Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Remaining Life Of The 777!  
User currently offlineVirginblue4 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 902 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 15380 times:

Afternoon A.Netters,

Just a few questions about the Triple 7. It was first certified in 1995 and seems to be a great success with my airlines replacing their 747 fleet with 777-300ER's. The 747 was certified in 1969 and it still going now with the 747-400 + 747-8. How much life does the 777 have left now the 787 and A350 have arrived? Will we still see alot of new orders or will they start declining? Will me maybe even see a brand new version of the T7? I know the 777-300ER and 777-200LR are practically brand new but for how long will we see them being orders? Will the T7 be as succesful as the 747 and will we still be seeing orders in 30 years time?

Thanks very much!  Smile

Jordan


The amazing tale of flight.
57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineB6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2877 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 15366 times:

I'm sure the 'ole girl still has quite a bit of life left in her. The dictating issue with orders in the near future would obviously be the global financial situation which would become a "need to have" vs. "nice to have" thing with the individual airlines. Overall, this aircraft is still an advanced and efficient aircraft, and if some technology gets improved a modification can be made to that system. I personally don't see the B787 or A350 hurting the 777...yet. If the technologies of the B787 and A350 are successfull, I can see sales on the 777 changing a bit...but it takes a few years to really get an idea of how a brand new aircraft type is working out and all of its "teething problems".

Just IMHO...

~H81



"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
User currently offlineOlympic472 From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 456 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 15326 times:

Boeing's 777 family are very capable and viable aircrafts. Both the 787 and 350 have not flown yet, and when they do the 787 targets the 767 330 340 family while the 350 targets the 777. Until the 350 flies, the jury has not convene for the 777. However in 30 years we will definitely see technology leaps that may make the current 777 obsolete regardless of the 350.


Civil Aviation has a "Need for Speed"!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30584 posts, RR: 84
Reply 3, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 15256 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Virginblue4 (Thread starter):
How much life does the 777 have left now the 787 and A350 have arrived?

The 777-200 and 777-300 have effectively reached their end of life. I cannot see any more of either model being ordered or delivered.

The 777-200ER is also very close to reaching it's end of life. We're in the stage now of minimal "top-up" orders by carriers who want to stay with Rolls-Royce or Pratt or are not stressing their plane's performance and don't wish to pay extra fees based on MTOW.

The 777-200LR likely still has life left in her. While the need for true C-market (7500nm+) missions is limited, Boeing and GE both appear to be pushing that model for existing 777-200ER customers who need new planes, even if their current 777 fleets are powered by Rolls or Pratt.

The 777 Freighter probably has a decent life ahead of her. She's a solid replacement for the world's MD-11 and 747-200 freighter fleets and also opens up new opportunities for direct-cargo services bypassing traditional cargo hubs (like ANC).

The 777-300ER should also do well. It benefited from high fuel prices which compelled airlines to shed 747-400s. The current economic climate is causing a not-insignificant contraction in passenger and freight loads so fuel being cheap means that likely will put a crimp on expansion plans for carriers that could hurt 777-300ER sales in the near-term due to low fuel prices meaning flying low-load-factor 747-400s is not as bad and access to credit to finance new purchases are being hurt.

But every bust leads to a boom. If it happens early enough (2011-2012), the 77W could do well due to the inability of carriers to get an A350X-1000 until many years later.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19411 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 14712 times:

The other thing about the 777 is that it is still a 1st-gen plane. A Next-gen 777 (like the 747-400) would shake things up. Change some materials, upgrade the wings beyond the strikingly efficient design they already have, institute even more efficient engines, and the result will be a fearsome competitor to the A350.

User currently offlineLH4116 From Sweden, joined Aug 2007, 1710 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 14663 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):

Is there any chance that we will ever see a 787 type T7? In the future maybe?



SAS Plus is Business Class made faux!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19411 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 14546 times:



Quoting LH4116 (Reply 5):

Is there any chance that we will ever see a 787 type T7? In the future maybe?

Well, yeah. It'll be the Y3 project.


User currently offlineExaauadl From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 14523 times:

prediction, youll see 777s flying in some form in 2050

User currently offlineLH4116 From Sweden, joined Aug 2007, 1710 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 14469 times:



Quoting Exaauadl (Reply 7):
prediction, you'll see 777s flying in some form in 2050

Doubt there will be any oil left in the ground, to make power them. Unless they consider flying them on corn oil.



