Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Effects Of 77W Replacing 744?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3581 posts, RR: 2
Posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 12612 times:

There are people who think it is a sad thing to see 77W replacing 744 instead of 748 replacing 744, and I have to admit I am one of them. I do understand that it a good ideal to replace a 744 with 77W. But how has this effected the traveler that take a lot of overseas flights? The extra mach 0.01 cruising speed that the 747 provides is a comfort, there are also people out there who may pick a 747 flight just to ride on the queen of the skies. Do not get me wrong, the 777 is a great plane, and very large inside ( I was even blown away at the size of the cabin on my first 777 200 flight) but can it do as good of job as the 747 did?


PS: I believe the 777 is one off the best airliners ever built, but who can beat the Queen of the skies.

88 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12981 posts, RR: 100
Reply 1, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 12540 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Effects:

Revenue: Neutral
Costs: Down (about 20%)
Speed: Trivial. Mach 0.1 provides a 120 minute buffer on a long flight... so Mach 0.01 is 10 to 15 minutes.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
there are also people out there who may pick a 747 flight just to ride on the queen of the skies.

See that with the A380. They want to claim they're riding on the best and to many that's the biggest.  no 

For today, the 777 is the profit machine. However... on the routes it can fly, the A333 is giving it quite the run for the money (similar CASM). All indicators are that the A388 is setting record low CASM levels. So on the routes that can fill a few more seats... its the choice.

Don't get me wrong. The 744 is a great design... for 1985. The 747 is an amazing basic design... for 1969. Technology and demands have moved on.

I see more of a trend to ride on the aircraft with the latest seats (in particular, J class).

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8468 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 12462 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 1):
Revenue: Neutral
Costs: Down (about 20%)

I agree with the revenue neutral but the cost is a lot more fuzzy. In a cheap fuel environment the 744 has much of its fuel burden lifted.

The other thing is, the 77W is a very expensive airplane to buy. So the two types would be about neck-and-neck regarding profitability. Sure, the 77W is a better more modern airliner... but it costs big money!


User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9168 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 12451 times:

A mixture of A 380 and B 747-8 will replace the B 747-400 I think. Some with B 777-300ER too

User currently offlinePilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 12401 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 1):
Speed: Trivial. Mach 0.1 provides a 120 minute buffer on a long flight... so Mach 0.01 is 10 to 15 minutes.

I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how you got that a Mach 0.1 increase will save you 2 hours. Let's try an example...

At 36,000ft, Mach 1 = 655mph.

Let's say our flight is 5000 miles.

@ Mach 0.80 (524mph), it would take 9.54 hrs

@ Mach 0.81 (530mph), it would take 9.43 hrs

So we saved 0.11 hrs, or 6.6 minutes.

And that's just a 0.1 difference. 0.01 would be half a minute.

And THAT's if we we're traveling at this same speed from start to finish.

So again, where are you getting your numbers from?


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3499 posts, RR: 66
Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 12368 times:

You can easily see one place that the 773ER has replaced the 744: the Everett assembly line.

From 2004 to Nov. 2008 deliveries were:

744: 5 (nearly all in 2004)
773ER: 163

Looking at all 747's and 777's for this time period:

747: 71
777: 278



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16856 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 12366 times:

Is there a difference in pay scale for pilots?.. For instance say UA were to acquire some 777-300ERs, would they be paid what the other 777 pilots are paid?..


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5688 posts, RR: 44
Reply 7, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 12332 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 4):
At 36,000ft, Mach 1 = 655mph.

Let's say our flight is 5000 miles.

@ Mach 0.80 (524mph), it would take 9.54 hrs

@ Mach 0.81 (530mph), it would take 9.43 hrs

So we saved 0.11 hrs, or 6.6 minutes.

And that's just a 0.1 difference. 0.01 would be half a minute.

Am I missing something?
Your example shows Mach 0.01 difference
Mach 0.8 + 0.1 would be Mach 0.9 which would be 589mph meaning your 5000m flight would take approx 8.5hrs

A flight would need to be 10,000miles to save 120min with a Mach .1 increase in speed.
.01 will save you 12 minutes over 10,000 miles



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3499 posts, RR: 66
Reply 8, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 12333 times:



Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 4):
I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how you got that a Mach 0.1 increase will save you 2 hours. Let's try an example...

At 36,000ft, Mach 1 = 655mph.

