Page 3 of 3

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 3:14 pm
by Strato2
BravoOne wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
Iluvtofly wrote:

How true is that .... any aircraft type can be cramped ..... nothing to do with the manufacturer !!!! The airline operating the aircraft determines the * crampiness* .... gets your facts straight before making such a ridiculous comment.


Boeing has chosen the width of the plane as such that it has enabled these horrible seating arrangements. It has everything to do with Boeing.


You are wrong, but I doubt that you could be convinced.


That is some 5/5 argumenting right there.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 3:20 pm
by Strato2
Cointrin330 wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
Horrible plane. Has made Boeing lot of money and tortured passengers around the world. Noisy and cramped.


Get over yourself. The 777 was a game changer in terms of cabin architecture and design. The 10 across seating is a relatively (last 3-5 years) new phenomenon, implemented by the airlines, not Boeing.


LOL. The 777 is a tube with wings nothing more. A horrible tube with wings. You are also wrong. The 10ab 777's have been here for over a decade already. I'm lucky that my only flight on a 777 (10ab) happened back in 2011 and I've been lucky enough to avoid it since then. Once again Boeing designed the width as such that it enabled airlines to implement these awful seating arrangements. It was deliberate or do you think Boeing designers are clueless idiots?

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 3:39 pm
by Revelation
gwrudolph wrote:
It really was a revolutionary aircraft in its day. It pushed the limits of a twin-engine and set a new standard. Very cool aircraft and one of my all time favorites.

Interesting that like the 757, it actually ended up being brilliant on missions for which it wasn’t even originally intended. Who would think that the TATL 747, DC10, and L10 replacement would eventually be flying LAX-SYD, ORD-HKG, EWR-BOM, etc.

If I recall, even back at launch time Boeing spoke of A market (domestic tcon, short tatl), B market (deep tatl, tpac) and C market (ulr) configurations. The unexpected thing was how good the GE90-115 would be. It was so good the 77L widely became superfluous because the 77W could fly a lot of what used to be 'ulr' missions.

It's so good that we see blue chip outfits like BA and UA were still willing to pick up end of run 77Ws, at least until the pandemic hit.

ua900 wrote:
jetwet1 wrote:
I got my only case of food poisoning on a CO 777, totally the 777`s fault......

Well, you *did* have a choice of steak or fish, if you took the fish oh well. As for me, I had the lasagna. :D

I see what you did there! :D

Strato2 wrote:
Iluvtofly wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
Always one complainer:) The "cramped" issue if because of the operator, not Boeing.

How true is that .... any aircraft type can be cramped ..... nothing to do with the manufacturer !!!! The airline operating the aircraft determines the * crampiness* .... gets your facts straight before making such a ridiculous comment.

Boeing has chosen the width of the plane as such that it has enabled these horrible seating arrangements. It has everything to do with Boeing.

Evil Boeing, deciding 25 years ago to give us 20 or so years of excess comfort in 9Y just so they could take it all away for the last five or so years by shifting to 10Y!

Also that same evil Boeing is spending millions of dollars to provide an extra 4 inches of width, bigger windows and lower cabin altitude on 77X.

How dare they!

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 3:49 pm
by ikolkyo
Having flown on the 777 many times, some people on gear are really overeating the noise. To me it’s just another airplane. I’ve been on AF’s oldest 777 F-GSPA and one their newest in F-GZNQ. Great ride on both and had no complaints.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 3:58 pm
by BealineV953
77H wrote:
AirwayBill wrote:
The 777 is very probably the noisiest widebody passenger jet still being manufactured into the 21st century, even the DC-10 felt quiet in comparison. And noise levels are not up to the airline, that’s a hard fact.

.


Do you have any factual evidence to back up your claim that the 777 is "probably the noisiest widebody"? Such as decibel meter readings on different aircraft types in various places throughout the cabin?
I have flown more segments and have more air-time on the 777 than any other aircraft type (387 total segments for 607,337 mi) in the past 5 years. The is far from the first aircraft type to come to mind in the noisiest category.

