Airmale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 380 posts, RR: 1 Posted (13 years 4 months 8 hours ago) and read 3964 times:
Many airlines have replaced their 747s with the 777, is it really a replacement for the type, i thought a 747 carried more passengers and definitely looks bigger so how can the 777 be a replacement maybe for the DC-10 and L1011 but not the 747
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 2, posted (13 years 4 months 8 hours ago) and read 3886 times:
Boeing certainly hopes that airlines will look to the 777 as a DC10/MD11/L1011/741/742 and even A300/763 replacement over the coming years. The 777 family is growing, with the longer-range models coming, so Boeing will have something for everybody as far as capacity and range combinations in the 250-350 seat category.
Airbus is, of course, doing the same with its A330/340 family.
Chepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6229 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (13 years 4 months 8 hours ago) and read 3878 times:
In my opinion the true replacement for the 747 comes from the A340-600.They have a similar passenger capacity a large under floor cargo area and a similar range. The 777-300 is also a pretty good replacement.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 4 months 7 hours ago) and read 3852 times:
I agree with RayChuang. When the 777 was in it's conceptual stage, it was intended to be a replacement aircraft for United's DC-10's. It grew to do that as well as L-1011's. It then grew into replacing the MD-11 for economical reasons. However, over time, it has been discovered that the 777 is an excellent aircraft to exchange with the 747-400 on routes that have thinned out over time. But as many members have stated, it is NOT designed to replace the 747-400. That is an airline decision if it does. Then the stretch version was marketed as an excellent 747-100/200 replacement. I also agree with Chepos. The A340-600 is also a good candidate to replace the 747-100/200.
GOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (13 years 4 months 5 hours ago) and read 3828 times:
In the early days of the 747 many airline bought it because of the range, not the number of pax carried. And some airlines still do, but with the 777ER airlines can get the same range but without the overcapacity.
Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (13 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3766 times:
Everyone here is correct. Though I remember a PBS special on the 777 called "21st. century jet," which stated that back in the 80's, American Airlines told Boeing they needed a plane sized between the 767 and the 747. Since then of course the 777 has filled diferent markets.
As of replacing the 747, maybe the 747-400's only competition will be the A380; in which I read in a recent Aviation Week article that someone thought up of a super-stretch version of the 777 (a 777-400?) to compete with A380.
Please correct me, but I'm sure this is it
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
FlyTriStar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3742 times:
Airlines replacing the Boeing 747 'Classics' with the Boeing 777 just don't need the capacity. After all, in a time of softening economy and sky-rocketing fuel prices, it is better for airlines to be more flexible with their planes. The smaller 777 can be placed on many routes to make money, but the 747 can only be placed on trunk routes.
The larger Boeing 777-300 definitely is a good replacement for the Boeing 747 'Classics'. All Nippon Airways for example has replace a few Boeing 747SRs serving domestic routes with the type. More are planned to follow when the economy improves.The also have six Longer-Range 777-300s (LRs?) on order to replace the remaining 747-200Bs, and possibly some 747-400s, which will converted to -400D stadard for domestic trunk routes. Japan Airlines was the launch customer for the Longer-Range 777-300, with an order for eight, and these will directly replace a number of aging 747-200Bs.
Ejaymd11 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 193 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (13 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3715 times:
hey what up
Boeing 747-400, originally the 777-200 was not designed to replace the MD-11 it was designed to compete with it. The 777, and MD-11 was a response to airline demands but sadly one did not cut it econmically. At least to some pax airline standard.
Boeing747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3711 times:
Why can't the 773/773ER replace the -400 if they can replace the classics?
I have a few reasons for you:
A. The 747-400 still has more capacity and range than the 777-300ER.
B. The 773/ER can replace a 742, but not a -400, because the 742 doesn't have the range of a 773ER, and it is not nearly as efficient.
