Boeing 747 vs. 777

[3g Pullup]

Hi all.

I have my BA final board in a few weeks and in the light of their recent announcements concerning their network changes I was wondering just how much of an impact flying a 777 on some routes rather than a 747 (-200 and -400) would effect the airline's cost cutting and profitability? Just how much of an advantage does a 777 have over the 747...is there more to it than the number of engines?!!!??!?

TIA

3g

[Hippo]

Typically BA 777 and 747's are configured with the same number of First & Club Class seats. As the 777 is smaller this means reduced numbers of World Traveller seats.
Seeing as BA's always going on about increasing 'Yield' they rake in pretty much more per 777 as for the 747. When you take out the operating costs etc, the "profit" is more.

Hippo. (If pigs can't fly then neither can I)

[Reimers]

When they can fill a B747 (400 seats) then this will be the perfect aircraft to fly the route but when only 250 people want to go, then the B777 has the advantage of being smaller, cheaper and using less fuel.

[3g Pullup]

Many thanks guys for the info. It now makes much morew sense to me!

However, the other point I was curious about is that BA are considering routes such as London-Pheonix for the 777. This is a very long route (I think) for a twin jet; is it a technological 'breakthrough' that a twin jet can achive these sorts of ranges? Are the GE90's (in this case) so much more efficient than RB211 on the 747? Why don't all new aircraft now have these engines if they can produce so much power at high these high levels of efficiency? Furthermore, is there more to it than a powerplant issue?

3g.

[Juliet November]

3G,

The wizards at Boeing have recently launched the B777-200LR, with a range in the vicinity of 8000 NM. Long enough for ya' ?

Scandinavian are operating a B767-300ER on the CPH-OSA sector, a flight of around 13 hours. More than LHR-PHX I can assure you.

Smokin'

[VnV2178B]

3G,

I don't think breakthrough is the word for it, it's more a continuous process of improvement. All the big engine makers are working on ways of making their products more efficient and less noxious and they do it all the time, like new combustion technology from GE, improved blades from RR. The airframers too are developing better techniques to get their planes to go further, winglets, composites, higher pressure hydraulics. So it's not just a powerplant issue, remember, these days the engine is just one bit of a system. If you want to switch an Rb211 for Trent you also have to deal with the impact on the airframe computers, maintenance logging systems etc. The cost of a retrofit is high, but a new build a/c will take advantage of the improvements - R-R's latest 211G/H-T has the T suffix because it has Trent core components, and later versions of the 747 are destined to have 'real' Trents together with improved avionics.
Long may it continue, it keeps is all in a job !

Vnv... :)

[Sick Squid]

3G,

Having spent a wee bit of time on the 777 over the last few years, one statistic I always trotted out to visitors was that the triple carries 2/3rds the pax load of a 744, can carry them further than a 744, with around half the fuel burn per hour. (6 to 7 tonnes to be precise.) Pretty impressive economics.

Should help. Good luck at final board, any more questions feel free to e-mail me privately and I'll do my best, but can't promise!

------------------
Disappears in a cloud of black ink...