SAS Plus is Business Class made faux!
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 9, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 14215 times:

I don't expect we'll be seeing many orders for any aircraft type for the next several years. By the time the next order boom comes, the A350 will probably be flying and the 777 will seem a lot older than it does now. I don't see more than another 200 or so more orders for passenger 777s. If Boeing want to compete seriously with the A350, they need to develop a new, larger wing and new maingear for the 787 family to enable a 787-9ER, 787-10, 787-11, and 787F. The 777F may still do well though -- eventually.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30584 posts, RR: 84
Reply 10, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 11647 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting NZ2 (Reply 10):
What a dork! Stitch have a read of your post, hello!! you say yourself that the 777 variants all have a good future.

You do realize that there are six 777 family members?

777-200
777-200ER
777-200LR
777 Freighter
777-300
777-300ER

Of those, two are no longer produced so they have no future. A third is just about no longer produced so it also has no future. That leaves three models with a future.


User currently offlineNZ2 From New Zealand, joined Aug 2007, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 11616 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
That leaves three models with a future

Exactly! Dont split hairs, the question was "does the 777 have a future" - you are just trying to be cute about it.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8406 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 11525 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
The other thing about the 777 is that it is still a 1st-gen plane. A Next-gen 777 (like the 747-400) would shake things up

Yes, maybe that is Boeing's plan all along. Get the 787 flying, then put out a 777NG just like you describe. I can see the basic design surviving for a very long time, after a heavy round of updates.. not little stuff but a pretty big and expensive once-every-25 years type update, think 744 or 737NG.


User currently offlineSeabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5314 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 11108 times:



Quoting NZ2 (Reply 12):

Exactly! Dont split hairs, the question was "does the 777 have a future" - you are just trying to be cute about it.

 confused  I really don't understand what your problem is. Stitch answered the question for every model of 777. He thinks (correctly in my view) that some models are likely to sell additional frames, and some are not.

I don't think we'll see another major generational update of the 777 (a plane that is to current 777s as the 747-400 was to the 747 Classic). There was never a direct 747 competitor seriously envisioned before or during 747-400 development. The 777 has the A350 and Boeing's own 787 to contend with.

I think there are three possible ways for Boeing to address the A350, none of which involve serious investment in the existing 777:

1) Ignore it, and be happy with a limited portfolio consisting of the 737, existing 787, and 777F/747-8F. This is the low-risk, low-return option.
2) What Zvezda said about creating a larger, heavier variant of the 787. This could lead to 787-9ER, 787-10, and 787-11 models that could collectively perform just about every mission currently performed by the 777, although with somewhat less payload.
3) Create an entirely new 777-sized aircraft. I'm just not sure I see the benefit in doing this rather than making the far cheaper investment in beefing up the 787.


User currently offline707437 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 152 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 10561 times:

It is so solid. . . the narrowbodies are beating each other up and not helping margins. . . the future of the 767 was tied up with the tanker. . . the A330 is in better shape but its future depends on the EIS of the 787 whenever that happens. . . the A340 . . . gone . . . the 747-8 will be the benchmark freighter but won't be produced at a rate of more than a few a month. . . the A380 is a still niche player and I'm betting that Airbus is still wondering how many they have to sell (not give away) to breakeven on that program. . .the low production rate so far must be killing the margins for that program, remember that they have been working on it for over ten years A3XX. . . I wonder what the markup will be on A380 spares. . . I'd hate to be a procurement agent supporting that fleet. . . those kinds of recurring costs will determine its future!

So the 777 is still the strongest business case in the airliner industry at present and still a great program overall when compared to other past successes. . . the only alternative to it is still a paper airplane. . .

the 777 is lucky named in Vegas and Built in Everett how can you top that! The only thing that ruined it was some Chinese crud in BA's fuel tank. . . and even then it performed admirably with the RAT subbing for two suddenly thirsty Trents. . .

The 787 will take the low end of the 777 eventually. . . and the A350, though years away, is basically Airbus's 777NG. . . Airbus has a great opportunity and they must really get their aircraft to market because they need to start a narrow body replacement program as much as Boeing does. . .

Boeing will have to focus on a 737 and a 777 replacement at some point and doing both projects at the same time would really help employment in Seattle. . .

Maybe we could get some bailout money to stave of the upcoming layoffs and call the plane the 7-Obama-7. . . why not Airbus has done it. . .


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 15, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 10494 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 12):
Yes, maybe that is Boeing's plan all along. Get the 787 flying, then put out a 777NG just like you describe. I can see the basic design surviving for a very long time, after a heavy round of updates.. not little stuff but a pretty big and expensive once-every-25 years type update, think 744 or 737NG.

