Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
10 Years Of The Boeing 777-300ER  
User currently offlinesoftrally From Canada, joined Mar 2012, 81 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 21445 times:

I know this topic is a little late, but I only noticed it today. 10 years ago, on February 24th, 2003, the Boeing 777-300ER made its maiden flight. Since, it turned out to be one of the most successful widebodies produced, and is Boeing's "cash cow".

Article: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q1/nr_030224g.html

[Edited 2013-03-04 05:43:22]


Flown on: 738, 744, 762/763, 772, 77W, 788, A306, A318/319/320/321, A332/333, E145, E190, CRJ700
74 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10677 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 21463 times:

10 years, sigh, I´m getting old. Three cheers for the engineers, three Boohs for the exterior designers!

User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2742 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 21238 times:

Congrats to Boeing on a great milestone for this outstanding technical marvel. Both a brilliant piece of engineering, and one of the best-looking birds to grace our skies!!   

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8324 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 21225 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting na (Reply 1):
10 years, sigh, I´m getting old. Three cheers for the engineers, three Boohs for the exterior designers!

Its time for the next version of the 777, let not rest on past glory. Airbus does have an answer this time in their A350-1000 which heavy 77W user Cathay has already ordered.


User currently offline817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2291 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 20783 times:

Congrats to Boeing and every one involved in the 777 program for creating such a wonderful aircraft!  
Quoting na (Reply 1):
three Boohs for the exterior designers!

As they say Beauty lies within the eye of the beholder... Though im not surprised you would say such a thing....



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlinefactsonly From Montserrat, joined Aug 2012, 863 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 20712 times:

So....let us celebrate with 10 beauties:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Johannes Klinghardt


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jimmy LWH


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Lim


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Radu Dobrescu - RoSpotters


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matt Kostelnick


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © laura witts


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Radu Dobrescu - RoSpotters


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kazuchika Naya


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark McGrath


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Daniel Lapierre Forget



User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4313 posts, RR: 36
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 20328 times:

Quoting factsonly (Reply 5):
So....let us celebrate with 10 beauties:

Photo © Johannes Klinghardt

Your first picture was a 777-300 (non ER) with noticably smaller engines and wings. Also this aircraft was already flying in the late 1990s.



nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1607 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 20300 times:

I'm a massive Airbus fan, but for me the 77W still takes the cake as the most bad-ass looking current flying airliner. Those awesome engines, 3 wheel bogies, the length, the nose...I love it!! Knowing it can continue take-off at MTOW after V1 on one engine is just mind boggling.

Not surprisingly the GE90-115B is my favorite current engine 



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3046 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 20106 times:

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 4):
Congrats to Boeing and every one involved in the 777 program for creating such a wonderful aircraft!
Quoting na (Reply 1):
three Boohs for the exterior designers!

As they say Beauty lies within the eye of the beholder... Though im not surprised you would say such a thing..

What do you mean? The 777-300ER is a beautiful airplane. We aren't talking the A310 here. It's stunningly beautiful and graceful.

More importantly, IMHO it's the best airplane ever designed. Until the 787 proves itself, the 777 - especially the -300ER - is hands down the best airplane overall to ever grace the skies. You name it - economical, reliable, safe, durable, easy to fly, etc.

I agree that the Boeing people who designed the -300ER should be very proud.


User currently offlineSassiciai From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2013, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 20102 times:

In my humble opinion, the 777 in all incarnations is one of the least comfortable aircraft around for long flights! It is the noisiest (by far) with these 2 great engines just outside. With the ever-more popular 3-4-3, is rather cramped, and when the cabin crew is doing service, there's no way to pass in the aisle, it's too narrow!

I quite often fly from BRU to MNL (and back), and those flights via Abu Dhabi or Qatar are very revealing. The first leg is an A330, with 2-4-2 in Y and relative peace and quiet (P&Q), followed by a 777 3-4-3 with no P&Q at all, and shouted communications with the cabin crew about everything! On rare occasions, I have benefited from an upgrade - then everything changes! On an EY upgrade flight on an A330, I didnt want to get off! LOL!

777 - great plane for its economics, but certainly not for the quality of service to the passenger! I now actively try to avoid 777 flights to get away from the noise!


User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9768 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 19978 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 7):
I'm a massive Airbus fan, but for me the 77W still takes the cake as the most bad-ass looking current flying airliner. Those awesome engines, 3 wheel bogies, the length, the nose...I love it!! Knowing it can continue take-off at MTOW after V1 on one engine is just mind boggling.

Not surprisingly the GE90-115B is my favorite current engine

I totally agree with you on this too 
Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 9):
777 - great plane for its economics, but certainly not for the quality of service to the passenger! I now actively try to avoid 777 flights to get away from the noise!

Well the 77W is a game changer in its category and still going very strong so I don't think all the airlines who have ordered the 77W, purely ordered it due to its economics alone.

A388


User currently offlinealitalia744 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 4747 posts, RR: 45
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 19857 times:

It would only be appropriate to pay homage to the airline that launched and was first to fly the 777-300ER:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gZIpeII4flU/Te94mzdQ75I/AAAAAAAABgg/QXdV3YcXEKU/s1600/air_france_logo.JPG



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nicholas Young




Some see lines, others see between the lines.
User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3733 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 19699 times:

The funny thing is that ten years ago, everyone thought that the "world-proven" and "lower-risk" A346 would kill the 77W in sales.

In the end, it was the inverse: the 77W's economics killed the A346 completely, especially during the first oil price spike.

Happy birthday, 77W!



