What's so great about the 777?
g capreol
me wonder what exactly people love so much about this particular plane. I
admit it is a great engineering marvel, and a large plane, but still smaller
than 747, so I'm thinking it's not raw size as much as some other
factor...maybe just that it's a newer aircraft?
Anyway, I'd be interested to hear from 777 lovers about what makes the
triple 7 stand out.
- Gordon
Billy
different.
For me, I think it's he higher ceilings of the 777, and the atmosphere
that's created by it that's makes it so stupendous. It just feels much more
spacious, and bigger than a 747 - even though it really isn't. Plus, the
new style of overhead bins in the 777 are just great.
The spacious nature of the plane makes you less claustrophobic and more
enjoyable.
"g capreol" <gcap...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tab745e...@news.supernews.com...
Russell Yim
>lovers about what makes the triple 7 stand out.
The toilet seats.
Russell
Trekkie, Disnoid °o°, and Sheena Easton fan
"Life will teach you all you need to know, but only Love Will Make You
Wise"- Sheena Easton
http://community.webtv.net/TrekkeRuss/TheTrekkieDisnoido
And also visit my new page, Sheena Easton Live at G-A-Y!
http://community.webtv.net/CrazyForSheena/SheenaEastonLiveatG
Brian
http://airliners.net/open.file?id=74073
vs any 777 you fly in:
http://airliners.net/open.file?id=145173
http://airliners.net/open.file?id=145172
I'd rather be flying in the more advanced, easier to fly plane.
Brian
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:04:04 -0600, "Billy" <nike-fre...@usa.net>
wrote:
JF Mezei
> Anyway, I'd be interested to hear from 777 lovers about what makes the
> triple 7 stand out.
I have never flow on a 777, nor have I ever stayed in a Holiday Inn Express,
but the 777 is the most modern commercial aircraft type right now, so it gets
its share fo the limelight.
The 777 was Boeing's first totally new product since the 767-757s of the late
1970s/early 1980s.
As a result, it incorporated a lot of the technologies that had since been
developped and tested (such as Fly by wire).
From a Boeing point of view, the biggest acheivement isn't so much the plane
but how it was built (with fancy computers etc etc).
It is also the largest twin engine plane. Its engines have the largest
nacelles.
Its interior design includes improvements to make it look more spacious (even
if some airlines configure the cabin as 2-5-2).
Being a new airplane, I would assume that it offers very economical operation
and better fuel efficiency.
devil
>
> nor have I ever stayed in a Holiday Inn Express,
Good for you, don't complain. Cheap construction that's meant to look
fancy.
What can I say :-(.
(Actually, the one in Chinatown in Montreal is not so bad. But then,
the one time I stayed there, it was actually more expensive than good
old Queen E., which remains my preferred place to stay in Montreal.
The Queen E's restaurants are OK, I guess.)
JF Mezei
> > nor have I ever stayed in a Holiday Inn Express,
>
> Good for you, don't complain. Cheap construction that's meant to look
> fancy.
> What can I say :-(.
Perhaps, but if you stay at a Holiday Inn Express, the next day, you stand the
chance of saving the day in a nuclear reactopr, doing some fancy life saving
surgery, dealing with extremely toxy pathogens etc etc. The list is enticing.
:-) :-) :-) :-)
The day some guy lands a plane succesfully and is asked "are you a pilot" "no,
but I stayed at a Holyday Inn Express once", I will probably wnat to stay at a
Holiday Inn Express once just to have the experience of piloting a big plane
:-) :-) :-) :-)
Chuckles
<tab745e...@news.supernews.com>:
I found the 777 boring, just an overgrown 727. Seatback
video, big deal.
There's only one plane that tells you you're actually going
somewhere...it's the great humpback whale in the sky. When I
first came to the US in 1973, when I first went to Paris, when
I went to far-away or strange places, I always passed that
magic staircase on the way to my steerage seat (and once or
twice I even managed an upgrade and sat upstairs). To me, the
747 and the excitement of travel are inseparable; it's like
people love trains and ocean liners, because it takes them back
to the days when they were young and travel was actually fun.
There'll never be another plane like it.
JF Mezei
> I found the 777 boring, just an overgrown 727. Seatback
> video, big deal.
I view the 777 as just a better DC-10. From the outside, the shape of the 777
is far more aesthetic than the DC-10. But inside, it is still 9 across, an in
the case of some airlines, the dreaded 2-5-2.