Let's say our flight is 5000 miles.

@ Mach 0.80 (524mph), it would take 9.54 hrs

@ Mach 0.81 (530mph), it would take 9.43 hrs

So we saved 0.11 hrs, or 6.6 minutes.

The difference between .80M and .81m is .01. A .10 difference would mean comparing .71M to .81M.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 12325 times:

77W is slightly lower in pax capacity, though many configurations seem to manage fairly low revenue losses (either through high density Y or large J sections) and in terms of cargo, the 77W blows the 744 away.

77W is markedly lower maintenance, lower and fuel consumption, and more versatile, able to perform longer routes than 744 with higher loads.

Ultimately, the more modern 777 platform, pushed towards its apex in the 77W simply provides top-notch performance in the segment. There is a reason 77W sales are so hot and so many 744 are being replaced by them.

In volatile times, airline would sooner buy an aircraft that can be used on the highest number of routes - and buy aircraft aiming to the smaller side of a market - to push up yield, than overkill with too much capacity.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25056 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 12318 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 1):
Revenue: Neutral

Actualy, most 77W that replace the 744 do so with much less seats.. = less revenue

SQ
744 - 12/50/313
77W - 8/42/228

BR
744 - 36/336
77W - 42/274

AF
744 - 13/58/321
77W - 8/67/235

NH
744 - 10/75/202
77W - 8/77/162

Quoting STT757 (Reply 6):
For instance say UA were to acquire some 777-300ERs, would they be paid what the other 777 pilots are paid?..

It very much depends on the specific airline contracts, but in the case of United they have a single pay rate for the 777 and 744, so the 77W if ever to be aquired would certainly be for the same pay.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3499 posts, RR: 66
Reply 11, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 12292 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
Actualy, most 77W that replace the 744 do so with much less seats.. = less revenue

Are passengers the only source of revenue?



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlinePilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 12281 times:



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 7):
Am I missing something?
Your example shows Mach 0.01 difference
Mach 0.8 + 0.1 would be Mach 0.9 which would be 589mph meaning your 5000m flight would take approx 8.5hrs

A flight would need to be 10,000miles to save 120min with a Mach .1 increase in speed.
.01 will save you 12 minutes over 10,000 miles



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 8):

The difference between .80M and .81m is .01. A .10 difference would mean comparing .71M to .81M.

You guys are right. I'm tired and not thinking straight. I did all that math and still made a mistake lol.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30865 posts, RR: 86
Reply 13, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 12280 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
Actualy, most 77W that replace the 744 do so with much less seats.. = less revenue

Less seats can often increase the revenue generated per seat through successful use of yield management techniques.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8996 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 12178 times:



Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 9):
and in terms of cargo, the 77W blows the 744 away.

Payload wise, the 744 and 77W carry essentially the same mass, the 77W just has more volume.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
Less seats can often increase the revenue generated per seat through successful use of yield management techniques.

Yes, for the competitor who has more seats to sell.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25056 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 12150 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
Less seats can often increase the revenue generated per seat through successful use of yield management techniques.

Per seat maybe, but I've never seen in total revenue.

So with upwards of 100 seats less, the 77W will certainly generate less revenue.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 11):
Are passengers the only source of revenue?

For carriers sans combi or freighter ops, passengers revenues tend to repreent 90-95% of earnings.
There is not very much difference in cargo capability of the 744 vs 77W particularly at the long stage lenghts that would makes the 77W a silver bullet in this area.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 12133 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):

SQ
744 - 12/50/313
77W - 8/42/228



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
NH
744 - 10/75/202
77W - 8/77/162

To be fair, some airlines use the 77W as a direct 744 replacement (Air France, KLM, etc), others however see it as more of a 772 replacement, of sorts.

For SQ - the 77W probably doesn't forgo much revenue to 744 because its J and C products fetch higher yields and it takes with more cargo. Basically, they installed a J class that consumed more space, but which increased yields, and gave up Y seats to do it.

Ditto NH, an airline desperately trying to increase yields and improve its margins in the very competitive Japan market. They focused on increasing yields with 77W rather than capacity.

It's all what direction they want to take with it.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 9):
and in terms of cargo, the 77W blows the 744 away.

Payload wise, the 744 and 77W carry essentially the same mass, the 77W just has more volume.

