VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 2196
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:21 pm

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
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:31 pm

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.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
KPDX
Posts: 2373
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:04 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:35 pm

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.

Please send them this way. All I see is boring 737s and A320s. 

I personally think a 77W at takeoff is awesome. You really get a sense of power unlike the A330.   
View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:40 pm

Only been on a 77L and that was one impressive take off, almost felt overpowered in a way, the flight was not maxed out either. Other than that just another airplane and a boring long flight.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23081
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:46 pm

The 777 is probably my favorite plane to fly in, and I do find it aesthetically pleasing.

As to why airlines loves it - good range + good capacity + good economics =         
 
hirsch777
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:23 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 pm

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.

Agreed.

The GE90-115b made this possible, and is one of the major aspects to the over engineering I mentioned above.
 
na
Posts: 9160
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:55 pm

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.



Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
...and their safety record is amazing.

Amazing like all modern types built since the 744 debuted with the exception of the MD11.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4963
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:57 pm

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.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:36 pm

Quoting HIRSCH777 (Reply 5):
Boring ?

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.  silly 

[Edited 2012-09-10 08:37:37]
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
hirsch777
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:23 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:23 pm

Quoting na (Reply 6):
Amazing like all modern types built since the 744 debuted with the exception of the MD11.

I think you are forgetting about the A330. Terrible record for a Modern Airliner. It looks beautiful. But I would fly a 777 anyday over the A330. 6 write-offs
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23081
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:31 pm

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
Posts: 3857
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 5:52 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:41 pm

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
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:16 pm

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
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:09 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:33 pm

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.

[Edited 2012-09-10 11:07:38]
 
N62NA
Posts: 4006
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:42 pm

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!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7606
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:05 pm

I find the 777 ugly, but since airlines don't care one bit about that (and it's not that ugly that it would matter anyway), it sells on its economic merits, like other planes.

I see far more A340 haters on this website, but YMMV.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
slcguy
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:09 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:48 pm

Old aviation saying, "If it looks right, it probably flies right".
 
deltaflyertoo
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2000 3:18 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:01 pm

Funny thread...

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.
 
ghifty
Posts: 885
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:12 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:14 pm

Quoting deltaflyertoo (Reply 19):
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.

   Glad to know I'm not the only one! I've never been on a 777, but I have been on a few 767-400ER's. The cabins are just.. eery. I much prefer the older over-head bins.
Fly Delta Jets
 
jfk777
Posts: 5840
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7606
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:42 pm

A 777 did crash and it was caused by a faulty design. Fortunately the outcome for the pax and crew was good.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23081
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:51 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 25):
A 777 did crash and it was caused by a faulty design.

That being said, the faulty design was in the Trent 800 engine, and not the 777 airframe.
 
ElGrandeB777CA
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:40 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:04 pm

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
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 7:35 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:10 pm

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.
B712,B738,B739,B752,B762ER,B763ER,B772ER,MD82,MD83,MD88,MD90,A320,CRJ9,CRJ2,EMJ145,ERJ175
 
astuteman
Posts: 6341
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:15 pm

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 22):
Ask yourself this - how come the 777 doesn't experience "pilot error" at the same rate as the 330 ?

With only two out of the six examples quoted being "pilot error", and one of THEM being during flight testing?????

Must be the same reason that terrorists find the A330 so popular I guess...   

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
I find the A340-500 to be the one thanks to the Trent 700s

Point of order, my friend, they're Trent 500's ....

Rgds
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23081
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:16 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 27):
Point of order, my friend, they're Trent 500's ....

Indeed. The 700's are those scrawny (but darn efficient) things hanging off the A330.   
 
peergynt
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:46 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:36 pm

The 777 looks awfully similar to a 767 (another boring plane). The 787 will probably follow the same path. But as long as they are profitable and efficient, being boring is ok.
 
tsugambler
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:01 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:36 pm

I know it's just a matter of opinion, but I can't see why people think the 777 is ugly... I think it's beautiful (for a twinjet). The proportions are great, ESPECIALLY on the 77W. Also, the cockpit window design is much more aesthetically pleasing than the A330/A340 cockpit windows. And I personally like the "neck" of the 777, contrary opinions notwithstanding.
 
VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 2196
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:46 pm

First thanks to all. I personally love the way all of them look, probably due to the fact I saw and flew a brand new UA 777 within a few months of international service. They were still rare. I was so overwhelmed by her and her engines. So, while it is no 747 to me, I still see beauty in her.

What really astounds me today is to be at any huge airport and seeing so, so, so many! It's like a 737 of VLA's. I recall being at Changi last year with about 30 Singapore 777's lined up as if they were free.

How many orders are left on the books!
The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3081
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:46 pm

I think the 777 is the BIG 757. but its not a beautiful plane, its boring.

But its a sales king due to economics.

If its crammed inside is due to the fact that companies could cram all those seats in ECONOMY.

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 2196
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:22 pm

Gosh, such hatred for the 777! I am really surprised. I think she is gorgeous in her perfection. Nothing wasted. The clean razor sharp lines. The signature bins have swept up the most coveted of industrial design awards. It all is in the eye of the beholder isn't it!?!

I started this post to get under why most of the world's (NOT ALL) have them either in just a handful or almost their entire fleet. What was the sweet spot in her design so many found so sweet. So rather than puking on it or another type- or seeing a thing of beauty, it has sold over 1000 and is still going strong. Yes a VC10 is more my taste, but they didn't sell very well did they?

Also, I was surprised reading how angry some are about safety comments about the A330. I am flying TAM from Rio to Paris on one Sunday...ironically, but I have no fear. Frankly the odds me dying in Sao Paulo traffic this week is a million times more likely. But I did comment that the 777 (fortunately) does have an amazing safety record: but not to the exclusion of anything else. My comment came from reading here that since the 777 entered service there have been zero fatalities. How many millions, or billions of passengers has she carried so far? How many take-off's? Same goes for a A340 and 747's don't seem to tumble from the sky either nowadays. Flight is magical, even on the ac I dislike the most.

Keep it positive! Thanks to all for such great info on what is clearly a great airplane...factually. MrSpock would agree.
The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
 
User avatar
2707200X
Posts: 4843
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:31 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:10 pm

I think it is many things.

1) The 777 is the biggest twinjet in the world.

2) Most 777s are comfortable with the majority of them at nine abreast at their 244 inch diameter.

3) The 777 has had basically a stage stage production with the 777-200 selling well in the mid nineties at the mid '00s
and the 777-300ER from the early '00s on has sold well and even outsold the 200 model so the 777 has a very good
production cycle.

4) The 777-300ER has definitely saved the 777 production line after the not so great sales of the basic 777-300 and has
into service before the 777-200 production began to dwindle keeping the production line strong.

5) The production of the 777-300ER has essentially clipped the production of the competing and heavier A340-600.

6) The 777W has essentially replaced the 747-400 as Boeing leading large airliner in terms of range and capacity and is
more fuel efficient.
"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9270
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:21 pm

Quoting deltaflyertoo (Reply 19):
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.
Quoting ghifty (Reply 20):
Glad to know I'm not the only one! I've never been on a 777, but I have been on a few 767-400ER's. The cabins are just.. eery. I much prefer the older over-head bins.

These statements are like my own opinion... inverted. I like the 777 because it looks so sleek and the design is so "clean". It just looks like an efficient bird. The bins inside the aircraft look much nicer than the old style ones in the Airbus A330/A340. I agree that the 777 might come across as a little boring though but it can never be an ugly aircraft.

The one thing I like about the 330/340, is the seat config though. 2-4-2 is excellent.
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7071
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:24 pm

What I like about the 777 is it can o any route an airline has and make profit. DL, EK, QR, and SQ have shown this on both short an long haul flights. Finally, the freighter version is proving to be popular with airlines like FX, and QR.

K
Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
 
User avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3216
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:57 pm

I find it really amazing how much people in this thread think the 777 is ugly. Not trying to beat anyone down or anything because as aircraft enthusiasts we are all entitled to our opinion of how aircraft look to us. Ill be honest to say that pretty much all my favourite aircraft are twin engined, especially the 777. To me quads are just not my preference, just like how twins are labelled "boring" by some. Its all personal opinion.
Please let me know... If you know this is the end of the world, Let me know... If you know the truth...
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18976
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:46 pm

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
I guess I could guess at this point, but are their specifics beyond the fact they make money?