What aspects about the 777 contribute to the noise level in your mind? Engine noise, cabin equipment for instance? I will say that I find the overhead bins on the 777 do tend to creak more on take off, touchdown and rollout as well as during turbulence more than other types. But those events make up such a small portion of total flight time.

77H


Not sure if we're talking about noise inside the cabin or outside.
For the noise outside, the Ops team at my airline has noise figures for the airliners we operate. These come into play when planning a flight into a noise sensitive airport, having to break a night jet ban or whatever. Here they are:
…………………………………..EPNdb
Type...……Engine...…..Full Power..Approach..Flyover
777-300....GE90-115B......98.9......100.5......91.9
777-200....GE90-85B.......95.2......98.0......89.9
777-200....Trent 895........98.3......99.4......93.4
777-200....GE90-76B.......94.1......97.7......89.1
767-300....RB211-524......94.8......99.1...... 92.5
747-400....RB211-524......98.1......103.4......99.1
A321-200..IAE V2533-A5..95.0......95.5......86.6
A320-200..IAE V2527-A5..91.7......95.3......83.2
A319-100..IAE V2522-A5..91.8......94.3......83.8
A318-100..CFM56-5B9....91.9......93.9......83.0

I never thought of the 777 as being noisey, but maybe that was because early in my career I was deafened by 707s, VC-10, Tridents, BAC 1-11s and the screaming Darts of Viscounts.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 4:19 pm
by BealineV953
77H wrote:
AirwayBill wrote:
Time to get over the sacred-cow myth, fact is (except for anet) that beast is nothing special at all really.


As for the aircraft being, as you put it "basic, uncomfortable noisy jet" that is "nothing special at all really".
I'd argue that the 777, while not the first WB twin, pushed the boundaries of what a WB twin could do for more than a decade and paved the way for the current generation of WB twins.

Luckily, the airlines of the world have weighed in on merits of the 777. I hardly doubt it would be the best selling family of WB aircraft in the history of commercial aviation if it was as bad as you assert.
Moreover, in 2019, 2 of the 10 longest commercial flights were still being operated by 777 variants, including one of the most challenging, JNB-ATL. Not bad for an aircraft family that was initially developed in the early 90's and had its first flight over a decade prior to the first flight of the 2nd aircraft type on that list, the A380.

77H


The 777 is a wonderful airliner, and 25 years of service is a milestone.
At my airline the 777 was a game-changer: broadly speaking, the 777 replaced the 747-100. In simple terms the 777B could do what the 747-100 did but on two engines. When the 777ER arrived it did what the 747-200 did but on two engines. That seemed pretty special at the time.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 4:55 pm
by xxcr
the 777 is an amazing plane! especially equipped with the GE90's...those engines are music to my ears!!!!!!!

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 6:01 pm
by Antarius
Strato2 wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
Horrible plane. Has made Boeing lot of money and tortured passengers around the world. Noisy and cramped.


Get over yourself. The 777 was a game changer in terms of cabin architecture and design. The 10 across seating is a relatively (last 3-5 years) new phenomenon, implemented by the airlines, not Boeing.


LOL. The 777 is a tube with wings nothing more. A horrible tube with wings. You are also wrong. The 10ab 777's have been here for over a decade already. I'm lucky that my only flight on a 777 (10ab) happened back in 2011 and I've been lucky enough to avoid it since then. Once again Boeing designed the width as such that it enabled airlines to implement these awful seating arrangements. It was deliberate or do you think Boeing designers are clueless idiots?


I guess Boeing and Airbus were also in cahoots to make the planes a limited length, thereby capping seat pitch. If they had designed an infinite length plane, everyone could have infinite legroom. Also, stupid manufacturers for building tubes with wings. :roll:

Some feedback - walk away before you come off sounding even more childish than you already do.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 6:10 pm
by Speedbird96
Strato2 wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
Horrible plane. Has made Boeing lot of money and tortured passengers around the world. Noisy and cramped.