Primary Airport: FWA/Alternate Airport: DTW/Not employed by the FWACAA or their partners
User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 19197 times:

Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 9):

In my humble opinion, the 777 in all incarnations is one of the least comfortable aircraft around for long flights! It is the noisiest (by far) with these 2 great engines just outside. With the ever-more popular 3-4-3, is rather cramped, and when the cabin crew is doing service, there's no way to pass in the aisle, it's too narrow!

In my humble opinion, I disagree. I found the 777 to be very comfortable on long-haul. I have also flown on the A330 prior to entering the 777 sitting in the rear of both airplanes is very similar experience. Both in terms of noise and comfort. I do enjoy the larger space onboard the 777 and have not been in at 3-4-3 configured 777. Both the A330 and 777 are very comfortable 

Happy birthday 777-300ER! Time flies



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlinemanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 19198 times:

Its been so successful that it made its competitor obsolete. Congrats to Boeing.

User currently offlinemanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 19040 times:

Quoting factsonly (Reply 5):
So....let us celebrate with 10 beauties:

Some of those liveries are the blandest.

AF should be in the 10. So too AI, Thai and the latest entrant AA should be the beauties on the list!


User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 18992 times:

Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 9):
I quite often fly from BRU to MNL (and back), and those flights via Abu Dhabi or Qatar are very revealing. The first leg is an A330, with 2-4-2 in Y and relative peace and quiet (P&Q), followed by a 777 3-4-3 with no P&Q at all, and shouted communications with the cabin crew about everything! On rare occasions, I have benefited from an upgrade - then everything changes! On an EY upgrade flight on an A330, I didnt want to get off! LOL!

Hello,

While I agree with the engines being quite loud, the peace and quiet, intercom communications and the seating layout is fairly relative to the airline itself. I'd avoid ten a breast everyday but there are only a handful of carriers who do this. With respect to the A330 and its accomplishments and robust sales record, the article says enough in my opinion.      


http://www.smh.com.au/travel/blogs/t...assenger-plane-20130107-2cbzr.html


User currently offlineL0VE2FLY From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 18597 times:

Quoting factsonly (Reply 5):
So....let us celebrate with 10 beauties:

You forgot the newest and most beautiful of them all:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Russell Hill



User currently onlineEightball From Saudi Arabia, joined Oct 2007, 280 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 18036 times:

Quoting factsonly (Reply 5):
So....let us celebrate with 10 beauties:

I think this beauty should be on the list:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bill Shemley

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 8):
The 777-300ER is a beautiful airplane. We aren't talking the A310 here. It's stunningly beautiful and graceful.

More importantly, IMHO it's the best airplane ever designed. Until the 787 proves itself, the 777 - especially the -300ER - is hands down the best airplane overall to ever grace the skies. You name it - economical, reliable, safe, durable, easy to fly, etc.

You just described why the 777-300ER is my favorite aircraft. Big grin

[Edited 2013-03-04 12:49:43]


Follow your dream.
User currently offlinejporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 17809 times:

Personally, I really like this one.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/1/5/5/2220551.jpg


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25106 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 17293 times:

Quoting softrally (Thread starter):
and is Boeing's "cash cow".

Is the 77W really a bigger "cash cow" than the 737? Total 77W orders stand at 671 compared to 7,369 737NG and MAX models (not counting earlier 737 models).


User currently offlineDL_Mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1933 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 17099 times:

Congrats Boeing....Going on 60 years of Jet Transport history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmQE05i1l0s&t=2m8s



This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12981 posts, RR: 100
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 17098 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

How time slips by.   

I still vividly remember the ETOPS debates that seemed to peak in 2007. Instead of all the proclaimed 'you will regret walking off a cliff,' we have had an amazingly safe and efficient decade of long haul air transit.

I'll let everyone else debate on the liveries. I'm happy for the continents connected.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineNorcal773 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1447 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 16509 times:

Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 9):
In my humble opinion, the 777 in all incarnations is one of the least comfortable aircraft around for long flights! It is the noisiest (by far) with these 2 great engines just outside. With the ever-more popular 3-4-3, is rather cramped, and when the cabin crew is doing service, there's no way to pass in the aisle, it's too narrow!

I quite often fly from BRU to MNL (and back), and those flights via Abu Dhabi or Qatar are very revealing. The first leg is an A330, with 2-4-2 in Y and relative peace and quiet (P&Q), followed by a 777 3-4-3 with no P&Q at all, and shouted communications with the cabin crew about everything! On rare occasions, I have benefited from an upgrade - then everything changes! On an EY upgrade flight on an A330, I didnt want to get off! LOL!

777 - great plane for its economics, but certainly not for the quality of service to the passenger! I now actively try to avoid 777 flights to get away from the noise!

I understand the noise part, but I think everything else you mentioned comes down to the carrier configuration really. I've flownSQ's 77Ws both in Y and J and it is very comfortable even in Y if you ask me. When the likes of EK pack 10-across on a 77W, don't expect room to pass on the isles but that doesn't mean it's the aircraft type itself that sucks.



If you're going through hell, keep going
User currently onlineEightball From Saudi Arabia, joined Oct 2007, 280 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16405 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 22):
I'm happy for the continents connected.

Indeed! Next week I'll be flying on EK 221, DXB-DFW, which is operated by a 777-200LR. The 777 family has arguably reshaped long-haul air travel.

I'm currently in a flight training program in order to get my commercial pilot license, and if my career planning works out and I become an airline pilot, then I would consider becoming a 777 Captain to be the peak of my career. Hey, one can dream.  


