Boeing Mulls Stretching 777 to Knock Out Airbus A380
The 777X is borrowing lots of technology from 787 and will be considerably quieter and more comfortable than 777. We'll have to wait and see if that means as quiet and comfortable as A380, or more so. If 777X exceeds A380 in that regard, what are the chances that the airlines will invest in their A380 to "catch up"?
We'll see.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be 777X or A380
AB has to give its 12 wheeler -1000 wings and prove it can haul as much as predicted. Up to 350 pax the 350 seems very good, a threat to the 77W.
That's the main reason Boeing is "mulling" a stretch of the T7: It wants to occupy the 400+ region where the fuel guzzlers were roaming. If it gets dominance there, the family concept can sell the shorter T7 versions vs. the 350.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found the sheer space of the cattle class 380 very, very comfortable, cabin pressure at very comfortable level, and so much headroom
777 was cramped down back but to be fair the airline HAD filled every seat......
I believe your reply will be along the lines of "not biting" or something else insignificant.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've done Heathrow to Rio and back twice, Heathrow to Houston and back five times all on BA 777-200, Hong Kong - Singapore on SIA 777-200, Auckland to Rarotonga and back once on Air New Zealand 777-200, Singapore to Melbourne once on SIA 777-300 and Auckland to Los Angeles once on Air New Zealand 777-300. I have done Frankfurt to Houston and back once on Lufthansa A380. All flights down the back.
I've done a good number of A330 long hauls - I hope the A350 is an improvement, though Aer Lingus aren't exactly up there when it comes to their cabins.
Apart from the SIA rides and the Air New Zealand 300 rides where the cabin service was the better part of the experience and slightly colours the overall feeling, the A380 is quieter, feels roomier, is more comfortable in turbulence and seems altogether more a passenger's aeroplane than any large twin.
To those willing the early demise of the A380, go back forty years and see how the 747 was doing in a market where nationalised or flag waving airlines ordered the biggest aircraft they could buy out of pride with very few, if any, slot restricted airports. Take off the Boeing coloured spectacles and, while the A380 may not in the long term equal the 747 for numbers built, realise that engineering, ramp space, slot restrictions and passenger comfort, even down the back, all militate for double deck VLAs.
I've done a good number of A330 long hauls - I hope the A350 is an improvement, though Aer Lingus aren't exactly up there when it comes to their cabins.
Apart from the SIA rides and the Air New Zealand 300 rides where the cabin service was the better part of the experience and slightly colours the overall feeling, the A380 is quieter, feels roomier, is more comfortable in turbulence and seems altogether more a passenger's aeroplane than any large twin.
To those willing the early demise of the A380, go back forty years and see how the 747 was doing in a market where nationalised or flag waving airlines ordered the biggest aircraft they could buy out of pride with very few, if any, slot restricted airports. Take off the Boeing coloured spectacles and, while the A380 may not in the long term equal the 747 for numbers built, realise that engineering, ramp space, slot restrictions and passenger comfort, even down the back, all militate for double deck VLAs.
Lufthansa are probably unique in having operated every Airbus product (apart from, so far, the A350) and everything that Boeing have built up to and including the 747.
A large part of the 747 success was that for a long time, if you wanted the range, it was the only aircraft that could provide it. Even if it was too big, if you needed the range it was the only game in town.
That's no longer the case - today the 777, 787, and A350 can all provide similar range to the A380 and 747-8i while costing a whole lot less to operate. Add in 200+ minute ETOPS, and VLA only make sense if you can keep them full.
That's no longer the case - today the 777, 787, and A350 can all provide similar range to the A380 and 747-8i while costing a whole lot less to operate. Add in 200+ minute ETOPS, and VLA only make sense if you can keep them full.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tdracer, whilst that is true, once the 200srs established itself, the DC10-30 and later the 767-200ER would have, and in many cases eventually did, satisfy the needs of most long haul carriers as a compromise between size and range. In the period I mentioned, to compare fairly with the A380, the DC10-30 and 707-320C were the competition.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest 747-8I customer is Lufthansa, but they also operate A380s. I'm sure there must be a good reason, but does anyone know why they chose to do this?
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
172driver
True, but the combination 380/748 is not the best, the 748 not being so soft on fuel and cost as well. EK will fly the LAX route with 380/777 shortly. Now that makes a lot of sense, if you're lucky enough to operate both models on such a route. Fill the behemouth with as many passengers as possible, it makes money that way, and offer some more capacity with a T7. Even if you don't fill the latter completely, at least its cargo capacity can be used efficiently. Synergy!
For the passenger there would be a choice, as many here boast. But to be quite honest, the slf don't really care about equipment. Maybe as a third parameter, yes, but at the very first comes price and then schedule. Comfort comes last and at least for me, comfort includes less time boarding, waiting for suitcases and in immigration lines. So at any station to chose between 350 and 600 passengers, i will always chose the smaller.
