:

    remember people, airplanes always tend to get bigger and give more capacity with time. the 777 will probably eventually expand to come closer to filling the role that will be vacated by the 747, especially if the 787 has some seat configurations that come close to the size of a 777.

    no way is boeing going to drop the 777 in the near future. look for that bird to be coming off the line for another 15 years.


    User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
    Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 40690 times:

    Tockeyhockey, it's conceivable that, if Boeing doesn't go ahead with the B747Adv, that they might stretch the B777-300ER another six meters. However, I think an all-new B787-technology twin larger in cross section than the B777 with passenger capacities ranging from 350 to 500 is more likely.

    I would be surprised if the B777 were still in production in 2020.


    User currently offlineTockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 950 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 40553 times:

    i think that the 777's shelf life will depend greatly on what airbus puts up against it. the 777 is dominating its segment right now, and the a350 is not going to kill it, so what's airbus's next plane? is it a 777 beater? even if it is, when will it fly? 2012? 2015?

    i think people tend to underestimate the life-span of a good plane. remember, the 747 basically had no competition for thirty years, so it was produced for 30 years, and will probably fly for another 10 or so.


    User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
    Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 40288 times:

    The 787 is designed for "long thin routes" and the 777 is designed for "Fatter long routes".


    One Nation Under God
    User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2276 posts, RR: 5
    Reply 19, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 40122 times:

    The problem with estimating lifespans nowadays is that the market is more competitive than it's ever been. We have two manaufactueres battling tooth and nail for 50% share and each has a fairly complete line up with minor gaps on each side. I think it is very likely that the 787 will mean the end of the 772A and ER (that is, if the A is even really around anymore). The reason is a clear cut combination of range and cost improvement in the 787. Why piss about with a plane that gets you marginally more capacity, less range and that has a list price $50-60M higher than the 787? That spells an "early death". But no one should fret because on the Airbus side you also have planes such as the 342 and 343 dying slow and miserable deaths already. This is the new reality. You won't see many planes rolling off the lines for periods of 30 years or more. The 777 will carry on for some time in the 772LR and the 773ER. The first as a freighter and the second as the step up from the 788 and 789. One major problem remains however and that is getting the cost of the 777 down to more realistic levels. Beoing's primary goals in order of importance: get the 787 in the air, reduce the cost of the 777 program by 10-15%, and then decide where to park the next $6B project...in a revamped 747 or a brand new line of narrowbodies. I agree with those who say going cheap on the 747 is a waste of money. Might as well blow your wad on new wings and own that sweet spot between 350 and 550 seats for another 20 years...and also give the 380 a run for its money in the freighter market. This is the project that I bet makes Leahy and Foregard soil their panties so it's the one I like best. Anyway, this should makes all of us nutters happy right?

    User currently offlineTockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 950 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 20, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 39921 times:

    Wingman,

    I agree that estimates are getting tougher as the market gets tougher, however, part of the reason the 747 flew for as long as it did was because europe put its eggs in the supersonic basket and the 747 flew uncontested for so many years. i would argue that while the market is certainly a more competitive one, the segment in which the 777 flies is currently uncontested and will remain that way for a while.

    what i'm saying is that there isn't any competition for the 777 on the horizon in the foreseeable future. i could even go out on a wing and argue that the 777 will be more important to boeing over the next 10-15 years than the 787 because it fills a niche that airbus is not going to compte in until the next decade. it can become the uncontested cashcow that the 747 was for so many years.

    my bet is that the 777 will be around in various forms for at least 10-15 more years. it's a great plane in a currently unchallenged market segment.


    User currently offlineBmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2288 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 21, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 39808 times:

    One obvious difference should be that the 787 will consume much less fuel than the 777 and 767. Fuel is one of the biggest challenges facing the airline industry and one of the main reasons Boeing is going ahead with the 787.

    The design and fuselage composition are another big difference between the two aircraft.

    [Edited 2005-02-08 18:04:23]


    The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
    User currently offlineMd80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
    Reply 22, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 39264 times:

    One currently exists and the other never will.