I would not compare the 777 to a 727.
> There's only one plane that tells you you're actually going
> somewhere...it's the great humpback whale in the sky.
Agreed. There is a certain "je ne sais quoi" that makes a flight on a 747 more
important than on anyother plane except perhaps the Concorde.
> There'll never be another plane like it.
It will be most interesting to see if the A380 takes the place of the 747, or
if it will acquire an image of just another plane with as many people stacked
into it as possible.
W Yu
"Billy" <nike-fre...@usa.net> wrote:
> The feeling you get inside a 777 vs. a 747 is utterly and complete
> different.
>
> For me, I think it's he higher ceilings of the 777, and the atmosphere
> that's created by it that's makes it so stupendous. It just feels much more
> spacious, and bigger than a 747 - even though it really isn't. Plus, the
> new style of overhead bins in the 777 are just great.
>
> The spacious nature of the plane makes you less claustrophobic and more
> enjoyable.
I am not sure that the ceiling is actually higher in a B777. But the way
how the overhead cabins were shaped in a B777 certainly makes the cabin
more spacious. The lighting arrangement certainly helps too.
The 2-5-2 Y seating arrangement some hates on the B777 actually helps
with this arrangement. It moves more seats toward the middle of the
cabin where there's more head room, while keeping the sides less
crowded. This is one of the worst thing I hate about the B744 side
aisle. To get to the window seat (my preferred seat), one invaribly have
to duck down to avoid hitting one's head. and B777 have solved that
annonyance.
--
Weiyun
[Remove the obvious for replies]
Rugby Blue
The upstairs of the 747 is just magical. I usually try to sit upstairs
whenever I can - it feels like you're flying in corporate jet rather than
the world's largest commercial airliner.
Granted, the 777's -interior- looks nice, but that's just the swept-up
design of the luggage bins. You can get the same on 747-400's now: I think
Boeing is offering the same style as an option on new planes. And given the
747's higher ceilings on the main deck, I'd bet the 747's interior would
feel more spacious.
Finally, the 747 is only airliner where you can sit in the nose of the
plane: first class in the 747 (if in the nose) is truly like flying in a
private lounge. And the ceiling in that section, regardless of bin design,
gives a feeling more spacious than anywhere in the 777 (maybe because
there's no center bin?).
Great things about the 777: better flight and design economics reduce cost
to passengers; seat-back videos in Y (I know this depends on airline specs,
but once the first few 777 customers installed them, all the rest followed
along, which is a great thing ;-) ; the new feel; and the phenomenal twinjet
range performance on the 200ER and 200LR. For airlines, the 777 actually has
more cargo capacity than the 747-400 (checked my UA timetable cargo capacity
section near the back). And best of all, a new toy for airline enthusiasts
to play with :-)
RB
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3AA5E063...@videotron.ca...
W Yu
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> I view the 777 as just a better DC-10. From the outside, the shape of the 777
> is far more aesthetic than the DC-10. But inside, it is still 9 across, an in
> the case of some airlines, the dreaded 2-5-2.
Hey JF. But you just admitted that you have not been on a B777. I would
suggest that you should keep an open mind on this one and wait until
you've tried one out. You'll be pleasantly surprised after your
experience. :)
W Yu
"Rugby Blue" <joc...@removethis.princeton.edu> wrote:
> Finally, the 747 is only airliner where you can sit in the nose of the
> plane...
Yep. Agreed that high novelty value of this. And it is extremely quiet
up there in comparison with all other passenger locations in the
aircraft.
And yes, each time I seat there, I'd think that if ever we have a nose
dive, I'll be first to notice! ;)
Leo Hamulczyk
Rugby Blue <joc...@removethis.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:984ptt$oe4$1...@news.ycc.yale.edu...
> The 747 is still the most amazing, methinks.
>
> The upstairs of the 747 is just magical. I usually try to sit upstairs
> whenever I can - it feels like you're flying in corporate jet rather than
> the world's largest commercial airliner.
I wonder what would happen to the 747's aerodynamic characteristics, and
therefore fuel consumption etc, if the upper deck were either extended to
the whole length of the aircraft, or removed entirely.
Steve Howie.