In terms of payload / range, the 77W does deftly beat out the 744, however. On shorter routes, however, you are correct.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineTGV From France, joined Dec 2004, 874 posts, RR: 20
Reply 17, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12035 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
AF
744 - 13/58/321
77W - 8/67/235

You are comparing the 77W with the "old" 3 class version of the 744, and this is fair (but be aware this 3 class version of the 744 does not exist anymore on AF, all have been modified to a 2 class version).


But the real configuration of AF 77W is now 250 seats in Y: 10 abreast rows have been installed in the Eco cabin (3-4-3) (without changing the pitch) and travelling in these planes has become a real nigthmare. .
 crowded   crowded   crowded 

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 16):
To be fair, some airlines use the 77W as a direct 744 replacement (Air France, KLM, etc), others however see it as more of a 772 replacement, of sorts.

You are right, and KLM also has a 3-4-3 config.
 crowded   crowded   crowded 



Avoid 777 with 3-4-3 config in Y ! They are real sardine cans. (AF/KL for example)
User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8324 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11804 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

77W replacing 744's is the same theory as when 767 started flying teh Atlantic, keep the front give up the back. Having to sell more coach tickets just kills yield and as a BA executive was quoted recently "we pay the last 50 passengers to fly with us" on a 744.

User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8996 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 11076 times:



Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 16):
For SQ - the 77W probably doesn't forgo much revenue to 744 because its J and C products fetch higher yields and it takes with more cargo. Basically, they installed a J class that consumed more space, but which increased yields, and gave up Y seats to do it.

Let do some simplistic sums then...say a return trip SIN-SYD-SIN (numbers taken form the SQ website dep Feb 1, return Feb 28 for all classes)

Y - SGD$1,299
J - SGD$5,906
F - SGD$7,936

77W 8/42/228 @ 80% LF load factor (222 pax) you would have a pax revenue of around SGD$485,000, and that would leave you with about 39,000 kg of available cargo payload.

@ 50% LF load factor (19,000 kg) you would have a cargo revenue of around SGD$95,000 ($5/kg).

744 12/50/313 @ 80% LF load factor (300 pax) you would have a pax revenue of around SGD$640,000, and that would leave you with about 30,000 kg of available cargo payload.

@ 50% LF load factor (15,000 kg) you would have a cargo revenue of around SGD$75,000 ($5/kg).

Total 77W revenue around - SGD$580,000
Total 744 revenue around - SGD$715,000
(the 380 would be over SGD$800,000)

The 744 is earning 20-30% more revenue over the 77W, and cargo prices and volumes are dropping.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 16):
In terms of payload / range, the 77W does deftly beat out the 744, however. On shorter routes, however, you are correct.

Not in the real world...........industry averages for load factors would be around 70-80% for passengers, and around 50% for cargo.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30865 posts, RR: 86
Reply 20, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10825 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

How is SQ using their 77Ws? I've flown them BCN-MXP-SIN, but that's about it for the moment.

Are they replacing previous 747 services or opening new ones? I expect SIN-CDG/FRA/SFO used to be 747-400 service, but SYD was 773, was it not?

Like with NH and JL, SQ's 77Ws are seeing the smallest reductions in First and Business Class cabin seating and the largest in Economy Class. Now while the latest reports have Asian O&D traffic dropping for 2008, SQ committed to the 77W in late 2004 so they must have been looking at longer term trends, which some pundits tell us were showing explosive growth in this market, which would tend to move SQ towards larger planes (additional A380-800s and perhaps even the 747-8I) with larger Economy Class cabins (the A388 carries 86 more Economy Class passengers then the 744).

If cargo prices and volumes are dropping, then the ~50% extra belly cargo volume the 77W offers over the 747-400 and A380-800 (see note below) would seem superfluous. If values were dropping, but not volumes, then I could see where the extra volume could possibly make up the shortfall (carry more goods at a lower price per good).

Then again, maybe it's just a sign that no airline - even SQ - is infallible and their fleet people frelled-up when they ordered the 77W instead of waiting for the 747-Advanced to become the 747-8I like LH did. *shrug*


Note - I am well aware that the A388's hold volume is larger then the 744's. However, the A388 has to dedicate additional LD3 positions in said holds to carrying the additional passenger bags so they tend to cancel each other out (the A388 having a few extra LD3 positions for revenue, in the end).