Get over yourself. The 777 was a game changer in terms of cabin architecture and design. The 10 across seating is a relatively (last 3-5 years) new phenomenon, implemented by the airlines, not Boeing.


LOL. The 777 is a tube with wings nothing more. A horrible tube with wings. You are also wrong. The 10ab 777's have been here for over a decade already. I'm lucky that my only flight on a 777 (10ab) happened back in 2011 and I've been lucky enough to avoid it since then. Once again Boeing designed the width as such that it enabled airlines to implement these awful seating arrangements. It was deliberate or do you think Boeing designers are clueless idiots?


I am very eager to find out if you have any inside information behind Boeing implementation of 'awful seating arrangements'. Or is this based on personal opinion you have with the 777?

Besides you could say the same for virtually any other plane being a tube with wings, not just the 777! And perish the thought of Airbus advertising 9-abreast and 10-abreast on their A330 and A350... Oh, wait a minute!

No matter your opinion, the success of the 777 cannot be understated... The airframe proved just how capable a twin-engine wide-body can be, being continually improved upon and going on to even replace 747s. I always marvel at the sight of a 777 taking-off and deem them to be graceful in design.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 7:05 pm
by Ziyulu
From my experience, the noises on a 787 are more annoying. The engine sounds are almost like a noise reducer in a 777. On a 787, you hear the sounds of carts banging against seats, lavatory doors slamming, etc, which is much more annoying.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 8:30 pm
by DTVG
Ziyulu wrote:
From my experience, the noises on a 787 are more annoying. The engine sounds are almost like a noise reducer in a 777. On a 787, you hear the sounds of carts banging against seats, lavatory doors slamming, etc, which is much more annoying.


Yes, agree. On the 787 you hear other annoying noises coming from mysterious places. Also todays planes interior are crap. Everything thin, cheap, falling apart after a few months.
Regarding the 777. Technically an impressive plane when it was introduced, but as a passenger I must say that the A340 and A380 are definitely quieter inside and in general the seats are wider as most 777’s have the 3-4-3 layout.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 10:49 pm
by TaniTaniwha
Mi26 wrote:
As someone who flies 6-8 times a year between Entebbe and Australia, I avoid the 777 wherever possible. Love the Airbus 350. If I have to spend 14 hours plus in economy then it will not be a 777. I sure that I am not alone. The decision to go 10 across may have well been an operator action, but the General Public sees it as the Manufacturers fault.
I know that a vast number of Pax in Australia will ask for an A380 or A350 instead of a 777.


I'm not sure how you "know" this and I don't remember being part of the survey you must have carried out, so don't include me on this.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 11:27 pm
by Antarius
TaniTaniwha wrote:
Mi26 wrote:
As someone who flies 6-8 times a year between Entebbe and Australia, I avoid the 777 wherever possible. Love the Airbus 350. If I have to spend 14 hours plus in economy then it will not be a 777. I sure that I am not alone. The decision to go 10 across may have well been an operator action, but the General Public sees it as the Manufacturers fault.
I know that a vast number of Pax in Australia will ask for an A380 or A350 instead of a 777.


I'm not sure how you "know" this and I don't remember being part of the survey you must have carried out, so don't include me on this.


Also, the "general public" don't give a damn. If they did and actively avoided the 777, airlines wouldn't have made it the de facto longhaul aircraft.

The only people who count in the a.net "general public" are a fraction of a fraction of people who apparently relate strongly to the "princess and the pea" story. I suspect they'd make a "great" sommelier too.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 11:39 pm
by acavpics
I thin I am one of few people who would gladly spend a long haul flight in a 10-abreast 777 rather than some old 744 with rock hard seats and ghetto IFE.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 12:37 am
by DL_Mech
Strato2 wrote:
The 10ab 777's have been here for over a decade already. I'm lucky that my only flight on a 777 (10ab) happened back in 2011 and I've been lucky enough to avoid it since then. Once again Boeing designed the width as such that it enabled airlines to implement these awful seating arrangements. It was deliberate or do you think Boeing designers are clueless idiots?