You don't have to be on one to pass judgement about the aesthetics of
the plane. You can also get the seating configuration from any of a
number of websites
Quit pickin' on my buddy JF, ok? :-)
Scotty
W Yu
Steve Howie. <sho...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
Hey relax! This is hardly picking on JF. Just a friendly and objective
discussion. And I never thought that the aesthetics was the issue here
for JF...
Steve Howie.
Missed the smiley? :)
Scotty
DALing
in the plane. The inputs actually made changes in the design.
"g capreol" <gcap...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tab745e...@news.supernews.com...
sjoerd
> This is one of the worst thing I hate about the B744 side
> aisle. To get to the window seat (my preferred seat), one invaribly
> have
> to duck down to avoid hitting one's head.
Really? Which airline? I never had to do that. I am 190 cm.
Sjoerd
sjoerd
> I found the 777 boring, just an overgrown 727. Seatback
> video, big deal.
>
> There's only one plane that tells you you're actually going
> somewhere...it's the great humpback whale in the sky. When I
> first came to the US in 1973, when I first went to Paris, when
> I went to far-away or strange places, I always passed that
> magic staircase on the way to my steerage seat (and once or
> twice I even managed an upgrade and sat upstairs). To me, the
> 747 and the excitement of travel are inseparable; it's like
> people love trains and ocean liners, because it takes them back
> to the days when they were young and travel was actually fun.
> There'll never be another plane like it.
I fully agree. I have been on a 777 only twice (AMS to Dulles on UA and
Phuket to BKK on TG) and those flights were amongst the least pleasant
flights I have done.
Sjoerd
Joe
any day. As far as the interior bull is concerned, even a 767 with the old
square, flat ceiling panels and compartments looks bigger, wider, higher,
brighter. I think Boeing is just taking a page from the Microsoft marketing
hype manual. I hate that molded crap.
I think what you're seeing is a phenomenon that seems to manifest itself in
a certain type of personality. Basically, it's these idiots who go after
anything new with a "gee-whiz" kind of attitude. I mean, if tomorrow they
invented neon-blue shit, they'd be hanging out at public toilets peeking
through little holes in the stall walls trying to catch glimpses of the
stuff.
At the U.S. airports where I planespot you see this phenomenon manifested
clearly. The planespotting idiots will ignore an Air China 747-400 as it
glides in beautifully for landing, or a colorful Thai 747-400 or a Singapore
one, but let a dirty-looking stealth-schemed United 777 come in and they all
get so excited they can barely keep from trembling and can't hold their
cameras steady. They don't know whether to shit or pee first.
Basically, as was mentioned, the only plane that really says you're going
somewhere is still the 747.
"g capreol" <gcap...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tab745e...@news.supernews.com...
Chuckles
>It will be most interesting to see if the A380 takes the place of the
>747, or if it will acquire an image of just another plane with as many
>people stacked into it as possible.
I don't see how. Size isn't the important factor; it's the associations. I
mean, if your early intercontinental trips had been in steerage on the QE,
and then later you took Holland America cruises to the Bahamas in first
class on ships that were larger than most cities, which one would you have
the most vivid memories of?
I actually don't like the packed-in feeling of the 747. (The 767 is much
nicer. The 777 is a pain because, in any of the configurations I've been
on, you can't walk up one aisle and cross over and come down the other.
Whose idea was that?) But the practicalities aren't important here. No
doubt steerage on the QE was rather cramped as well.
JF Mezei
> Hey relax! This is hardly picking on JF. Just a friendly and objective
> discussion. And I never thought that the aesthetics was the issue here
> for JF...
Yeah, stop picking on me :-) Besides I did say that the 777 had nice
aesthetics from the outside.
While the 777 may be more "theatre" style with the high ceiling, I wonder if
the 747 might not offer more of a feeling of privacy since you more in your
cubicle with 3 other people instead of being in a theatre with 200 people.
JF Mezei
that the plans were that the galleys would be movable by about 20 feet each
way on the 777. Since galleys are usually used as separators between classes,
it would make it much easier for airlines to move the galley back to enlarge
business class for instance.
OIn other planes, the structural aspects of the plane make moving a galley a
very expensive job if not impossible.
The book was written before the 777 was actually flying. Did Boeing actually
implement this feature on the 777 ?
DALing
"sjoerd" <sjoerd...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3AA67BF7...@xs4all.nl...
W Yu
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> While the 777 may be more "theatre" style with the high ceiling, I wonder if
> the 747 might not offer more of a feeling of privacy since you more in your
> cubicle with 3 other people instead of being in a theatre with 200 people.