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10606 times:

Over the past several months to a year, I have thought that the 77W was the new money maker for airlines and that the 744 was a thing of the past. Zeke's numbers tell a different story though. If those numbers are realistic operating profits, then one has to wonder if the 747-8 stands a better chance in future fleets? Could it be that after operating with LH for a while the 747-8 garners more orders for carriers looking for something inbetween the A380 and 77W?


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7116 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10233 times:



Quoting CX747 (Reply 21):
Over the past several months to a year, I have thought that the 77W was the new money maker for airlines and that the 744 was a thing of the past. Zeke's numbers tell a different story though. If those numbers are realistic operating profits, then one has to wonder if the 747-8 stands a better chance in future fleets? Could it be that after operating with LH for a while the 747-8 garners more orders for carriers looking for something inbetween the A380 and 77W?



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 5):
You can easily see one place that the 773ER has replaced the 744: the Everett assembly line.

From 2004 to Nov. 2008 deliveries were:

744: 5 (nearly all in 2004)
773ER: 163

Looking at all 747's and 777's for this time period:

747: 71
777: 278

Two set of numbers one could say that they are the opposite of each other. B744 sales have fallen off, B77W sales have risen, A380 is now available and while it is selling, its demand does not equal the demand for the B77W, note also that the A340-XX versions have also been available during this time frame.

Now Airbus is making the A350XWB a version of which will come close to the B77W, if the demand is still there for 747 size a/c, why not meet it, why must each OEM either go way larger - A380 - or much lower - B77W / A350XWB?

Lots of numbers what exactly do they mean.


User currently offlinePdxcessna206 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10162 times:

I think the biggest loss is the prestige the 744 brings to the fleet. It makes it look complete. The 777 used to remind me of just a big 767.

But now, those GE90s alone are pretty cool to look at!


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1326 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10127 times:

Well, one effect is that certain passengers (like, well, myself) will not fly an airline across the Pacific if it only offers a 2-engine option. Call me old fashioned, a relic of the past if you will, but I just feel better knowing there are 4 donks doing their thing.

So there you are; loss of revenue for the airline offering only a 2-engined option. A miniscule loss of revenue, no doubt about it, and not something any airline would care much about. There are, however, still airlines out there who are not comfortable crossing the pacific on anything less than 4 engines. It took Lufthansa a very long time to get comfortable crossing the pacific on 2, but they eventually get there. And even to this day, if I'm crossing the atlantic with Lufty, I'll book either an A340 or B747 before an A330.