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui




Follow your dream.
User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 25, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 17124 times:

Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 9):
777 - great plane for its economics, but certainly not for the quality of service to the passenger! I now actively try to avoid 777 flights to get away from the noise!

That noise is called POWER, pure POWER!! The things that you don't like about the 777 has nothing to do with the aircraft it has to do with the AIRLINE.

Quoting A388 (Reply 10):
Well the 77W is a game changer in its category and still going very strong so I don't think all the airlines who have ordered the 77W, purely ordered it due to its economics alone.

Why do you think that they ordered it then? Because of how it looks? I can assure you that airlines DO NOT order planes for any other reason other than economics!



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlineL0VE2FLY From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16692 times:

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 19):
Personally, I really like this one.

I'm not a fan of the new AA livery, but it easily trumps the Euro whites JL & EK and even EY, their billboard logo looks so tacky.


User currently offlineUA735WL From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 154 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16708 times:

I don't think there is a livery that looks bad on a 77W (well....maybe JL ...but then again, that looks bad on everything!   )

But if I were to pick a favorite.....


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Cary Liao - AeroPX




"One test is worth a thousand expert opinions" -Tex Johnston
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 16189 times:

I'm not a huge fan of the aesthetics though i wouldn't say it's bad looking - i prefer the shorter 777s however.

It certainly is an amazing piece of machinery though - extremely efficient and reliable. One of Boeing's greatest achievements.


User currently offlinewill From Australia, joined May 1999, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 15990 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The W class... Pure Excellence.... Nothing comes close...

User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3046 posts, RR: 7
Reply 30, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 16033 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 25):
That noise is called POWER, pure POWER!! The things that you don't like about the 777 has nothing to do with the aircraft it has to do with the AIRLINE.

Yeah, I'd take the "noise" of a 777-300ER than the put-put-put feeling of an A340-200 trying to get off the ground.

Even Boeing pilots are in awe of the -300ER and -200LR's power for such huge airplanes. They've said that when they push the TO/GO switch, they practically get slammed right back into the seat. One pilot said he was doing a paint flight ferry out of PDX and doing a lightweight underrated take off in a -300ER. He got off the ground so fast, that he hear other nearby pilots on the radio saying "WOW!". I hear stories about stuff like 17 second takeoff rolls. And we aren't talking a Lear Jet either. The -300ER is big mother airplane.


User currently offlinemarkusburkhard From Switzerland, joined Mar 2002, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 15768 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 7):
Knowing it can continue take-off at MTOW after V1 on one engine is just mind boggling.

Uh... all twin-engined airliners can do this. Otherwise they'd never be certified to fly and no-one in their right minds would ever fly on it  

Cheers,
Markus


User currently offlinestarbucks From Netherlands, joined Feb 2013, 698 posts, RR: 6
Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 15498 times:

Quoting markusburkhard (Reply 31):
Uh... all twin-engined airliners can do this. Otherwise they'd never be certified to fly and no-one in their right minds would ever fly on it  

I guess travelavnut knows that too, I think he/she meant to say it in a way like "I know how it works, but I'm still amazed by the fact that the A380/B747 can fly"

Airbusfan too, but if I have to choose something from the "otherside" it would be the 777  
(And of course I will fly everything when some airline offers me a cockpitseat   )



A350 logbook: http://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AlVgPnmHLOovdFdzbVlyQzhYNDhCb1VFN1RkYXkwV3c&output=html
User currently onlineCCA From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 830 posts, RR: 14
Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 15074 times:

How this missed the cut I'm not sure......


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Cary Liao - AeroPX




C152 G115 TB10 CAP10 SR-22 Be76 PA-34 NDN-1T C500 A330-300 A340-300 -600 B747-200F -200SF -400 -400F -400BCF -400ERF -8F
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8002 posts, RR: 5
Reply 34, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 15018 times:

At the time the 777-300ER first flew, there was a lot of skepticism over whether Boeing could make its money back on this plane, especially in light of the 9/11 attacks just two years earlier and the quite steep cost per plane for this new model.

What saved the 77W was its better-than-anticipated fuel burn (which increased its still-air range from the original 7,180 to 7,800 nautical miles still-air) and its large carrying capacity for LD3 containers. As such, the 77W became THE plane that not only replaced all the 747-100/200/300 models but also many 747-400's. As such, the 77W are common sights on many long international routes.


User currently offlinesmeagol From Canada, joined Dec 2004, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14476 times:

I am getting old. I flew tons of time of 772/772ER but the only one experience with 77W is Air Canada in 2009.

77W is my 2nd favorite aircraft (#1 is 772LR). BIG LOVE! Good luck Boeing!



When you look at a pig, no matter from what angle you look at it, it is a pig...
User currently offlineCaliAtenza From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1575 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14266 times:

Ive flown EK's and Cathay's 777W, loved them both. I hated the shell seats in Y on Cathay though; so glad they decided to switch back to the regular ones. I actually found the setup in Y to be comfortable on EK and im 6 ft; i dont know what everyone is complaining about. I found the engine startup sequence to be quite LOUD, but then it roars like a muscle car!

User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14120 times:

Quoting CCA (Reply 33):

How this missed the cut I'm not sure......

     


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5365 posts, RR: 4
Reply 38, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13897 times:

Wow, it's gone fast!

This has been a truly revolutionary aircraft, one that has changed the face of long haul travel. I have to salute Boeing for creating this monstrosity!

Pause for a moment and wonder where EK would be without the 777. Sure, the 330/340 is a great aircraft too. But EK lives and dies on having minuscule CASM, something the 346 just couldn't deliver.