The -300ER is the only 777 model that's selling in significant numbers today (about 110 orders in the past 2 years), and that's because it's the only current twin that can replace the 744 at significantly lower operating costs while carrying about the same number of passengers. Sales of the 77L have been minimal, only 6 orders in the past 2 years, and no orders for the -200ER during that period since most carriers now find the A330 more economic in markets that require -200ER capacity.

The 777F has been selling moderately well with about 30 orders in the past 2 years.

From a passenger point of view, I still much prefer the 767 and its 2-3-2 Y class seating which can't be beat on any other widebody. Simply no comparison between a 2-3-2 767 and a cramped 10-abreast 3-4-3 777. I also find the 777 cabin slightly noisier than other widebodies.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:12 am

It's a very good Aircraft with a great record.


It is boring though, just like all twins..
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
Eightball
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:48 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:07 am

While some people may find the looks of the 777 to be boring and long for the old-school looks of older airliners like the 747 and the DC-10, to me the 777 is my favorite aircraft. Ever since SV introduced the 777-200ER to its fleet in 1997, I've found the shape of this aircraft to be beautiful, and after my first flight on a 777, I've always had an affinity for this aircraft.

I'm now at the start of my final semester of college in San Diego, and ever since I started attending college in the U.S. in 2008, the majority of the long-haul portion of my trips between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have been on EK and QR 777s. The 777 has transported me safely and comfortably during the past few years in most of my trips between Jeddah and San Diego, so I have many fond memories of flights on this aircraft. May the 777 continue to grace the skies for many years to come. Smile

[Edited 2012-09-10 20:41:36]
Follow your dream.
 
tjcab
Posts: 289
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:14 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:26 am

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. period. No need to convince one another. Some of my friends and family cannot understand what I see in planes.

That being said, I do like the 777-200 a lot, but only in certain liveries. It's a package deal for me: e.g. Austrian, Air France, Cathay, BA, Delta, KLM (pretty much like anything with their livery) - Yes, then no to Transero, Vietnam Airways, American, EVA Air, china Southern....that's just my opinion.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1023
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:40 am

LUCK. The 777 did quite well but it was not the super star until the 300. At that point it went quite beyond being a very good plane. I do not think that in 1990s anyone could have predicted how well it would do. This is true in a number of other fields - movies or novels to name two. Occasionally the market produces somthing that meets what is needed some time later.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18976
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:52 am

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 48):
The 777 did quite well but it was not the super star until the 300.

And not until the -300ER. Only 60 standard non-ER -300s were sold.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4963
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:55 am

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 48):
I do not think that in 1990s anyone could have predicted how well it would do.

It takes time for the full potential of any aircraft family to become apparent to the public. The 777 was no exception.

No one expected a 240 t A330-300 in 1994, a US transcontinental A321 in 1992, or a 767-300ER with 5800 nm range in 1980.

But I expect the engineers who knew the plane best had some good ideas.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1023
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:57 am

Indeed, I meant to say 300ER. Thanks
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:12 am

It must have been the ETOPS rules that made the 300ER such a success? If it werent for ETOPS it would never had taken off like it did?
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:26 am

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
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.

I do find the 777-200 Series as well as the A330 series very boring to look at, while I do find the 777W and the A340 both very good looking planes. The 777W definitely wins due to its long fuselage which gives it an impressive appearance.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
My "ugliest twin" is the A330-300. Super long body and really wide wings with two tiny little engines

Only with the Rolly Royce engines. The A330-300 with RR engines looks like an A340-300 that has lost two of its engines.It looks much better with GE or Pratt engines.

[Edited 2012-09-11 00:30:39]
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3011
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:49 am

I find 777 series kind of boring, somehow from outside they just look so generic and lack shapes. Their engines do have nice sounds though if you sit in front part of the aircraft, that's what I like. For powerful takeoffs I have already flown with 757 many times.

A330 on the other hand in my opinion is beautiful aircraft, I like shape of its wing box.
"Optimism is the madness of insisting that all is well when we are miserable." - Voltaire
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:00 am

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 12):
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.

