Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Emirates/Boeing And A 777-300ER Replacement  
User currently offlineunited777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1657 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19732 times:

Pretty good article from Seattle Times. Emirates is seriously aiming for world dominace!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...technology/2012485025_clark01.html

[Edited 2010-07-31 22:59:11]

51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecoopdogyo From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19736 times:

I am currently an intern at an aviation leasing company and this is pretty much my project. I think it is more likely that Boeing will wait a couple more years. They are currently studying a PIP that could improve fuel consumption by 4%. Plus in the future if the A350 is not to much more cost effective than the 777-300ER. Boeing can make up the difference in operating costs by offering bigger discounts. Besides today the A350-1000 is way under powered so unless Rolls makes a new engine it is not likely the A350-1000 will be a big threat to the 777. If the A350 turns out not to be a big threat then why change the 777 if people will keep on ordering it.

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15729 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 19649 times:

Quoting coopdogyo (Reply 1):
Besides today the A350-1000 is way under powered so unless Rolls makes a new engine it is not likely the A350-1000 will be a big threat to the 777.

I, for one, tend to disagree with this assessment. My opinion is that the A350-1000 is a sleeping giant. It may seem underpowered, but the aerodynamic advances of the past decade or so plus being significantly lighter than the 777 (the A350-900 is 110,000 lbs lighter than a 77W, so the difference won't be that small) will help it out.

There are some posters on here who seem to believe that any 777NG Boeing may embark on will be inferior to the A350-1000 and meet the same fate as the 747-8i. I don't believe that, and if that is the case, the 777NG will not happen, but I do think that the 777NG will go to ten wide via thinner sidewalls. This may not be ideal for many airlines, but is a change I think Emirates would be more than receptive of. What Clark says about Boeing not having to worry about the A350-1000 makes it pretty clear where he stands on the payload range spectrum: he wants the extreme. The 77W as it is has a nominal range of 7930 NM, while the A350 as of now will only go some sixty miles further. Given some CFRP bits, removing some of the 777's excess structural weight, and some engine tweaks could push the 777 well in excess of 8000 NM, which seems to be what Clark is getting at.

Again, I want to point out that what Emirates wants is probably not what a lot of other airlines want, so this is definitely not a winner take all deal. And for that matter I think that Boeing could certainly still add a 787-10 to the lineup and not have a problem, especially if they are looking to put the 777 on the extreme Emirates' corner of the payload range charts.

Looking at the GC Mapper, DXB-LAX is 8339 statute miles, so a 777 with a range of 8400NM or so should do the trick. For that, I don't think that drastic changes would be needed to be made to the 77W. I think that Boeing could probably squeeze that much out of the current plane with some significant tweaking, but major investments like new wings or a carbon fiber fuselage would not be necessary.

Honestly, just reducing weight, improving engines, and tweaking the aerodynamics are small enough changes that a 70 plane order from Emirates would probably pay it off.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 19644 times:

It would seem that Emirates is not looking for a 774ER, but a 773NG that offers more range/payload with a 10 abreast Y class. If Boeing were to listen to Emirates, then the773NG with current 773 length, and 772L NG would make the most sense as B789 is a near substitute for 772ER. This also eliminates 774ER as a potential competition to B748.

From the linked article in OP:
Quote:
In the three-class luxury-cabin layout Emirates wants, those planes respectively carry 320, 354 and 489 passengers.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15729 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 19590 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3):
This also eliminates 774ER as a potential competition to B748.

But if you are already putting the money into a 773NG (and really I don't know if NG would be an apt description) a 777-400NG that could carry ~4000 passengers 7500NM+ would probably be pretty hard for EK to turn down. And if you really go whole hog on the 773NG with new wings and everything, the 77L could be obsolete. Anyone who wants something similar in capacity to the 772 can get 787s.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 19556 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
Anyone who wants something similar in capacity to the 772 can get 787s.

True. But only in terms of seat capacity, and not in terms of range/payload. I think a 77L NG would be capable of non-stop SYD-LHR.