The 3-4-3 777 was originally the charter config of the airplane when most carriers were 2-5-2 or 3-3-3. The locations of the seat tracks in the floor show where Boeing thought the most popular seat configs would be. The 3-4-3 config has seat legs in the middle of most seat cushions while 2-5-2 and 3-3-3 have legs near where the armrests are. I wonder if the 777X seat tracks are in the same locations as the "Classic."


Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 5:41 am
by pythoniels
Since I’m a 90’s kid, I’ve been lucky enough to board both a 9-abreast as well as a 10-abreast 777. I’m not that big of a person so this is completely person, but I’d rather sit in a 10-abreast 777 than and old non-refurbished 9-abreast I experienced on BA 2 years ago. It felt like the aircraft was flying for over 30 years already while delivered around 2002. Old worn seats, very small IFE, that stuff is no longer a competing product these days. And that 9-abreast looked way more cramped than the more modern and brighter 10-abreast. Keeping the comfort aside.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 5:54 am
by Noshow
It's very impressive how Boeing went from the original 777 to the way more capable top seller 777-300ER. Hope the renewed 777X can again raise the bar.
Airbus managed a similar thing with the old A330 and then the super selling A330-200 and -300. They face the same issues now with the A330neo. The third generation is not easy to do it seems. High expectations and old technologies at the same time.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 6:18 am
by marcelh
77H wrote:
As for 9 ab vs 10 ab, I have been on both, and while 9 ab is obviously more comfortable, I have probably flown more segments on 10 ab configs and its really not as dreadful as so many make it out to be. I'm 5'11" and 170ish lbs. Even then, the only 9 ab config I liked was the 2/5/2 setup which relatively few airlines had. Though as a dire hard window seat fan I find seat config largely inconsequential anyways. 9 vs 10 ab may be more apparent in the aisle seat though due to the narrower aisles 77H


10ab IS dreadful. Rubbing shoulders with someone you don’t know -and more important- you don’t want to know isn’t fun. Even friends who barely can see the difference between a A380 (“that big one”) and a 2holer (“had 1 engine under the wing”) are referring to the 10ab B777 as “The long big tube with the cramped seats”. Next time going to the USA they will fly Delta or Lufthansa instead of KLM

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 1:35 pm
by PM
My two cents.

I can claim 45 777 flights between May 1999 and October 2018. -200, -300, -200ER, -200LR, -300ER. Most in Economy but 9 in Business. Malaysia, Singapore, Cathay, BA, All Nippon, KLM, JAL, Air New Zealand, Asiana, Turkish, Thai, Emirates, Qatar and Ethiopian.

Not bad for someone who tries hard to avoid 777s!

I've never flown 10-abreat in Economy and I hope to God I never will.

Compared to A330s, A340s, 787s, and even 767s, I find the 777 noisy in all cabins.

Bottom line. You can't argue with sales. It has been highly successful. So I admire and respect it.

But I don't like it.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 2:13 pm
by ltbewr
For those that moan about 10 abreast seating, I am quite sure you love getting cheap seats when doing on-line shopping because of them. I am only 5'4" and a bit chunky, but 10 across seating is not an issue for me so long as get an aisle seat (as usually do on TATL flights).
There is no doubt Boeing structurally designed the original 777 to be able to offer 10 abreast coach seating knowing some airline customers wanted it.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 2:45 pm
by afterburner33
ltbewr wrote:
For those that moan about 10 abreast seating, I am quite sure you love getting cheap seats when doing on-line shopping because of them. I am only 5'4" and a bit chunky, but 10 across seating is not an issue for me so long as get an aisle seat (as usually do on TATL flights).
There is no doubt Boeing structurally designed the original 777 to be able to offer 10 abreast coach seating knowing some airline customers wanted it.