If Boeing were to spend the money to develop a new wing, it would be more sensible to mate it to the 787 than to the 777.

Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 13):
2) What Zvezda said about creating a larger, heavier variant of the 787. This could lead to 787-9ER, 787-10, and 787-11 models that could collectively perform just about every mission currently performed by the 777, although with somewhat less payload.

A re-winged 787 with new maingear could carry more payload than a 777-300ER if Boeing set that as a design criterion. I would expect a wing area in the 450-500 sq meter range. A 787-11 could be built with a cabin floor area greater than that of the 777-300ER. At 80 meters, a 787 would have a cabin floor area of 352.6 sq meters, midway between the 330.4 sq meters of the 777-300ER and the 372.0 sq meters of the 747-400. If we restrict the length of a 787-11 to that of the A340-600 (due to taxiway considerations), then it would match the cabin floor area of the 777-300ER.


User currently offline707437 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 152 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 10276 times:



Quoting Virginblue4 (Thread starter):



Quoting Virginblue4 (Thread starter):



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 15):
A re-winged 787 with new maingear could carry more payload than a 777-300ER if Boeing set that as a design criterion. I would expect a wing area in the 450-500 sq meter range. A 787-11 could be built with a cabin floor area greater than that of the 777-300ER. At 80 meters, a 787 would have a cabin floor area of 352.6 sq meters, midway between the 330.4 sq meters of the 777-300ER and the 372.0 sq meters of the 747-400. If we restrict the length of a 787-11 to that of the A340-600 (due to taxiway considerations), then it would match the cabin floor area of the 777-300ER.

I'm not saying never. . . but there is a certain ration between fuselage width and length that gets ridiculous . . . Maybe a carbon airplane won't be a victim of the weight penalties of a stretch like the A340-600. . . remains to be seen but it would look hideous. . .


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3204 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 10044 times:



Quoting 707437 (Reply 16):
'm not saying never. . . but there is a certain ration between fuselage width and length that gets ridiculous . . . Maybe a carbon airplane won't be a victim of the weight penalties of a stretch like the A340-600. . . remains to be seen but it would look hideous. . .

yes and probably burn 20% less fuel then the 777-300ER, especially if they pinch whatever new engines the A350 is planning to use. Lets face it, they've got 2 platforms that they can use for this purpose. The more advanced one is going to win out every time.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19411 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 9837 times:

Boeing has already stated that a replacement to the 777, Y3, is being studied. It would replace the top of the market, from 777 to 748 size.

My speculation: it will have the fuselage cross-section of a 747 (or perhaps slightly wider- like the main deck of an A380). It will probably have an overhead space for miscellaneous use like the 772 and 744-ER. It will have two engines. Probably under the wings. They will be ginormous. Boeing might even go all A340 and make a quad for the largest versions. It will not be a flying wing; it will be a tube with wings. The wings will be graceful and gossamer like the new generation of wings seems to be.

It will fly at Mach 0.85-0.87 and it will have a sterile, white interior with cute LED light effects. It will have a cabin altitude of ~7,000 feet. It will be full of uncomfortable Y-class seats in which you can suffer for 14 hours. But it'll have big windows and the dimming effect. Yippie skippie. Each one will also be equipped with one screaming baby per 50 passengers aboard. Factory standard. In fact, it might be required equipment for airworthiness.  Wink

So you can let go all wet dreams about flying wings and SST's.


User currently offlineImag From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2007, 197 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 9631 times:

Out of curiosity… with Singapore Airlines replacing their T7’s with A330’s what is happening to the T7’s?

User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5314 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 6455 times:



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 15):
At 80 meters, a 787 would have a cabin floor area of 352.6 sq meters, midway between the 330.4 sq meters of the 777-300ER and the 372.0 sq meters of the 747-400. If we restrict the length of a 787-11 to that of the A340-600 (due to taxiway considerations), then it would match the cabin floor area of the 777-300ER.

Even assuming that such long 787 variants would be more structurally efficient than the A340-600 because of their CFRP construction, I wonder if they would end up having serious W&B issues.

I doubt airlines would be very happy about having to install their expensive, ultra-luxurious F suites in the middle of the aircraft, for instance.

Still, it seems unlikely that such issues would be sufficient to justify development of a completely new Y3 instead...


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30584 posts, RR: 84
Reply 21, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 6420 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NZ2 (Reply 11):
Exactly! Dont split hairs, the question was "does the 777 have a future" - you are just trying to be cute about it.

So I therefore take it your opinion is no model of the 777 has any future?