User currently offlinecoopdogyo From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 19519 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
I, for one, tend to disagree with this assessment. My opinion is that the A350-1000 is a sleeping giant. It may seem underpowered, but the aerodynamic advances of the past decade or so plus being significantly lighter than the 777 (the A350-900 is 110,000 lbs lighter than a 77W, so the difference won't be that small) will help it out.

You have to take into account for the fact that the weight of the A350 will probably grow in weight as it has already grown by several tons already. Rolls has also already built a 115,000 horsepower engine so they have something to work off of.
I agree that Emirates has some very special requirements that not many other airlines have. Considering the fact that Emirates has ordered 30 777-300ER's this year they know that currently they have no other choice besides the 777-300ER.
In terms of SYD-LHR I don't see anyone wanting to be on a plane for that long. Besides it cost money to carry fuel that far so it would seem more profitable for airlines to have the plane stop somewhere along the way. Plus more comfortable for the passengers.

[Edited 2010-08-01 00:03:26]

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15729 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 19455 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 5):
True. But only in terms of seat capacity, and not in terms of range/payload. I think a 77L NG would be capable of non-stop SYD-LHR

But how many of those airlines would take a 777-200 length over a 777-300 length plane if they had the same range? I think Emirates made their choice pretty clear.

Quoting coopdogyo (Reply 6):
Rolls has also already built a 115,000 horsepower engine so they have something to work off of.

As far as I know the Trent 8104 was never developed beyond 110,000 lbs. thrust.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecoopdogyo From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 19402 times:

The Trent 8104 was rated to 104,000 and 114,000lbs of thrust and was tested up to 117,000lbs of thrust.

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15729 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 19361 times:

Quoting coopdogyo (Reply 8):
The Trent 8104 was rated to 104,000 and 114,000lbs of thrust and was tested up to 117,000lbs of thrust.

Fair enough, but I would imagine that it is more than a bolt on job to put that on the A350. Either way, I don't think the A350-1000 needs that much. With the 93,000 lb engines it has a thrust to weight ratio of .283 while the 77W gets .296. With a decades worth of efficiency gains, I think that the A350 should do fine for most of the payload range spectrum.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9999 posts, RR: 96
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 19308 times:

Quoting coopdogyo (Reply 1):
Besides today the A350-1000 is way under powered so unless Rolls makes a new engine it is not likely the A350-1000 will be a big threat to the 777

Like BMI727 I'd have to disagree. The A350-1000 has all the power it needs for a 298t aircraft. Both power and weight are near-on dentical to the very adequately powered 777-200ER  
If you're trying to say the A350-1000 is limited by its MTOW, and that MTOW is at the limit of the current engines....

Necessity is the mother of invention...

Providing it meets its specs, it will of necessity be a formidable aircraft. Pinning one's hopes on the A350-1000 missing its specs in a meaningful manner, (and a fair number of posters on here seem intent on doing that), seems to me to be a strategy of lost hope.
Even if it doesn't hit its numers out of the box, I'd be astonished if Airbus and RR don't get it there within 2-3 years of the current EIS.
Just look at what Boeing are doing with the "overweight" 787.....   

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
Looking at the GC Mapper, DXB-LAX is 8339 statute miles, so a 777 with a range of 8400NM or so should do the trick. For that, I don't think that drastic changes would be needed to be made to the 77W

Indeed the 4% SFC improvement (which strikes me as somewhat conservative) gets you about 300Nm of that 450Nm improvement...

Quoting coopdogyo (Reply 6):
You have to take into account for the fact that the weight of the A350 will probably grow in weight as it has already grown by several tons already

I'd argue that the opposite is true, personally.
The fact that Airbus have already grown the A350 weights, and built that into the design suggests that that element of the weight growth risk has been removed from the equation.

Quoting coopdogyo (Reply 6):
I agree that Emirates has some very special requirements that not many other airlines have

  
It's easy to get fixated on EK.
The A350-1000 will be most competitive against a 777NG where any projected range advantage doesn't add value (e.g on sectors of 6 000Nm and below), and given the capabilities of these aircraft, that is the vast majority of sectors.

I think Boeing will aim to deliver a product that is more cometitive at shorter ranges as well as longer ones.

edit, and looking at the bottom of the article...

