Meeting my new love - The Boeing 777

[Dakota 400]

As a passenger, I agree that the 777 is a very nice plane and is comfortable. (I really like the changing ceiling light feature.) But, on such a large plane, couldn't they have made the restrooms just a bit larger?

 

[Bob Dylan]

As a passenger, I agree that the 777 is a very nice plane and is comfortable. (I really like the changing ceiling light feature.) But, on such a large plane, couldn't they have made the restrooms just a bit larger?

Restrooms aren't Revenue Generators!

 

[jis]

There is at least one, maybe two larger restrooms at least on the 777s that I have been on. It is of course an airline specific thing, so it depends on the airline you were on. Even the smaller restrooms appear to be larger than the ones on 737s.

 

[cpotisch]

As a passenger, I agree that the 777 is a very nice plane and is comfortable. (I really like the changing ceiling light feature.) But, on such a large plane, couldn't they have made the restrooms just a bit larger?

Restrooms aren't Revenue Generators!

Yup. If they can sell maybe two more seats by having small restrooms, it makes sense to have small restrooms! Annoying but true.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

As a passenger, I agree that the 777 is a very nice plane and is comfortable. (I really like the changing ceiling light feature.) But, on such a large plane, couldn't they have made the restrooms just a bit larger?

These days airlines are busy reducing the total number of lavatories and shrinking those that remain.

Link: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-airplane-bathrooms-smaller-20180710-story.html

There is at least one, maybe two larger restrooms at least on the 777s that I have been on. It is of course an airline specific thing, so it depends on the airline you were on. Even the smaller restrooms appear to be larger than the ones on 737s.

In the early days of the 772 there used to be at least one coach class lavatory large enough for washing up and changing clothes, but I haven't seen one of those in many years now.

 

[jis]

Maybe just an ex-Con United thing. I thought the LH 8i also had it too but can’t vouch for it. Will see in Dec if the UA 77Ws have it.

 

[GBNorman]

If I go again to the Salzburg Festival

next August (and at age 78, you don't make such plans that much in advance), hopefully United will have enough 77-W's around for the ORD-MUC flights.

BTW, my attachment to United is simply because I know my way around their terminal 1 at ORD - also might I say their area at MUC. At year's end, my point balance will be 0 - I give 'em all away to a veterans support group - Fisher House.

 

[Dakota 400]

My most memorable 777 restroom visit was one in Business Class on Air New Zealand. Honestly, I think the restroom was smaller than on any other Boeing aircraft that I have needed to use. However, having closed the door and sitting on the "pot", viewing the cartoon pilot on the door "looking at me" was an unexpected, but a pleasant surprise.

I still would have preferred a slightly larger restroom for such a long distance flight.

Air New Zealand seems to have a sense of humor that U. S. airlines lack.

 

[AutoTrDvr]

I used to do the Continental flight from Newark NJ <----> Hong Kong. or Tokyo 16 hours EWR--->HKG taking the polar route. Tokyo was slightly less polar, but the cool thing about Tokyo -->EWR is that you would be scheduled to arrive 20 minutes before you departed Japan (by crossing the Intl. Date Line).

All of these travels were in B777-200ERs with GE 90 94B engines. Man can they put out some power! And very quiet once they spool up to full idle. Of course, "ignition to idle" is very much within the resonance range of the aircraft, but....

 

[Devil's Advocate]

My most memorable 777 restroom visit was one in Business Class on Air New Zealand. Honestly, I think the restroom was smaller than on any other Boeing aircraft that I have needed to use.

Have you flown a recently delivered B73X or A32X? The newest lavatories are surprisingly compact. If you're a taller guy you might have to twist, bend, and/or lean at an awkward angle just to finish your business. It's ridiculous to me but I guess unless and until people stop flying it will only get worse from here.

I used to do the Continental flight from Newark NJ <----> Hong Kong. or Tokyo 16 hours EWR--->HKG taking the polar route. Tokyo was slightly less polar, but the cool thing about Tokyo -->EWR is that you would be scheduled to arrive 20 minutes before you departed Japan (by crossing the Intl. Date Line). All of these travels were in B777-200ERs with GE 90 94B engines. Man can they put out some power! And very quiet once they spool up to full idle. Of course, "ignition to idle" is very much within the resonance range of the aircraft, but....

