Talk:Boeing 777

Language

The −300ER, which combined the −300's added capacity with the −200ER's range, became the top-selling 777 variant in the late 2000s, ... in the first paragraph of the extended range section is slightly misleading as we only just have started into that millenium. The late 2000s are still a fair bit away, I should think. I know what is meant - the late naughties, but would not know how to better phrase it myself. Any ideas? Thank you, -194.246.46.15 (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

In this case, when it's referring to the "2000s," it's not talking about the whole 21st century, but rather the first decade of the 21st century. So, by late-2000s, it's referring to ~2006-2009, not 2090-2099. Unfortunately, I don't know of anyway of referring to the decade as opposed to the century; I guess you just have to figure it out based on context. —Compdude¹²³ 07:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Operators list

This article's list of 777 operators is totally out of date. I keep trying to fix this, but people keep reversing my edits! I don't really know where to look for citations, so I use Wikipedia itself as a reference—and FYI, I don't much feel like going to every airline's website just to find out how many Triple-7s are in their fleets; I mean, that doesn't make sense!

Anyhow, I ask that people stop reversing my edits to the section "Boeing 777#Operators" and just add some good citations themselves when they find some. Personally, I don't really care how it gets done; just PLEASE somebody update that bloody operators list!!!

Thank you, -STH235SilverLover, 2 November 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by STH235SilverLover (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note that this is an encyclopedia so the list of operators does not have to be up to date as long as it is cited and dated. But if you want to change it then you need to provide a reliable reference that the list has changed. You say you dont know where to look for citations so how do you know the list is wrong? MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Using a single source for the operators list is the best way to be consistent with all numbers at a given time for fair comparisons. Flight International and Aviation Week are the best single sources for these numbers. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

777-8X and 777-9X orders

The order list should include separate columns for 777-8X and 777-9X, not group them all into the 777x family. Karpouzi (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Check the sources. Boeing only lists 777X now. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

My bad. Thanks Karpouzi (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Dispatch reliability edit war

Hello, could 77.186.6.240 (talk · contribs) please explain why verification is needed for a particular bit of info about improving reliability? I really don't see why verification is needed, and you haven't explained why you don't believe that info either. Re your comment in your edit summary, I know enough about WP to understand that edit-warring is a waste of time and it's better to discuss it on the talk page. So clearly, your claim that Fnlayson and I don't have a clue about Wikipedia doesn't hold any water. Just sayin'... —Compdude¹²³ 07:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The IP has a point I think, the info from the source appears to have been misrepresented. The text is available online at amazon http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Boeing-Jetliners-Guy-Norris/dp/0760307172/

Choose the 'look inside!' option, search for '99.96' and there it is. The 99.96% is I think is for the Trent engines not the 777 generally which the article implies.

From http://www.ataebiz.org/forum/2008_ata_e-biz_forum_agenda/Reliaibility_Nazareth.pdf 'Dispatch Reliability is the percentage of revenue departures that do not incur a primary technical delay greater than 15 minutes, or a primary technical cancellation.'

99.96% sounds very unrealistic for general dispatch reliability. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"99.96% sounds very unrealistic" : Thats the point- And even more: Boeing "LIES" about reliability: Select only the -300,[1] A330 (not mentioned) is equal to 777, in another Boeing statement they present much too low figures for the A320: 99.4 percent versus 99.7-99.8 Airbus figures.[2][3][4][5][ Probably they take very short-term figures for a bad month for Airbus and select a good month for Boeing. Varies also with airline.[6] Corrections done. 77.186.6.240 (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Fnlayson check this link for confirmation about the 15 minutes being industry standard for schedule or dispatch reliability http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2000-12-18-LanChile-Adds-Three-Boeing-767-300-Freighters-To-Its-Fleet

' The 767-300 Freighter benefits from the 767's established schedule or "dispatch" reliability, performance and operational advantages. Schedule reliability - an industry measure of departure from the gate within 15 minutes of scheduled time - is nearly 99 percent for the 767.' Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but this is not common knowledge. There was nothing to back up the 15 minutes part in the article until the 737 article that states that was added as a reference. I've never seen a time mentioned for the equivalent mission capable rates for military aircraft. Please just remove or edit content as needed instead of wholesale reverts. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised you weren't aware of what dispatch reliability is. A google search reveals it's definition and central importance in operating and marketing airliners. In the military, I would guess schedules and operating economics would be of relatively little importance in comparison to the airline industry, so it wouldn't be much of a concern. An easily understandable definition of what dispatch reliability is is given in the article for those not aware. Nonetheless I have added a suitable reference http://www.avbuyer.com/articles/detail.asp?Id=2363 explaining in more detail dispatch reliability and related terms (the 737 article is not suitable as a reference , that was given just as an example of the use of the term by Boeing). The wholesale reverts were intentional, not sure what you mean there. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see dispatch reliability has no encyclopedic value as Woodtwoodpeckerthe3rd says "importance in operating and marketing airliners" neither of which are part of the role of an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

So you consider the operating costs of airliners of which dispatch reliability is one important part to be unencyclopaedic? But most of the articles on airliners discuss operating costs. I don't think that's a realistic position to take. An encyclopedia should discuss whether an aircraft is economical to run and how this influences the success of the aircraft sales wise. I see dispatch reliability is being mentioned in the 787 article. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Cabin Width for the 777-8 and 777-9

