UAL747
Topic Author
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 1:43 am

I was just going through some great photos of 777's and A340's on a.net, which led me to the question.

I've heard many people argue that some airlines are not satisfied with the A340NG's however, I do not, for the most part hear people saying that airlines are unhappy with the 777 in ANY variant.

We all know that the A340 old school has some trouble climbing quickly, especially at hot and high airports. We know that the A340NG's are having some issues with airlines as well.

Can anyone think of an Airline who is not satisfied with their 777's? Is there anything this family of aircraft does that is not on par, or better than the Airbus counter-part?

Are there any structural/performance issues the 777 has that are NOT beneficial to an airline? Are there any Airbus widebodies besides the A380 that perform better than the 777 family?

I sincerely hope this thread does not become inflamatory, and let's try and keep it that way.

UAL
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
isitsafenow
Posts: 3413
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 9:22 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:12 am

I don't think so but a few were disappointed in the MD-11......but that's a different thread.....somewheres.
safe
If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
 
LHUSA
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:15 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:15 am

I remember reading something that PK was not too happy with their 777LRs at first. Something to do with climb rates not being as promised. Not a 100% sure though.
 
brendows
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:55 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:19 am

Quoting LHUSA (Reply 2):
I remember reading something that PK was not too happy with their 777LRs at first. Something to do with climb rates not being as promised. Not a 100% sure though.

You are correct that this was reported in the media, but the claims have pretty much been rejected based on known performance figures.
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2260
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:25 am

Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
We all know that the A340 old school has some trouble climbing quickly, especially at hot and high airports.

The A-340 is a four engine aircraft. With all engines operating and at maximum climb limit weight the two engine aircraft will outclimb a four engine aircraft as an artifact of engine out performance requirements. A B-747-400 loaded to a similar percentage of its MCLW will likewise be a slow climber.

With an engine out (which all performance problems are based on) the twin is at a distinct disadvantage and will be outclimbed by a three or four engine aircraft.

There isn't anything wrong with the A-340's climb rate, it's a result of selecting a four engine aircraft, which has other operational and performance advantages.
 
cbphoto
Posts: 1236
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:23 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:32 am

If I remember correctly, wasn't SU not satisified with the original 777s they recieved, and because of that, got rid of them very quickly! I can't remember the reason why they were not happy with them, but maybe someone can shed light on this!!!
ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15061
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:35 am

Quoting Brendows (Reply 3):
You are correct that this was reported in the media, but the claims have pretty much been rejected based on known performance figures.

And that the claim, not claims, came in one newspaper, once, and made little sense. It seemed as if it was made up or misinformed, or intended to "shift blame" for PK losing nonstop authority to the USA due to security concerns (it's not our fault, the planes can't do it...).

But it gained traction with people who wanted to believe it, which is the reason any "subjective" news source prints an article like that anyway.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26787
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:36 am

I imagine "dissatisfied" as it is commonly used is probably not the best term, since most operators of a type generally add more which means if they really just felt it was sub-par, they wouldn't. And also with modern modeling it is unlikely an airliner is going to miss the mark by double-digit percentages, which would be real grounds for dissatisfaction.

I imagine it is more changing environments favoring one model over another down the road. The 777-200(A) has been significantly outsold by the A330-300 since both entered service, yet all but one of the 772As are still flying. SQ changed out their A343s for 772ERs, yet is soon to change them out for A333s. Does that mean SQ is so "dissatisfied" with the 777 they want to get rid of the type? Of course not, considering they bought 77 of them over the past decade. It's just that they found the 772ER to better perform certain missions then the A343 and now finds the A333 better performs other missions then the 772ER.

[Edited 2007-06-08 19:46:38]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26787
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:39 am

Quoting Cbphoto (Reply 5):
If I remember correctly, wasn't SU not satisified with the original 777s they recieved, and because of that, got rid of them very quickly! I can't remember the reason why they were not happy with them, but maybe someone can shed light on this!!!

