Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Beautiful Boeing 777  
User currently offlineAirCanadaSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2062 times:

At work today a passenger who was flying in from YUL and connecting to a UA Shuttle flight to PHX left his wallet on our A319. Since I was the agent that met the flight, I had to run the wallet over to his UA gate, clear over on the other side of the airport. So I got to Gate 78, which has a great view of the runways, and right after I handed the guy's wallet to the UAL agent, I looked out the windows, and saw a UA 777 take off. It was just so beautiful. Not that I haven't been vocal around here about my unabashed love of the 777, but people were talking in another thread about how great the A340 is. So I figured I'd extoll the virtues of the 777 without speaking negatively of the A340--which certain Airbus fans construe as "Airbus-bashing", and all of us 777 lovers could pat each other on the back and talk about how great the Triple Seven is.

First and foremost, the 777 is market-driven. It combines ultra-long range capabilities, class-leading comfort, class-leading climb and cruise performance, and cutting-edge technology into a winning package. The 777 cruises at Mach .84, which can mean 20 to 30 minutes' difference on a 10 hour flight, compared to the competition.

The 777 is beautiful and graceful. Its nose is more smoothly raked than that of the 767, and its fuselage diameter seems very well proportioned to its length. Its vast wings curve up gracefully in flight, and the 777 appears to float smoothly toward earth on approach.

The 777 is the most comfortable aircraft I have ever flown in, and I've flown in a lot. Its cabin aesthetics are much more pleasing than older Boeing aircraft or the current offerings of the competition. It seems much roomier and more spacious than anything else in the skies. That's why passengers prefer it 3 to 1 over everything else.

The 777 is quality. From the "no-slam can" that won't wake up sleeping passengers to the small steps on the side of the seats for short customers to reach the overhead bins to the folding wings that are available, Boeing paid attention to the little details.

The 777 is the most technologically advanced commercial aircraft in the skies. It combines the precision of fly by wire technology with the important safety consideration of "keeping the pilot in the loop" by being equipped with a yoke connected to actuators that produce artificial mechanical feedback.

The 777 is a joy to fly. Three of our closest family friends are 777 pilots, two at United, one at Delta. All three say that the 777 is the "funnest" widebody to fly, and is most definitely the finest commercial aircraft flying the skies. One of them is still relatively junior for 777 pilots and says he will spend the rest of his days at UAL flying the 777.

The 777 is a proven success. The 777 operators list is a veritable who's who of the world's leading airlines. United, British Airways, Delta, Singapore, Continental, Cathay Pacific, Air France, All Nippon, American, to name but a few.

So that's pretty much why I think the 777 is so awesome. I wish so much that I would get to see a 777 in the colors of my airline, Air Canada. Unfortunately, that probably won't happen anytime soon. Nothing against the 340. It's a fine aircraft. But I think that the Boeing 777 is the finest commercial aircraft in the history of aviation.


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Joe Pries



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Lawrence Feir



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Bill Hough



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Larry Gill



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © K S Down



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Chris Liao



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Vasco Garcia



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Matt Lave



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Vasco Garcia



25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFly-By-Pilot From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1887 times:

It sure is one hell of a plane.

User currently offlineThe777Man From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 6571 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1866 times:

I agree with you completely !!! The777Man


Need a Boeing 777 Firing Order....Further to fly....CI, MU, LX and LH 777s
User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 30
Reply 3, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1855 times:

Sure like hell you missed your job. You should work in the Boeing marketing department. There you even get paid for telling stories like yours.

Regards
Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineVadheim From Norway, joined Jul 2000, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1837 times:

I like the B777-200 better than the B777-300 (too long, looks weird)...and the new BA scheme looks best on the B777-200. Super scheme, especially the tail!

User currently offlineA student From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1822 times:

Just one question to all B777-lovers...
Did you ever notice something resembling a shockwave above the engines, when the plane lands? On quite a few pictures of mine, when the B777 lands slightly towards the camera (30 deg angle, 40 deg angle ???), I see a light arc above the engine. It is not a lensflare and not a reflection, so I figured it might be a shockwave. I only noticed it on landing aircraft and I think once on a departing one, but only on the photographs. I never spotted it in real life.

I think this shows what I mean, although the picture is taken from behind:




PS: Okay, so the B777 is cool, but honestly, nothing will ever beat the 747 in grace and style!


User currently offlineA student From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1813 times:

Here's the picture (sorrty it did not work first time):

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © K S Down



User currently offlineAirCanadaSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1796 times:

Why do you have to say something like that? I didn't go into the A340 thread and say anything like that, did I? The fact that I did not even say a single negative comment about the A340 means you were out of line with your comment.

