Max Q wrote:

RamblinMan wrote:

I'd much rather hear the roar of the engine than loud children or snoring fat dudes. I don't get the love for quiet planes, ain't anything "quiet" about being stuffed in a tube with a couple hundred other people. The roar of a GE90 is the best white noise machine ever.

Agree with that and another reason I love
riding on the 747 more than any other aircraft still

Having said that I just rode on a RR powered triple for the first time and was
really impressed how much quieter and smoother that engine is over the GE90

And aren't you a UA/EWR 777 pilot?

I love all aircraft.
from the 707/DC-8 of my childhood, thru the B747 era, tri-jets, RJ's, props, and today's narrower array of pax-dense twin jets.

I don't even have to always be comfortable to enjoy the experience. I don't blame the plane.
I only have to have a view of the wing/engines to marvel at the mechanical beauty and "magic" of flight; for this reason, I am oddly unsatisfied with the premium cabin experience - can't see the works in action.

I like the roar of the engines. I like watching the thrust reversers, the speed brakes, the control surfaces twitching about responding to input.

I'll never understand the people (on this forum and others) so totally engrossed in the luxury and gastronomic experience they demand in the premium cabins - the need to be totally insulated from the marvelous craft that will take them across continents and oceans.

My first flight came at 5 days of age, and I've never stopped the love affair.

Cheers to the B777, and all the other wonderful machines that have lifted me off the ground.

fsxfan38 wrote:

I'd like to preface this by saying that I understand that the 777 is a beautiful bird in its own right. They look positively majestic when they fly over, they are much more fuel efficient than any other giant airliner on the market, and overall it was a very influential plane that took the aviation industry by storm in the 90s and 2000s.

However, The one thing that I absolutley hate about the 777 is the fact that it has killed so many other beautiful and unique widebodies. The 777 was the final nail in the coffin for the L-1011 in the 90s, and it slowly but surely killed the DC-10, the early generation 747-100s and 200s, and the MD-11 throughout the 2000s. And it's not done yet, in this decade, the 777 has worked its way to kill the 747-400, the 747-8i, and even the A380.
When you look at it this way, the 777 really is the number 1 contender when it comes to widebodies, as it's beaten each and every one of it's opponents. I'm pissed that it killed so many other aircraft, but I can't help but be impressed.

Just like the Survivor song, The Boeing 777 rose up to the challenge of it's rivals, had the guts, got the glory, went the distance and now it's not gonna stop.

Sounds like you're bitter and blaming the 777 for the demise of the trijet aircraft of which I am a lover myself. But if you really want to go down that road don't blame the 777 blame the A300. That was really the first twin jet widebody design that started the wave of other widebody twins. Just as technology has done away with the Flight Engineer it has done away with the 3rd engine. I have flown only once on a 777 and that was a freighter. It is very nice ride and powerful and pilots love flying it.

The 777-300ER is actually measurably quieter than the 747-400's that it replaced on many routes. That was one of the goals Boeing set out for; it wasn't by chance.

I love the look of the 747-400, love the speed of it too and I was sad when the 777 started replacing it on the route I fly most often (JFK-NRT). I still have a lot of pics of flying JAL and ANA 747-400's multiple times on that route, but I've also flown them on UA and NW.

BUT, I definitely feel less fatigued after that long of a flight on a 777. The 777-300ER might be loud, but the 747-400 is LOUD. I used to get off the plane with a splitting headache, dizziness and would just generally feel awful for an entire day after flying halfway around the world on a 747-400. I just chalked it up to jetlag at the time, not having any other experience to compare it to. But I just don't feel that way flying in a 777-300ER. I feel basically fine when I get off. The first time I thought it was a fluke, but I've taken probably a dozen more 777-300ER flights on that route since the first and they've all been the same.

It's not just the volume either; the 747 was known throughout its life for a really aggressive yaw damper, and you could easily feel it when sitting in the back. It was like being whipped around even when the air was smooth. The 777 just doesn't have that issue.

I definitely think it's kind of a weird looking plane, but not in an unpleasant way. Once you know it's got a 767 cockpit and nose on a much bigger fuselage, it's impossible to unsee it. It's like a person with a face that's too small for their head and body. But the rest of the body is nicely balanced.

stratosphere wrote:

fsxfan38 wrote:

I'd like to preface this by saying that I understand that the 777 is a beautiful bird in its own right. They look positively majestic when they fly over, they are much more fuel efficient than any other giant airliner on the market, and overall it was a very influential plane that took the aviation industry by storm in the 90s and 2000s.

