Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What If There Was No 777?  
User currently offlineUnited777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1657 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 5 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3178 times:

Do you ever think what Boeing would be without the 777 series aircraft. Where do you think Boeing would have been in the 90's if they just went ahead with another model of the 767 series like the 767-400. The 777 was made because airlines wanted a aircraft between the 747-400 and 767-300. If Boeing just came out with a stretched 767 for that do you think it would have as popular as the 777-200 /-300?

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineThadocta From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (13 years 5 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3174 times:

Hard to say - remember that the 777 was developed based on airline requirements, yet one of the airlines which was instrumental in evolving the requirements - Qantas - did not go on to purchase any.

I do not think the 764 would have markedly increased sales if the 777 did not happen - something *MUCH* larger was needed, and the orders probably would have gone to Airbus, probably for the A330 - who knows, in the absence of an aircraft which suits the mission like the 777 does, perhaps Airbus would have evolved their offerings a bit more than they have.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 79
Reply 2, posted (13 years 5 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3160 times:

Air Transport Business has a great article on the 777 which discusses much of this in detail, why there was no 767X instead.

If they hadn't built the 777, the world would have many more of the A330 and A340, and the "Boeing" MD-11, and likely the MD-xx longer-range plane.


User currently offlineUAL1837 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (13 years 5 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3148 times:

Dude, don't even kid about a think like that!!!!!

Nearly everyone who has flown the Seventh Wonder should agree with me, it is the best in the sky.

My 777 flights (both on United):

Los Angeles - Honolulu (economy)
Honolulu - Los Angeles (economy)
Chicago - Frankfurt, Germany (business)
Frankfurt, Germany - Chicago (first)

User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6290 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (13 years 5 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3096 times:

IF Boeing had not built the 777, McDonnell Douglas would still be around cranking out MD-11s and MD-12s as fast as they could. And, hopefully, they would have gone ahead with the MD-11-50.... and addressed the existing MD-11-30's range and economy... concerns, shall I say.

Boy oh boy, how the tides have turned.


User currently offlineSlawko From Canada, joined May 1999, 3804 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (13 years 5 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3089 times:

I also think that MDC would still be around, and they would have a long range twin of their own...Airbus would probably be much further ahead right now too..

"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 3103 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (13 years 5 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3035 times:

Hmmm. No 777?? Lets see.
The evolved MD-11 and MD-12 would rule the world like the 777 does now;
The world would have never seen 180 min ETOPS;
MDC would have taken over Boeing and closed down by now the 757/767;
Everett would be rolling out MD11/12s;
The 744 line would be closed by now, since the MD11/12 [and -F] would have taken over;
A380 would start revenue service next month with BA;
Longbeach would be rolling out an MD90/95 every single working day;
Aviation experts would be arguing with each other when Renton would be producing the last 737;
Even the moving assembly line couldn't save the 737;
The number of MD narrowbodies in Americans fleet would be beyond any imagination [500+];
Only Airbus would be producing big twins;
Thus Continental would be 100% Airbus;
The world would have never seen 115.000 lbs of thrust [from a single turbofan];

Oh yeah, and Alan Mulaly would have been asked to run United Airlines. . . .


Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineLarspl From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (13 years 5 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2986 times:

without a 777, airbus would have built an A370

User currently offlineScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 5 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2966 times:


What are you talking about with A370?? Do you think even need built new Airbus A370 or maybe not? I am serious about something was goes on for next generation of the new Airbus jet. Anyone please tell me what is going on this posted for me, please? Thanks!!


Scott W.

User currently offlineJMO-777 From Germany, joined Apr 2002, 502 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (13 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2925 times:

Very nice story!!!  Big grin

@ A370 topic:
I don't think Airbus will produce such a plane, because of the very very short similarity with Boeing the "7". Perhaps it'll go A368, A369 :-]!


~~~ Fly with a Triple Seven and you feel like in heaven ~~~
User currently offlineUnited777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1657 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2775 times:

Does anybody know why the 777 did not have the folded wingtips so it could fit in smaller airport tarmacs?

User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2768 times:

Does anybody know why the 777 did not have the folded wingtips so it could fit in smaller airport tarmacs?

Simply because no airline really wanted it.

User currently offlineNwa320 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2769 times:

United777: The reason is because it made the plane weigh much more than it was worth.

User currently offlineRickb From United Kingdom, joined May 2003, 243 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2741 times:

Whilst the 777 is a great aircraft from an economic point of view - with excellent range/payload capability I am at a loss as to why any passengers would rate it highly (I try and avoid it it if possible although I have still accumulated about 50 flights on one). The cabin layout in both economy (2-5-2 or 3-3-3 or even 3-4-3) and business class (2-3-2 or 2-4-2) means from a passenger point of view its less comfortable than a 744 or an A330/340. The 744 offers a much better cabin with higher ceilings giving the impression of much more space - It also in my opinion has a much smoother ride than 777.

The 777 may be a wonderful aircraft from an airline point of view (i.e. economy) but from a passenger comfort point of view - the 744 whoops it.


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2723 times:

If Boeing had not built the 777, they probably would have developed a 747-400SP, essentially a 747SP-NG. A shorter-bodied version of the 747-400 that would have seated a max of 300 pax, and incorporating the technological advances into the old SP design. They would have have two versions of it, the 400SP would have a slightly lesser range than the 747-400, and the 400SP-ER, which would have been the true successor to the original 747SP. I think that the customers that would have bought it would have been current customers of the 747-400, like BA, United, NWA, Korean, and JAL. Airlines like Delta, Continental, and AA probably would have gone with MDD's widebodies instead of adding the 747-400SP. MDD would have by then created the best version of the MD-11, with the range problems fixed (and also able to modify the earlier MD-11s to the new standard), and the MD-12 would have been the launch aircraft for the GE-90 engine, as MDD decided to make it twin-engined in order to compete against the A330.

User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2485 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2686 times:

Without the 777, Boeing would be in way deeper straits than they already are. It and the 737NG are the only really decent sellers in their product line, though the 717 hasn't been bad as of late. The 747 & 767 hang on but aren't fluorishing and the 757 has been mired in a serious sales drought. Boeing should be thankful it had the foresight back in 1990 to go with an all-new design, rather than an enlarged 767. Hopefully, it will have the same foresight to forge ahead with the new Super-Efficient medium-sized transport, rather than just continuing to tweak the 757 & 767 in hopes of a few more orders.

User currently offlineAirbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

I too think that the 777 is a perfect aircraft except that i do not like the seating arrangement in economy. same for business although we have SQ's generous 2-2-2 but other airlines seem to have 2-3-2....

When it comes to abreast arrangements, I would say the 767 and the A330/340 is the best, especially the 767..

User currently offlineThe Coachman From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1437 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2566 times:

Dare I say it, UA wouldn't have last this long. Without the B777, UA would have kept ordering B747-400's and it would have gone under at least a year ago. The superior economics of the B777 on long-thin routes have kept it alive IMO.

Boeing would be in deep dung without the B777. The A340 would have been ordered in massive quantities without any fear (whether justified or not) of ETOPS regulations.

M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1896 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2453 times:

Much more 340s (and, may be, more 330s), quite likely MDD still alive with MD11s and derivatives.

747 more comfortable than 777? Probably, as it is simply larger (wider and "less circular"). But this is the interior of 777 (and 764) that makes it so special and outstanding - feeling like you are not inside it! You may not notice it - until you fly again on 747 or MD11 or 330/340 or older 767 soon after you were on 777/764...

User currently offlineLH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2397 times:

I don't think McDonnell Douglas would be around still. The main reason Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas was because of MDC's military contracts. In the grand scheme of things, the commercial aspect of MDC's business was not close to what they made in military deals, so Boeing may just have gone ahead with that deal, 777 or no 777. Just look at how fast they closed down the MD-11 and MD-80/90 lines. They probably would have shut down the MD-95 (717) line too, if that aircraft wasn't showing as much promise as it did when the deal went through.

I don't think the MD-11s sales would have increased that dramatically, because, as beautiful a plane she is, she still had drastic range problems, and I'm sure a lot of the orders would have gone to the A340 and A330. I think if Boeing hadn't built the 777 then, they would have eventually. Or they'd be facing a dark future of becoming a largely narrow-body manufacturer. The 737 and 757 lines would continue to be strong, the 764 probably would have seen increased sales, especially from smaller carriers who bought the 777, like Air Europe and maybe Lauda, or something along those lines.

It would have been different to say the least.


« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
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...
What If There Was No 9-11 posted Tue Nov 26 2002 06:48:41 by MCOtoATL
What If There Is No More Yugoslavia? posted Tue Feb 26 2002 22:26:51 by JAT
Suppose There Was No Airbus Or Boeing? posted Mon Sep 25 2006 03:02:02 by JAM747
What If DFW Was Still A DL Hub posted Mon Jul 24 2006 21:19:34 by Belizexp
If There Was A BA Pilot Strike... posted Mon Feb 13 2006 16:30:18 by Londonlady71
What If MSY Was A Hub? posted Sun Sep 4 2005 16:35:38 by JFKLGANYC
If There Was A Second Fully Serviced Airline In OZ posted Mon Feb 23 2004 11:25:03 by Travel
What If A DC-8 Was The First Air Force One... posted Thu Feb 5 2004 17:58:59 by TriStarEnvy
What If Concorde Was A Success? posted Tue Jun 25 2002 06:54:22 by Concorde1518
If There Was An Emergency Onboard.... posted Wed May 2 2001 19:15:48 by EGGD