Turning to the noise issue some have mentioned, on startup and takeoff the 330 is noticeably quieter. There is no doubt about that. At cruise, though, I hardly notice the difference. If I stop to think about it then I do become aware that the cabin noise is higher than on an Airbus, but 5 hours into a 14 hour flight the engine pitch is far from the first thing on my mind!



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineflyenthu From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13580 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I love the 77W! I depend on those ultra-long hauls in a 77W to ferry me back and forth halfway around this planet every year. Sure it is a noise-maker, but with noise canceling headphones, it is smooth as silk. I just appreciate that the 77W has shrunk the world for me. Thank you Boeing!

User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13429 times:

Sometimes you get it wrong, sometimes you get it right. Boeing nailed it with this one. Let's not forget GE, though, the engine was a technological breakthrough and, IIRC, still the largest and most powerful engine hanging off a passenger jet.

User currently offlineL0VE2FLY From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 11929 times:

Quoting CCA (Reply 33):
How this missed the cut I'm not sure......

Of course she's gorgeous, if you want to include special liveries we might as well add this stunner:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Karl Nixon



User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3624 posts, RR: 12
Reply 42, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 11724 times:

Funny thing is my first flight on a 777-300ER was the 300 mile trip from Tokyo to Osaka. (It was a JAL connecting flight; really a positioning flight that they take passengers on.) Only about 40 passengers on the whole plane, so we had an exit row right by the galley and there were no other passengers anywhere around us - none in our sight lines. I remember the sound of the engines being very disorienting. We'd flown 14 hours already on a 747-400, and the constant change in the whine of the engines on this short flight made it really hard to tell whether we were ascending, descending, speeding up or slowing down. It was a surreal flight. When we landed, I had no idea we were even close to the ground - it felt like we were still going up!

Next time I flew to Japan we had a 777-300ER the whole way, and it became my favored long-haul aircraft because of its roominess and relative quiet compared to a 747-400. I feel less tired and sick after getting off a 14 hour 777-300ER flight than I do after a 747-400 flight of the same length.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1528 posts, RR: 8
Reply 43, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11002 times:

I was always partial to this one.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King



User currently onlineAirIndia From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1638 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10941 times:

Tributes are in line for:

Air France: First to fly

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jens Breuer



Emirates: Most ordered

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © N94504



Eva Air: Most proudly displayed  
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Patrick De Coninck



User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10385 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 43):

What ever happened to that frame?? Repainted and sold??


User currently offline817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2291 posts, RR: 1
Reply 46, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9862 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 45):
What ever happened to that frame?? Repainted and sold??

Sold to JAL as JA732J


View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Andrew Hunt - AirTeamImages




Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlinevhqpa From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 1456 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9679 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 45):

Sold to (built for as a matter of fact) Japan Airlines

JA732J


View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Jerry Pang




"There you go ladies and gentleman we're through Mach 1 the speed of sound no bumps no bangs... CONCORDE"
User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1325 posts, RR: 3
Reply 48, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9434 times:

As a passenger the 777 is not my favourite aircraft by a long shot, regardless of what variant we're talking about. The 777F, on the other hand, now that's something I can relate to.

So from my side, congratulations to Boeing for giving us the 777F.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently onlineThe777Man From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 6546 posts, RR: 55
Reply 49, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8244 times:

Many congratulations to Boeing for the 777-300/ER ! It's a great aircraft and has exceed its expectations in many ways.

I prefer the shorter 777s but the 777-300/ER is a very good replacement for the 747.

Looking forward to many more flights on the 77W!

The777Man



Need a Boeing 777 Firing Order....Further to fly....CI, MU, LX and LH 777s
User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 753 posts, RR: 5
Reply 50, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8046 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):
Quoting softrally (Thread starter): and is Boeing's "cash cow".
Is the 77W really a bigger "cash cow" than the 737? Total 77W orders stand at 671 compared to 7,369 737NG and MAX models (not counting earlier 737 models).

The 77W effectively has no competition and therefore no pricing pressure from a competing product - this gives room for very generous margins. The 737 on the other hand faces intense pricing pressure from the A320 and this would limit its margin (relative to the 77W). The 737 does have volume on its side.
I don't know which program has generated the most profit - not sure if Boeing includes this information in its financial statements. In any event, the 77W program would always be regarded as extremely profitable - something Airbus would be keen to emulate.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineFerroviarius From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6533 times:

Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 9):
In my humble opinion, the 777 in all incarnations is one of the least comfortable aircraft around for long flights! It is the noisiest (by far) with these 2 great engines just outside. With the ever-more popular 3-4-3, is rather cramped, and when the cabin crew is doing service, there's no way to pass in the aisle, it's too narrow!


777 - great plane for its economics, but certainly not for the quality of service to the passenger! I now actively try to avoid 777 flights to get away from the noise!

You are 100% right, I think. I do avoid the 777 whenever possible. Most comfortable definitely 333 and 342 or 343. On the other hand, I do prefer the ultrasoft Citroën to any Mercedes or BMW thing. And there are a lot of persons out there, who prefer the more sporty and less comfortable. But just wait until they are 50 or 60!

Best,
Ferroviarius


User currently offlineSassiciai From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2013, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6455 times:

You are 100% right, I think. I do avoid the 777 whenever possible. Most comfortable definitely 333 and 342 or 343. On the other hand, I do prefer the ultrasoft Citroën to any Mercedes or BMW thing. And there are a lot of persons out there, who prefer the more sporty and less comfortable. But just wait until they are 50 or 60!


