Jump to content

Talk:Boeing 777/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Boeing 777

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:07, 15 March 2015 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Talk:Boeing 777) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

SIA's derated 777s

The de-rated engines lower MTOW, which reduce the aircraft's purchase price and landing fees, and can be re-rated to full −200ER standard for long-haul operations.
I can understand how it reduces landing fees. But could someone explain how it can reduce the purchase price? It's the same airplane, the same engine. It is, at best, an electronic limitation. I doubt it's even that, but I can't prove it. What it DOES reduce is aeronaviation fees which are also calculated based on MTOW. BadaBoom (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Order of operators

Hello, I made a change to the current order of major 777 operators. After the merger with Continental Airlines, United became the second-largest operator of the 777, after Emirates with 74 aircraft in service[1]. Air France is third with 64 aircraft[2] and Singapore Air is fourth with 59[3]. Thanks!

  1. ^ http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/United%20Airlines.htm
  2. ^ http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Air%20France.htm
  3. ^ http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Singapore%20Airlines.htm

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.182.180 (talk • contribs) 16:13, July 18, 2012 (UTC

Agree - United now has more 777s based on the figures of the carriers themselves. United fleet, Singapore fleet, Air France fleet.

Why does this keep changing back? Why do we keep ignoring reality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.220.235 (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Because you have not cited your changes in the article. The Airfleets.net pages listed above are references but are self-published and probably do not meet Wikipedia's reliable source requirements. Flight International will put out its annual airliner directory in a few weeks. The operator list totals will be updated with that for consistency. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Note7 leads to paywall

Footnote7 leads to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-115126417.html which is paywalled.... is this kosher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junks (talk • contribs) 23:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe so. It not much different than book references. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What about passenger pov?

Okay, a great design, wonderful mileage, etc., but the noisiest plane I have ever flown in. By placing two jumbo engines close to the wing roots (the only place they probably could go) you gaurantee a noisy cabin. I've done four flights in these things (transpacific, all of them), and the experience was a lot less than stellar, due to suffering 10 hours of engine noise. I don't recall any other plane being quite as noisy, and I've been flying fairly regularly since the 1970s. I love the Boeing wing design, and the overall approach, but shifting from four engines to two was a definite downgrading of the passenger experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.248.211 (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That is very true. 777 is extremely noisy, especially in the economy behind the engines. Despite Boeing's statement that it's only 3dB noisier than A330, I don't think they can fool anyone. Flying -200LR by overall experience is similar to spending a few days in an industrial grade metal waste crusher. Unfortunately, there are no sources who would dare say all that about "the golden standard in the skies" as Boeing likes to call their most profitable baby. BadaBoom (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Qantas

Does anyone know why Qantas never bought any 777's? -200LR would suit them perfectly, it seems, on both the Kangaroo Route and across the Pacific. Is there any reason they never showed interest? Despite, by the way, being one of the companies Boeing worked with while developing the aircraft. BadaBoom (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Due to weather, I think. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I've heard all that before, BUT this article very carefully and very deliberately avoids mentioning Emirates who have numerous profitable ultra-long-haul flights. Besides, Qantas still use 747's to fly to US. Wouldn't it make more sense to fly an airplane with two less engines? I really, really, really want to know (or guess) why they never used 777s. BadaBoom (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines

As all we know that Turkish Airlines is one of the important users of Boeing 777-300 ER series. Also they ordered 15 new 777-300 er this year. Why didnt you mentioned about that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.196.250.202 (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Note 7: A Free Alternative

Note 7 links to an article on a page at HighBeam.com (HighBeam Research), which requires trial of a paid subscription in order to see the full article. An article on the same subject, "Flight of Boeing’s 777 Breaks Distance Record," was published by The New York Times on 11/10/2005 (a day earlier than the cited article) and is available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/10/business/11air.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1370171228-awNAKvkMHSBQIYWrBdFjAg
in its entirety without subscription. Possibly the note should be modified to link to the open NYT article.

