Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Did The 777 Seal The 747 Fate From The Start?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3736 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6482 times:

Let's go back to the mid 80's. Boeing just put two new state of the art twin jets into service, the Boeing twins 757/767, seeing that their largest jetliner is not as advance as their second and third largest airliners at the time, they introduced the 747 400. After the 747 400 goes into service, airlines approached Boeing asking for a jet that could fit between the 747 and 767, that has the range and comfort of a 747 400 but the fuel burn of a 767. This new jet would also be ideal for replacing older trijets (DC-10s/L1011s). So Boeing start the Working Together program, where different airlines of the world got together and helped design the new jet , which be name the 777. Let us fast forward to the mid 90's, the 777 is in service, and airlines are very happy with the new jet. Boeing start working on the biggest 747 ever, the 747-X, ( 747-500, 600 and the extra wide 700) and launches this new jumbo jet. But only a small number order it and Boeing cancel the project. ANA reduce it's NRT-ORD route from a 747400 to a 777 200ER and in 2000 AZ change it's order for 747 400s to 777 200ERs.
To me it seems like the 747 started to lose ground when the 777 came a long, so it should not be such a surprise to see 77W replacing 747 400, now.
So is it me, or did airlines wanted a plane like the 777 to replace their 747 fleet, long time ago?

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6470 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The A340-600 and A380-800 were both clear and present dangers to the 747-400. The A340-600 carried more payload by weight farther than the 747-400 and burned a great deal less fuel per seat. The A380-800 carried more people and cargo and also burned a good bit less fuel per seat.

If anything, the 777-300ER was Boeing's realization that the 747' was in the twilight part of it's career as a passenger carrier.

If the Asian Financial Crisis had not killed the 747-500X and 747-600X, they likely would have been enough to keep the model relevant into the 21st century even with the 777-300ER and A380-800 in play.


User currently offlineRonaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6335 times:

Over the years, lots of improvements were engaged and the 777 is doing far better now than the former expectations, especially the today's 777-300ER that operates routes like HKG-JFK-HKG nonstop year around as well as DXB-SFO/LAX, the latter with some payload restrictions. Of course, like the 747, the 777 is simply a great and amazing airplane with better economics.

User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6271 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
To me it seems like the 747 started to lose ground when the 777 came a long, so it should not be such a surprise to see 77W replacing 747 400, now.
So is it me, or did airlines wanted a plane like the 777 to replace their 747 fleet, long time ago?

First of all, only the -300 length birds in the 777 series come close enough (cargo wise, seatwise, main floor square footage wise) to even be considered a worthy 747 replacement  

Lots of changes had to happen. The original, A-market 300 was nothing more than a -200 with a longer fuselage. The range was shorter than the -200 models. It was designed to appeal mostly to Asian carriers who wanted to fly low frequencies (with high seat counts) daily within Asia.

The next problem? ETOPS. To seriously displace 747's for many carriers like QF, SQ, etc. ETOPS-180 wouldn't cut it. Otherwise, you'd have to leave cargo and pax behind and resort to funny routings to avoid ETOPS "no mans land" areas. Boeing gradually increased ETOPS on the -300ER and -LR, so it wasn't until about 2003 or so that ETOPS had been suffeciently raised to even allow carriers with long overwater segments to consider replacing quads with twins.

Problem was, many of those carriers had bought the 744, and the fleets were still relatively young. They wanted to get their money's worth out of them. The higher fuel burn wasn't a big enough issue (yet).

The final nail in the coffin for the 744 was the huge runup in oil prices in the mid to late 2000's. Then, the fuel effeciency of the twin was a no-brainer. It wasn't until 2009 that SQ, for example, changed many TransPac flights like SQ1/2 over to the 77W.

So I would say, no, the 777 kind of evolved into the 747 killer   I remember a friend who took an internship college class at Boeing (late 1990's) telling me the marketing guys said back then, the answer to which airplane you would rather sell an airline is the 747, because it is more profitable for Boeing, since the development costs had been recouped long ago...



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2679 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 5818 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 3):
The original, A-market 300 was nothing more than a -200 with a longer fuselage. The range was shorter than the -200 models.

Not quite. The 777-300 is a straight stretch of the 777-200ER, not the base 777-200. The 777-300 out-ranges the 777-200: according to the Boeing website, maximum range for the 773 is 6,005nm vs 5,240nm for the 772.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3736 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5572 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 4):
Not quite. The 777-300 is a straight stretch of the 777-200ER, not the base 777-200. The 777-300 out-ranges the 777-200: according to the Boeing website, maximum range for the 773 is 6,005nm vs 5,240nm for the 772.



Yes, the original 777 300, is a stretch 777 200ER and believe are not, a non ER 777 300, can fly some trans Pacific routes. I remember around late 2002 or early 2003, KAL was flying 773 non stop between LAX and INC. What was funny, is that the plane did not use that much runway to get off the ground.


User currently offlinesimairlinenet From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 922 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5493 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
So is it me, or did airlines wanted a plane like the 777 to replace their 747 fleet, long time ago?