Well, I fit into the latter age group, and value comfort (just) above price when booking long haul privately!

Those who say my earlier comments were not about the aircraft, but more about the individual airline's fit-out, ignore my main comment - it's just so F***ing noisy! I have experienced many 777 flights with EK, Qatar, SIA (on regional rather than long haul), and there is no doubt in my mind that it is much noisier than anything else out there (A380, A330/340, B747, B767). As I am unfortunately normally constrained to fly in the back of most of my flights, I am comparing apples with apples!

I'm very comfortable with the 777 as a safe way to travel, just it's not my chosen way if there are alternatives (and the price is right!)


User currently offlineSassiciai From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2013, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6423 times:

I do remember one occasion, on Christmas Day in 2003, taking a Phillipines Airlines A330 flight SIN - MNL that departed Changi a full 5 or more minutes ahead of the corresponding SIA 777 flight to MNL. Imagine my surprise/interest/delight when after 2 hours flight, the SIA 777 stole up 2000feet below, overtook us, and was well on the ground when we arrived!

So there are some redeeming facts about the 777 - gets you there quicker, so you avoid the noise more quickly!


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2604 posts, RR: 5
Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6306 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting softrally (Thread starter):
10 years ago, on February 24th, 2003, the Boeing 777-300ER made its maiden flight. Since, it turned out to be one of the most successful widebodies produced, and is Boeing's "cash cow".

So the 777-300ER is just 10 years young! I'm sure that there are many more to come for both the -300ER and the 777 family as a whole (in the form of the 777X). The 777 is still a very young, efficient and advanced airframe.

Boeing gambled and won with the 777-300ER. The gamble was that the future of long haul travel would be on two engines rather than four. That gamble paid off big time, with well over 600 orders for the -300ER alone.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 8):
The 777-300ER is a beautiful airplane.

It is indeed one of the "sexiest" airliners around.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt - AirTeamImages
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sarmad Al-Khozaie - Tranquillity Aviation Photography



I love those massive wings, raked wingtips, massive engines, and the long, slender fuselage. Gorgeous!

Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 9):
In my humble opinion, the 777 in all incarnations is one of the least comfortable aircraft around for long flights! It is the noisiest (by far) with these 2 great engines just outside.

Cabin noise depends on where you're sitting in the plane. In my experience, sitting over the wing on the 777-300ER is significantly quieter than behind the wing on the 747-400, and the RR powered 777-200ER is quieter still, even though I was sitting behind the wing on the -200ER.

Besides, this "noise" is music to my ears. I love to listen to the roar of the massive twin turbofans - especially those GE90-115Bs on the 777-300ER. Give me engine noise over whisper quiet any day.

And then there's the space. I have only flown on 777s with 9-across seating (SQ -200ER and CX -300ER), but what I did notice about it was that the space and comfort were the best of any other airline/aircraft combination I have experienced. The wide cabin, nearly vertical sidewalls, fold up bins and high ceilings of the Boeing Signature Interior makes for a very comfortable ride (seat pitch and width permitting, of course: as always, airline configurations matter).

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 22):
I still vividly remember the ETOPS debates that seemed to peak in 2007. Instead of all the proclaimed 'you will regret walking off a cliff,' we have had an amazingly safe and efficient decade of long haul air transit.

I wasn't on a.net in 2007, but I think that ETOPS debates are somewhat silly. Advancements in technology will undoubtedly lead to the use of more efficient and/or fewer engines in an effort to reduce fuel burn. I have no hesitation flying on any modern, ETOPS rated twin jets across any ocean. The "4 engines for long haul" notion is both archaic and anachronistic.

[Edited 2013-03-05 07:14:37]


Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineSassiciai From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2013, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6209 times:

9+ hours sitting listening to "the power" is not my idea of fun or comfort, and it is less than helpful in lulling me to sleep

Sitting in a Cessna 152 just after my instructor closed the throttle just after take-off at 1000 feet when I had 3 hours flying experience - now that was quiet!  


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2604 posts, RR: 5
Reply 56, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6147 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 55):
9+ hours sitting listening to "the power" is not my idea of fun or comfort, and it is less than helpful in lulling me to sleep

There's plenty of time to sleep before and after the flight ... at least, that's my philosophy  

I never sleep on flights.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5911 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 12):
The funny thing is that ten years ago, everyone thought that the "world-proven" and "lower-risk" A346 would kill the 77W in sales.

In the end, it was the inverse: the 77W's economics killed the A346 completely, especially during the first oil price spike.

I can't believe that was ten years ago. I remember the public doubts that EK expressed over the 77W versus the A346. After better than expected performance and range improvements the 77W went from strength to strength. The reference to the oil spike does not wash it merely highlights the eficiency of the 77W/115B over the A346/Trent500. Surely nobody was designing inefficient product because the price of oil was relatively cheap.

EK never took their A346's (18) and now have 85 77W's in service with 70 odd more on order.

Some people say they think the 77W is ugly. Well with most impressive engines in aviation how can you not be inspired by the power, efficiency and reliabilty of those GE90-115 powerplants,the distinctive 777 trademark 3 axle truck, they look awesome. Especially when you consider the step change in thrust, size(twin) and sheer uplift over anything else before it. This has changed ETOPs economics and the view of long haul twins forever.