Why is it that Airbus fans get so pissed off if somebody doesn't think that Airbus's product is the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel? Seriously, it gets annoying after awhile.

Pat


User currently offlineFLY DC JETS From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1794 times:



"Why do you have to say something like that? I didn't go into the A340
thread and say anything like that, did I? The fact that I did not even
say a single negative comment about the A340 means you were out of line
with your comment. "

Have you actually read your post? Or are you an idiot? There were 3 direct slaps at the A340 within your post. I think you better go back and either read it again or learn how to read.



"Why is it that Airbus fans get so pissed off if somebody doesn't think
that Airbus's product is the greatest thing since the invention of the
wheel? Seriously, it gets annoying after awhile. "

Why are you the EXACT same way about Boeing products? How about setting an example instead of bashing someone else, especially when you suffer from the same problem on a much greater scale.

Have a nice day.


User currently offlineAirmale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 377 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1775 times:

its a relief to know that others too find the 777-300 out of proportion and weird looking 


.....up there with the best!
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12476 posts, RR: 37
Reply 10, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1774 times:

Hi,

I agree. I can still remember the very first time I saw a 777, at Frankfurt in September 1995. It was N766UA and although I thought the nose section looked a bit funny, it grew on me quickly. I had my first shot at flying in a 777 in April 1997, with Cathay - into Kai Tak, jump seat for landing. It really is a lovely aircraft. I love the overhead bins, I like the cockpit, the massive engines and, perhaps most of all, the approach. I don't know if you've seen that book on the 777 (it's the one with loads of photos - I think it's called simply Boeing 777) - anyway, there's a superb shot in it of a Cathay 777 on its final approach, must be about sunset. The light catches it perfectly, but you'll also notice the slight nose down (0 to 1 degree) pitch as it comes in.

What a sight!

There are three airlines I'm really looking forward to seeing with their liveries on the 777: Asiana will be just beautiful and they are getting them. Then there's EVA, which we'll have to wait 'till 2003 for, and finally, Varig, which will gets its aircraft next year. EL AL should look great too!


User currently offlineAirCanadaSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1768 times:

Have you actually read your post? Or are you an idiot? There were 3 direct slaps at the A340 within your post. I think you better go back and either read it again or learn how to read.

Here's a little lesson in persuasive writing for you. Comments like these....

"The 777 cruises at Mach .84, which can mean 20 to 30 minutes' difference on a 10 hour flight, compared to the competition."

"The 777 is the most comfortable aircraft I have ever flown in, and I've flown in a lot. Its cabin aesthetics are much more pleasing than older Boeing aircraft or the current offerings of the competition."

"The 777 is the most technologically advanced commercial aircraft in the skies. It combines the precision of fly by wire technology with the important safety consideration of "keeping the pilot in the loop" by being equipped with a yoke connected to actuators that produce artificial mechanical feedback."

....are called comparison. Repeat after me. Comparison. Good job.

Now, direct slaps would be comments like these:

"Airbus sucks!"

"The A340 is a piece of trash compared to the 777!"

"Airbus is so ugly!"

Please show me where in my post I have direct slaps like those in the face of the A340, and I will be happy to apologize, right here in front of everyone. See, the problem is Airbus fans like you hate to hear that their product isn't as good as the competition's, and they are in denial.

Which leads into your other statement:

Why are you the EXACT same way about Boeing products? How about setting an example instead of bashing someone else, especially when you suffer from the same problem on a much greater scale.

Well, if I was the exact same way, do you think I would have made comments like...

"Nothing against the 340. It's a fine aircraft."

Now I'll do a search of my recent postings. Let's see what I've said lately....

"The A330 looks quite nice in United colors. If the merger goes through, rest assured that we will see the 330 wearing those colors in real life."

"I have nothing against the Airbus products. They are excellent aircraft."

"The A320 and its derivatives are nice aircraft. United was offered an awesome deal by Airbus, the 734 wasn't what United needed, and the fact is that the A320 is clearly superior to the 737. With a cabin that is 7 inches wider, superior range performance at the time (they're both about neck and neck now), and newer technology at the time, then throw in Airbus' sweet offer, it was an easy pick for United."

So... are you sure that I'm the EXACT same way about Boeing products?

In your post, FLY DC JETS, you asked me, "Have you actually read your post? Or are you an idiot?"

I'm not going to return your cheap shot, but with all due respect, I think maybe you should reread my earlier post, then read yours and decide if it was out of line or not.

Please, everybody, no more negativity. If you don't have anything nice to say about the topic of discussion, can it.