Absolutely.

And what I love even more is getting similarly cheap seats on a competitor airline which flies more comfortable aircraft. So I will thank the 777 for that.

PM wrote:
Bottom line. You can't argue with sales. It has been highly successful. So I admire and respect it.

But I don't like it.


This.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 4:29 pm
by Ziyulu
In the future, there is no difference on Boeing aircraft for regular airlines and charter airlines. They cannot do 3-4-3 in a 787 and cannot do 3-5-3 on a 777.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Wed May 20, 2020 11:39 pm
by dcajet
After some weeks in storage, the main star of this thread, N777UA, is back in commercial service. It flew SFO-EWR today and will do a EWR-IAH-EWR rotation tomorrow.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n777ua

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Thu May 21, 2020 2:44 am
by HOOB747
I first flew a UA 777 in August 2000 (SEA-DEN) and the contrast between the ancient rattle-trap UA DC-10 I few three days earlier (ORD-SEA) was striking. The Triple 7 was so incredibly smooth and solid, not a buzz or vibration to be heard or felt, no cracks or squeaks, just the most elegant flying experience. The DC-10 a few days earlier was clunky, nothing but shimmies and rattles and groans. I love the Boeing 777, and every one of my 32 flights with her have been just as memorable.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Thu May 21, 2020 3:57 am
by Airbusvoyager

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Thu May 21, 2020 5:00 pm
by NeBaNi
MrHMSH wrote:
It might not have the universal love or appeal of the 747, but I really like the 777. I've found it to be fairly pleasant to fly on (though my last trip on a 10ab 777 was when I was not fully grown!) and I love the way it sounds, the Trents and the GE90s on the 77W and 77L sound very authoritative. It has been *the* standard for long haul flying, and an enormous success for Boeing and the airlines that operate it. I would say the 747 is Boeing's biggest success story, but in its own understated way the 777 is a real winner. I don't have huge optimism for the 777X, but it will be around for a while, and I can't wait to see them in the skies.


Those three pictures bring out the best angle for the 777, what a gorgeous aircraft! So sleek -- clean lines, that wing flex and those raked wingtips! :hearts:

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Thu May 21, 2020 6:43 pm
by global2
Strato2 wrote:
Iluvtofly wrote:
BravoOne wrote:


Always one complainer:) The "cramped" issue if because of the operator, not Boeing.


How true is that .... any aircraft type can be cramped ..... nothing to do with the manufacturer !!!! The airline operating the aircraft determines the * crampiness* .... gets your facts straight before making such a ridiculous comment.


Boeing has chosen the width of the plane as such that it has enabled these horrible seating arrangements. It has everything to do with Boeing.


Oh, but Airbus would never dream of doing such a thing, would they? Oh, wait...
https://www.flightglobal.com/picture-ai ... 99.article

Had Airbus' fallacious market predictions actually come true and airlines were able to fill up the A380, guess whether or not they would have chosen to go 11-abreast. How comfortable would you have been in the center of a five-seat middle section? But no, it's just Boeing that conspires to make you uncomfortable. Your biased histrionics are truly tiresome.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Thu May 21, 2020 7:19 pm
by Ziyulu
How many carriers have 11 abreast A380s? How many carriers have 10 abreast 777s?

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Thu May 21, 2020 7:33 pm
by 9Patch
Ziyulu wrote:
How many carriers have 11 abreast A380s? How many carriers have 10 abreast 777s?

How many carriers are even flying A380s anymore?