If you want a simple answer, fine. As I believe the 777 line will be building planes for customer delivery in 2020, then yes, I believe the 777 has a future.



Quoting Imag (Reply 19):
Out of curiosity… with Singapore Airlines replacing their T7’s with A330’s what is happening to the T7’s?

They have four possible options:

  • Placement with another operator
  • Conversion to a freighter model (Boeing is studying a 777BCF option for the 777-200 and 777-200ER)
  • Stripped for spare parts
  • Stored until one of the above three options happens


[Edited 2009-02-22 10:47:11]

User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5405 posts, RR: 30
Reply 22, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 6194 times:

Until the 350 can do useful things that the 777 can't do, the 777 will continue to sell. The 350 is still a long way off and has yet to prove what it can do.

The 777 is a bigger plane and will carry more passengers and cargo than the largest 350. Whether or not the advantages of the 777 are enough to keep it alive is up to conjecture until the point it is canceled.

In my opinion, the 777 has lots of years left in it.



What the...?
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 23, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 6063 times:



Quoting 707437 (Reply 16):
I'm not saying never. . . but there is a certain ration between fuselage width and length that gets ridiculous . . . Maybe a carbon airplane won't be a victim of the weight penalties of a stretch like the A340-600.



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 20):
Even assuming that such long 787 variants would be more structurally efficient than the A340-600 because of their CFRP construction, I wonder if they would end up having serious W&B issues.

Not only CFRP construction with lower fuselage weight and increased inherent rigidity, but the 787 has a fuselage height of 235 inches, which is much nearer to that of the 777 (244 inches) than to that of the A340 (222 inches). An A340-600 length 787 should be fine.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
Boeing might even go all A340 and make a quad for the largest versions.

IF Boeing build a Y3, I give it about a 1% chance of being a quad.

Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 20):
Still, it seems unlikely that such issues would be sufficient to justify development of a completely new Y3 instead...

 checkmark 

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
So I therefore take it your opinion is no model of the 777 has any future?

In my opinion, the 777-300ER has about five years left of significant sales, then only the 777F will sell significantly. There could still be the odd 777-300ER top-up order.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):
Until the 350 can do useful things that the 777 can't do, the 777 will continue to sell.

The main advantages of the A350 over the 777 will be acquisition and operating costs.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):
The 777 is a bigger plane and will carry more passengers and cargo than the largest 350.

The A350 will have a cabin floor area of 318.6 sq meters. The 777-300ER has a cabin floor area of 330.4 sq meters. That's 3.7% larger.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5405 posts, RR: 30
Reply 24, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 5970 times:



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 23):
The A350 will have a cabin floor area of 318.6 sq meters. The 777-300ER has a cabin floor area of 330.4 sq meters. That's 3.7% larger.

The 777 is a proven 10 across economy class plane. Thompson seats might make the 350 10 across, but they could also make the 777 11 across. That adds up to a significant difference in capacity.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 23):


The main advantages of the A350 over the 777 will be acquisition and operating costs.

We'll have to see if the 350 lives up to it's billing. The -1000 is a long way off yet and specs and costs do have a way of changing over time.

Still, it's all speculation. I imagine Boeing is working on that issue even harder than we are.