SU loved their 777s. The problem was they only had two, which made effective fleet planning impossible and therefore caused them lots of problems. If they had sufficient frames, I am sure they'd still be flying today in that gorgeous livery.
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:41 am

The performance of the ER models is leading some airlines to rethink their non ER models, especially the 200, but only under certain circumstances. The 777 is holding up quite well IMO.

They are expensive to buy too, so that is a factor that can affect the financial aspects. I guess an airline could buy used or maybe new 340s and possibly make more money that with a new 777 under certain circumstances.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
airbazar
Posts: 9994
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:43 am

Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
I've heard many people argue that some airlines are not satisfied with the A340NG's [...]
We all know that the A340 old school has some trouble climbing quickly, especially at hot and high airports.

AF and IB don't seem to have much of a problem operating their A340's to MEX.
Most of what we hear is nothing but rumors or mis-conception. Yes, the 777 is better than the A340, but it's also a much newer aircraft technologically speaking. Often people see an upgrade from the older A340 to the newer 777 as a sign of disatisfaction rather than just a logical step forward.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9292
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:44 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
The 777-200(A) has been significantly outsold by the A330-300 since both entered service, yet all the 772As are still flying.

With the one exception of the GE-powered ex-Varig 772A that was parted out...
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26787
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:46 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 11):
With the one exception of the GE-powered ex-Varig 772A that was parted out...

I thought she was an ER. I stand corrected.
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5025
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:46 am

What about EVA´s 77L order?

Read that they wasn´t interested in -LR and change it to freighters, true or false?

Micke//  Smile
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5537
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:48 am

The telling question would be how many airlines have sold off 777's and replaced them with something else?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26787
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:49 am

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 13):
What about EVA´s 77L order? Read that they wasn´t interested in -LR and change it to freighters, true or false?

Well they had to wait years more then they expected when Boeing stopped development of the 77L to concentrate on the 77W. The order no longer is on Boeing's order page, so they either just canceled it outright or they converted them to 77Ws in December 2002.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9292
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:53 am

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 13):
What about EVA´s 77L order?

Read that they wasn´t interested in -LR and change it to freighters, true or false?

EVA ordered the 772LR for its range performance, but as we all know, the 773ER gained a considerable amount of range during its development. The 773ER that entered service had the range to perform many of the flights EVA ordered the 772LR for, and could do them at higher passenger loads. So EVA exercised additional 773ER options and converted their 772LR into dedicated freighters.

Regarding airlines "disappointed" in the 777, yes there have been some. The fiasco with the PW4098-112 engine led SAA and LAN to cancel their 777 orders before they accepted delivery of any aircraft.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
karan69
Posts: 2728
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:57 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:44 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 16):
The fiasco with the PW4098-112 engine led SAA and LAN to cancel their 777 orders before they accepted delivery of any aircraft.

For the benefit of those unaware of the PW Fiasco could you please provide us a link or give us a brief on it, or was it simply related to performance issues.

Karan
 
blsbls99
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 5:07 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:59 am

I believe Air Europa and Aeroflot are the only two airlines that have removed the 777 from their fleets entirely.
319 320 313 722 732 733 735 73G 738 739 742 752 763 772 CRJ D9S ERJ EMB L10 M88 M90 SF3 AT4
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26787
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:04 am

Quoting Karan69 (Reply 17):
For the benefit of those unaware of the PW Fiasco could you please provide us a link or give us a brief on it, or was it simply related to performance issues.

If I am remembering LightSabre correctly, they totally blew the allowable emissions levels. The entire PW4000 line is borderline in at least one area (NOx?), as I recall, but the PW4098 was so bad in that (and perhaps additional) area(s) the model had to be recalled and scrapped. I think KE was the only airline taking delivery at the time (on their 773As) and they all had to come off. One is now on display in the Museum of Future Flight at PAE.
 
EddieDude
Posts: 7033
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:06 am

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 10):
AF and IB don't seem to have much of a problem operating their A340's to MEX.

I agree they do not. While AF is going all 772ER if I am not mistaken, IB is really happy with its long-haul fleet.

