Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 777 Why?  
User currently offlineAlex Logan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (15 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1608 times:

I am one of the few ppl that does not like the 777...Now as time progresses I can see that they will take over and push out some of the older planes...I wonder why this is? Is it because of the efficenty of its two engines? I think that airlines are making big mistakes by doing this...I realy hate to see my favorite aircraft(s) the MD-11 and DC-10 pushed out and not arround for my children to see and take their first aircraft rides on...A man that I spoke too the other day about the 777 said that he would probaly never want to fly in it across seas due to its lack of engines being only two...As I also look through the news I see that the 777 has problems with the airflow system...I also saw first hand problems at DEN with a 777 that its passengers had to evacuate to other aircraft due to many manchincal problems...I also think that Boeing needs to come up with some new desighns and stop trying to take existing plans and make them bigger (737 enlarged = 777)...I am not trying to be mean in any sort of way shape or form....I just dont want to see the 777 as much as the 737....I want to see it like I do 747's and other wide bodyed aircraft...I also do not want to see the MD-11's and DC-10's pushed out of the airlines either (like UAL is doing right now)...


15 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineHisham From Lebanon, joined Aug 1999, 701 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (15 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1478 times:

Making airplanes is a business not an artshow. Thus what matters is how much money can the aircraft make, plus of course safety. It seems that the 777 is doing well in both.ETOPS wouldn't be approved if it was not safe. I don't think the other problems you mentioned are serious.
Boeing developed the 777 to replace the older planes like the Dc-10. You're in the unfortunate minority who's unhappy about that. Most people prefer to fly new airplanes. Most airlines prefer new planes including the 777. So I don't think Boeing will listen to you. Sorry!  

By the way, I wouldn't like the 777 replacing the 747. The 747 is my favorite. But if replacing it serves better my interest as a customer, am I willing to pay the price? I don't think so. I'll go see the 747 in a museum and fly the 777!


User currently offlineSammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1702 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (15 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1445 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

You said, "(737 enlarged = 777)"


Say what? Where did you ever come to this conclusion? Thats the same as saying the A330 is an enlarged A320! The 777 was a plane built from scratch, virtually all new. Its not derived from anything, and nothing is really derived from it, except other 777 types. Infact, the new 737NG is styled more like the 777 is, from the cockpit to the cabin!


User currently offlinePlanefreak From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (15 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1439 times:

Hello All,

I agree w/ Sammyk! The 777 is the state of the art a/c for today. I would fly on this a/c over any other in the world!

As far as the 777 replacing other a/c, sorry to see them go, however as Bob dylan would say, "Times are a changin'" and that they sure are!



User currently offlineAlex Logan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (15 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1432 times:

When you say that the 737NG is more like the 777 then the 777 is like the 737NG...Is totaly dumb it is an auximoron...spelling? Its like saying that dogs are more like cats then cats are like dogs...Any ways I was trying to say I dont think that the 777 should try and push out all of the older aircraft...I am not one to make a big deal about change or any thing like that...I just dont want to see it made prematuarly thats all....Why not wait another 6 years and see if they are still what they are now and if so make improvements on what needs to be fixed and then invest heavily...Thats what I think that they sould do with the DC-10's and MD-11's...We now know from expierance what is wrong with them and instead of saying oh a new aircraft it seems ok let abandon all of out older aircraft and make the new suff why not try to keep some of the older ones arround...I think that aircraft are alot like trading cards...Exampls they go in fases it was basball cards in then now its Pokemon or what ever the heck they are....I think that it isnt right they way we just shut the older ones out of our lives...


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 3388 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (15 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1417 times:

This has to be one of the most retarded lines of logics that i've ever seen presented on this forum. i usually don't even give these topics, but this one is so completely stupid, i must reply to Alex. It's like you're saying that we all should be driving around in gas guzzling caddilac eldorado hoopties with the bottoms rusting out just for the sake of them "looking neat" for your kids sake and the fact that we know the carb is gonna conk out every 30,000 miles. give me a break and get with the times. i appreciate your fondness for the aesthetics of trijets, but the only way you're kids are going to fly on one is if they work for feded.


The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineAlex Logan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (15 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1403 times:

Thats not what I am saying Dont get rid of them all at once!


User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7906 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (15 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1389 times:

I don't quite get your logic either. The DC-10s and L-1011s and Classic 747s that the 777/A330/A340 are replacing are 20-30 years old and nearing the end of their usuable passenger carrying lifetime. Those old birds have served well and it is time to retire them. Economics have long since been in favor of twinjets. Plus I think the fear of ETOPS operations by some people is misfounded. ETOPS, by some standards, is an outdated regulation dating back to the days of radial piston engines. Regular ETOPS operations have been going on since TWA first operated the BOS-CDG flight in the mid 80's with a 767-200ER. I appreciate the nostaglia for the old planes, but the airline business is motavated by economics, and new types that are cheaper to maintain and to operate. and problems are related to new planes. The early -10's Tristars and 47's had their fair share of technical glitches. As a counterpoint... if nostaglia was the motavating factor in keeping types we'd still be flying in Connies and DC-7s. Just my 2 cents.


Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineAlex Logan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (15 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1382 times:

I have nothing agenst the A330/A340 or any other then the 777 I think that they were ment to replace the older planes....But dont get rid of all the older planes at once.....Save some and maybe take some and make them the best like they used to be....The 777 is supposed to be so much better but I personaly seen more 777 broken the older aircraft such as DC-10's and MD-11's....Thats why we sould not get rid of all of them at once.....United was in truble because they had gotten rid of all but 3 Dc-10-30 and replaced them with 777's But when the 777 broke down there was not old and still strong flyer to come in and help....I dont like the desighn of the 777 I am hereing more bad things about them and realy the only bad things i have hered about he MD-11's and DC-10's is that they dont have the tech. that the newer planes have...I think that if we add some of this new tech. to them then they will be better then the 777....What I am saying is that I think that Boeing should re-design the Md-11 and or Dc-10...One major fact is that they sould not due away with all 2+ engined aircraft...For as that man said I would never take any thing with 2 or less engines across seas....I just realy hate to see them retired in my life time....To be honest at first glance I thought the 777 was cool untill I learned about its problem...Then I begain to think and I have debaited it and we have about what is the best aircraft arround....I think that we sould keep it arround a while longer...


Fly America Airlines

User currently offlineSammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1702 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (15 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1358 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!


What I said was NOT an oxymoron. However, what I did say was fact. Here's some history. The 737 was on the scene first, originally designed in the 60s, later updated in the early 80s. The 777 was launched in 1990. It was designed from a clean sheet. All new from the ground up! Its interiors were SO nice, that they won awards. 1993, the 737NG is launched. What does Boeing decide to do? Well, seems everyone loves the 777 interior, so they add it to the 737. Hey, guess what, everyone loves that glass cockpit, so they design it to be similar to the 777. So, the 737NG took cues from the 777 when it was designed. The 777 did NOT take cues from the 737 when it was designed. Their similarity ends when you get past saying they are both twin engined airliners.


User currently offlineDelta772 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (15 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1352 times:

What are all of these so-called "problems" that have been cropping up with the 777? 777's breaking down? And I gotta love Spacepope's post...first time i've read "gas guzzling cadillac eldorado hoopties" in a post!

User currently offlinePanther From Bahamas, joined Jun 2000, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (15 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1347 times:

You are the best man! Thats like saying why are airlines using 757s instaed of 707s........Hmmmmmm?

User currently offlineFLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (15 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1342 times:

Alex, some things are just better left unsaid, for the benefit of others, and ESPECIALLY for you!

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L

User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8530 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (15 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1341 times:

The MD-11, great as it is, just isn't as good as the 777. It's wing is based on a design from the 1960's. It's engines didn't meet the specs at first and gave it a bad name. It's cockpit is as advanced as the 777's, but the interior isn't quite as roomy as the 777's. You've got to face the facts: McDonnel Douglas didn't have as much money to spend on designing the MD-11 as Boeing did on the 777. It's that simple. The reason it and the 767-400, A330, and A340 are pushing the DC-10s and L-1011s out of service is because they're have much lower maintence costs (airplanes do come with warranties), lower fuel bills, 2 crew cockpits, less noise, and the interiors are more comfortable and passengers like them more. Sorry, but that's the truth.

User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2849 posts, RR: 57
Reply 14, posted (15 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1326 times:


I really do not know where you get you're information, but I would double check it. In the new AW&ST, the 777 is reported to have the BEST reliability of ANY widebody aircraft, ever. It is only slightly behind the 737NG and the A320, both outstanding aircraft. This is not a chance occurrence. It has such reliability because of it's all-new design and especially because it must meet stringent ETOPS standards.


Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineOozabooza From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (15 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1310 times:

I tell you, I wish I could trade my 94 Elantra in for a new Shelby Mustang. Take from that what you wish. 17 days until my first 777 flight!!!!

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...
Boeing 777 Why? posted Mon Jun 12 2000 22:13:37 by Alex Logan
Ultimate Boeing 777 Thread posted Sat Dec 16 2006 19:04:32 by JMO-777
KLM Orders Boeing 777-300ER And More posted Tue Nov 14 2006 21:47:08 by Kevin
EVA Air Boeing 777-200LR? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 15:57:46 by VivaGunners
Last Flight: SJC-NRT AA Boeing 777 Video... posted Sat Oct 28 2006 16:31:10 by SJC-Alien
1st Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-300ER posted Fri Sep 22 2006 20:57:26 by American777
6 Boeing 777 To TAM posted Sat Sep 16 2006 05:44:06 by Matheus
Jet Airways Boeing 777-300ER? posted Sun Sep 10 2006 12:19:10 by United777
Boeing 777 Production Line Photos posted Sat Sep 2 2006 18:29:33 by Bmacleod
JAL Boeing 777-300er's To Europe posted Thu Aug 17 2006 10:26:42 by Express1