Looking at the capacity figures quoted in the Boeing 2001 Annual Report referred to earlier, it appears to pan out like this:
practical capacity:
747-400.........416
777-200.........305
777-300.........368
I have taken the lowest quoted capacity range for each type as that is probably the most practical configuration without going to specialist types like Short Range High Seating Density.
It looks as if even the 777-300 is some 50 heads short of a 747, and significantly longer and higher wingspanned. I get the feeling the poor old 747 fuel consumption figures are compared against the great savings the 777-200 makes....with some 111 fewer seats. What matters is fuel/seat over the same ranges. Undoubtedly, the 777 is more efficient, and better to operate, until one goes for a swim. Flying 3 hours to a diversion field on 1 engine will not do the pilots digestive systems any good! But I wonder at the crew rest facilities on the 777- not ideal on the 747, but in BA at least, absolutely shocking- in fact a disgrace for the pilots. With the current configuration, the thought of it exceeding 747 ranges is not pleasant! But the plain fact remains, 747s are being filled all the time. They are still the main people carriers- the crews I hear talking about the two types actively dislike the 777. It is not a direct comparison!