Like or dislike the B777 ?!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like or dislike the B777 ?!
Hi to all aviation lovers.
I work on the ground handleling crew in Montreal-Dorval airport (CYUL). I work for Air France. They just started to come with their 777-200s.
I'm also a licensed pilot, still in training however.
I am absolutely in love with that plane.
I would like to get feedback from pilots or technicians that flew/worked with this aircraft. I would like to know what you liked and disliked about it.
Thank you
I work on the ground handleling crew in Montreal-Dorval airport (CYUL). I work for Air France. They just started to come with their 777-200s.
I'm also a licensed pilot, still in training however.
I am absolutely in love with that plane.
I would like to get feedback from pilots or technicians that flew/worked with this aircraft. I would like to know what you liked and disliked about it.
Thank you
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bonjour, Monsieur,
I fly the 777 for a US Major, and have flown a wide variety of types to compare it to, inc. the 747-400, 767-300 and L-1011.
In general, I find the aircraft excellent, both in build quality and flying qualities. It is also extremely reliable (RR Trent-800's on ours), and the pax and (very importantly) the cabin crew love it. A happy crew is more likely to lead to happy pax...
Things I particularly like:
1. The fly-by-wire flight control system responsiveness and feel
2. the power to wt ratio at most weights
3. cockpit displays very logical and follow-on from -400
4. cockpit lighting (vastly improved over 767 & 757)
5. incredible fuel efficiency
Things I particularly dislike:
1. The trim system (1 sec. blip = 10kts speed increment datum target, making it tough to trim to that "sweet-spot" you get on conventional flight controls - needlessly complex)
2. The mouse pad is a pain - it's too sensitive
3. The flightdeck seems very cramped with 4 crew, unlike the 747. Not enough bag stowage.
4. The bunk room is cr@p compared to the -400
5. The visibility could be better - the TriStar was much better - I think Boeing tried to re-use the 767 windows to save development costs
6. The engines don't sync very well and can't be manually "tweaked" like other fadecs. If you're a pax near the wing you can get your drinks shaken-not-stirred all night...
Just my opinions....
I'm being fussy trying to reply to your thread, but overall the 777 is queen of the skies right now...
I fly the 777 for a US Major, and have flown a wide variety of types to compare it to, inc. the 747-400, 767-300 and L-1011.
In general, I find the aircraft excellent, both in build quality and flying qualities. It is also extremely reliable (RR Trent-800's on ours), and the pax and (very importantly) the cabin crew love it. A happy crew is more likely to lead to happy pax...
Things I particularly like:
1. The fly-by-wire flight control system responsiveness and feel
2. the power to wt ratio at most weights
3. cockpit displays very logical and follow-on from -400
4. cockpit lighting (vastly improved over 767 & 757)
5. incredible fuel efficiency
Things I particularly dislike:
1. The trim system (1 sec. blip = 10kts speed increment datum target, making it tough to trim to that "sweet-spot" you get on conventional flight controls - needlessly complex)
2. The mouse pad is a pain - it's too sensitive
3. The flightdeck seems very cramped with 4 crew, unlike the 747. Not enough bag stowage.
4. The bunk room is cr@p compared to the -400
5. The visibility could be better - the TriStar was much better - I think Boeing tried to re-use the 767 windows to save development costs
6. The engines don't sync very well and can't be manually "tweaked" like other fadecs. If you're a pax near the wing you can get your drinks shaken-not-stirred all night...
Just my opinions....
I'm being fussy trying to reply to your thread, but overall the 777 is queen of the skies right now...
Only been a passenger in a BA 777, and absolutely loved the business class fully lie-down beds.
Didn't like the attitude of the cabin staff, who wouldn't let a compatriot in Zoo class come up the front with me, despite having 35 empty business class seats.
But it was a nice ride.
Didn't like the attitude of the cabin staff, who wouldn't let a compatriot in Zoo class come up the front with me, despite having 35 empty business class seats.
But it was a nice ride.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A.C.
Goodness me, can't understand that at all! I mean, your friend paying for a World traveller ticket, and not being allowed to relax in a lovely flat Business Class bed! That's a terrible attitude for the Cabin crew to take
I suppose he also expects a fillet steak when he buys a Big Mac does he?
Goodness me, can't understand that at all! I mean, your friend paying for a World traveller ticket, and not being allowed to relax in a lovely flat Business Class bed! That's a terrible attitude for the Cabin crew to take
I suppose he also expects a fillet steak when he buys a Big Mac does he?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know what the wingspan of a 737 is, but the span of the 777 tailplane, is 70' 7.5" (21.53m).
Allegedly, yes, the diameter of the GE90 (which is bigger than the Trent) is bigger than a 737 fuselage.
Allegedly, yes, the diameter of the GE90 (which is bigger than the Trent) is bigger than a 737 fuselage.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the most impressive things is being driven by BA to a remote stand and walking past a 777 engine. For some reason there's something very reassuring about being kept aloft by something that could swallow my house. 
Usual disclaimers apply!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well from a maintenance point of view the 777 is a doddle
Only a minor couple of gripes; the CCD is a pain and the AIMS/MAT is a bit sloooow to boot up from cold (must be that 386 processor
)
The GE90 is a nightmare in cowlings
, mind you it keeps people in work, and as for the Trent........dunno how to open the cowls
The flt. deck windows are indeed 767 certainly the DV. as is the radome.
Only a minor couple of gripes; the CCD is a pain and the AIMS/MAT is a bit sloooow to boot up from cold (must be that 386 processor
) The GE90 is a nightmare in cowlings
, mind you it keeps people in work, and as for the Trent........dunno how to open the cowls The flt. deck windows are indeed 767 certainly the DV. as is the radome.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hehe...wondered when I would hear that one about the 737 fitting into the engine of the 777 again...it doesn't, of course, but the GE90 makes a good attempt at swallowing it...I think maybe 10 feet or so fits...Boeing have a CGI model somewhere of it...as for the tailplane, it's impressive but certainly not the size of a 737 wing.