At some point, Airbus launched a very aggressive campaing to try to get an order for A340s from AM as replacements for the 767s that are used to European destinations MAD and CDG (as we all know, the 763ERs have difficulty making MEX-Europe during the summer fully loaded, and the 762ER is not the ideal plane for this because, at 181 seats, they cannot even begin to satisfy the demand). In the end, AM went with the 772ER, which was expected, but one of Airbus' main arguments for the sales pitch was the performance of the A343E for hot and high take offs.
Upcoming flights:
April/May: AM MEX-SCL 788 (J), AM EZE-MEX 789 (J).
 
User avatar
Aeroflot777
Posts: 3174
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 2:19 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:10 am

Quoting Cbphoto (Reply 5):
If I remember correctly, wasn't SU not satisified with the original 777s they recieved, and because of that, got rid of them very quickly! I can't remember the reason why they were not happy with them, but maybe someone can shed light on this!!!

No, no, no. Don't say that. Very common misconception! Stitch has the right idea, read short summary of problem below!  Smile

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
SU loved their 777s. The problem was they only had two, which made effective fleet planning impossible and therefore caused them lots of problems. If they had sufficient frames, I am sure they'd still be flying today in that gorgeous livery.

 checkmark 

Aeroflot777
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5537
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:12 am

Quoting Blsbls99 (Reply 18):
I believe Air Europa and Aeroflot are the only two airlines that have removed the 777 from their fleets entirely.

Aeroflot has been discussed; why did Air Europa ditch them?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:14 am

Quoting LHUSA (Reply 2):
I remember reading something that PK was not too happy with their 777LRs at first. Something to do with climb rates not being as promised. Not a 100% sure though.

It had to do with takeoff from high altitude fields and according to Boeing, pilots needing more training on how to get best performance from 772LR.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 4):
Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
We all know that the A340 old school has some trouble climbing quickly, especially at hot and high airports.

The A-340 is a four engine aircraft. With all engines operating and at maximum climb limit weight the two engine aircraft will outclimb a four engine aircraft as an artifact of engine out performance requirements. A B-747-400 loaded to a similar percentage of its MCLW will likewise be a slow climber.

While it is true, 2 engine ETOPS aircraft have to be overpowered due to 1 engine out takeoff requirements, A343 is uniquely underpowered, it just has a comparatively low thrust/weight ratio. Airbus originally planned to use more powerful IAE geared fan engines, those never happened, so they took CFM56's as a runner up, which were not as powerful. A340-500 and A340-600 are 4 engine aircraft that are not underpowered, as an example. Then again, they aren't as efficient as A343 either.

Quoting Cbphoto (Reply 5):
If I remember correctly, wasn't SU not satisified with the original 777s they recieved, and because of that, got rid of them very quickly! I can't remember the reason why they were not happy with them, but maybe someone can shed light on this!!!

They were expensive and it was hard operating a small subfleet of 2 aircraft.

Quoting Karan69 (Reply 17):
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 16):
The fiasco with the PW4098-112 engine led SAA and LAN to cancel their 777 orders before they accepted delivery of any aircraft.

For the benefit of those unaware of the PW Fiasco could you please provide us a link or give us a brief on it, or was it simply related to performance issues.

The PW4098, intended to compete with Trent 895 and GE90-94b, failed to meet fuel burn and emissions numbers. Korean took delivery of 777-300s with them and Pratt and Whitney had to take back the PW4098 engines and give them PW4092 (i think they were 4092, they could have been 4090) as a replacement, as 4098 failed to meet emissions standards and burned fuel greater than promised levels. The PW4098 has since been discontinued and none remain in service. The engine failed. Operators have been unhappy with PW's 4000 series (mostly PW4098) on 777 but not so much with the actual plane. Northwest said, when deciding between A330 and 777, that they were unimpressed with performance of PW powered 777s. So it seems there has been some unhappy sentiment there. Otherwise, everyone seems very happy with them. Especially 777-300ER... that aircraft turned out to surprise even Boeing in the degree to which it beat expected and promised performance with lower fuel burn and greater range than expected.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:30 am

IIRC, United, while not DISsatisfied with their earliest 777's, wishes some of them were more powerful and longer range to use on trans-Pacific routes, instead of being relagated to domestic routes.