Absolutely. Remember that when the 747 came out, it was 2.5 times larger than the next largest aircraft. That's a lot of extra capacity to fill, and was still challenging in the subsequent 25 years before the 777 entered service.

Why did airlines buy 747s? Capacity was not the primary determinant, but rather the range capabilities that the aircraft offered. As soon as it became apparent that the 777 (especially the -300ER) had sufficient range to perform the same missions, the 747 was on the way out.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2457 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5430 times:

IMO, if the 777 was offered at the same time the 744 was, we would not have seen the numbers of 744's produced that we did. The 744's claim to fame when introduced was it's range. I remember reading an article on the 747-400 in Air Transport World. One airline exec stated, "it's the only airplane that can do the job".


Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1904 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5339 times:

Live long, Mighty Triple Seven. Die soon, 747.

That's all I have to say about it.   



Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2457 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5027 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 8):

You could have chosen you wording differently referring to the icon.

And that's all I have to say about it.   



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13170 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4991 times:

I would suggest that the 777 was to be the eventual replacement for the 747 for most routes. Clearly the 777, even in it's early versions, pushed out the 747 from some fleets like BA's, put the DC-10/MD-11 to cargo duty, on many routes like between North America and Europe, where you needed most but all of the pax capacity of a 747, but more than a 767. There are very few routes today that really require the B747 or A340's 4 engines and 2 engined large a/c like the 777 are so much lower fuel guzzleers, they ride great, excellent reliabilty and not too much excess pax capacity (so end up selling fewer seats for cheap prices to fill up the a/c).

User currently offlinegdg9 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 665 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4635 times:

With about 1,500 sales, I think the 747 has done all right either way.

User currently onlineNWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1130 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4390 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 777 could originally be said to be a 747-100 replacement, which was no longer being built and airlines were stating to retire the 747-100s. Then777 did not quite cut it to replace the 747-200, as it needed to prove itself as a possible 747-200 replacement, which it basically has as Boeing has improved it, stretched it and has gotten it ETOPS certified to fly just about anywhere. There are missions that the 777 will never replace the 747, such as cargo and certain passenger operations.
That is one reason Boeing has built the 747-8I in the cargo and passenger versions.
The 747-8 will never sell in the quantities that earlier versions did. But there is still a need for the 747I.
Also, Boeing originally offered the 777 with folding wings to make it easier to park at airport gates, but it never sold.  old 

[Edited 2011-09-17 11:53:57]

User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3736 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4284 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 8):
Live long, Mighty Triple Seven. Die soon, 747.





The B747 has something that these newer planes like 777s and A380s will never have, she was the last plane Boeing design for Juan Tripp. How dare you insult the last of the great Boeing Clippers design for Pan Am!   


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4245 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 13):
The B747 has something that these newer planes like 777s and A380s will never have, she was the last plane Boeing design for Juan Tripp. How dare you insult the last of the great Boeing Clippers design for Pan Am!

I'm sure, though, that a fair bit of the 747's design was born during the Air Force's large airlifter competition, which Boeing lost out to Lockheed in   Some of the drawings of Boeing's proposal look amazingly 747-like... they had to start engineeriing things on paper, though, for the proposal.



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3736 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4101 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 14):
I'm sure, though, that a fair bit of the 747's design was born during the Air Force's large airlifter competition, which Boeing lost out to Lockheed in Some of the drawings of Boeing's proposal look amazingly 747-like... they had to start engineeriing things on paper, though, for the proposal.





Your right, but then, that's something else that the 747 offers that an 777 or A380 don't, you are riding on a C-5 design by the designer of the B-52.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3895 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 14):
I'm sure, though, that a fair bit of the 747's design was born during the Air Force's large airlifter competition, which Boeing lost out to Lockheed...

"Fair bit" being turbofan engines.  

A military outsized cargo carrier meets very, very different design criteria from a large passenger carrier. The design team behind the 747 have stated for the record they drew very, very little from the CX-HLS program.


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...
Why Did Airlines Buy The 777-200A? posted Fri Sep 21 2007 14:26:37 by LY777
Why Did AA Shrink Their Biz Class On The 777? posted Sun Jul 15 2007 18:27:16 by Albird87
Did TWA Ever Use 747 On The LAX-JFK In The 80s posted Mon May 28 2007 20:35:39 by 747400sp
777 Vrs 747 When Is The 777 Just Not Enough? posted Thu Nov 23 2006 02:55:54 by JAM747
747 Orders Beat The 777 4 Times This Year! posted Sat Jun 12 2004 15:16:09 by Na
Did KLM Send The 777 To IAH? posted Fri Nov 21 2003 03:00:25 by Artsyman
Fate Of The 777-250ERX? posted Mon May 5 2003 02:18:25 by ConcordeBoy
Did Pan Am Fly MIA-GIG In The 80s With A 747? posted Fri Aug 30 2002 13:42:15 by Hartsfieldboy
777; Is It A Replacement For The 747-100/200? posted Sat Jul 28 2001 19:16:14 by Airmale
Did Air Canada Ever Consider The 777? posted Sun Jun 17 2001 20:43:41 by Teej13