True, but the combination 380/748 is not the best, the 748 not being so soft on fuel and cost as well. EK will fly the LAX route with 380/777 shortly. Now that makes a lot of sense, if you're lucky enough to operate both models on such a route. Fill the behemouth with as many passengers as possible, it makes money that way, and offer some more capacity with a T7. Even if you don't fill the latter completely, at least its cargo capacity can be used efficiently. Synergy!
For the passenger there would be a choice, as many here boast. But to be quite honest, the slf don't really care about equipment. Maybe as a third parameter, yes, but at the very first comes price and then schedule. Comfort comes last and at least for me, comfort includes less time boarding, waiting for suitcases and in immigration lines. So at any station to chose between 350 and 600 passengers, i will always chose the smaller.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EK will fly the LAX route with 380/777 shortly. Now that makes a lot of sense,
For me comfort comes pretty high on the list on flights of that kind of duration. While I get your point about immigration and baggage, it's largely moot at the big hubs like LAX - if you arrive at the Tom Bradley terminal, there will always be about a gazillion people in front of you....
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's curious how many passengers think they know more about this subject than the airlines, and how many think it's all down to the 380 being comfier. The simple truth is that if the airlines decide the economics don't stack up, you will not have the choice of a 380 and will go on the cheaper 777.
As for criticising the 777X's comfort, that is plainly ridiculous - none of us know what it'll be like. There is a little difference between the later 777-300s and the 380, but it's not worlds apart. But the new 777s will have very different construction, which will likely reduce noise and allow a higher cabin pressure than the current model or the 380, and I understand that it'll have similar air humidification to the 787 (shame it won't have similar air sources, staying instead with bleed air). Given the nature ft he 787 and now the 73 Max cabins, I think it's fairly likely the 777X could be the more comfortable aircraft (if specced out the same way by the airline), but we'll have to wait to find out.
And I do agree with the comments about airport capacity/slots, though I hadn't really considered it before; I had though that crowded routes benefit, but the comments about extended wake separation are true and the overall number pf passenger movements correspondingly suffer.
As for criticising the 777X's comfort, that is plainly ridiculous - none of us know what it'll be like. There is a little difference between the later 777-300s and the 380, but it's not worlds apart. But the new 777s will have very different construction, which will likely reduce noise and allow a higher cabin pressure than the current model or the 380, and I understand that it'll have similar air humidification to the 787 (shame it won't have similar air sources, staying instead with bleed air). Given the nature ft he 787 and now the 73 Max cabins, I think it's fairly likely the 777X could be the more comfortable aircraft (if specced out the same way by the airline), but we'll have to wait to find out.
And I do agree with the comments about airport capacity/slots, though I hadn't really considered it before; I had though that crowded routes benefit, but the comments about extended wake separation are true and the overall number pf passenger movements correspondingly suffer.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
Lufthansa are probably unique in having operated every Airbus product (apart from, so far, the A350) and everything that Boeing have built up to and including the 747.
And I do agree with the comments about airport capacity/slots, though I hadn't really considered it before; I had though that crowded routes benefit, but the comments about extended wake separation are true and the overall number pf passenger movements correspondingly suffer.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: ZRH
Age: 43
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's curious how many passengers think they know more about this subject than the airlines
It's currious how many airlines think they know more about passenger experience than the passengers.
There is a little difference between the later 777-300s and the 380, but it's not worlds apart.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to call you out on this, there is a enormous difference between these two aircraft in terms of passenger experience.
Whilst the 380 is certainly very comfortable, here's my take.
Noise:
The 380 is extremely quiet. To the point that personally i prefer the drowsing hum of the T7 to the quiet cabin of the 380 in F, where you can actually hear every burp and f@rt of your neighbors.
Most of the time people have their headphones on anyway ....
Windows:
The bigger windows of the 380 are only usable when looking into them in an angle of <30degs, due to their deepness. I prefer the wider angle of the T7.
Most of the time the shades are down by the cabin crew anyway .....
Headroom:
The headroom of the T7 is higher and nicer on the T7 (EK, they put the bunks into the rear). Additionally the cabinet wall is distinctly higher, so you get more privacy.
Legroom:
In C the legroom of the 380 is a funnel. I personally prefer the wider room on the T7.
Seats:
The seats are similar, although the 2/3/2 on the T7 is a nuisance. On the 380 i dislike the offset seating, but appreciate the space for drinks etc.
Service:
In F the service is better on the 380, in C the T7 is better, due to less passengers.
Bar / Shower:
The bar is priceless, however it would be a field day for any hygiene inspector with the galley, then 4 toilets, then the bar.
The shower is nice, but only for flights more than 7 hours. I haven't seen too many passengers use it though ... but in this respect i prefer the 380.
Boarding / Deplaning:
Well, as long as there are two-storey bridges and a disciplined blockage of Y pax to get out first, the 380 is fine. Not many stations obey that though and you get stuck behind 400 rushing xxxxxxxxx .....
I definitely prefer the T7 in that respect.
My very personal verdict: 380 wins, but only by a small margin, there is not a enormous difference.
0 x 77x sold in the past 12 months. 8 x 773 sold in the past 12 months. 2 x 380 sold in the past 12 months. 306 77Xs total order so far, 235 of those are for EK, QR and EY. EK own half the total orders. 319 total orders for the 380. Over half of these for EK.