Are there many Eastbound TPAC's that do not arrive before they leave? Early model 772's are by far the loudest wide body jet aircraft I've ever ridden. That constant drone really wore me down and made it hard to sleep restfully. The newest 773's seem to be substantially quieter though. Not sure what exactly changed but I'm very thankful nonetheless.

 

[jis]

Yeah, the new gen narrow body toilets are really cramped.

The sound of a 90 spooling up is music to my ears, in the same league as an EMD revving up. [emoji51]

 

[GBNorman]

It certainly appears that United is getting ready to send many of their 772's to the "land of the 744". With the order for additional 789's announced yesterday, as well as the A-350's, on order, it would appear that the 763 could have "numbered days" in the fleet as well.

 

[BCL]

The sound of a 90 spooling up is music to my ears, in the same league as an EMD revving up. [emoji51]

Looking forward to the 9X?

 

[cpotisch]

It certainly appears that United is getting ready to send many of their 772's to the "land of the 744". With the order for additional 789's https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/united-airlines-extends-dreamliner-bet-with-2-5-billion-order'> annoinced yesterday, as well as the A-350's, on order, it would appear that the 763 could have "numbered days" in the fleet as well.

The 767s' days are definitely number, but I disagree about the 777s. The 777 is significantly larger than any 787, and they are not particularly old either, so I don't think that the airlines are in any hurry to get rid of them. JMO.

 

[railiner]

Have to agree about the ever-shrinking airliner lav. Heck, even the ones on a bus are cavernous in comparison...

 

[CCC1007]

It certainly appears that United is getting ready to send many of their 772's to the "land of the 744". With the order for additional 789's https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/united-airlines-extends-dreamliner-bet-with-2-5-billion-order'> annoinced yesterday, as well as the A-350's, on order, it would appear that the 763 could have "numbered days" in the fleet as well.

The 767s' days are definitely number, but I disagree about the 777s. The 777 is significantly larger than any 787, and they are not particularly old either, so I don't think that the airlines are in any hurry to get rid of them. JMO.

Aren’t the 772’s in the United fleet close to 20 years old?

 

[cpotisch]

It certainly appears that United is getting ready to send many of their 772's to the "land of the 744". With the order for additional 789's https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/united-airlines-extends-dreamliner-bet-with-2-5-billion-order'> annoinced yesterday, as well as the A-350's, on order, it would appear that the 763 could have "numbered days" in the fleet as well.

The 767s' days are definitely number, but I disagree about the 777s. The 777 is significantly larger than any 787, and they are not particularly old either, so I don't think that the airlines are in any hurry to get rid of them. JMO.

Aren’t the 772’s in the United fleet close to 20 years old?

True, but the 767s are more than 10 years older. And while a 787 or A350 can easily fit as many people as a 767, 777s are bigger than all three of those.

 

[AutoTrDvr]

It certainly appears that United is getting ready to send many of their 772's to the "land of the 744". With the order for additional 789's https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/united-airlines-extends-dreamliner-bet-with-2-5-billion-order'> annoinced yesterday, as well as the A-350's, on order, it would appear that the 763 could have "numbered days" in the fleet as well.

The 767s' days are definitely number, but I disagree about the 777s. The 777 is significantly larger than any 787, and they are not particularly old either, so I don't think that the airlines are in any hurry to get rid of them. JMO.

Aren’t the 772’s in the United fleet close to 20 years old?

Some are. But I think the one's that came with Continental Airlines are fairly new (the ones that have GE 90 engines - I think the older United 777's had PW's)...

 

[Trogdor]

It certainly appears that United is getting ready to send many of their 772's to the "land of the 744". With the order for additional 789's https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/united-airlines-extends-dreamliner-bet-with-2-5-billion-order'> annoinced yesterday, as well as the A-350's, on order, it would appear that the 763 could have "numbered days" in the fleet as well.