WorldWideJuan 11:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldWideJuan (talk • contribs)

Free access to sources is not required per WP:SOURCEACCESS. However, that NY Times source is already used in the article. So I used that replace repeated uses of the IHT article hosted on highbeam.com. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Nothing about ease of access is implied or required. Noted. I trust you agree, though, that an available, free, reputable source of equivalent factual content nevertheless is much preferable and more consistent with the spirit of the free Wikipedia. WorldWideJuan 01:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldWideJuan (talk • contribs)

Orders and Deliveries

Would it be worth making a graph of 777 orders and deliveries similar to this one? Ranbi2Delta (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Graphs are always good. Even if it does not make the article, having the information in Mediawiki form will be useful to humanity in my opinion.Fotoguzzi (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

777X

I started a 777X section because the term is all over the media. I think the following could be inserted into the new section, but perhaps someone with more skill could do it?

"More design changes were targeted for late 2012, including possible extension of the wingspan,[100] along with other major changes, including a composite wing, new powerplant, and different fuselage lengths.[100][101][102] Emirates has been reported as working closely with Boeing on the project, and may be the aircraft's launch customer.[103] The Boeing board gave formal permission to start offering this variant to customers in May 2013.[104]"

The above seems a more specific version of the -8X -9X description. And, of course, some of the information is a bit out of date. I don't want to take out anything that is necessary, but I don't want to be too repetitious, either. Fotoguzzi (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

POV: Incidents list items are hidden in prose: A list is a list, incidents overview softened

Reasons: see all my comments. 77.186.126.210 (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not true at all. Prose and paragraphs allows for a much more coherent narrative (for example, regarding the issue with the RR Trent FOHE). And I fail to see how separate paragraphs somehow are biased vs. a list. Also, I think the POV-tags in general just serve as a distraction from discussing the actual issue and that the template ought to be deleted as completely useless. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's MOS on lists says "Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs." That seems to directly apply here. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

image change

--121.176.73.232 (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Why? Sailsbystars (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I 👍 Like asiana airlines.--스토커 (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2013 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.129.119 (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
"Most if not all of the information that was in the pre-deletion version" of the 777X article. I'd be happy to restore the page when there's a clear consensus to do so yet. Meanwhile, those "knowledgeable people" are free to add the information about the new aircraft to this page. - BilCat (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree with the above requests for a separate 777X article. The present mishmash is unacceptable; the -X is a new airplane, with different systems, different wing, different dimensions etc. Somebody with cojones, PLEASE re-create the 777X article.--Spray787 (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
A new airplane? Sounds like PR or media talk. It mainly has new engines and new wings, with the same basic fuselage. There are other, better reasons to restart the 777X article. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I concur that there are other, better reasons to restart the 777X article. Per the AFD discussion, all we need is a clear consensus to split off the info again. Do you think we shou l d try a formal Split discussion below, with a split header on the article? I don't want to risk a delete for recreating an AFDed article because an admin thinks there's no clear consensus here. - BilCat (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Boeing 777X Split

I propose that the 777X content be spilt to Boeing 777X. The page was originally created last year, but was AFDed as the origianl page was quite poor, despite subsequent improvements to the page before the AFD was closed (with resplitting by consesnus allowed in the future). The article has been restored several times against consensus since then, including just this week. I think we have more than enough content now to justify the new page at this point, and there are 216 orders for the 777X now. - BilCat (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. BUT! What content do we have? So far I only see a few paragraphs. Isn't it too early? There is very little reliable information about this project. And most of it in the primary source. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Support There's plenty of 777X content for a separate article now. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay then. Go create! Le Grand Bleu (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Support More information continues to be released, and there is a need to decide whether to fit it into this article or put more extensive details in its own. For example new info such as this [8]. It makes sense for a major derivative to have its own article just like Boeing 747-400. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is the previous 777X article before it was deleted/merged back here. This will give editors an idea of what the page will look like. We'll restore that version, and then update the article with info from the 777 page. - BilCat (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. We have three supports in favor (it is apparent that the above "Go create!" is one). Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_777/Archive_3&oldid=651413813"