Last but not least, one does not like the 777-300. It just looks wrong. Don't like to passenger on 777's at all in fact - not nearly as comfy as an Airbus offering or the venerable 747.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
25 DfwRevolution : Like who? The last one of significance was CX and even they have ordered the 773ER. A number of airlines have also said they prefer twins for long-di
26 The Coachman : SQ 77W's do a couple of intra-Asia runs to HKG and so on. But they do things like SIN-SYD (5x weekly), BOM, DEL, FRA, ZRH, CDG, SIN-HKG-SFO (started
27 B777LRF : dfw I'm not talking dispatch reliability. I'm talking the "what if" scenarios, and fact remains that when a 2-legged camel throws a shoe, you have an
28 Flighty : But still... double engine failure has not caused barely any crashes in the last 30 years, don't you... out of millions and millions of flights... I
29 Lightsaber : The 747 is *the* most expensive plane to perform a "D check upon." There 777 is famous for its reduced maintenance costs. Its not free to keep a plan
30 DfwRevolution : IIRC, the 777 doesn't officially need D-checks, does it? Instead they use something along the lines of a "Heavy C-check." No, you're talking about su
31 Flighty : At $140/bbl fuel, and with cheap credit available, no doubt the 77W is more profitable. This will lead to a glut of 744s sitting around. In time, the
32 LAXintl : There is a new'ish maintenance and certification concept out in the industry called MSG-3 (Maintenance Steering Group) that covers several types of a
33 DLPMMM : You are olf fashioned and a relic of the past! It is also nice to see a discussion of airplane and airline economics without the A verses B or this a
34 Amciver : I agree, its noisy, bumpy and cramped in Y on most 777s I've flown - I hope a combination of 748i / A380 will eventually replace the 744 with most ca
35 Lightsaber : First, I'm not that negative on the 744. It has a *very* profitable life ahead of it as a freighter. Ironically, new side cargo doors have been engin
36 FlyDreamliner : Well, in fact, the 777 offers the widest average Y seat of any aircraft in service - in 9 abreast, nothing is roomier side-to-side. An quantitatively
37 TGV : If they can ! I hope Y+ on board AF will be in range of prices such that we will be able to convince our company to pay for it, in any case J is out
38 AirNZ : Typical BA attitude/remark.......and to which one must ask why then are they using 744's, as it certainly would seem their fleet planning must leave
39 Zeke : I doubt that, in particular for the civil 744. I chose that route as SQ operate the 77W/744/A380 over the same route on the same days, the Y class fa
40 Jfk777 : The 744 are cheap to operate at current low fuel prices because they are depreciated. When economies recover, 77W will look awesome. When many 744's
41 FlyDreamliner : It does make sense - I can think of no machine which has more parts than a 744. If a 744 is not the most expensive civil aircraft to do a D check on,
42 Lightsaber : That's the issue. If someone (or their company) is not willing to upgrade to Y+ or J... they're going for the internet fares. Very interesting and lo
43 Flyglobal : Extra cruising speed is not effective in real life. Plane schedules are done based on slots and circuit plans and have some buffer. The caiptain will
44 Astuteman : The Boeing website says the original 773 was designed to replace early 747 classics, boasting 30% lower costs, including 40% less maintenance. Of cou
45 Stitch : It got pretty close, based on Boeing's Airplane Characteristics documents: 747-200 Maximum Payload: 68t (JTD9-7R4G2) 747-300 Maximum Payload: 69t (RB
46 Viscount724 : But many 777s are now 10-abreast, for example all EK 777s (all models), and AF and KL 777-300ERs.Those certainly don't win any awards for seating spa
47 Astuteman : To be fair, I agree Although when I interrogated the 747 classic ACAP some time back, I seem to recall getting about 4 200Nm for max payload range fo
48 Mgmacius : Not from my perspective - for me 747 looks old. Really, really old - I still love that plane, but it's just from other era, like a living fossil. T7
49 Stitch : They are a pain. They start at Maximum Payload on the far left, but then change to "Maximum Landing Weight" and start trending down in a gentle slope
50 OldAeroGuy : The reason is that the Max Landing Weight is not high enough compared to the MZFW. Typical Reserve Fuel for long flights is a function of total fligh
51 Stitch : Okay, now it makes sense. Thank you.
52 WN700Driver : All well and good with these numbers. But given the MTOWs involved, and the fact that the 748 is getting a new wing anyway, why not turn that into a t
53 Lightsaber : That would require new gear which is a *much* more expensive recertification. Not to mention the thrust requirements... It would be in new territory
54 Heathrow : unfortunantly, airlines are about prfitability. There's only a few of us A.nutters who will choose a flight specifically over the aircraft (Don't get
55 LAXintl : Go talk to people like JAL, ANA, Corsair which have gotten 530+ on the model.
56 Stitch : Well that is from Boeing's ACAP which is likely from the 1970s.
57 Heathrow : To be fair, I'm sure JL and NH most likely used it for bulk traffic, and SS is a LCC so they aswell wern't looking for their premium classes. MOST ai
58 MD-90 : Air Canada 762 and Air Transat A330 had double flameouts. I don't know if the AC 767 was ETOPS certified but I bet it was. I bet the C-5 is worse con