Pat


User currently offlineZartan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1762 times:

yeah you're damn right the 777 is awesome. i'm finally flying one to AMS from IAD this winter; my job takes me domestic twice a week but never international... however I've sat in the UAL lounge at O'Hare many times watching that big triple-seven getting fueled up - it's really such an impressive machine. Particularly those engines!! good god; they look like they could pick up the whole terminal and carry it across the pond.

anyway agreed. and by the way I think that big 'buses are sweet to, i just don't ever see them. i'd love to fly the USAirways 330 to europe; that would be excellent. i think it's remarkably odd to 'hate' one brand of airliner; it shows the maturity level that many people here in the states display by putting decals showing the cartoon calvin urinating on the ford or chevy logo, whichever is the opposite of the truck they're driving.


User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 30
Reply 13, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1734 times:

OK, I was the one, who started it, I'd like to explain why I did it.

I hope, every B777 fan got the same feelings I have, when reading such a post on any A340 thread.

And things like "The 777 is the most technologically advanced commercial aircraft in the skies" or "the 777 is market-driven" is pure marketing bullshit (sorry!), which I admit be read on both sides but do not bring a lot of facts to discuss about.

This will be my last reply in this thread.

Regards
Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineILUV767 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3141 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1727 times:

Well Said AirCanadaSFO!
Great Story.

I was at SFO a few weeks ago, and I wsa heading out to SMF on SkyWest (United Express), and parked at gate 89 was a 777. I was standing at the bottom of the stairs for gate 87A, and I wished that I had my camera with me. It was so beautiful!


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1709 times:

In May of this year I flew on a Delta 777-200ER from MCO to ATL and I loved it! With two powerful RR Trent 800 series engines with 92,000lbs thrust, this aircraft quickly and smoothly got off the ground. The interior in Tourist Class was like the 747 with two window seats on each side and six middle seats with plenty of legroom, with a TV screen behind each one to view the electronic flight map.

User currently offlineModesto2 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2801 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1694 times:

The 777 is a beautiful aircraft. So large, yet elegant and sophisticated. Thanks to Boeing for producing such a great aircraft!

User currently offlineWorldTraveller From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 624 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1685 times:

AirCanadaSFO wrote:
"Why is it that Airbus fans get so pissed off if somebody doesn't think that Airbus's product is the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel? Seriously, it gets annoying after awhile."

Well, Boeing fans tend to have that problem.....it's not the other way around.

I've never ever heard from a Boeing fan that Airbus is in some ways technically superior to Boeing, although that is widely accepted in the industry.
On the other hand, a lot of Airbus supporters acknowledge the superiority of some of Boeings innovations/planes (also true), however.

Now back to the topic...

I very much like the 777, I think Boeing did an outstanding job on this plane. Interiorwise, I like (like all people) the newdesigned overhead bins, it gives the impression of a very roomy cabin.
I do feel that the cabin can be a little bit noisy, especially behind the wings and after take-off (the powerful one  ).
I don't like the 2-5-2 seating most customers use on their 777 (and 2-3-2 for business class), the 2-3-2 (2-1-2) outfit of the B767 is still the most comfortable for longhaul (A330/340 beeing second).

To sum up, it's a great plane and no doubt about it on either side of the ocean, I believe.

Regards
the WorldTraveller




User currently offlineTeahan From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 5294 posts, RR: 61
Reply 18, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1687 times:

I like the B77 but I prefer the A340 (Well maybe I lov ethem both equal). Sorry guys. I flew on it one, a B777 300 from Phuke to BKK this summer!
I loved it!

TEDSKI, the 777 and the B747 do not have a 2-6-4 configuration! The B777 has a 2-3-4. 3-3-3 or 2-5-2 or even 3-4-3 while the B747 has 3-4-3!

Jeremiah Teahan




Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
User currently offlineLauda 777 From Sweden, joined May 1999, 501 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1685 times:

I just love that beauityful plane...


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Craig Murray



Awesome power...


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Alexander Schwarz



Clean lines...


Cheers,
Jonas



Joystick for flightsim. Yokes for real planes.
User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1651 times:

Thank you for correcting me on the seating arrangement on the 747. To tell you the truth, I have not yet flown on a 747 to know exactly what it's interior looks like. After watching a lot of aviation programs on TV about the 747, I thought the 777's interior looked very similar. The 777-200/300 wins hands down over the A340-200/300 when it comes to engine power. The 777's two GE90, P&W 4090, or RR Trent 800s with a combined total thrust of 180,000lbs or more vs. the A340-200/300's four underpowered CFM56-5C4 engines with a combined total thrust of only 136,000lbs. This hurts the A340-200/300 on takeoff with a full load of fuel, passengers & cargo. Hopefully the new A340-500/600 with better high thrust engines like the RR Trent 500 series will help.

User currently offlineAirCanadaSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1608 times:

Yes, it looks very nice in Lauda colors.

