End of the road for the 777?

[Werner747 107]

Hi everyone,

 

here is quite an interesting read:

 

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-21/boeings-777-problem-delta-and-other-airlines-want-newer-planes?campaign_id=DN112114

 

It is a bit of an eye opener this!   Not entirely unexpected, that is true since the 777 is by no means a brand new aircraft, but still comes as a bit of a shock to me.

 

Kind regards

 

 

[adnansajid 0]

777 is still hot cake for some large fleet airlines like Emirates , Qatar , Saudi Arabian . and I believe that fuel efficiency issue will be addressed in 77X.

[~Craig~ 10]

Boeing selling 'em off cheap as 'end of line'..... yes that is surprising!

But when you think about it, although we tend to still think of the 777 as a 'modern' type, it is in fact 20 years old this year.

[downscc 1,327]

The 'modern' airframe is the B787.  Interesting that Aerobus went the jumbo A380 route (old technology in a bigger package) and Boeing went with high risk 'bet the farm' new technology. This isn't unusual for Boeing, who also mortgaged the company to create the B777 and had to fight Aerobus in regulatory and political battlefields to win ETOPS approval on first airframe delivered.  Sure, I am biased being an American.

[rfresh737 36]

Boeing has a history of "betting the farm" on their new aircraft...they bet the whole company on the outcome of the 747 when it was introduced. They were developing two aircraft in the '70's era: the 747 and the SST. Both programs needed thousands of engineers and other support folks to develop them.

 

They finally had to make a choice and cut one of the projects to save money. It was the SST they cut. The 747 made it into service as we all know but it's introduction for the first couple of years was anything but smooth. You may recall they had massive P&W engine reliability problems for the longest time. Before and during the flight test program, P&W went through 60 engines.

 

The maiden flight went OK with the engines but the test pilot (Jack W.) was very worried about having to shut down one or more engines on the maiden flight.

[AirborneZed 168]

It seems P&W have a history of less favorable engines.

[Werner747 107]

 

 

Sure, I am biased being an American.

 

Hahaha, I can assure you that it is not only that - I am a South African and was extremely sad to see SAA cut Boeing completely out of the fleet and go Airbus.   I am an absolute die-hard Boeing man.   I hold true to the saying that if it isn't a Boeing, I am not going!

 

My biggest dream is still to visit some friends of mine in London GB with the BA 744 before they disappear.   The 744 will always be my biggest love in aviation.   It is so sad to see them go.  When you look for videos on the 744 you see a LOT of retirement videos which always make me get something in my eye.   Damn allergies...

 

Kind regards

[scandinavian13 5,192]

I somewhat agree, but I somewhat don't. Mostly, what I disagree with is the vaguely apparent hyperbole in the article. It's definitely not the end of the road for the 777. It's the end of the road for the old, original 777s, with decreased interest in some of the current offerings because of it. The article almost makes it seem like everyone wants to dump all of their 777s tomorrow.

 

Also, I'm not sure about the "efficiency" claims. Sure, it could probably be more efficient versus other two-engined options, but I wouldn't call it an efficiency problem. I can't think of any other two-engined aircraft that can do what it does, so in certain market segments, it's the only option.

 

Still, I do see that the airlines are looking for an update to the old bird to fit existing segments. The 787 fills some of that, and some of the future offerings will as well. From what I can see of the 380 and (especially) 748 sales, two engines are seen as the way forward, for the most part. We'll see what happens, but I wouldn't paint a dire picture for Boeing just yet.

[signmanbob 592]

It also may be likely that in the future, Boeing will "modernize" the 777 like it did with the 747-i8, rather than redesigning a whole new replacement. The 777 may be 20 years old, but it is not out-dated.  Much of it is still cutting-edge.

[downscc 1,327]

You may recall they had massive P&W engine reliability problems for the longest time. Before and during the flight test program, P&W went through 60 engines.

 

The Juan Trippe biography I read talked to this. According to that author, Boeing's B747 was designed before the engines, which is the opposite of what ususally happens (another one was the SR-71 testbed, also a good story). The engines were definitely a high risk and they knew it, and PW was pushing the envelope way beyond what had come before and is probably the only engine manufacture at the time that could have pulled it off.

 

There are many books out there on Boeing aircraft, and a few good ones. The B777 story is absolutely amazing, and by the way the guy who led the engineering is now leading Ford though another year of profit (and no taxpayer money).

[jrs 2]

Why buy the original 777 when you can wait some years and buy the 777x version.  It would be like buying a brand new, not fuel efficient car in December and not waiting to get the new fuel efficient car in January.

 

Jared Shipley

[rfresh737 36]

Why buy the original 777 when you can wait some years and buy the 777x version.  It would be like buying a brand new, not fuel efficient car in December and not waiting to get the new fuel efficient car in January.

 

Jared Shipley

Ahhh but the airlines often can't wait years to put a specific, more desired aircraft into service...they often buy and put 'temporary' aircraft into service, knowing in a few years it will be replaced with what they really need...the 777x is a good example of this...

[downscc 1,327]

And airlines usually don't 'buy' the airplane but lease it through one of the large leasing companies such as Air Lease Corporation, whose founder virtually paid for the Steven F Udvar-Házy Smithsonian Air & Space facility at KIAD.  Speaking of which, definitely worth the air fare from anyplace to experience that museum.

[jrs 2]

The airline I work for as a mechanic is Delta.  We wanted the B787-900, but couldn't get a faster slot, because of the backlog of orders.  Boeing even offered us to use the 777-200 as an temperary aircraft until we received the B787.  Of course we didn't want to train crews for the 777 and then have to move them to the 787 a few years later.  An airline in the middle east cancel 70 A750, so airbus offered us a faster delivery time, to cover the slots.  Delta will do both buy and lease aircraft, just depends on how long we will use them.

 

Jared Shipley

 

P.S.  Know any MD-88 that are for sell.  We will buy any airframe, even if just for parts.  LOL

[scandinavian13 5,192]

And airlines usually don't 'buy' the airplane but lease it through one of the large leasing companies such as Air Lease Corporation, whose founder virtually paid for the Steven F Udvar-Házy Smithsonian Air & Space facility at KIAD.  Speaking of which, definitely worth the air fare from anyplace to experience that museum.

 

True...although some do. Ever wonder why DAL still uses their DC-9s and SWA still has 300s and 500s running around? They're paid for...haha.

 

...and you're right. Might even run into me there, though I'm not sure many would consider that to be a perk of that museum 

 

Worry not. I'm taking a break from runs to IAD after a few incidents recently...