59 Zeke : Concorde. Today, look at any of the old trijets, 747 classics, anything with old engines/airframe that are difficult to get parts for. A good hint is
60 Nycbjr : IIRC these were do to fuel exhaustion not engine flame out.
61 Stitch : As Nycbjr noted, both of those planes suffered fuel exhaustion which would have affected a tri-jet and a quad, as well. The only one off the top of m
62 SEPilot : Having looked extensively at engine related crashes, I have the opposite preferences. I did a study a while ago of all jet airliner crashes that were
63 PDXCessna206 : Hmm. Well good for you. That was just my opinion, which I share with many. Ummm I said the 777 LOOKS like a big 767. And, the early 77As looked like
64 Viscount724 : But that wasn't due to any engine-related problems. Several 4-engine aircraft have also had quadruple flameouts due to fuel exhaustion or volcanic as
65 Buddys747 : Wow, I guess I will have to book a flight with BA and they will actually pay me to fly! One example I can think of (brought up in another thread) is
66 SunriseValley : Greater payload than the 744 if that is what they need. Attractive to the operator who has freight payload needs higher than the norm that Zeke refer
67 LXA340 : Airlines such as SQ have also increased their frequencies to destinations. Instead of offering one daily B744 service they fly now 2x daily with B77W
68 BeechNut : No. I don't believe that particular aircraft (C-GAUN, fin 604) which was a non-ER domestic version of the 767-233, was ever ETOPS. AC did have some E
69 Lightsaber : I meant Western Commercial aircraft. I could name a few military aircraft that cost more per D-check than the 744... But I pray that either EK or SQ
70 TinPusher007 : But NW bought those airplanes, not DL. When NW bought the 744 it was largely because no other airplane was available with the kind of range that the
71 SEPilot : What with the vast changes in the market since NW bought their 744's, I would not be surprised to see them eventually replaced with 77E's or 77L's. D
72 PGNCS : He asked specifically about CIVIL aircraft. And your point is totally irrelevant. ANY airliner will have a total loss of power without fuel, regardle
73 Stitch : Well NW did change the scope of their pilot's contract to add the 777 family, so it is possible they were considering the 77L and/or 77W in their futu
74 Buddys747 : I understand that NW bought the planes , point I'm trying to make is that the 77W has less range and offers a marginal increase in seating (again ass
75 TinPusher007 : You may be correct about that. I just think if DL decides they need a larger capacity aircraft I think the largest they would go is the 77W. I dont s
76 Buddys747 : Time will tell
77 Max Q : I'll take the queen of the skies any day. Don't need PTV'S AVOD WIFI INTERNET or any of that crap.. any seat will do, give me a good book and a glass
78 OldAeroGuy : Depends on what 772 you're talking about. DL has both the 772ER and the 772LR. The 773ER seats more passengers than either but has slightly more rang
79 NA : I´ll put it that way. The 747 is a "warm" airplane, an emotional design, with its unique looks. A very well balanced design where fuselage length, si
80 747400sp : I also think the 777 look like a big 767, that is one of the reason why I like the a/c. The 777 looks like a 767 with a Tristar width ( yes, I know a
81 SeaBosDca : I'll disagree with this... I do think there is a tendency to romanticize the old and take the new for granted. I personally find the 77W and 77L far
82 CX747 : I would like nothing more than to see the 747-8I become a successful pax platform. I'm looking forward to seeing it in the air and what Lufthansa has
83 PGNCS : You are correct: looks don't matter to airlines, profit matters and as long as airlines think they can make more profit with a 777 than a 747, they w
84 HOOB747 : Well is someone as plugged-in as Stitch can't understand it, there's no hope for the rest of us . But with all the talk about 777 types, are there ea
85 Buddys747 : True, I was only thinking of there LR's. How many ER's do they have? I think I saw somewhere around 8. Either way, I still think the 77W doesn't offe
86 Stitch : The 777-300ER has raked wingtips, which the 777-300 does not. This can also be used to differentiate the 777-200LR (raked wingtips) with the 777-200
87 MD-90 : That's a really good way of putting it. It's not that the 77W is an ugly duckling, it's just...ruled by the technical requirements. Something that th
88 OldAeroGuy : The A346 also managed to avoid many orders as well.
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...
The Possibility of AC Replacing Airbus With Embraer? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 15:10:16 by GoBlue
The Effects Of LCCs posted Wed Mar 3 2004 01:15:52 by Bigphilnyc
Pilot Flying Under The Effects Of Alcohol posted Mon Dec 22 2003 16:39:07 by MarcJet66
Starting To Feel The Effects Of It posted Sat Mar 17 2001 05:05:58 by Boeing747-400
Why'd The Sultan Of Brunei Go 744 To A340? posted Sat Dec 30 2000 03:40:00 by MD-90
Effects Of Fuel Prices On The Industry posted Sat Apr 15 2006 07:28:52 by FlyDreamliner
Will The B772LRF Speed Up The Closure Of 744 Line? posted Tue May 24 2005 10:24:23 by Keesje
The World Of LH 744 Frankfurt Am Main posted Mon Apr 25 2005 04:25:58 by N1120A
Garuda 744's Tail Diff. Than The Rest Of The Fleet posted Wed Aug 21 2002 09:26:33 by Je89_w
What Was The Reg Of The Crashed SIA 744? posted Tue Oct 31 2000 20:13:16 by LH526
What Was The Reg Of The Crashed SIA 744? posted Tue Oct 31 2000 20:13:16 by LH526