When I was converting from the 737 to the 777 I'd heard that the windscreen wipers on the 777 were bleed air blown over the windshield. I almost believed it. Alas, untrue.
Still, it's a fantastically capable aeroplane. For some reason the CC aren't keen on working on it(something to do with the way the fbw software kicks it into turns, and the fact that the a/c rolls about a longitudinal axis which is below the cabin floor), but from the pilot's perspective it's fine. It has full cat3b no decision height autoland..on one engine. So tell me, how come the coffee cup holders are so useless? At height, it's a little speed unstable, and prone to rattle around a bit as it bounces off the high speed buffet..and theose holders just aren't cutting it, I'm afraid...
When I was converting from the 737 to the 777 I'd heard that the windscreen wipers on the 777 were bleed air blown over the windshield. I almost believed it. Alas, untrue.
Still, it's a fantastically capable aeroplane. For some reason the CC aren't keen on working on it(something to do with the way the fbw software kicks it into turns, and the fact that the a/c rolls about a longitudinal axis which is below the cabin floor), but from the pilot's perspective it's fine. It has full cat3b no decision height autoland..on one engine. So tell me, how come the coffee cup holders are so useless? At height, it's a little speed unstable, and prone to rattle around a bit as it bounces off the high speed buffet..and theose holders just aren't cutting it, I'm afraid...
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had heard that the APU makes more thrust than a T-37 engine....not that that's difficult - so does a humming bird....
I believe the 737 rumour is the diameter of the GE-90 cowls at the outside, which I can believe.
Have to agree about the cup-holders. Ugh. Most upsetting; I've lost some cups of Starbucks that were calling me....
I believe the 737 rumour is the diameter of the GE-90 cowls at the outside, which I can believe.
Have to agree about the cup-holders. Ugh. Most upsetting; I've lost some cups of Starbucks that were calling me....
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: With all the other nuts
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm digressing, I know and I don't have a preference for Boeing over Airbus (or vice versa) so I'm not starting a debate on that, but Waldo mentioned the roll being around the longitudinal axis below the floor. So what will the A380 be like with it's two decks? Are there similar problems for CC on the upper deck of the 747?
Ciao,
Chips
Ciao,
Chips
When you roll a 747 you can feel a little lateral movement from the cockpit, instead of simple roll like on smaller planes where you sit only on the single main deck.
The A-380 will have the same effect all along the upper deck.
The A-380 will have the same effect all along the upper deck.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: leeds
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ive been flying the thing for 3 years now and I love it. I feel the whole thing has been well thought through.
Whether it be heat,wind, turbulence,limiting runways,contaminated runways,no problemo!FL400 on the Nat tracks with a good load,doing .84 and burning just over 6tonnes an hour.Intermittent wipes as well.
Whether it be heat,wind, turbulence,limiting runways,contaminated runways,no problemo!FL400 on the Nat tracks with a good load,doing .84 and burning just over 6tonnes an hour.Intermittent wipes as well.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RRAAMJET,
What bunk fit do you have on your 777s? Our company (well known Big UK operator) ordered them without flight crew bunks as they weren't originally expecting to operate the aircraft on ultra long-haul. As a result, on some of the fleet we have a less than ideal bunk compartment at the back of First class, just ahead of Door 2R. Not the quietest spot in the world. The UK Civil Aviation Authority approved it based upon an empty aircraft with no pax or service going on. Assuming my company makes it back into profit, it would be interesting to know what we can expect for the retrofit!! Is yours the one above and behind the Flight Deck?
What bunk fit do you have on your 777s? Our company (well known Big UK operator) ordered them without flight crew bunks as they weren't originally expecting to operate the aircraft on ultra long-haul. As a result, on some of the fleet we have a less than ideal bunk compartment at the back of First class, just ahead of Door 2R. Not the quietest spot in the world. The UK Civil Aviation Authority approved it based upon an empty aircraft with no pax or service going on. Assuming my company makes it back into profit, it would be interesting to know what we can expect for the retrofit!! Is yours the one above and behind the Flight Deck?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Human Factor,
Our bunks are in a small cubicle just aft of the f/d, on the port side. The door opens outward to block the corridor from the forward galley, thus leaving a Heath-Robinson affair whereby you can get changed between the galley and the f/d entrance door. The bunks are tiny and, just like the -400, your head is lower than your feet in cruise attitude. It is quieter, however.
The cabin crew have a bunk-room just aft of the mid-coach galley.
Our longest sector is JFK-NRT, approx. 14.30 in winter...
Good luck with the retro-fit. (I've got former RAF-mates flying your 777's...)
Our bunks are in a small cubicle just aft of the f/d, on the port side. The door opens outward to block the corridor from the forward galley, thus leaving a Heath-Robinson affair whereby you can get changed between the galley and the f/d entrance door. The bunks are tiny and, just like the -400, your head is lower than your feet in cruise attitude. It is quieter, however.
The cabin crew have a bunk-room just aft of the mid-coach galley.
Our longest sector is JFK-NRT, approx. 14.30 in winter...
Good luck with the retro-fit. (I've got former RAF-mates flying your 777's...)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Human Factor,
We could have had a nice bunk where RRAAMJET describes their fit (and I think that's where most other 777 operators put Flight Crew bunks), but sadly no, we had to give the CSD an office there
We could have had a nice bunk where RRAAMJET describes their fit (and I think that's where most other 777 operators put Flight Crew bunks), but sadly no, we had to give the CSD an office there