The 77W was conceived as a 742/743 replacement but ended up replacing 744 and slaughtering the A346 absolutely stone dead!!. I cannot recall anything so one sided as the A346/77W duel in the modern age and they are only 2 years apart. The A346 has no answer to the 77W and the zero sales backlog attests to that. A 10% odd plus fuel burn advantage is unheard off as well as fatal in the sales sense.. I don't expect to see any new A346 sales but there will be plenty of 77W. We won't mention what Qantas should have got.

The A350-1000 is some time away and will have a hard job to pull clear of 77W which will became like the A330 today in the A330 v A350/787 duel.(still a mighty good aircraft at a price you can't ignore) Boeing will and have put enormus pricing pressure on A351 and will be continue to do so especially closer to 2016 17 18.

Without the success of the 77W Boeing would have struggled in the widebody side of things.Congratulations on ten years..


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4721 posts, RR: 39
Reply 58, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5740 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting softrally (Thread starter):
Since, it turned out to be one of the most successful widebodies produced, and is Boeing's "cash cow".

A really fantastic airplane. By all means and measurements. A truly great effort in engineering.

Quoting alitalia744 (Reply 11):

It would only be appropriate to pay homage to the airline that launched and was first to fly the 777-300ER:

That one was quite remarkable where many (including me) would have expected AF to buy the A346. But they chose different and were rewarded for it.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 59, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5406 times:

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 57):
I can't believe that was ten years ago. I remember the public doubts that EK expressed over the 77W versus the A346. After better than expected performance and range improvements the 77W went from strength to strength. The reference to the oil spike does not wash it merely highlights the eficiency of the 77W/115B over the A346/Trent500. Surely nobody was designing inefficient product because the price of oil was relatively cheap.

EK never took their A346's (18) and now have 85 77W's in service with 70 odd more on order.

Some people say they think the 77W is ugly. Well with most impressive engines in aviation how can you not be inspired by the power, efficiency and reliabilty of those GE90-115 powerplants,the distinctive 777 trademark 3 axle truck, they look awesome. Especially when you consider the step change in thrust, size(twin) and sheer uplift over anything else before it. This has changed ETOPs economics and the view of long haul twins forever.

The 77W was conceived as a 742/743 replacement but ended up replacing 744 and slaughtering the A346 absolutely stone dead!!. I cannot recall anything so one sided as the A346/77W duel in the modern age and they are only 2 years apart. The A346 has no answer to the 77W and the zero sales backlog attests to that. A 10% odd plus fuel burn advantage is unheard off as well as fatal in the sales sense.. I don't expect to see any new A346 sales but there will be plenty of 77W. We won't mention what Qantas should have got.

The reason that the A346 which entered service in 2002 did so poorly in the end is elegantly highlighted in this graph...



Absolutely not taking anything away from the 773ER, it is definitely the better design of the 2. But there is or was much more to it than fuel burn. R&D, manufacturing, maintenance costs and other things also play a huge role and a 10% disparity is definitely not unheard of nor necessarily a problem.

The A346 suffered not necessarily because it was a bad idea for Airbus to go through with, but really because it's disadvantage was amplified several times by a sudden and significant increase in fuel costs which occurred precisely as it entered service.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 60, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5373 times:

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 57):
We won't mention what Qantas should have got.

I will -- A343s in the 90s.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 4195 posts, RR: 1
Reply 61, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5331 times:

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 19):
Personally, I really like this one
Quoting qf002 (Reply 60):
Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 57):
We won't mention what Qantas should have got.

I will -- A343s in the 90s.

And they would have rid themselves of them in the early on in the 2000's just like the other airlines and move into the A330 or B777 aircraft.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 62, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5312 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 61):
And they would have rid themselves of them in the early on in the 2000's just like the other airlines and move into the A330 or B777 aircraft.

Just like CX, SQ, EK, AF, LH, SA, LA (and all the other airlines that still operate A340s alongside A330s/777s) did? I think a mixed fleet of A330s and A343s would have worked very well (using the A330 regionally, as they have, and the A343s to provide a smaller alternative to the 744 on long haul routes that the A330 is unable to fly). It could also have lead to some A345s, which would have been financially disasterous, but a big treat for us...

And the timing would have been perfect for the 787 to replace the A340s first, then the A330s into next decade.


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3624 posts, RR: 12
Reply 63, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5251 times:

Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 55):
9+ hours sitting listening to "the power" is not my idea of fun or comfort, and it is less than helpful in lulling me to sleep

Well, you realize that the engines being so powerful means they're actually on a *lower* power setting during cruise than something like an A330 would be, right?

Any time people talk about comparative anecdotal noise complaints between different aircraft of the same generation, you have to take it with a grain of salt. Manufacturers *do* do formal measurements of this stuff but most people don't know those results, and for the most part there's not really a noticeable difference between planes of the same size and type, because this is a competitive market and nobody wants to be behind the competition in any way that passengers would notice.

What *does* make for a noticeable difference is where you sit and the number of engines a plane has (which is logical if you think about it). Sitting behind the wing will always be louder than in front or above the wing, and the type of noise is different (more of a roar). If you've sat above the wing or in front of it on an A343, and behind the wing on a 77W, then of course you're going to think the 77W is louder. The reverse would be just as true. But overall, I'd bet the A343 is louder because it has four engines that are less powerful and consequently need to be run at higher power settings.

Some planes are designed differently enough that they can break these rules, like the A380. That's more a question of the location of the cabin vs. the position of the engines. But comparing two planes with basically the same design, no anecdotal "feeling" of one being louder than the other really means much.

The 77W *is* a bit quieter than the 744's it has replaced on most routes. That's because it's got two fewer engines and those engines are newer and more powerful on a lighter airplane. I definitely feel less fatigued after 77W flights than when 744's were flying that same route.

