Boeing 777 Why?

Tue Jun 13, 2000 5:13 am

I am one of the few ppl that does not like the 777...Now as time progresses I can see that they will take over and push out some of the older planes...I wonder why this is? Is it because of the efficenty of its two engines? I think that airlines are making big mistakes by doing this...I realy hate to see my favorite aircraft(s) the MD-11 and DC-10 pushed out and not arround for my children to see and take their first aircraft rides on...A man that I spoke too the other day about the 777 said that he would probaly never want to fly in it across seas due to its lack of engines being only two...As I also look through the news I see that the 777 has problems with the airflow system...I also saw first hand problems at DEN with a 777 that its passengers had to evacuate to other aircraft due to many manchincal problems...I also think that Boeing needs to come up with some new desighns and stop trying to take existing plans and make them bigger (737 enlarged = 777)...I am not trying to be mean in any sort of way shape or form....I just dont want to see the 777 as much as the 737....I want to see it like I do 747's and other wide bodyed aircraft...I also do not want to see the MD-11's and DC-10's pushed out of the airlines either (like UAL is doing right now)...

Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: Boeing 777 Why?

Tue Jun 13, 2000 6:21 am

Making airplanes is a business not an artshow. Thus what matters is how much money can the aircraft make, plus of course safety. It seems that the 777 is doing well in both.ETOPS wouldn't be approved if it was not safe. I don't think the other problems you mentioned are serious.
Boeing developed the 777 to replace the older planes like the Dc-10. You're in the unfortunate minority who's unhappy about that. Most people prefer to fly new airplanes. Most airlines prefer new planes including the 777. So I don't think Boeing will listen to you. Sorry!  

By the way, I wouldn't like the 777 replacing the 747. The 747 is my favorite. But if replacing it serves better my interest as a customer, am I willing to pay the price? I don't think so. I'll go see the 747 in a museum and fly the 777!

User avatar
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 1999 11:31 am

RE: Boeing 777 Why?

Tue Jun 13, 2000 6:45 am

You said, "(737 enlarged = 777)"


Say what? Where did you ever come to this conclusion? Thats the same as saying the A330 is an enlarged A320! The 777 was a plane built from scratch, virtually all new. Its not derived from anything, and nothing is really derived from it, except other 777 types. Infact, the new 737NG is styled more like the 777 is, from the cockpit to the cabin!

Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2000 7:09 am

RE: Boeing 777 Why?

Tue Jun 13, 2000 6:56 am

Hello All,

I agree w/ Sammyk! The 777 is the state of the art a/c for today. I would fly on this a/c over any other in the world!

As far as the 777 replacing other a/c, sorry to see them go, however as Bob dylan would say, "Times are a changin'" and that they sure are!



RE: Sammyk Boeing 777 Why?

Tue Jun 13, 2000 7:07 am

When you say that the 737NG is more like the 777 then the 777 is like the 737NG...Is totaly dumb it is an auximoron...spelling? Its like saying that dogs are more like cats then cats are like dogs...Any ways I was trying to say I dont think that the 777 should try and push out all of the older aircraft...I am not one to make a big deal about change or any thing like that...I just dont want to see it made prematuarly thats all....Why not wait another 6 years and see if they are still what they are now and if so make improvements on what needs to be fixed and then invest heavily...Thats what I think that they sould do with the DC-10's and MD-11's...We now know from expierance what is wrong with them and instead of saying oh a new aircraft it seems ok let abandon all of out older aircraft and make the new suff why not try to keep some of the older ones arround...I think that aircraft are alot like trading cards...Exampls they go in fases it was basball cards in then now its Pokemon or what ever the heck they are....I think that it isnt right they way we just shut the older ones out of our lives...

User avatar
Posts: 3520
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Sammyk Boeing 777 Why?

Tue Jun 13, 2000 7:29 am

This has to be one of the most retarded lines of logics that i've ever seen presented on this forum. i usually don't even give these topics, but this one is so completely stupid, i must reply to Alex. It's like you're saying that we all should be driving around in gas guzzling caddilac eldorado hoopties with the bottoms rusting out just for the sake of them "looking neat" for your kids sake and the fact that we know the carb is gonna conk out every 30,000 miles. give me a break and get with the times. i appreciate your fondness for the aesthetics of trijets, but the only way you're kids are going to fly on one is if they work for feded.

The last of the famous international playboys

RE: Soacepope Boeing 777 Why?

Tue Jun 13, 2000 8:12 am

Thats not what I am saying Dont get rid of them all at once!

Posts: 7624
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 3:12 pm

RE: Boeing 777 Why?