    (a prediction ^ )  Wink/being sarcastic


    User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6489 posts, RR: 3
    Reply 23, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 39225 times:

    Md80fanatic:

    Care to wager a year's salary on that?



    When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
    User currently offlineBWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2200 posts, RR: 2
    Reply 24, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 38846 times:

    Wingman
    Isnt it possible for Boeing to update the 777 line lets say in the next 10 years with 787 technology including cockpit layout instead of making a 787 that would replace the 772A and the 772ER.



    Eagles Soar!
    25 Zvezda : Between the A350 and the B787, the B777-200ER will not long continue in production. Let's not overlook that the A340-600 provides some competition to
    26 N328KF : Zvezda: For alternate definitions of "competition."
    27 Tockeyhockey : as for the a346, i think that there is a trend to move away from four engine planes. twice as many things to go wrong, more expensive to maintain, etc
    28 Wingman : I think what the 777 needs most from the 787 is the manufacturing efficiency. It's a great plane and can still command a solid premium over the 340 se
    29 Post contains images Udo : as for the a346, i think that there is a trend to move away from four engine planes. The A380 is a good example, right? twice as many things to go wro
    30 Zvezda : Udo, I think the A380 is the last all-new four engine airliner. Ever. I wouldn't argue that a four-engine plane is more or less safe than an ETOPS twi
    31 RODNAWACS : Udo, I give you the A320 B737 argument is a toss up, but do you sincerly feel the A340 is a better aircraft than the B777? Just curiosity, I promise I
    32 RoseFlyer : The biggest argument for 4 engines for longhaul is that a 4 engine plane is more efficient because it doesn't have to be able to perform a one engine
    33 Udo : I think the A380 is the last all-new four engine airliner. Ever. Probably. I wouldn't argue that a four-engine plane is more or less safe than an ETOP
    34 RIX : "the 777 will probably eventually expand to come closer to filling the role that will be vacated by the 747... " - that's what I meant by huge potenti
    35 OldAeroGuy : RoseFlyer, A good theory on why Quads are lighter and more efficient than Twins for long range operations. Any idea why an A346HGW needs 63,000 lb. mo
    36 Zvezda : Udo wrote: "I would never argue ONE certain type is BETTER than ANOTHER. "Better" is relative, aircraft choice always depends on dozens of reasons. Co
    37 Post contains links Lightsaber : Roseflyer, You are 100% correct on the thrust issue. Above a certain airframe size four engines can be more economical than two. Rolls claims its chea
    38 N1120A : >An A330 or 777 brings along a lot of extra weight because if one engine fails, the other has to be adequately powerful.The A340 gets away from this b
    39 N328KF : Sure it has lackluster takeoff performance, but it is more efficient on the long haul since those little "vacuum cleaner" engines are better at cruise
    40 Post contains images Udo : How about B787-8 vs. B707? I really don't need to know about airline requirements to make such statements. Of course, whether they are sufficiently be
    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...
    Heathrow Vs Gatwick: What's The Real Issue? posted Sat Sep 17 2005 23:00:03 by ETStar
    AA And The 787 Vs 777-200LR posted Wed Feb 20 2008 07:48:22 by Flavio340
    United 787-9 Vs 777-200ER posted Sun Aug 18 2013 21:06:05 by cosyr
    A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World posted Wed May 15 2013 09:42:41 by Leo467
    Haneda Vs Narita What's The Deal? posted Sat Apr 21 2007 19:54:55 by BA1985
    What's The Real Story On WN's Hedging? posted Fri Sep 9 2005 02:21:59 by HPRamper
    Kenya 777: What's The Deal? posted Wed May 26 2004 11:37:03 by BN747
    Day/Night Flights-What's The Technical Difference? posted Fri Mar 12 2004 05:48:40 by Brasuca
    A380, What's The Real Breakthrough? posted Fri Jan 31 2003 20:53:57 by A388
    What's The Real Importance Of Commonality? posted Wed Oct 9 2002 22:43:06 by LHMark