Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
oldannyboy wrote:...plus it's so freakin' noisy...OMG, don't even get me started on that!
Having said that, it's such a beautiful, lovely-looking, majestic giant... I love flying on it, even in 10-across Y format!
sassiciai wrote:Apart from the fact that you absolutely love the 777 and are absurdly wrong on its own impact on other aircraft in the past, could you clarify for me, what is the point of this thread, please?
Aptivaboy wrote:...the first plane I flew on that had IFE (crude for the era)...
fsxfan38 wrote: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.
fsxfan38 wrote:they are much more fuel efficient than any other giant airliner on the market.
bob75013 wrote:oldannyboy wrote:...plus it's so freakin' noisy...OMG, don't even get me started on that!
Having said that, it's such a beautiful, lovely-looking, majestic giant... I love flying on it, even in 10-across Y format!
Not as noisy as the 340 -- when it's flying above me, I don't even have to look up to know that it's a 340
Dutchy wrote:The Boeing 777 was more than an evolution, a game changer at the top end o the capacity market and indeed helped to kill of many planes.
From an aesthetic point of view, I do not like it, the cockpit section just looks weird with the drop to the 767 nose, the -300 version does look like it does the correct aesthetic length. From a passenger point of view: loud and cramped (at 10 abreast), so I do not like it at all.
Economics prevail in this day and age, the brutal truth is it is a tool for airlines, nothing more.
Nicoeddf wrote:Dutchy wrote:The Boeing 777 was more than an evolution, a game changer at the top end o the capacity market and indeed helped to kill of many planes.
From an aesthetic point of view, I do not like it, the cockpit section just looks weird with the drop to the 767 nose, the -300 version does look like it does the correct aesthetic length. From a passenger point of view: loud and cramped (at 10 abreast), so I do not like it at all.
Economics prevail in this day and age, the brutal truth is it is a tool for airlines, nothing more.
Let me say: The 777 is indeed an excellent tool and an outstanding piece of machinery, but economically as well as technically.
However, people, in my opinion, use the phrase "game changer" waaaaaaay to often. The 777 did not change the game. The market wouldn't have developed much differently with the 346 and the 748/380 for the top end of the market.
The 777 offered nothing the above planes couldn't do. It did however offer "even better" economics to accelerate the already persistent growth. It didn't create the growth or offered opportunities in range or payload other platforms couldn't fill economically. Nothing game changing, but certainly evolutionary. And a homerun performance wise, no doubt. Excellent plane it is.
Gasman wrote:Hate it. Absolutely, totally, utterly hate it.
- 10 abreast is *possible* in a cabin that has significantly less width and headroom than a 744 (or A380)
- Noisy on the inside
...
- It achieves a level of aesthetic blandness that actually manages to be remarkable in its own right.
Dutchy wrote:The Boeing 777 was more than an evolution, a game changer at the top end o the capacity market and indeed helped to kill of many planes.
From an aesthetic point of view, I do not like it, the cockpit section just looks weird with the drop to the 767 nose, the -300 version does look like it does the correct aesthetic length. From a passenger point of view: loud and cramped (at 10 abreast), so I do not like it at all.
Economics prevail in this day and age, the brutal truth is it is a tool for airlines, nothing more.
Keith2004 wrote:
Was there a time when airliners were not just tools for airlines?
Keith2004 wrote:Dutchy wrote:The Boeing 777 was more than an evolution, a game changer at the top end o the capacity market and indeed helped to kill of many planes.
From an aesthetic point of view, I do not like it, the cockpit section just looks weird with the drop to the 767 nose, the -300 version does look like it does the correct aesthetic length. From a passenger point of view: loud and cramped (at 10 abreast), so I do not like it at all.
Economics prevail in this day and age, the brutal truth is it is a tool for airlines, nothing more.
Was there a time when airliners were not just tools for airlines?
Dutchy wrote:Keith2004 wrote:Dutchy wrote:The Boeing 777 was more than an evolution, a game changer at the top end o the capacity market and indeed helped to kill of many planes.
From an aesthetic point of view, I do not like it, the cockpit section just looks weird with the drop to the 767 nose, the -300 version does look like it does the correct aesthetic length. From a passenger point of view: loud and cramped (at 10 abreast), so I do not like it at all.
Economics prevail in this day and age, the brutal truth is it is a tool for airlines, nothing more.
Was there a time when airliners were not just tools for airlines?
I would say yes. A time when pioneers were at the helm. A time when airliners were part of the branding. A time when there were truly entrepreneurs. Richard Branson is one of the last. Nowadays it is run by numbers MBA types and not engineers/entrepreneurs, no love for the product......
Nicoeddf wrote:Dutchy wrote:Keith2004 wrote:
Was there a time when airliners were not just tools for airlines?
I would say yes. A time when pioneers were at the helm. A time when airliners were part of the branding. A time when there were truly entrepreneurs. Richard Branson is one of the last. Nowadays it is run by numbers MBA types and not engineers/entrepreneurs, no love for the product......
What a load of BS.
In the real world airline I have the pleasure of having insight to, there is extreme love for the product.
Just because people (MBA types you call them
condescendingly) realize that besides a lot of love you better earn your pennies to pay your employees makes it less entrepreneurial? Or less with love?
People on this page need to get real, avgeek or not...
Dutchy wrote:Nicoeddf wrote:Dutchy wrote:
I would say yes. A time when pioneers were at the helm. A time when airliners were part of the branding. A time when there were truly entrepreneurs. Richard Branson is one of the last. Nowadays it is run by numbers MBA types and not engineers/entrepreneurs, no love for the product......
What a load of BS.
In the real world airline I have the pleasure of having insight to, there is extreme love for the product.
Just because people (MBA types you call them
condescendingly) realize that besides a lot of love you better earn your pennies to pay your employees makes it less entrepreneurial? Or less with love?
People on this page need to get real, avgeek or not...
You say that the bean counters aren't in charge? I see it all the time, not just in aviation...... But fine you just look away.....
Dutchy wrote:So we basically are in agreement. )f vourse a business needs to make money. Bean counters can forefill a good role within a company.
But I mean the difference between profit maximization and profit optimization. I want the later. Iif MBA types get too much control it will be maximization and that is bad for everyone: short term profit instead of long term gain.
Dutchy wrote:Disclaimer: I am a MBA type, an engineer, and an entrepreneur
Nicoeddf wrote:Dutchy wrote:Disclaimer: I am a MBA type, an engineer, and an entrepreneur
Guilty as well, I guess.
But yeah, maybe I am overinterpreting and look for nuances...and maybe they are indeed not to be expected here.
Dutchy wrote:Nicoeddf wrote:Dutchy wrote:Disclaimer: I am a MBA type, an engineer, and an entrepreneur
Guilty as well, I guess.
But yeah, maybe I am overinterpreting and look for nuances...and maybe they are indeed not to be expected here.
I am quite nuanced, but in my world - real live working word - bean counters did overtake everything. My business is real estate so you can imagine what I am talking about. Besides a good business case, I want to be a little proud of the things I do. In the real estate business, a lot of hit and run types are my competition.