I believe the early models have PW engines, yes?
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5025
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:37 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 22):
Aeroflot has been discussed; why did Air Europa ditch them?

Huh!

Had no idea that 777 was in Air Europa fleet...any pics of that 777?

Micke//  Confused
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19001
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:51 am

Quoting Karan69 (Reply 17):
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 16):
The fiasco with the PW4098-112 engine led SAA and LAN to cancel their 777 orders before they accepted delivery of any aircraft.

For the benefit of those unaware of the PW Fiasco could you please provide us a link or give us a brief on it, or was it simply related to performance issues.

Yes, the PW4098 was a fiasco. Mostly fuel burn. With 4% higher fuel burn than promise, the added lift provided simply resulted in more fuel being carried... to go less distance.

Oh... nitpick, PW4098-102. The idea of getting 112k of thrust out of that engine? Oh baby!  Wink It was designed for 102k, but since it completely missed efficiency targets...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
If I am remembering LightSabre correctly, they totally blew the allowable emissions levels.

You're remembering why the PW4090 wasn't up-thrusted. When Pratt looked into upgrading the PW4090, there were a few durability issues. So while fixing those they "upgraded" the high spool a bit... yea... history has shown it not to be an upgrade.

Now fully on topic. Early customers of 772A's with the *small* cargo door option have many complaints. Due to the inability to efficiently (profitably) load bulk cargo... these have had much poorer resale than those ordered with the extra cost larger cargo doors. (Engine independent, but the vast majority were Pratt's due to delivery timelines).

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:59 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 24):
IIRC, United, while not DISsatisfied with their earliest 777's, wishes some of them were more powerful and longer range to use on trans-Pacific routes, instead of being relagated to domestic routes.

I believe the early models have PW engines, yes?

The entire UA 777 fleet is PW4000 powered. The early 777-200A's are powered by PW4077s and have plenty of range for North America to Europe (well, Chicago and east to Europe, at least). The newer 777-200ER's have PW4090 engines, and while I cannot find the MTOW of their 772ER's published, it is rumored to be lower than 772ER's max possible MTOW, thought likely not by much. UA has just a few 772A's, and their 772ER's serve on some of their longest routes (IAD-NRT, LAX-HKG, SFO-TPE).

The problem with the PW4000s is that PW4090 was about the largest and most powerful variant that worked as it was supposed to. PW4098 was a disaster and the upgrades in 4092 caused other issues.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
ajd1992
Posts: 2390
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:11 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 5:21 am

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 25):

Had no idea that 777 was in Air Europa fleet...any pics of that 777?

They didn't - However Air Europe did  Wink

They were either Italian or Irish registered, IIRC.
 
warreng24
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 5:22 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 24):
IIRC, United, while not DISsatisfied with their earliest 777's, wishes some of them were more powerful and longer range to use on trans-Pacific routes, instead of being relagated to domestic routes.

I believe the early models have PW engines, yes?

I was under the impression that UA ordered these first few 777 "A" models with a lower MTOW rating from Boeing as well as a lower thurst rating from P&W. They can be "up-rated" but at a cost.
 
flynavy
Posts: 2179
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 5:29 am


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Marcel Drescher
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Manuel Marin


Air Austral took up the ex-Air Europe frames.
-FlyNavy
Change is: one airline, six continents!
 
khelmDTW
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:55 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 5:32 am

I think Aeroflot didn't like them. The crews did, but the airline did not. (most likely a political reason there  Sad)
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration"
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26787
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 5:37 am

Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 29):
I was under the impression that UA ordered these first few 777 "A" models with a lower MTOW rating from Boeing as well as a lower thurst rating from P&W. They can be "up-rated" but at a cost.

I believe this is correct.

Quoting KhelmDTW (Reply 31):
I think Aeroflot didn't like them. The crews did, but the airline did not.

The airline didn't like only having two of them...
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 5:41 am

I think there are a few operators of 777-200 "A" models that aren't particularly thrilled, especially if they operate A330-300s along side them (or probably wish they did).