Quote:
"I'm pleased to hear his comments on the A350," said McNerney in an interview at Farnborough. "But there are those who don't have as long and thick routes as he does who see the A350-1000 in a more competitive light" against the 777.

Not daft, these guys from Boeing  Smile

Rgds

[Edited 2010-08-01 00:46:49]

User currently offlinecoopdogyo From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 19294 times:

According to the Airbus website the Trent XWB engine for the A350-1000 has 92,000lbs of thrust this gives it a thrust to weight ratio of .2800 while I calculate the 77W thrust to weight ratio of .2975. Also GE has just introduced a PIP that increases the thrust of the GE90 by 1-2.5% I believe pushing the GE-90 above the 117,000lb thrust mark. Also the 77W design is still very new and incorporates some of the latest aeronautical advancements.

User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9999 posts, RR: 96
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 19242 times:

Quoting coopdogyo (Reply 11):
According to the Airbus website the Trent XWB engine for the A350-1000 has 92,000lbs of thrust this gives it a thrust to weight ratio of .2800 while I calculate the 77W thrust to weight ratio of .2975

Which is very interesting, of course, but in no way relates to a deficiency in the product.
A reminder perhaps that the A350-1000 will have a way lower wing loading too, so she's unlikely to be short relative to the 77W in terms of field performance..

Quoting coopdogyo (Reply 11):
Also the 77W design is still very new and incorporates some of the latest aeronautical advancements.

A bit like the weight statement, this comment also has it's "equal and opposite". The more advanced the current plane is, the less scope there is for improvement.......

And in truth, I'd be surprised if the A350-1000 doesn't include "even later" aeronautical advancements than the 773ER....  

Rgds


User currently offlinecoopdogyo From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 19228 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
Like BMI727 I'd have to disagree. The A350-1000 has all the power it needs for a 298t aircraft. Both power and weight are near-on dentical to the very adequately powered 777-200ER

Where are you getting the number 298tons?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15729 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 19229 times:

Quoting coopdogyo (Reply 11):
Also the 77W design is still very new and incorporates some of the latest aeronautical advancements.

The 77W first flew in 2003, and the A350-900 design has just been frozen so that is seven years plus of development right there. Furthermore, the A350-1000 will benefit from lessons learned on earlier variants so it should be more advanced yet.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
The A350-1000 has all the power it needs for a 298t aircraft. Both power and weight are near-on dentical to the very adequately powered 777-200ER

Just doing some really, really rough calculations, the 777-300ER has an OEW that is ~1500 lbs. per foot of stretch heavier than the 77L. Applying the same difference to the A350-900 and -1000 gives a plane that weighs just under 300,000 lbs. empty. Of course, the 777 is a considerably heavier plane than the A350, so I would expect the A350-1000 to come in at probably 290,000 lbs at the most.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15729 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 19214 times:

Quoting coopdogyo (Reply 13):
Where are you getting the number 298tons?

That's metric tonnes, which corresponds to a 657,000 lb MTOW.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecoopdogyo From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 19161 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 15):

That's metric tonnes, which corresponds to a 657,000 lb MTOW.

Oh, I thought he was talking about normal tons instead of metric. Once again conversion between two systems of numbers cause problems for me.
While I also believe that the A350-1000 will benefit from lessons learned the A350-900 has already used up most of its buffer and any more delays will push back the EIS date of the -900. Which will probably push back the EIS of the A350-800 and -1000. Looking at the current Airbus programs delays seem likely.

[Edited 2010-08-01 01:13:02]

User currently offlineMingToo From Zimbabwe, joined Jun 2009, 464 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 19139 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3):
In the three-class luxury-cabin layout Emirates wants, those planes respectively carry 320, 354 and 489 passengers.

320 to 354 .... really that big a difference ?

Is he just trying to ensure that there are 2 suppliers and not just 1 in that area so that he has more bargaining power ?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15729 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 19113 times:

Quoting coopdogyo (Reply 16):
While I also believe that the A350-1000 will benefit from lessons learned the A350-900 has already used up most of its buffer and any more delays will push back the EIS date of the -900. Which will probably push back the EIS of the A350-800 and -1000. Looking at the current Airbus programs delays seem likely.