The two new versions of the 777 should retain the exterior fuselage diameter (20ft 4in) of the older models but perhaps have a widened interior (up from 19ft 3in). I have read that Boeing may aim for a 4in interior widening to 19ft 7in, thereby reducing the exterior-interior width differential from 13in to 9in. I doubt that this differential could be reduced all the way to 4in. I think the 20ft interior width figure that was cited was a rounded figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5:C400:412:B0EB:15DF:FF52:51EB (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Separate article for 777X

I believe a new article should be created for the new 777X variants, much like how separate articles have been made for the numerous 737 and 747 variants. Sorry, but just trying to cram info about every Triple-7 model into this one page doesn't work. --STH235SilverLover (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The upcoming 777X (Estimated EIS 2020) appears to be a very much updated aircraft on the current generation 777, should a new page be made for it with the 777X being the "successor" aircraft to the 777? Guyb123321 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

777X (New Article)

So does anyone fancy taking a first stab at creating a new article for the upcoming 777X?Guyb123321 (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Boeing 777X was already started last November and the consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Boeing 777X was to merge it with this article. (This link is in a template above the top section on this page.) Its probably too early to go through this again, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This is what's wrong with Wikipedia. The 8/9X is genuinely notable - it has firm commitments from multiple airlines and the design is firmed. Wikipedia should be the place with the most detailed article, but instead it got deleted by keyboard monkeys who know nothing about aviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.129.42 (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no need for insults name-calling here. Most if not all of the information that was in the pre-deletion version is still in this article. - BilCat (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Most if not all? There is a tiny fraction of the information about this new aircraft on this page. What on earth are you talking about, BilCat? Restore the page please, so that knowledgeable people can write about it!

Incident in Fiji

Airports Fiji Limited general manager Lawrence Liew confirmed that on June 16 2013, an Air Canada Boeing 777 aircraft was diverted to Nadi while en route from Sydney to Vancouver after flight crew detected an electrical burning smell in one of the washrooms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.59.144 (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That's still a minor incident and not notable by itself. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidents and accidents

"As of March 2014, the 777 has been in 10 aviation accidents and incidents"

Says here there's been 67 [7] .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DTentilhao (talk • contribs) 12:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably depends on your definition of "incident". That page included "odour on board" (broken toilet), " toilets inoperative", "transponder failure", " cabin pressure problems" and "low approach " etc, this page seems to be more "major" incidents Sijambo (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Updated main infobox picture

Hi all, apparently the infobox image is dated such that there now needs to be an explanation ("painted in United's former "Rising Blue" (2004-2011) livery"). Perhaps we can consider the following swap--it is very, very similar to the provided photo (angle, undercarriage, flaps, etc.), but with a 777-200ER instead of 777-200, and updated livery. It may also have the benefit of being a bit brighter in terms of seeing aircraft body details.

• 
  Current photo
• 
  Proposal

Any thoughts? Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It's better to have an image that does not need any explanation about the livery as that is not the focus of the article. The overall quality of the proposed image, particularity the exposure, is better than the existing one so I support a swap. However the sky background of the proposed photo seems a bit too much on the purple side of blue and could use a small color correction.--Wolbo (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd support this change as well. Although I still think the pre-merger livery is so much better than what they have now, that is of little importance. The proposed picture is higher-res, more crisp, and has better lighting than the current infobox image. —Compdude¹²³ 21:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

- I like both images. Changing to the newer image with the newer plane seems fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone! A background color balance correction was carried out--anyone can make further changes as need be. The replacement photo will be tried out shortly. On an aesthetic note, I do agree that the earlier livery looks better. With that in mind, this new photo's angle and lighting has the effect of making the new livery less salient than it otherwise might be; the aircraft seems to stand out more than its markings. Hopefully this update will be ok. Will be missing the earlier pic, and in particular given that a very nice Chicago photographer shared it with Wiki. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Info box picture should be in UA tulip livery

The infobox picture should not have been changed. There have been numerous discussions about this before. First of all this is not some sort of advertisement for United Airlines. It is also insulting that the infobox picture was changed to a plane in Continental's livery, an airline where the 777 was not significant. I don't care that it says "UNITED" on it, it is not UA's livery, the blue and white picture that was there for years worked very well and I see no reason to change it, just because it was replaced because Jeff Smisek has an ego. UA was the launch customer for the 777, the infobox should be a 777 in an actual United livery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.166.245 (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, this new photo is at a higher resolution, is sharper, and has better lighting than the photo with the plane in the tulip livery. These were the reasons why I supported changing it, in spite of the lousy new livery. Also, I'm sorry, but as much as we all hate their "new" post-merger livery, let's face it: they're not going to change it back. Just learn to live with it. I do agree that it's not really a true United livery; after all, I think the tulip had so much more brand recognition for United than the globe did for Continental. But companies do make stupid changes to their sometimes well-recognized brand quite often, and so this is nothing new. BTW there is a photo further down in the article showing the 777-200 in UA's battleship gray livery, which is the first livery to be painted on a UA 777. —Compdude¹²³ 17:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)