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Thu May 21, 2020 7:57 pm
by IFlyVeryLittle
If it hadn't been for Boeing designing the fuselage width just so, Air France wouldn't have been able to install 10 abreast seating, And I wouldn't have sat next to that passenger two summers ago, from whom I likely caught the worst flu I ever had (instead of my wife, who sat next to the window). And in missing three days of work a week after vacation, I wouldn't have had time to job hunt on the internet and find a superior job with better pay. So thanks, 777.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Thu May 21, 2020 11:21 pm
by Dmoney
A terrible plane from the passenger perspective, hopefully the 777x is a tiny bit better. Economy is grand in general, I'm a man of simple tastes mostly. But **** me is the 777 awful in economy. It's too narrow to sit comfortably at the shoulder.

A330 and A350 are built so that 8&9 abreast is the only reasonable layout and perfectly fine. I hope the 777x is a success so I'm not stuck with Etihad 10 abreast for the next two decades when flying Boeing long haul.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Fri May 22, 2020 1:35 pm
by OldAeroGuy
Dmoney wrote:
A330 and A350 are built so that 8&9 abreast is the only reasonable layout and perfectly fine.


But it's not like Airbus has never promoted 9 A/B on the A330.

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2018/11/0 ... 9-abreast/

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Fri May 22, 2020 11:42 pm
by Dmoney
OldAeroGuy wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
A330 and A350 are built so that 8&9 abreast is the only reasonable layout and perfectly fine.


But it's not like Airbus has never promoted 9 A/B on the A330.

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2018/11/0 ... 9-abreast/



Except nobody fly's them. Or almost nobody, I don't personally care about Cebu Pacific. It's an edge case to me.

But in my experience that of many people in the west on Boeing planes it's miserable 10 abreast 777 or 9 abreast 787. 737 is grand. Like all the super connectors. Those Etihad 777 are the most miserable experience I've had, noisy as hell and I couldn't sit flat as they were so narrow. And they are big conventional mainline semi- prestigious carriers.

Equally when I've been on a330 they've been 8 across and grand and A380 with emirates were delightful. And that's what bugs me, the 777 is advertised at 9 across but you can fit ten enough that most are like that now. The A330 is incredibly rare at 9 as it's just not big enough. The market is gonna settle on what is cheapest. Can Boeing please not do the same in the future.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Fri May 22, 2020 11:42 pm
by Dmoney
OldAeroGuy wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
A330 and A350 are built so that 8&9 abreast is the only reasonable layout and perfectly fine.


But it's not like Airbus has never promoted 9 A/B on the A330.

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2018/11/0 ... 9-abreast/



Except nobody fly's them. Or almost nobody, I don't personally care about Cebu Pacific. It's an edge case to me.

But in my experience that of many people in the west on Boeing planes it's miserable 10 abreast 777 or 9 abreast 787. 737 is grand. Like all the super connectors. Those Etihad 777 are the most miserable experience I've had, noisy as hell and I couldn't sit flat as they were so narrow. And they are big conventional mainline semi- prestigious carriers.

Equally when I've been on a330 they've been 8 across and grand and A380 with emirates were delightful. And that's what bugs me, the 777 is advertised at 9 across but you can fit ten enough that most are like that now. The A330 is incredibly rare at 9 as it's just not big enough. The market is gonna settle on what is cheapest. Can Boeing please not do the same in the future.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 1:32 am
by 9Patch
Dmoney wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
A330 and A350 are built so that 8&9 abreast is the only reasonable layout and perfectly fine.


But it's not like Airbus has never promoted 9 A/B on the A330.

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2018/11/0 ... 9-abreast/



Except nobody fly's them. Or almost nobody, I don't personally care about Cebu Pacific. It's an edge case to me.

But in my experience that of many people in the west on Boeing planes it's miserable 10 abreast 777 or 9 abreast 787. 737 is grand. Like all the super connectors. Those Etihad 777 are the most miserable experience I've had, noisy as hell and I couldn't sit flat as they were so narrow. And they are big conventional mainline semi- prestigious carriers.

Equally when I've been on a330 they've been 8 across and grand and A380 with emirates were delightful. And that's what bugs me, the 777 is advertised at 9 across but you can fit ten enough that most are like that now. The A330 is incredibly rare at 9 as it's just not big enough. The market is gonna settle on what is cheapest. Can Boeing please not do the same in the future.