Add a few 748I, somehow they have better proportions than the 744.

For most airlines, the 77W especially is the right long range aircraft for most of their missions. Only few missions require larger range (77L-A345-B744-B748-A380) territory, and only few require larger capacity. And it beats all smaller wide bodies in CASM - that is why it is so successful - I expect the 77W in the end to have more than half of all 777 sales, if not the early announcement of the next generation was a shot into its foot.

[Edited 2012-09-11 01:01:41]
 
tom355uk
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:34 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:11 am

Quoting HIRSCH777 (Reply 35):
Computer first, then Pilot.

Boy oh boy, you have just rubber stamped by assertion about your lack of knowledge.

I can see you haven't been a member here for long, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and a word of advice: if you have an opinion here, then that is fine, perfectly acceptable. But do not try and reinforce your opinion with factually incorrect assertions and pure hyperbole.

You can learn something new everyday here from true professionals, as long as you go in with an open mind and open ears.

Now, to address your points:

Quoting HIRSCH777 (Reply 35):
Computer first, then Pilot.

This does not apply to any airliner in the sky, Airbus included. The pilots ALWAYS have the final say on the aircraft trajectory, regardless of the flight control law in effect. In normal law, it just stops you from exiting the flight envelope, which brings me to your next point;

Quoting HIRSCH777 (Reply 35):
when the pilot tried to do a maneuver that was beyond the flight envelope, and 'vetoed' the command.

I cannot think of any situation where exceeding the flight envelope could have a positive effect, even in an emergency. In fact, exceeding the flight envelope was what ultimately did it for AF447. Tell you what, try exceeding the envelope in a 777 or 787, it'll be made pretty difficult for any length of time, and the computers will return the aircraft to the envelope as soon as physically possible because - shock horror - the 777 and 787 use fly by wire technology: the flight control computers translate the yoke input to control surface deflections. To all intents and purposes, the only difference (apart from the actual law, Boeing use a Speed stability term, but you probably need to do some research to understand what that means) is the 'Pilot input device'. One is a conventional yoke, one is a sidestick.

Quoting HIRSCH777 (Reply 35):
Its killed Many People in these incidents.
The ADRIU has been found at Fault on Many different operators. Oh, and since you might not know to much about aviation, ADRIU is the Air Data Inertial Reference Unit. It supplies vital Inputs for Airspeed, Angle of Attack, and Altitude for Machine to Machine to Human Interface.

It's actually ADIRU, but hey, what do I know? 

A 777 of Malaysia Airlines suffered from a similar event, where ADIRU data spikes caused a small inflight upset. But hey, why ignore good facts when they go against your prejudice?

Quoting HIRSCH777 (Reply 35):
Also, the 777 has a secondary ADRIU, unlike the a330  

The A330 actually has 3 independent ADIRU's, all forming the ADIRS system, plus a standby airspeed indicator and altimeter fed from separate pitot and static sources.

I don't want you to get me wrong, I think the 777 is a fantastic aircraft as well, but to unfairly tarnish the A330 as you have done contributes nothing to this discussion.
on Twitter @tombeckett2285
 
nasula
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:20 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:39 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):

Quoting Aesma (Reply 25):
A 777 did crash and it was caused by a faulty design.

That being said, the faulty design was in the Trent 800 engine, and not the 777 airframe.

That raises an interesting question: What is part of the airframe then? Computers?, Flaps? Rudder? Wheels? etcetc.

I guess the point Aesma was trying to make was that regardless of the A330 crashes listed, none of them were airframe related per se and if you start using a broad sense of the term airframe like some airbus bashers do (not you mind you), then you can just as easily claim that a 777 does not have a perfect record either with two hull losses if we use the same metric as has been used against A330 here.

Luck saved the BA crash from becoming a huge loss of human life. Had the fuel flow problem occurred say a minute earlier.... Or had the pilots been just a tiny bit less capable....

The Egyptair case: Could the fire have happened while in flight? Maybe.
 
Bobloblaw
Posts: 1680
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:24 am

What do you guys want to look at Sonic Cruisers? Is aircraft spotting any more boring than 30 years ago? Spotters 30 years ago were probably bored and thought how great it would be to be a spotter 30 years before.