But I doubt I'd notice much difference on an A330, for example, or even an A346 depending on where I was sitting.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5365 posts, RR: 4
Reply 64, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5194 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 62):
I think a mixed fleet of A330s and A343s would have worked very well (using the A330 regionally, as they have, and the A343s to provide a smaller alternative to the 744 on long haul routes that the A330 is unable to fly).

I agree. Go back to 1993 and the 343/5 would have proved the perfect aircraft for routes such as BNE-LAX, SYD-FRA, SYD-EZE/SCL etc. They would have complemented the 330s used on regional routes well. But, of course, that's all history.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 61):
And they would have rid themselves of them in the early on in the 2000's just like the other airlines

You realise that this is QF we are talking about right?   

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 63):
I doubt I'd notice much difference on an A330, for example, or even an A346 depending on where I was sitting.

Have you flown the Airbii? As I said above they are definitely quieter, but I don't think it is as big a deal as some make it out. Once you have a constant pitch in cruise the noise sinks into the background, whether it be a D10 or a 332 IMHO.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2884 posts, RR: 10
Reply 65, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5109 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Perfection was achieved with all 777's. The W is the cherry on the cake of the perfect airplane. Her crisp, razor sharp lines, giant engines get my testosterone pumping and interiors are stunning depending on the airline. This is my opinion but I think it's sales and record back me up.

It feels SO safe and comfortable to fly. Hats off to Boeing to top the 747.



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8002 posts, RR: 5
Reply 66, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5103 times:

I think the most pleasant surprise for the 777-300ER was the change from the original 7180 to 7800 nautical mile still air range. Just that small additional range made the 77W capable of flying most of the world's long transoceanic routes, and that was why airlines bought a large number of 77W's to replace aging older 747's. I really think if it weren't for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, United and Northwest (before it merged with Delta) would have started to trade in their 747-400 fleets for 77W's by the middle 2000's.

User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2604 posts, RR: 5
Reply 67, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5012 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 57):
This has changed ETOPs economics and the view of long haul twins forever.

  

And THAT is the 777's legacy. Airbus may have been the first to develop a widebody twin, but Boeing was the first to develop a long haul widebody twin. The 777-200ER could fly as far as the 747-400 but didn't quite have the capacity, while the 777-300ER could fly further still and beat the 747-400's payload range figures by some margin.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 62):
I think a mixed fleet of A330s and A343s would have worked very well (using the A330 regionally, as they have, and the A343s to provide a smaller alternative to the 744 on long haul routes that the A330 is unable to fly).

Yes, but since they didn't order A330s until 2000, why would they have had any incentive to order the A343 over the 777-200ER? QF had an all Boeing mainline fleet until the merger with Australian Airlines in the mid 1990s when they took over some of Australian Airlines' A300s, which they had for only a few years. I don't think that QF would have (or should have) ordered the A343 in the 1990s, because:

1. If they had ordered the A343 in the early 1990s, it would have been the oddball in an all Boeing mainline fleet.
2. If they had ordered the A343 in the late 1990s, the 777-200ER would have already been available and would have been able to do any route that the A343 could.

The only way I can see the QF buying the A343 is if they tied it in with their A330 orders in 2000. But even then, I'd argue that the 777-200ER is the better aircraft for thin, long haul routes.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 63):
But I doubt I'd notice much difference on an A330, for example, or even an A346 depending on where I was sitting.

I haven't been on an A346, but to my untrained ear, the A333 and A343 does seem to be a little quieter than the 777-300ER from a similar location, although the difference isn't anywhere near as big as it's made out to be.

But then again, I agree with what you mentioned about noise being a subjective perception depending on seat location. The 777-300ER has developed a reputation on here, somewhat unfairly, I think, as a "noisy" aircraft. In my experience, the only time it's noticeably noisier than other aircraft of a similar vintage (not counting the A380 and the 787) is during engine start up, when the GE90's distinctive low pitch "mooing" sound drowns out every other noise in the cabin (including the safety video which was being played at the time  ).

[Edited 2013-03-05 19:18:39]


Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineNorcal773 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1447 posts, RR: 12
Reply 68, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4928 times:

Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 52):
it's just so F***ing noisy! I have experienced many 777 flights with EK, Qatar, SIA (on regional rather than long haul), and there is no doubt in my mind that it is much noisier than anything else out there (A380, A330/340, B747, B767). As I am unfortunately normally constrained to fly in the back of most of my flights, I am comparing apples with apples!
Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 55):
9+ hours sitting listening to "the power" is not my idea of fun or comfort, and it is less than helpful in lulling me to sleep

You contradict yourself a lot because there's no 'quiet' airplane per se. Ever heard of noise-canceling headphones? Comes in handy on ALL airplanes especially long-haul.



If you're going through hell, keep going
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 69, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4905 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 67):
why would they have had any incentive to order the A343 over the 777-200ER

ETOPS. If they wanted to fly a smaller long haul aircraft across the Pacific (ie BNE-LAX, SYD-SFO, SYD-EZE/SCL, perhaps YVR etc) then they would have needed a quad (and still do for South America), also remembering that the attitude in the 90s was very different to what it is today.

They would have also been faced with a decision to make regarding replacing 767s to Asia -- the A330 is by far the better aircraft for what QF needs within the region, so the future integration could have been very easily planned.

I realise I'm speaking with the benefit of hindsight. The company was making decent profits and was operating in a very different environment 20 years ago, and there was little need to embark on any major change to their business at that point, but it's still interesting to discuss.