Tue Jun 13, 2000 8:26 am

I don't quite get your logic either. The DC-10s and L-1011s and Classic 747s that the 777/A330/A340 are replacing are 20-30 years old and nearing the end of their usuable passenger carrying lifetime. Those old birds have served well and it is time to retire them. Economics have long since been in favor of twinjets. Plus I think the fear of ETOPS operations by some people is misfounded. ETOPS, by some standards, is an outdated regulation dating back to the days of radial piston engines. Regular ETOPS operations have been going on since TWA first operated the BOS-CDG flight in the mid 80's with a 767-200ER. I appreciate the nostaglia for the old planes, but the airline business is motavated by economics, and new types that are cheaper to maintain and to operate. and problems are related to new planes. The early -10's Tristars and 47's had their fair share of technical glitches. As a counterpoint... if nostaglia was the motavating factor in keeping types we'd still be flying in Connies and DC-7s. Just my 2 cents.

Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia

RE: Boeing 777 Why?

Tue Jun 13, 2000 8:47 am

I have nothing agenst the A330/A340 or any other then the 777 I think that they were ment to replace the older planes....But dont get rid of all the older planes at once.....Save some and maybe take some and make them the best like they used to be....The 777 is supposed to be so much better but I personaly seen more 777 broken the older aircraft such as DC-10's and MD-11's....Thats why we sould not get rid of all of them at once.....United was in truble because they had gotten rid of all but 3 Dc-10-30 and replaced them with 777's But when the 777 broke down there was not old and still strong flyer to come in and help....I dont like the desighn of the 777 I am hereing more bad things about them and realy the only bad things i have hered about he MD-11's and DC-10's is that they dont have the tech. that the newer planes have...I think that if we add some of this new tech. to them then they will be better then the 777....What I am saying is that I think that Boeing should re-design the Md-11 and or Dc-10...One major fact is that they sould not due away with all 2+ engined aircraft...For as that man said I would never take any thing with 2 or less engines across seas....I just realy hate to see them retired in my life time....To be honest at first glance I thought the 777 was cool untill I learned about its problem...Then I begain to think and I have debaited it and we have about what is the best aircraft arround....I think that we sould keep it arround a while longer...


Fly America Airlines
User avatar
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 1999 11:31 am

RE: Boeing 777 Why? - Alex Logan

Tue Jun 13, 2000 9:51 am


What I said was NOT an oxymoron. However, what I did say was fact. Here's some history. The 737 was on the scene first, originally designed in the 60s, later updated in the early 80s. The 777 was launched in 1990. It was designed from a clean sheet. All new from the ground up! Its interiors were SO nice, that they won awards. 1993, the 737NG is launched. What does Boeing decide to do? Well, seems everyone loves the 777 interior, so they add it to the 737. Hey, guess what, everyone loves that glass cockpit, so they design it to be similar to the 777. So, the 737NG took cues from the 777 when it was designed. The 777 did NOT take cues from the 737 when it was designed. Their similarity ends when you get past saying they are both twin engined airliners.

Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:41 pm

RE: Boeing 777 Why?

Tue Jun 13, 2000 10:01 am

What are all of these so-called "problems" that have been cropping up with the 777? 777's breaking down? And I gotta love Spacepope's post...first time i've read "gas guzzling cadillac eldorado hoopties" in a post!
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 3:17 pm

RE: Boeing 777 Why?-spacepope

Tue Jun 13, 2000 10:12 am

You are the best man! Thats like saying why are airlines using 757s instaed of 707s........Hmmmmmm?
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Boeing 777 Why?

Tue Jun 13, 2000 10:25 am

Alex, some things are just better left unsaid, for the benefit of others, and ESPECIALLY for you!

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: The Answer Really Is Very Simple

Tue Jun 13, 2000 10:36 am

The MD-11, great as it is, just isn't as good as the 777. It's wing is based on a design from the 1960's. It's engines didn't meet the specs at first and gave it a bad name. It's cockpit is as advanced as the 777's, but the interior isn't quite as roomy as the 777's. You've got to face the facts: McDonnel Douglas didn't have as much money to spend on designing the MD-11 as Boeing did on the 777. It's that simple. The reason it and the 767-400, A330, and A340 are pushing the DC-10s and L-1011s out of service is because they're have much lower maintence costs (airplanes do come with warranties), lower fuel bills, 2 crew cockpits, less noise, and the interiors are more comfortable and passengers like them more. Sorry, but that's the truth.
Posts: 2534
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Boeing 777 Why?

Tue Jun 13, 2000 11:26 am


I really do not know where you get you're information, but I would double check it. In the new AW&ST, the 777 is reported to have the BEST reliability of ANY widebody aircraft, ever. It is only slightly behind the 737NG and the A320, both outstanding aircraft. This is not a chance occurrence. It has such reliability because of it's all-new design and especially because it must meet stringent ETOPS standards.

All gave some. Some gave all.

RE: Boeing 777 Why?

Tue Jun 13, 2000 1:27 pm

I tell you, I wish I could trade my 94 Elantra in for a new Shelby Mustang. Take from that what you wish. 17 days until my first 777 flight!!!!

Popular Searches On

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos