VC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3097 posts, RR: 13 Posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 27514 times:
I recently read a few A.netters either insult the look of the 777, one person strongly ripping apart the horror of the proportions of the 777-300. Another group seems so bored with seeing them. But some airline's like SQ, EK and UA among many others have almost made them their backbone. Even TAM, which seems almost exclusively Airbus has 8 or 9 777-300's I think, with a few more coming. It seems like almost every airline has some or many (except LH / LX which I know has been discussed many times)
I personally love them inside and out and their safety record is amazing.
What was it that Boeing got "so right" that they have sold over 1000 of them? Why do so many airlines have them? And for those who chose not to order any, is there a general reason for that?)
I guess I could guess at this point, but are their specifics beyond the fact they make money?
The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8914 posts, RR: 42
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 27571 times:
Since I'm strongly in the "bored with seeing them" camp and find them as uninteresting as the A320 series, I'm looking forward to the replies to this thread.
I suppose that the popularity has a lot to do with the lack of competition and the qualities of the GE90 engine - the 77W is most certainly in a class of its own and as a result, it may well end up with half the orders of the entire 777 programme. Had Boeing's decision for the GE90 not worked out as well as it did, we might well be seeing far more A346s in the sky.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
HIRSCH777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 20 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 27582 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 1): Since I'm strongly in the "bored with seeing them" camp and find them as uninteresting as the A320 series, I'm looking forward to the replies to this thread
Boring ? What I am Most impressed with is the Design of the Aircraft and how the Engineers at Boeing and its respective suppliers went so far 'beyond' on 777 program. Everything on this plane is over engineered. From the Wing Loading, to the tires. Not to Mention, Airlines rely on the 777 to be profitable. E.G Emiates.
Quoting aloges (Reply 1): Had Boeing's decision for the GE90 not worked out as well as it did, we might well be seeing far more A346s in the sky.
The GE90-115b made this possible, and is one of the major aspects to the over engineering I mentioned above.
na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10973 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 27562 times:
I´m fine with the standard-length 777 but I find them as boring like all twinjets. I´m probably the one you mean with "strongly ripping apart the horror of the proportions of the 777-300." I think the long 777 is the ugliest big widebody built so far.
The 777 success is simply because its effective. And as today the beancounters rule that is why nothing else counts.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6225 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 27568 times:
Quoting VC10er (Thread starter): What was it that Boeing got "so right" that they have sold over 1000 of them?
They pushed the twin into a new size and capability class, and as a result were the first to reap the benefits of two engines in that class.
They also executed the airplane very, very well. The first 772 was over budget, but it was on time and within promised spec. Then the 77W blew away the promised spec on introduction, a very unusual event.
Also, Airbus came in overweight (not necessarily compared to promised spec, but compared to what they needed to do for competitiveness) with the A346 and A345. If they had been substantially lighter, they would have put up a much better fight despite having four engines. They are good products, just heavier than they need to be, which the 77W wasn't.
Competition caught up with the 772 over time. The A330-300 is lighter than any 772 and has grown enormously in capability; it can now do regional, TATL, and the shortest TPAC missions. The 789 and A350-900 will bracket the 772ER and take over all of the remaining missions the A330-300 can't, when they enter service within the next three years. Very few operators need the raw capability of the 772LR.
But the competition for the 77W remains substantially in the future. The A350-1000 looks like the first serious competitor to arrive, and it's not coming for more than five years. And the Boeing replacement is further out yet.
Yes, because the aircraft that I don't find boring are the rare ones... although the 747 will always be special in my view. While I do like the engine roar of a 77W or the "barking" of an A320, they are both very common.
edit: I just noticed that my post count is rather appropriate for this thread.
[Edited 2012-09-10 08:37:37]
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31997 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 27584 times:
Quoting na (Reply 6): I think the long 777 is the ugliest big widebody built so far.
My "ugliest twin" is the A330-300. Super long body and really wide wings with two tiny little engines. The 777-300 at least has those massive engines under it to help balance out the design.
For "perfect proportions", I find the A340-500 to be the one thanks to the Trent 700s. While the A340-300 looks better to me than the A330-300 thanks to having four engines, the CFM56 hair dryers are still too small (and the A340-600 is just too long).
comorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4908 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 27560 times:
The low pitched rumble can get to you on long flights in a 777. There are no special places like on the 747 - the nose and upper deck for premium cabins. On a 330 the two by the window seating is preferable in Y. The hair dryer powerplants are quieter.