IMHO... No!
JF Mezei
> > the 747 might not offer more of a feeling of privacy since you more in your
> > cubicle with 3 other people instead of being in a theatre with 200 people.
>
> IMHO... No!
If you disagree with me, then your opinion doesn't count.
:-)
W Yu
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote:
I thought it was the other way around... ;)
Chuckles
>I wonder if the 747 might not offer more of a feeling of privacy since you
>more in your cubicle with 3 other people instead of being in a theatre
>with 200 people.
'Feeling of privacy'? I conclude you haven't been on a 747 any more than
you've been on a 777!
el...@spam.free.at.last
Exactly my sentiments! Maybe he spent the whole time in the lav? ;)
FWIW, I have spent many many hours crumpled up in coach in 747s and
a decent (tho much much smaller) number crumpled up in 777s and I
fail to see the joy of either. My preferred is the 767 because I've
always been able to get a seat in a two-across section. OTOH, I've
had one glorious PHL-LHR-PHL in FC on a BA 777 and one glorious
LGW-sub-Saharan-Africa-LGW in FC on a BA 747 -- and both were
superb. :-)
Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And unless you're flying in a 400 series 747, you're flying in:
http://airliners.net/open.file?id=74073
vs any 777 you fly in:
http://airliners.net/open.file?id=145173
http://airliners.net/open.file?id=145172
I'd rather be flying in the more advanced, easier to fly plane.
Brian
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:04:04 -0600, "Billy" <nike-fre...@usa.net>
Douglas W Hoyt
> triple 7 stand out.
I've taken it twice on international overnights (on UA Chicago-Frankfurt),
and these were the most comfortable economy overnights of the many dozens
I've had. The spaciousness overhead is one factor, and the stone-solid
seatbacks on the seat in front are another. I want to sleep on these
flights, despite the cramped conditions, and the 777 provided the greatest
ease and comfort on these otherwise claustrophobic, miserable, and junky
overnights that I've experienced. It may be an 'impression' as opposed to
actual seat pitch or anything, but it is a very, very positive impression.
Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)
>
> Hey JF. But you just admitted that you have not been on a B777. I would
> suggest that you should keep an open mind on this one and wait until
> you've tried one out. You'll be pleasantly surprised after your
> experience. :)
Wot?? Heresy! Ask people in newsgroups to try something first before
posting negative opinions? There are some of us whose minds are made
up and don't wanna be confused by facts! (^.^) :-)
-- Bob.
t liew
<pagop...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>I wonder what would happen to the 747's aerodynamic characteristics, and
>therefore fuel consumption etc, if the upper deck were either extended to
>the whole length of the aircraft, or removed entirely.
Can't be done apparently without redesigning the tail control surfaces
W Yu
t liew <ter...@snotmail.com> wrote:
What's more expensive? Designing A380 from ground up or modifying an
existing haul like what Boeing is trying to do?
JF Mezei
> >I wonder what would happen to the 747's aerodynamic characteristics, and
> >therefore fuel consumption etc, if the upper deck were either extended to
> >the whole length of the aircraft, or removed entirely.
>
> Can't be done apparently without redesigning the tail control surfaces
NASA Airlines have fixed that problems on their fleet of 2 747. When they fly
with the shutle on top, the shuttle "hides" the rudder, and they added what
looks like winglets to the horizontal stabilizers and I assume that those are
actually rudders.
Heck, since those aerodynamics, Boeing could simply build an "add on" module
that can be strapped to the top of the 747 just like the shuttle and that
would add capacity to the 747. During the off-season, the airline can unstrap
the add-on module and fly the 747 with less fuel consumption.
JF Mezei
> What's more expensive? Designing A380 from ground up or modifying an
> existing haul like what Boeing is trying to do?
WhatMs more efficient: a totally new design taking advantage of all new
designs/technology, or a modified 30 year old design where great efforts must
be make to improve an existing design while keeping the same plane type ?
devil
Right. Especially if you are sitting on a bunch of billions of
taxpayer's money that you just won't pay back when you eventually lose
your shirt :-).
Indeed, that makes the choice easy.
W Yu
devil <de...@attglobal.net> wrote:
Huh???
Are you making an analogy to buying a new shirt or send the shirt to a
tailor for some modification? Shorter the sleeve length or tighten the
collar perhaps?
;)