What the...?
25 Zvezda : Yes, but most airlines fit 777s with 9 abreast. Similarly, most airlines will fit A350s with 9 abreast. If you count both in terms of 9 abreast seati
26 JoeCanuck : But the 777 will always give customers the option of 1 more row across than the 350. EK is 10 across on all of their 777's and they've been very succ
27 DocLightning : Well, if they want to go bigger than a 773, they're going to have a hard time coming up with the engines to make it a twin, especially if they want t
28 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : The B-777 has, todate, had 1098 orders. http://active.boeing.com/commercial/...ageid=m25062&RequestTimeout=100000 There have been 755 deliveries of th
29 SeaBosDca : The GE90 can probably scale to about 125k without fundamental changes. An all-new, 777-like aircraft would be significantly lighter than the existing
30 DocLightning : One variant is going to need to be able to do LHR-SYD. That's for sure. That's one of the busiest routes in the world. Even leisure travelers might e
31 Ikramerica : That's what everyone was saying 30 years ago about now. The oil in the oil sands of Canada are more plentiful than what was believed to be the entire
32 KU747 : Can some tell me when each version officially start flying ?
33 Stitch : All data from Boeing's Orders and Deliveries site (except the Freighter, which had the delivery ceremony last Thursday): 777-200 - 15-May-1995 - Unit
34 SeaBosDca : That's a route better suited for a smaller, J-only plane. A 787-8LR or -9LR could do it. An enhanced A350-900R could do it. There is no sense in a 74
35 KU747 : Thank you Stitch. I think the last three wil be in production for a while.[Edited 2009-02-22 16:07:35]
36 Jambrain : Would it compete with the XWB engines for SFC at that size? The 115 has a bypass ratio of 9:1 that would start to drop if 125 klb was required, a new
37 Zvezda : A clean-sheet design with the capacity of a 747-8 SuperJumbo would have better aerodynamics and lower weight and SFC, so the thrust required for a tw
38 SEPilot : I have been on this earth for 57+ years, and some of my earliest memories of political discussions surrounded the thought that at the time we had abo
39 Jambrain : If they were new engines based on last 15 years advances (e.g. counter rotation / blisks / new alloys) they probably (not certainly) would have an XW
40 Ikramerica : Considering the 787 size range will likely may max out at the 787-9, I've often predicted that any new 777 replacement would be about 10% larger than
41 PGNCS : C'mon...you're an engineer...looks don't sell airliners. (At least not many.) So what? You are correct, of course. It doesn't matter how many rows ac
42 Litz : Some of the biofuel test flights so far : Virgin Atlantic -- biofuel mixture of coconut and babassu oil (20% mix with Jet-A) Continental -- biofuel m
43 Stitch : Boeing claims the additional extra seat available per row in Business and Economy Classes the 777 offered over the A340 helped swing airlines to purc
44 JoeCanuck : Well, more seats means more passengers flying in your plane, (should the route support it), and that means more money for the airline.
45 SEPilot : The downside is that if they aren't full the plane costs a lot more to operate, and hence that means more losses for the airline. Most airlines disco
46 Stitch : I tend to think that between more modern traffic modeling (thanks to computers) and other "capacity options" then what existed back in 1969, most A38
47 SEPilot : Agreed. But there were far fewer of them than bought the 747. And if it weren't for the EK order, the A380 order book would not be very healthy. And
48 Par13del : You lost me with this one, both at 9 across the A350 is slightly larger. Then you state below Do you base your comment on some change in the shape of
49 JoeCanuck : Right, so if you can fill more seats, get the plane with more seats. If not, get the plane with fewer seats. It's good to have options.
50 Par13del : Not to disagree, but the number of airlines who have started routes internationally and domestically then shut them down in monthss leaves one to gue
51 Zvezda : No. One methodology is simply cabin floor area. The other methodology is number of 9 abreast rows.
52 JoeCanuck : Another is the total number of seats that can actually fit in the space. The shape of the space is as important in determining seat total as is area.
53 Zvezda : What is the total number of seats that can actually fit in a 777-300ER? In an A350-1000?
54 Post contains links JoeCanuck : From the Emirates website; http://emirates.com/uk/english/flying/our_fleet/boeing_777_300ER.aspx Passenger capacity 3 class - 364 / 358 / 354, 2 class
55 JoeCanuck : Part of the problem with comparing the 350-1000 to the 777-300ER is that while the weights of the Boeing are publicly knows, the Airbus site has n/a b
56 Astuteman : We know that airlines do configure 777's at 10-across - EK and AF for example. And EK have said that in their configurations the 773ER will hold abou
57 JoeCanuck : I agree...As long as the 777 can do things the -1000 can't, (provided customers want it), it will have a chance in the marketplace. There's life in t
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...
Any Chance Of More Versions Of The 777? posted Wed Mar 21 2007 01:09:02 by JAM747
Success Of The 777-300ER posted Tue Nov 21 2006 14:36:44 by NYC777
The Last Of The 777-300s (non-ER)? posted Fri Jul 28 2006 00:43:19 by WestWing
Any Pics Of The 777 LR In Mumbai? posted Mon Aug 15 2005 23:39:21 by TheBigOne
The Cost Of The 777 Compared To Its Competitors posted Sun Feb 22 2004 19:03:27 by Dreamcraft
Size Of The 777's Engines? posted Tue Aug 5 2003 21:43:01 by Ssides
Fate Of The 777-250ERX? posted Mon May 5 2003 02:18:25 by ConcordeBoy
Future Of The 777-200LR posted Mon Mar 4 2002 23:57:25 by TOMASKEMPNER
What A Cool Picture Of The 777 posted Mon Dec 17 2001 21:39:20 by Tg 747-300
What Makes Us Crazy Of The 777: Look At This... posted Sun Dec 16 2001 21:30:18 by Flying Belgian