Cheers
 
FCKC
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:39 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:10 am

Air EuropA (Spain) never operated any T7s.

Air EuropE (Italy) operated T7s , which went to Air Austral , simply to have a common fleet with Volare , with whom they merged.Probably they were happy with the T7s.
 
UAL747
Topic Author
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:16 am

The 777A was a short term replacement for airlines DC-10/L-1011 fleets, in particular, United..and Cathay Pacific. I don't think anyone who bought the 777A thought that they were going to get the performance of the 772ER. It simply wasn't designed for that.

As for United, they knowingly purchased these -A models with the PW4077, which is not going to give you the MTOW or the performance needed to make transpacific longhaul ops. United, if memory serves correctly, initially wanted an aircraft that could replace the DC-10 on routes like DEN-HNL nonstop and ORD-HNL, of which the 777A is more than capable of doing.

UAL

[Edited 2007-06-08 23:17:33]
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
JAL
Posts: 3876
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2000 12:37 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:30 am

I don't think I have heard of any airline not happy with the 777 maybe Aeroflot was since they got rid of theirs a few years ago.
Work Hard But Play Harder
 
cbphoto
Posts: 1236
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:23 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:31 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
SU loved their 777s. The problem was they only had two, which made effective fleet planning impossible and therefore caused them lots of problems. If they had sufficient frames, I am sure they'd still be flying today in that gorgeous livery.

Ahh,,, I see! Why did they have only two of them??? Is that what they originally wanted, or were there politics involved in it? You would think if a carrier loves an aircraft, then they would get more to make it more feasible to operate a fleet of them?
ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
 
UAL747
Topic Author
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:49 am

I know that Aeroflot used to fly their 777's SVO-PEK. I got to see one in PEK in the summer of 2001 with that nasty older livery with the purple and green paint splashes. Looked like something from the credits of "Saved by the Bell."

UAL
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5537
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:13 am

Quoting CBPhoto (Reply 37):
Ahh,,, I see! Why did they have only two of them??? Is that what they originally wanted, or were there politics involved in it?

What makes you think that Aeroflot can do anything without politics being involved?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
Aeroflot777
Posts: 3174
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 2:19 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:01 am

Quoting KhelmDTW (Reply 31):
I think Aeroflot didn't like them. The crews did, but the airline did not. (most likely a political reason there Sad)

Read some of the posts above, SU DID like them.

Quoting JAL (Reply 36):
I don't think I have heard of any airline not happy with the 777 maybe Aeroflot was since they got rid of theirs a few years ago.

Again, read above as well...

Quoting CBPhoto (Reply 37):
Ahh,,, I see! Why did they have only two of them??? Is that what they originally wanted, or were there politics involved in it? You would think if a carrier loves an aircraft, then they would get more to make it more feasible to operate a fleet of them?

That's all they wanted originally. They only needed the 777 on a few routes at all times. Over a few years, it became apparent that operating two is hard on crew and scheduling. Therefore they gave them back and are now placing a large order for 787/350 (depending on current political situations).

Aeroflot777
 
cbphoto
Posts: 1236
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:23 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:12 am

Quoting Aeroflot777 (Reply 40):
That's all they wanted originally. They only needed the 777 on a few routes at all times. Over a few years, it became apparent that operating two is hard on crew and scheduling. Therefore they gave them back and are now placing a large order for 787/350 (depending on current political situations).

Gotcha, Thanks for the explanation!!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 39):
What makes you think that Aeroflot can do anything without politics being involved?

Lets just say I was being polite about it  Wink
ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:19 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 23):
Korean took delivery of 777-300s with them and Pratt and Whitney had to take back the PW4098 engines and give them PW4092

I recall Pratt paying stiff operational penalties to KE, but not of them re-engining the aircraft. Evidence of this?

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 23):
(i think they were 4092, they could have been 4090) as a replacement

While the PW4090 was intended for operational levels of up to 91,790... it was never fully certified (emissions) to op at that level and thus there is no such engine as the PW4092.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 27):
I cannot find the MTOW of their 772ER's published,

648,000lbs
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
AEROFAN
Posts: 1827
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:47 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:01 pm

Well I know VS was not happy with their 346s at the start, and they are not terribly happy with them now either
 
hamster
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:08 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:10 pm

My perception of the 777 is that it is the finest plane ever built. I flew EVA from Taiwan to BKK and though it was a little noisy, I thought it was magnificent aircraft.
 