How can you blame Boeing for making a product their customers (the airlines) want?

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 1:33 am
by trex8
HOOB747 wrote:
I first flew a UA 777 in August 2000 (SEA-DEN) and the contrast between the ancient rattle-trap UA DC-10 I few three days earlier (ORD-SEA) was striking. The Triple 7 was so incredibly smooth and solid, not a buzz or vibration to be heard or felt, no cracks or squeaks, just the most elegant flying experience. The DC-10 a few days earlier was clunky, nothing but shimmies and rattles and groans. I love the Boeing 777, and every one of my 32 flights with her have been just as memorable.

You haven't been in a 20 year old 777 have you?

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 7:45 am
by Max Q
Was the triple the first Jet transport with a completely circular fuselage?

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 8:18 am
by Dmoney
9Patch wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:

But it's not like Airbus has never promoted 9 A/B on the A330.

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2018/11/0 ... 9-abreast/



Except nobody fly's them. Or almost nobody, I don't personally care about Cebu Pacific. It's an edge case to me.

But in my experience that of many people in the west on Boeing planes it's miserable 10 abreast 777 or 9 abreast 787. 737 is grand. Like all the super connectors. Those Etihad 777 are the most miserable experience I've had, noisy as hell and I couldn't sit flat as they were so narrow. And they are big conventional mainline semi- prestigious carriers.

Equally when I've been on a330 they've been 8 across and grand and A380 with emirates were delightful. And that's what bugs me, the 777 is advertised at 9 across but you can fit ten enough that most are like that now. The A330 is incredibly rare at 9 as it's just not big enough. The market is gonna settle on what is cheapest. Can Boeing please not do the same in the future.


How can you blame Boeing for making a product their customers (the airlines) want?



It's great for Boeing. Shite for passengers. You can just make a nice profitable efficient plane which isn't optimized for a miserable passenger experience. That's all.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 8:57 am
by 9Patch
Dmoney wrote:
9Patch wrote:
Dmoney wrote:


Except nobody fly's them. Or almost nobody, I don't personally care about Cebu Pacific. It's an edge case to me.

But in my experience that of many people in the west on Boeing planes it's miserable 10 abreast 777 or 9 abreast 787. 737 is grand. Like all the super connectors. Those Etihad 777 are the most miserable experience I've had, noisy as hell and I couldn't sit flat as they were so narrow. And they are big conventional mainline semi- prestigious carriers.

Equally when I've been on a330 they've been 8 across and grand and A380 with emirates were delightful. And that's what bugs me, the 777 is advertised at 9 across but you can fit ten enough that most are like that now. The A330 is incredibly rare at 9 as it's just not big enough. The market is gonna settle on what is cheapest. Can Boeing please not do the same in the future.


How can you blame Boeing for making a product their customers (the airlines) want?



It's great for Boeing. Shite for passengers. You can just make a nice profitable efficient plane which isn't optimized for a miserable passenger experience. That's all.

It was the airlines decision to go from 9x to 10x.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 1:55 pm
by OldAeroGuy
Max Q wrote:
Was the triple the first Jet transport with a completely circular fuselage?


No, the A300 and it's derivatives (A310, A330 & A340) beat them to it.

There may be others, I'm feeling too lazy to research the topic right now.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 4:22 pm
by DTWLAX
trex8 wrote:
HOOB747 wrote:
I first flew a UA 777 in August 2000 (SEA-DEN) and the contrast between the ancient rattle-trap UA DC-10 I few three days earlier (ORD-SEA) was striking. The Triple 7 was so incredibly smooth and solid, not a buzz or vibration to be heard or felt, no cracks or squeaks, just the most elegant flying experience. The DC-10 a few days earlier was clunky, nothing but shimmies and rattles and groans. I love the Boeing 777, and every one of my 32 flights with her have been just as memorable.