Of course, I would not be complaining at all if QF had ordered 777s! A QF 77W would have been an absolute beauty.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2338 posts, RR: 2
Reply 70, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4648 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 59):
The reason that the A346 which entered service in 2002 did so poorly in the end is elegantly highlighted in this graph...

I'm not sure what that graph is tracking (Jet-A prices?), but it does not appear to be adjusted for inflation, which make it rather deceiving. It should look something more like:

http://zfacts.com/gas-price-history-graph

That's gasoline retail prices, but the curve should look about the same for Jet-A.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4721 posts, RR: 39
Reply 71, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4620 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 63):
But overall, I'd bet the A343 is louder because it has four engines that are less powerful and consequently need to be run at higher power settings.

In any comparable position in the A340 compared to the B77W, the A340 is quieter. Clearly, and there is no discussion about that. The difference between them is probably not that big, and is fully depending on personal interpretation of noise and noise-levels, but all A330's and A340's were and are more quiet then any B777 around.

A stewardess at SQ which I once asked during a flight which plane she liked better to work on sait it did not matter that much regarding the planes she was working on. But when talking about the B777 she said to me: "very noisy". And she had been on A340's, A330's and was now working on the A380.  Wink.

With that I am taking nothing away of the qualities of the B77W, which has been and still is one of the best civilian airliners ever, and is (at present) in a class of its own. And that is a phenomenal achievement for which mostly Boeing and GE deserve all the credits.

[Edited 2013-03-06 00:23:26]

User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 72, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4222 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 70):
I'm not sure what that graph is tracking (Jet-A prices?), but it does not appear to be adjusted for inflation, which make it rather deceiving. It should look something more like:

http://zfacts.com/gas-price-history-graph

That's gasoline retail prices, but the curve should look about the same for Jet-A.

No it wasn't adjusted but it's still better than looking at gasoline prices as they're taxed differently.

Here's another chart...

http://www.financialsense.com/sites/default/files/users/u673/images/2013/0125/jet-fuel-price-per-gallon.jpg


User currently offlineSassiciai From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2013, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4161 times:

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 68):
Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 52):
it's just so F***ing noisy! I have experienced many 777 flights with EK, Qatar, SIA (on regional rather than long haul), and there is no doubt in my mind that it is much noisier than anything else out there (A380, A330/340, B747, B767). As I am unfortunately normally constrained to fly in the back of most of my flights, I am comparing apples with apples!
Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 55):
9+ hours sitting listening to "the power" is not my idea of fun or comfort, and it is less than helpful in lulling me to sleep

You contradict yourself a lot because there's no 'quiet' airplane per se. Ever heard of noise-canceling headphones? Comes in handy on ALL airplanes especially long-haul.

Well, I actually don't like headphones, and prefer to pass my time reading a book, with the moving map on the IFE, so for me, noise level is quite important! Next you'll suggest a gas mask and eye goggles, LOL! We are talking about public transport for the masses, and it should be geared to their comfort (somewhat!)

I wonder if you have multiple flight experiences in the 777 and some of its contemporaries - from your comments, I wonder! But it's all subjective anyway - so we are unlikely to find ourselves sitting along side each other sometime soon!


User currently offlineNorcal773 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1447 posts, RR: 12
Reply 74, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3631 times:

Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 73):
Well, I actually don't like headphones, and prefer to pass my time reading a book, with the moving map on the IFE, so for me, noise level is quite important! Next you'll suggest a gas mask and eye goggles, LOL! We are talking about public transport for the masses, and it should be geared to their comfort (somewhat!)

I wonder if you have multiple flight experiences in the 777 and some of its contemporaries - from your comments, I wonder! But it's all subjective anyway - so we are unlikely to find ourselves sitting along side each other sometime soon!

Wait, you can't read a book with Noise canceling headphones on? That's new but to each their own. My point is the noise level between an A350 and a 777 is minimal at best, depending on where you're sitting so I think you're over-dramtizing it really.

To answer your question, I've flown on the following carriers' 77W's: JAL, PAL, AF, ANA and SQ. I've also flown on LH's A346, VS A343 and SQ A345 so I am not totally clueless. Like you said though, it's all subjected and I sure hope we won't be sitting alongside each other soon but if we do, I'll be the guy with my Bose headphones on after takeoff  



If you're going through hell, keep going
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...
10 Years Of The A330 posted Sat Nov 16 2002 04:08:26 by Gigneil
777 Celebrates 10 Years Of Revenue Service posted Wed Jun 8 2005 01:07:13 by WestWing
MAS Taking Delivery Of Boeing 777-300ER? posted Wed May 8 2002 00:14:30 by OdiE
What Is The Reg.# Of The Boeing's 1st 777 posted Thu Apr 19 2001 19:57:29 by Red Panda
50 Years Of The One-Eleven posted Tue Feb 26 2013 08:30:39 by hotplane
Further Developments To Improve The Boeing 777? posted Sun Nov 25 2012 02:33:17 by jorisdebont
Pakistan International (PIA) Order 5x Boeing 777-300ER's posted Fri Feb 17 2012 12:49:20 by SA7700
Kenya Airways To Lease Two Boeing 777-300ER posted Wed Oct 12 2011 12:37:37 by mffoda
Air Austral Order The Boeing 777-200LR posted Wed Jul 21 2010 01:57:55 by PanAm_DC10
BA: Introducing Our New Boeing 777-300ER posted Mon Jul 12 2010 03:33:12 by NQYGuy