I think that would mean more advancements for the -1000 over its counterparts right? The -900 design was just frozen, but the -1000 is still well in the design stage.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecoopdogyo From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 19097 times:

The -300ER will also provide more cargo capacity than the -1000 besides a 30-40 passenger difference is what is usually the difference in seats in long haul aircraft families. But by making to many advancements to the A350-1000 you risk making the A350-1000 more of an A360 or something rather than an A350.

[Edited 2010-08-01 01:23:30]

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3393 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 18956 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
With the 93,000 lb engines it has a thrust to weight ratio of .283 while the 77W gets .296

you are forgetting that Airbus traditionaly needs less engine than a Boeing. They design thier wings for more lift during climb trading off some cruise drag. This means they need less engine to achieve the same takeoff performance.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5420 posts, RR: 30
Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 18814 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):

you are forgetting that Airbus traditionaly needs less engine than a Boeing. They design thier wings for more lift during climb trading off some cruise drag. This means they need less engine to achieve the same takeoff performance.

That's what hi lift devices are for. I may be mistaken but wing loading and wing area are calculated for the wing in the clean configuration. A smaller wing may end up producing more lift during takeoff and landing if it is equipped with more efficient hi lift devices.

Climb and cruise is done with a clean wing.

I'm not an aerodynamisist but I do know that a larger wing may create more drag than a smaller wing as well as cost a weight penalty.

While I'm sure there have been some advancements in aerodynamics since the 77W was created, I believe that the science was pretty well established then. For instance, the 777's wing is efficient enough to not need winglets. Instead, it has raked wingtips, something both the 787 and 350 are emulating. The same technique is also being used to improve the efficiency of the 747 wing.

So far, Boeing has decided to leave us poor enthusiasts completely in the dark about their definite plans for the 777. I'm sure they will continue to evolve the plane for a while and I suspect that the 350 will not be sounding its death knell for some time to come. This game does give us something to look forward to.



What the...?
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15729 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 18800 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 21):
I'm not an aerodynamisist but I do know that a larger wing may create more drag than a smaller wing as well as cost a weight penalty

The math says that a bigger wing will always have a larger induced drag penalty, if all other factors are equal. Of course, all other factors may not always be equal.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecoopdogyo From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 18768 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 21):
So far, Boeing has decided to leave us poor enthusiasts completely in the dark about their definite plans for the 777.

I don't think Boeing even knows what it wants to do. Someone from Boeing recently mentioned re-skinning the 777 which sounds crazy to me. I heard from a someone that Boeing is looking at something like 16 different options for the 777.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (4 years 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 18700 times:

I think we all know how happy EK are with the B777-300ER.

They do not see it as real competitor of the A350-1000, the want use both a/c.


I find it very interesting that they are pushing Boeing for a stretched 400-seat version of this new suggested widebody!

If a hand-full other airlines would increase their pressure about a state-of -the-art B744-replacement as well, Boeing could be forced to start such a program soon.

And as i stated several times before:


Better selling 500 copies of new B777-version or a brandnew widebody, than selling only 50-60 748Is.

I could see a lot of potential launching customers for such a new 400 seat big twin!