You haven't been in a 20 year old 777 have you?

Or probably not been on a A380.
Just as the 777 raised the bar compared to a DC-10, the A380 raised the bar compared to a 777 in terms of noise levels and cabin comfort.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 5:56 pm
by Dmoney
9Patch wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
9Patch wrote:

How can you blame Boeing for making a product their customers (the airlines) want?



It's great for Boeing. Shite for passengers. You can just make a nice profitable efficient plane which isn't optimized for a miserable passenger experience. That's all.

It was the airlines decision to go from 9x to 10x.


Which Boeing fundamentally enabled through design. It's a miserable passenger experience on a 777 and it's not on a A330. I generally have no interest on what plane I fly but I check for long haul and if it's a 777 I take a look to see if there is another option. I mean it's not a huge deal but I'd pay 50-100 quid to avoid.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 6:16 pm
by 9Patch
Dmoney wrote:
9Patch wrote:
Dmoney wrote:


It's great for Boeing. Shite for passengers. You can just make a nice profitable efficient plane which isn't optimized for a miserable passenger experience. That's all.

It was the airlines decision to go from 9x to 10x.


Which Boeing fundamentally enabled through design. It's a miserable passenger experience on a 777 and it's not on a A330. I generally have no interest on what plane I fly but I check for long haul and if it's a 777 I take a look to see if there is another option. I mean it's not a huge deal but I'd pay 50-100 quid to avoid.

You're faulting Boeing for making their wide bodies too wide!

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 6:18 pm
by Dmoney
9Patch wrote:
Dmoney wrote:
9Patch wrote:
It was the airlines decision to go from 9x to 10x.


Which Boeing fundamentally enabled through design. It's a miserable passenger experience on a 777 and it's not on a A330. I generally have no interest on what plane I fly but I check for long haul and if it's a 777 I take a look to see if there is another option. I mean it's not a huge deal but I'd pay 50-100 quid to avoid.

You're faulting Boeing for making their wide bodies too wide!



That's the exact opposite of what I said. Why lie? The 777 is too narrow to sit comfortably in economy. It's miserable.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 6:20 pm
by 9Patch
Dmoney wrote:
9Patch wrote:
Dmoney wrote:

Which Boeing fundamentally enabled through design. It's a miserable passenger experience on a 777 and it's not on a A330. I generally have no interest on what plane I fly but I check for long haul and if it's a 777 I take a look to see if there is another option. I mean it's not a huge deal but I'd pay 50-100 quid to avoid.

You're faulting Boeing for making their wide bodies too wide!



That's the exact opposite of what I said. Why lie? The 777 is too narrow to sit comfortably in economy. It's miserable.

The 777 is wider than the A350.
The 787 is wider than the A330.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:29 pm
by FGITD
This whole debate is fascinating.

If I buy a car to use as a taxi, That is designed with 4 seats, but after awhile I realize I can make more money by wedging in a 5th seat, at the cost of passenger comfort...is the original manufacturer at fault?

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Mon May 25, 2020 5:45 am
by Ziyulu
I’m not faulting the manufacturer. It’s just sad that anytime a 777 or 787 is the plane type, I look at other routes.

Re: 777 - 25 years in commercial service

Posted: Mon May 25, 2020 6:25 am
by PANAMsterdam
dcajet wrote:
After some weeks in storage, the main star of this thread, N777UA, is back in commercial service. It flew SFO-EWR today and will do a EWR-IAH-EWR rotation tomorrow.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n777ua



9Patch wrote:
Ziyulu wrote:
How many carriers have 11 abreast A380s? How many carriers have 10 abreast 777s?

How many carriers are even flying A380s anymore?



Just think of this. Birthday girl N777UA has, after eating her birthday cake and a well deserved short vacation, resumed her faithful duties and an entire aircraft model has come (and almost completely gone) in her lifespan.