Pat


User currently offlineStratifier From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1599 times:

I scanned a couple (simulated) photos of 777X's in BR livery. Let me know if you haven't seen them.

2003? isn't it 2005 or something? 2003 will be good though...


User currently offlineGTpilot From Sweden, joined Apr 2014, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1599 times:

As a student and researcher on Boeing and their market, I will provide several models for all:

The A340 was not built to be a direct market competitor with the 777.
The A340 was built to fill the market niche that is created as the old 747's come out of service and to be in competition with the MD-11, which is now a Boeing owned name. It began revenue service well before the 777 made it's first flight. Yes, today, the A330/A340 family does compete with the 777 but not the A340 exclusively. The family of the A330/A340 was created to increase commonality between aircraft, to reduce cost and increase revenue for themselves and the airlines that purchase the aircraft, something Boeing created in the early 80's with the 757/767 family.

Boeing has provided for their customers proof positive that their 777 can be made in several different configurations with 3 different types of engines, all with ratings at different thrusts. This was shown by the 9 aircraft used by Boeing to conduct their rigorous testing.

An issue that Airbus had the immediate advantage on was the development of fly-by-wire systems. The Airbus use of these systems was innovative yet young at initial development. Problems with these systems were not numerous but happened. One such problem was shown by the Airbus demonstration crash in Air France livery. The use of "joystick" style control columns instead of the standard control yolk has an modern flare but sceptics are indeed out there.

As for Boeing's Triple Seven advantage or disadvantage over the only significant competitor in their oligopolistic economic segment, the truth is in the numbers:

"3 out of 4 Europeans perfer the 777 to A340/A330"

"It didn't matter where the passengers were from. Universally, the 777 was preferred by passengers in
every cabin class. "

-The Boeing Company

These are the selling points ladies and Gentlemen. Airlines don't care how they look. As long as the number are generated the airplanes will sell.

Your fellow "unbiased" commercial aviation entusiast,

GTpilot







User currently offlineNa From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1590 times:

You like this, I like that.
Fact is, the 777 can never take the place of the "Queen of the Skies", the 747.
The 747 is bigger, so more impressive, more powerful, has a unique but very elegant design, where the surely good-looking 777 is merely a more elegant blown-up 767.
And like some others wrote, the -300 version is ugly, out of balance, too long, not at all good-looking. Fat sausage. No one with an "educated" taste can deny that. Just yesterday I saw an Emirates 773 at Heathrow and was reassured of that again. It reminds me of a basically good-looking girl - only 1,98 meters tall.

The 777 is a very good and more marketing-driven product than every other airliner. Thats why its a sales success. Boeing learnt from the minor shortfalls of Airbus´ A340 and built a plane thats obviously slightly better for beancouters. And it looks better inside.
But I prefer the A340. It has the same level of comfort for the passenger, and from the outside its the most elegant airliner around. And it has four engines.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8017 posts, RR: 5
Reply 25, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1576 times:

I think the reason why the 777 has become such a big success was that the plane arrived just when ICAO approved ETOPS 180-minute certifications.

With ETOPS 180, the 777-200ER can fly most of the world's over-water routes easily. That's why UA has them flying on many long international routes nowadays.

Now you know why the 777 has over 500 planes sold, and with the new Longer-Range models sales will continue to be strong. I expect several airlines to buy the 777-300ER as replacements for the 747 "Classics" by 2005.

The success of the 777 is the reason why the MD-11 is no longer in production and why Airbus A340 sales have been slow lately.

If Boeing ever gets the 777-300 to have the range of the 777-200 Longer-Range this new model will really sell like hotcakes.


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...
Who Gets The First Boeing 777-300/ER? posted Sun Jun 22 2003 22:23:48 by Clipper471
Who Operates The Boeing 777? posted Tue Nov 15 2005 18:57:29 by Broncoguy
Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777! posted Tue Jun 21 2005 00:55:09 by Jacobin777
777... 787... 797... The Full Boeing Product Line posted Tue Apr 26 2005 10:04:29 by BrightCedars
Who Is The Boeing 777-200LR Launch Customer? posted Wed Feb 16 2005 09:49:23 by Chris7217
The Making Of A Japan Airlines Boeing 777 posted Sat Sep 13 2003 20:27:52 by Wolfy
Problems In Building The Boeing 777. posted Wed Dec 19 2001 23:16:51 by Funny
Re: Is The Boeing 777 Efficient posted Thu Oct 11 2001 02:28:25 by Peter S.
Could Varig Get The Boeing 777-300? posted Thu Sep 6 2001 02:57:06 by RJ_Delta
Will KLM Order Any Boeing 777's In The Future? posted Thu Feb 22 2001 18:59:13 by AIRNZ_747-800