25 Post contains images astuteman : OEW? That would be impressive IMO. I expect it to be in the 144 tonne to 146 tonne range (317k lb - 321k lb) My bad for only using "t". I use the wor
26 speedygonzales : It's not your bad that some parts of the world still cling to anachronisms. One ton(ne) is 1000kg exactly, nothing more, nothing less.
27 sunrisevalley : They need to find ~ 19 tonne in weight/fuel savings to meet EK's 55 tonne payload "benchmark" for DXB-LAX. A 4% fuel saving is ~6 tonne of that. The
28 Stitch : It is to EK. They clearly feel they can fill those seats, so it's lost revenue.
29 MingToo : I find it hard to believe that they can predict demand between city pairs to within 10% some 10+ years into the future. It might be the central predi
30 Stitch : I imagine they assume with their historical year-on-year growth, they will always carry more people "next year" than "this year". In the article, Cla
31 Chiad : Quote: "I say to the guys, 'Listen, if we order $60 billion worth, don't worry about spending $15 billion to $20 billion on a new airframe (and) engin
32 MingToo : Sort of makes my point .... that it's tough to estimate. I can see why they would want a range of capacities and be able to move them between routes
33 Stitch : I suppose it would be, but it might be an acknowledgement by Clark that neither Boeing or Airbus can build a twin that can carry that many people tha
34 tdscanuck : The A350 is *supposed* to be 110,000 lbs lighter...whether they actually pull that off is quite different. One of the very interesting things about t
35 BMI727 : Maybe I messed something up, but the baseline A350-900 is supposed to come in at 260,000 lbs. empty. I would guess that a combination of engine impro
36 JoeCanuck : Actually, that goes for every wing made for every plane. That's why I used 'may'. There are almost infinite factors which also have a bearing...weigh
37 sunrisevalley : The 6300nm operators , and that is most of them , will take the improved payload and stuff in the extra seats as they think fit.. It is the over 7000
38 Post contains images astuteman : Personally I don't think its all that puzzling. In the case of the similarly sized 787-8 vs the A330-200, the CFRP framed 787 has a) a wider fuselage
39 Irishpower : A little off the subject but, I was under the belief that EK's service to SFO was getting upgraded to the A380 once the range issues were worked out.
40 BMI727 : I double checked, and you're right. I wonder how close the A350-800 will get to the A332's weight. Considering that Emirates will have 90 A380s in th
41 Glareskin : I think Clark also talks to Airbus for an A350-1100 or a higher spec A350-1000. Talking to Boeing will increase the chance that this type of aircraft
42 Burkhard : While EK has a good interest to motivate B to create an aircraft that directly competes with the A350, I doubt that that is in the best interest of Bo
43 astuteman : I personally believe that, as a "straight shrink" of the A350-900, the A350-800 has gained a lot of weight. I think it will be a lot heavier than the
44 rheinwaldner : Even the current 777's are operated by EK with 10 abreast. That means a 10 abreast 777NG will not offer EK more seats than the 77W does now. IMO that
45 LAXDESI : Looks like you misunderstood my post. My post is a quote from the linked article in OP that refers to how EK has in mind three aircraft for its fleet
46 BMI727 : True, but it would become a bit more comfortable. I don't think that there is a real downside to looking at a 777NG program and if it appears that su
47 justloveplanes : Doing 777NG and 787-10 together might be one way to go. It won't be as cheap as Boeing would like I am sure, but it will be quicker and less expensiv
48 BMI727 : Both would compete with the A350, and Boeing could bracket the -1000 in both size and payload range. A 787-10 would offer almost identical seating ca
49 BoeEngr : An interesting point. My first thought with this, though, along with certification costs, is the large variety of configurations you'd be putting out
50 BMI727 : That is another issue, but then again Emirates doesn't seem to keep their planes that long anyway.
51 rheinwaldner : Oops, sorry I did indead misunderstood (I mixed your quote with another statement from the article).
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...
Whats Wrong With The New 777-200LR And 777-300ER posted Wed Apr 2 2003 21:53:03 by United777
United And 777-300ER/747-400LR posted Wed Mar 14 2001 07:41:33 by Boeing747-400
777-200LR And 777-300ER LAUNCHED. posted Tue Feb 29 2000 16:55:20 by CX747
KLM Orders Boeing 777-300ER And More posted Tue Nov 14 2006 21:47:08 by Kevin
Emirates Boeing 777-300ER Fleet posted Tue Apr 11 2006 15:16:32 by Boeing767-300
Boeing 777-300ER For Emirates posted Sat Apr 13 2002 03:17:31 by RJ_Delta
JL Introduces 777-300ER On NRT-ORD And NRT-LAX posted Wed Oct 28 2009 02:36:17 by Tradewinds
Unidentified 777-300ER @ Boeing Field ( Pic ) posted Mon Jan 21 2008 13:23:43 by SXDFC
Boeing 777-300ER Due At PDX Today posted Fri May 25 2007 17:58:40 by Coa747
AirAsia X Boeing 777-300ER Vs A330-300 Selection posted Sat Jan 6 2007 00:39:18 by Keesje