C. The 773ER is no more efficient than the 744 (both are more efficient than the other on particular routes, B747-437B explained this well)
D. The 744s DO NOT need to be replaced, they are too young, and since Boeing recently started a whole new 744, you won't be seeing any retired or replaced 744s for a long time. Airlines may switch some routes with the 744 to a 773 or so, but they won't get rid of them.
E. Until the year 2020-30, we will worry about today's 747-400 retirement.
SSTjumbo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3699 times:
Yeah, you guys didn't remember that the 772 was intended to compete with the MD11 like Ejaymd11 said? Airmale, this is the bottom line: according to Boeing's website, the 772LR is to be the longest range aircraft in the world, therefore competing with the longest ranged A340, and the 773LR will quote-unqoute be a perfect replacement for early model 747s while upgrading the airline's current 777 fleet.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 15, posted (13 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3692 times:
Also remember that the manufactures now offer more alternatives and options to their customers, so that they can keep their customers happy. The 777 is available in 2 sizes with 3 or 4 different range/payload options for each size, not to mention engine choices. The same is true with Airbus 330/340.
The business plan is that an airline that initally ordered the 772ER to replace its DC10s can go on the 773 to replace its 747 Classics, and maybe order some basic 777 models later on to replace the 763 or A300 on growing routes, etc, etc.
That is also why there is overlap in the Boeing model line-up: the 739 and 752 are pretty close in capacity, as are the 752/753 and 762 and even the 764 and 777 can be compared. I understand that all of these aircraft have different ranges and features, but the idea is to have a product to cover the needs that the airlines may have. Keep your customers happy.
Examples: Alaska probably would not have purchased 752s, but the 739, as an extension of the 737 family, made sense. NW just purchased the 753 to replace some DC10s, since NW is a 752 operater, it made sense but it would have been unlikely for NW to purchase the 762 for this mission.
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2745 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (13 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3664 times:
If a carrier is experiencing low load factors on certain routes, replacing a 747-400 with a 777-300ER is definitely a consideration. There is an approximately 50 passenger difference in capacity between the aircraft (416 vs. 365), therefore, if the airline needs the capacity, then the 744 wouldn't go anywhere. However, given our current and forecasted economic situation, that capacity isn't always going to be needed. The situation becomes even more complicated when you consider the 773ER carries a little over 1,000 cubic feet more cargo than its Everett sibling (7,080 vs. 6,025). The range difference is virtually negligible (8,430 miles for the 744, 8,350 miles for the 773ER). In fact, this will probably be erased with a rumored MTOW increase for the big twin. A final selling point for the 773ER would be the inherent efficiency of running 2 engines vs. 4. To accomplish its mission, which comes down to more pax, less cargo versus the 773ER, the 744 burns a maximum 57,285 gallons of fuel. The 773ER, carrying fewer passengers but more cargo, burns nearly 10,000fewer gallons, at 47,890. In so doing, it makes the 777 considerably lighter as well, with a MTOW of 750,000 lbs. vs. 875,000 lbs. for the 744.
The final point to raise, therefore, is the question of timing. As Boeing747-400 already pointed out, the 744 is not all that old, comparatively. The first aircraft was delivered to Northwest in January of 1989, and we all know how Northwest feels about renewing their fleet. However, when one looks at an airline such as Singapore, whose first 744 entered the fleet 2 months later, you do begin to wonder. Flight International already ran an article, stating that SQ was considering replacing some early 747-400s with the 777-300ER. There have also been persistent rumors from both British Airways and United Airlines about doing the same. Time will tell if it ever happens. Unfortunately, time is one thing the 744 does not have on its side.
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10804 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (13 years 3 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3644 times:
All aircraft type/segments are overlapping each other. So its no wonder if some airlines consider the B777-300 or A340-600 to replace some older Jumbos or even 747-400s because of load factor-problems.
But don´t be surprised if some airlines replace 777s with A330s because of the same reason in a few years! And don´t be surprised if other airlines replace 777-300s with A380s in 10 years when traffic grows and grows. That´s just how the business goes.