LHR777
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 6:14 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:57 pm

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 26):
Now fully on topic. Early customers of 772A's with the *small* cargo door option have many complaints. Due to the inability to efficiently (profitably) load bulk cargo... these have had much poorer resale than those ordered with the extra cost larger cargo doors. (Engine independent, but the vast majority were Pratt's due to delivery timelines).

To clarify - the 777 'A' Market aircraft has a large cargo door in the forward hold for compartments 1 and 2. This allows up to 6 pallets to be loaded. The rear hold has a smaller door, only permitting the use of AKE-type (LD3) containers. The 'bulk' or loose cargo is loaded in Compartment 5, in the very rear of the hold. Compartment 5 does have a seperate door for access.

The all-pallet configuration does make the aircraft very nose-heavy, operating close to it's forward trim limit. This also depends of the weight of the pallets, of course.

Our 3 remaining 777-200 A market aircraft at British Airways are GE powered, by the GE90-75B. Engines producing a 'mere' 75,000lbs of thrust. Still, good enough for Dubai in the height of summer in 120F heat!
 
ua76heavy
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:37 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:31 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
SQ changed out their A343s for 772ERs, yet is soon to change them out for A333s. Does that mean SQ is so "dissatisfied" with the 777 they want to get rid of the type? Of course not, considering they bought 77 of them over the past decade. It's just that they found the 772ER to better perform certain missions then the A343 and now finds the A333 better performs other missions then the 772ER.

Actually, SQ needed an aircraft to replace its A300s and and used its 772ERs. But the 772ERs are too heavy for the short to medium length missions (and therefore incur a weight penalty). The A333 comes closer to it and adds some flexibility. In an interview with AW&ST, Chew Choon Seng said he'd rather 'abuse' a 772 than add another aircraft type to the fleet. But, the cost must be killing their profits on these missions and the A333 probably gives them a relief.

Also, I wouldn't doubt Airbus gave SQ a deal they couldn't resist on the A333s (maybe a rock-bottom price, no cancellaton penalty, performance guarantees, etc.).
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:52 pm

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 42):
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 23):
Korean took delivery of 777-300s with them and Pratt and Whitney had to take back the PW4098 engines and give them PW4092

I recall Pratt paying stiff operational penalties to KE, but not of them re-engining the aircraft. Evidence of this?

RE: 777 Powered With PW Engines: Which Airlines? (by AA777223 Jan 1 2007 in Civil Aviation)

several people there refer to PW4098 being taken back by PW and the 777-300s being given PW4090s. There were apparently also reliability issues on the PW4098.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 42):
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 23):
(i think they were 4092, they could have been 4090) as a replacement

While the PW4090 was intended for operational levels of up to 91,790... it was never fully certified (emissions) to op at that level and thus there is no such engine as the PW4092.

It appears you are right, though the designed it, none were sold (for reasons you stated). My bad.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 42):
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 27):
I cannot find the MTOW of their 772ER's published,

648,000lbs

makes sense. thanks.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
bill142
Posts: 7866
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:50 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:09 pm

Quoting Aerofan (Reply 43):
Well I know VS was not happy with their 346s at the start, and they are not terribly happy with them now either

Which is why they're one of the biggest operators and have ordered them more then once  Yeah sure
 
airbazar
Posts: 9994
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Any Airlines Not Satisfied With Their 777's?

Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:05 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 14):
The telling question would be how many airlines have sold off 777's and replaced them with something else?

That doesn't prove that customers were not happy with the aircraft. That's an example of the mis-conception that I pointed out in reply10. Replaceing an A340 with a 777 only proves the obvious, that the 777 is a better aircraft. As of now, there is no better aircraft than the 777, so there is nothing to replace it with. When the 777's do start to get replaced, will you say that customers are unhappy with the 777? No.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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