Airlines do not want to drop this amount of coin on an airframe it seems.
The 773er lacks the legs to carry a useful load longer than 12hr, its payload restricted even on a ADL to DXB! The 77x will improve on this. But Pax will still be loaded like sardines to ensure the seat/mile costs are as advertised. And it is a category F aircraft for takeoff and landing (well anytime the wingtips are not folded). This limits enroute ALTNs. So more ETOPs (or is that LROPs now?)
All three are great aircraft. Orders would suggest that airlines think the cheaper 350s and 787s are a better fit.
Airlines do not want to drop this amount of coin on an airframe it seems.
The 773er lacks the legs to carry a useful load longer than 12hr, its payload restricted even on a ADL to DXB! The 77x will improve on this. But Pax will still be loaded like sardines to ensure the seat/mile costs are as advertised. And it is a category F aircraft for takeoff and landing (well anytime the wingtips are not folded). This limits enroute ALTNs. So more ETOPs (or is that LROPs now?)
All three are great aircraft. Orders would suggest that airlines think the cheaper 350s and 787s are a better fit.
The 773er lacks the legs to carry a useful load longer than 12hr, its payload restricted even on a ADL to DXB! The 77x will improve on this. But Pax will still be loaded like sardines to ensure the seat/mile costs are as advertised. And it is a category F aircraft for takeoff and landing (well anytime the wingtips are not folded). This limits enroute ALTNs. So more ETOPs (or is that LROPs now?)
The hubris that we all know exists within the largest 380 operator in the world has until now delayed more capacity discipline on routes that don't support the beast.
If ADL ever goes onto the 380, it will most certainly not be payload restricted, it will however lower the margins and most likely reinforce the reality that the 380 is infact a niche airframe with limited appeal.
In my inebriated opinion the 380 in its present form will go the way of the dodo sooner rather than later because its appeal has already passed, glamour and grandeur will again be replaced with pure economics..within reason. The future widebody long haul machines will be predominately twin not 4 engined...even if CASA doesn't agree.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 150 Likes
on
93 Posts
Don / Monarch
SLF and not employed in aviation, other than building airports amongst other things, but a regular flyer with your employer. A380 beats 777 hands down probably by a similar distance that the newer 777 beat your old 330. I would not mention 340 as though the cabin is no better than 330 I do like the old 4 donkeys on some routes.
Now as for all this 777 better than 380 tit for tat I would suggest your employer is very interested in what your First / Business / Economy class passengers think, if they do not want to know our views, why are we constantly asked our views in flight, by e-mail, or once by phone in my case. Everyone you talk to at the Bar or a regular passenger favours 380 due to the points mentioned by numerous posters before me. All of my flying is in Business over 4hrs and the vast majority is long haul with yourselves SQ/LH usually on 747/380/777 A/C and if I can, I pick the 380 EVERYTIME. The only disadvantage is that if travelling with Mrs Mac we have to fly separately as both like window seats ! As for 787 have flown it 3 times with Nippon and QR and to be frank do not like it at all, everything is just a bit too poor quality plastic, bit like any American automobile. That's my two cents worth on those airframes.
As for the move from 4 to 2 engines it has had many economic benefits to all the worlds airlines and the stretching of ETOPS regs has, how shall we say, enhanced this. I still however feel sorry for the crew on a twin, who are going at some stage, to have to deal with multiple engine failure on a dark and stormy night over some inhospitable part of the planet, as I am sure this will happen, but no doubt the insurance actuaries have already factored that in to their quotes.
Keep up the good work
Regards
Mr Mac
SLF and not employed in aviation, other than building airports amongst other things, but a regular flyer with your employer. A380 beats 777 hands down probably by a similar distance that the newer 777 beat your old 330. I would not mention 340 as though the cabin is no better than 330 I do like the old 4 donkeys on some routes.
Now as for all this 777 better than 380 tit for tat I would suggest your employer is very interested in what your First / Business / Economy class passengers think, if they do not want to know our views, why are we constantly asked our views in flight, by e-mail, or once by phone in my case. Everyone you talk to at the Bar or a regular passenger favours 380 due to the points mentioned by numerous posters before me. All of my flying is in Business over 4hrs and the vast majority is long haul with yourselves SQ/LH usually on 747/380/777 A/C and if I can, I pick the 380 EVERYTIME. The only disadvantage is that if travelling with Mrs Mac we have to fly separately as both like window seats ! As for 787 have flown it 3 times with Nippon and QR and to be frank do not like it at all, everything is just a bit too poor quality plastic, bit like any American automobile. That's my two cents worth on those airframes.
As for the move from 4 to 2 engines it has had many economic benefits to all the worlds airlines and the stretching of ETOPS regs has, how shall we say, enhanced this. I still however feel sorry for the crew on a twin, who are going at some stage, to have to deal with multiple engine failure on a dark and stormy night over some inhospitable part of the planet, as I am sure this will happen, but no doubt the insurance actuaries have already factored that in to their quotes.
Keep up the good work
Regards
Mr Mac