LH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 1017 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 27563 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 7): Also, Airbus came in overweight (not necessarily compared to promised spec, but compared to what they needed to do for competitiveness) with the A346 and A345.
I think the real reason the 777 is doing so well is because Boeing picked the right tube diameter for the stretch. The 345 and 346 are too heavy because their tubes are so thin that they needed further reinforcements, while the wider 777 tube was easier to stretch into the 77W. In addition, GE hit the ball out of the park with the 115B. Preliminary numbers had the 346 and 77W as close competitors, with the 346 having better range and payload with a slight fuel burn hit. When the 115B came out, the range was roughly equal and the burn was ~8% better, so that sealed the deal.
On the smaller end, the 772 is a bit too heavy, but that didn't matter in 1995 when the A330 wasn't yet as capable as it it now.
That said, I find twins boring, and the neck on the 777 ugly. If aestheticians were in charge of fleet planning, we'd only have A345s, Concordes, VC10s, and 707-300Bs flying around.
SLCGuy From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 27561 times:
I think the 777 (all variants) is a great looking plane, kind of a scaled up 767 but with engines that actually match the size of the aircraft. The A342-3 with the 4 small CFM engines never looked good to me, and after seeing them take off, I might be right, (someone lengthen the runway please!). The A345-6 with the bigger engines look much better and are rockets on take off.
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4757 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 27562 times:
Quoting na (Reply 6): I´m fine with the standard-length 777 but I find them as boring like all twinjets.
Yep, the "boring" factor is due to the widespread move to the "tube with an engine under each wing" design.
That said, the 777 is my favorite plane in the AA fleet to fly on (because I'm up in the F cabin and the Flagship Suite is quite nice and yes, I know, I'm talking about how they have outfitted the interior of the aircraft and not really the airplane itself). I hope they keep at least one of these flying on MIA-LAX-MIA for years to come!
deltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1674 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 27550 times:
To add my 2 cents, I too thing the 777 is the ugliest plane inside and out. Especially on the inside! I feel like the over head bins are overly curved and the way they blend into the ceiling-its almost creepy. It also makes the plane feel wider than it is. In comparison the A330/340 (esp 340-600) are so sexy on the outside and on the inside are geometrically contoured just so. I'm happy to see the 787 kinda fixed this and looks contoured well in the interior.
To me I tried to over look my geeky opinion of the 777 but THEN when this fad of going 3-4-3 in coach took over its fate was sealed in my head, urgh. I think its the WORST plane from a passenger/enthusiasts/a.netter view.
THat said, YES I'm very aware and educated on its economics and I'm very aware why it sales well.
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8766 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 27563 times:
The 777 is the king of twin efficiency, period. ITs the most efficient plane for what it is, a slightly smaller then 747 and capable if up to 16 hours of flight. The 77W could also do JFK to Hong Kong, a 744 is very inefficient on that mission; Cathay wants nonstops to every city they fly. The 777 has truly made the world smaller, many airlines found the 767 too small and a 744 to big, the 777 is just right.
ElGrandeB777CA From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 28976 times:
Since I'm a Captain on the B-777 and have flown other wideboy aircraft....
Boeing just got it right when they designed the Triple Seven...The B-787 on the other hand I think is a bit off, but a good bird...The simple word is ECO-Nomics with the Triple...It makes the company money in the cost and fare structure of this current time period...until then....
delta88 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 28565 times:
The best guess is that the 777 can replace almost any type of aircraft. You could use it to replace the 767, 757, certain Variants of the 747, and you could replace your A340s or A330s if you wanted to. It burns less fuel and is quieter than the competition. And it could be that its the perfect size, its not too big where space becomes an issue at smaller(ish) airports, but it can still carry a large load of passengers and cargo and fly long distance. It also came out with ETOPS at 180 minutes, so Airlines must have thought it was a safe aircraft and decided to try it out. The 777-300ER many airlines used to replace the B747 Series, because the two have the Same capacity in range and Pax, while burning less fuel. The aircraft was basicly another 757, good for anything, well powered but not over or under powered by your engines, and well built.