However, The one thing that I absolutley hate about the 777 is the fact that it has killed so many other beautiful and unique widebodies. The 777 was the final nail in the coffin for the L-1011 in the 90s, and it slowly but surely killed the DC-10, the early generation 747-100s and 200s, and the MD-11 throughout the 2000s. And it's not done yet, in this decade, the 777 has worked its way to kill the 747-400, the 747-8i, and even the A380.
When you look at it this way, the 777 really is the number 1 contender when it comes to widebodies, as it's beaten each and every one of it's opponents. I'm pissed that it killed so many other aircraft, but I can't help but be impressed.

Just like the Survivor song, The Boeing 777 rose up to the challenge of it's rivals, had the guts, got the glory, went the distance and now it's not gonna stop.

Sounds like you're bitter and blaming the 777 for the demise of the trijet aircraft of which I am a lover myself. But if you really want to go down that road don't blame the 777 blame the A300. That was really the first twin jet widebody design that started the wave of other widebody twins. Just as technology has done away with the Flight Engineer it has done away with the 3rd engine. I have flown only once on a 777 and that was a freighter. It is very nice ride and powerful and pilots love flying it.

Maybe I am a bit bitter because of it...Because I am a huge fan of the great widebody trijets and the 747 , but in the same vein I can't help but be impressed on how The 777 clawed its way to the top of the widebody food chain.

I can see why some you would say it's a bit of a "boring" plane but I guess the 777 is one that will hold a special place for me. I remember being just old enough and interested enough in aviation to appreciate seeing videos of its design and entry into service in the mid 1990s and once I started really getting to see the world more often than not it was a 777 that got me there.

My first 777 flight was on a brand spanking new 777-232ER from ATL to MCO...the crew was training on it. The captain said it was the first revenue flight. I also flew on another brand new 777-232LR from JFK to ATL; it was about 2 weeks old then according to the FA. I don't really like the first class seating configuration; I've flown to Lax in business. I knew the head FA and I got to see the cockpit when we landed and the crew rest area above FC. Very interesting. I was in Y to CDG on the two seat side at the very back .. very uncomfortable and awkward as the AC fuselage narrows there, but I love the plane overall.

I wouldn't make that distinction since it's mostly up to the airlines how to configure it. Has a great track record as an airliner, although being dubbed a bit on the noisy side cabin level wise. If I was to go on it, I'd try to get on premium eco or an exit row due to my height. So on SWISS which would be the most likely - row 23. I am not fond that most carriers cramp people in a 10 abreast eco tbth.

I like it; I flew on two round trip IAH-FRA back in 2014 (they were ex-Con birds). It didn’t feel as special as the Lufthansa 747 flight I had the year before EWR-FRA, although maybe it was because it wasn’t the first time leaving the continent. It certainly looks huge up close, though a 747 always looks grand from the terminal and I remember the first time seeing it at the gate... well that’s off topic!

Its not curvy like the 787, but I do like it’s sharp, jagged looks.

Not a fan of the bastardization with this 10-abreast seating, however. Can’t wait to see what it’s younger unborn sibling will accomplish when they roll out.

Any Airbus is far more comfortable than any Boeing. That is my experience anyway...

I don't hate it but then I don't particularly like it either. It's too noisy, and in increasingly more situations too uncomfortable as well.

I'm fortunate that on most of the long haul routes I travel, I also have the option of the A380. I much prefer this from a passenger experience perspective, as in my experience it's much quieter and more comfortable.

Having said that, when I'm travelling with my family, it's actually more convenient to have the 10 abreast configuration over the 9 because there are 4 of us and a row of 4 seats is better. And my kids don't intrude into my shoulder room much.

I am mr Boeing lover
And yes the 777 was a game changer and even if the word game changer is used to much, not in this case.

The 777 is a nice looking plane but:
It's like riding a rocket
On a 12 hour flight the noise is to much.
10 abreast sccccks, the last time i flew on the last rows which are only 2 seats.
It moves a lot there I got seasick.

Give me a330-380 any day.
The 777 is a great tool and a sexy plane but for long haul... pain !