The 767s' days are definitely number, but I disagree about the 777s. The 777 is significantly larger than any 787, and they are not particularly old either, so I don't think that the airlines are in any hurry to get rid of them. JMO.

Aren’t the 772’s in the United fleet close to 20 years old?

True, but the 767s are more than 10 years older. And while a 787 or A350 can easily fit as many people as a 767, 777s are bigger than all three of those.

United's oldest 767s are from 1991. Their oldest 777s are from 1995.

Approximately half of United's 767 (including all of the -400s) are younger than their oldest 777s.

In terms of capacity, the 787-9 is only 15 seats smaller than the current seating configuration for the ex-Continental 777-200ERs. Granted, once they get reconfigured with higher-density economy seating, that difference will increase a bit.

On the other hand, airline fleet replacements aren't a 1-for-1, like-for-like deal. For example, UA used to have a couple dozen 747-400s (don't know how many at the peak of the fleet), and right now they only have 18 777-300ERs. The rest were replaced by smaller planes (including the 787), offering more frequency, more nonstop service, etc. For example, they now fly 787s on multiple nonstop routes between the US and Australia and New Zealand, rather than funneling everyone through a SFO-SYD nonstop 747. They do SFO-SIN nonstop rather than needing a 747 to connect those passengers through Tokyo or Hong Kong.

To say that they need to replace a big plane with another one with exactly the same, or more, capacity, is to misunderstand how these types of decisions are made.

 

[jis]

We won’t know the exact shape of things at United until (and if) the 350s, which were the original 747 replacements, arrive (or not). Until then it is all interim.

But I do agree with Trog’s basic thesis.

 

[Trogdor]

We wont know the exact shape of things at United until (and if) the 350s, which were the original 747 replacements, arrive (or not). Until then it is all interim.

But I do agree with Trogs basic thesis.

Well, if you want to be technical, its always going to be interim. When they replace the oldest 767s, then theyll have to look to start retiring their A320s which are almost as old. Not to mention the PW-powered 757s which are living on borrowed time.

Once they have that figured out, itll be time to retire the rest of their 757s. Then, before you know it, the oldest 737NGs will be aging out (whether thats before or after the 767-400s, who knows?). Since nobody has yet figured out how to economically convert a passenger 777 to cargo, one would expect the bulk of the 777ER fleet to stay at UA until they either age out or become economical unsustainable due to fuel costs. But those retirements will likely have to begin within a decade. But that process will probably take a decade in itself to complete, during which time more 737s will be aging out. That would take you into the mid-2030s, when the 787s start hitting 20+ years old...

A large airline will never be done with fleet renewal.

As for the A350s, there is a contingent of folks who claim they will never see a day in service for UA, and the recent order change was more of a stall tactic to avoid contractual penalties while they negotiate an agreement with both Airbus and Rolls Royce to get out of taking planes for which they no longer foresee a need.

 

[Seaboard92]

I will say when I play the game online Airline Empires the B767-400ER is one of my favorites to use. Generally in the beginning I've tended to use the Airbus aircraft because they are far cheaper upfront. But once the company matures I generally replace all of my A330 aircraft with a B767-400ER. I'll replace A340 and B747-400 with various 777 variants.

I believe one time on the game I had a fleet of over 300 767/777 variants. For my regional operations I tend to use CRJ200s. Domestic short range I try to stick with B737-900 but occasionally I retain some A321

 

[jis]

I just flew EWR - ATH - EWR on UA 767-400ER in the front (GPU upgrade on ex-Con BF hard product with Polaris soft product). Got a singleton “D” seat both ways. They were wonderful flight. Crew, food and beverage were top quality. I think UA is finally getting out of its rut at least on international routes. We’ll see if this is consistent or a one shot deal.

 

[cpotisch]

I just flew EWR - ATH - EWR on UA 767-400ER in the front (GPU upgrade on ex-Con BF hard product with Polaris soft product). Got a singleton “D” seat both ways. They were wonderful flight. Crew, food and beverage were top quality. I think UA is finally getting out of its rut at least on international routes. We’ll see if this is consistent or a one shot deal.

And you weren't even dragged screaming off the plane to make room for a few employees! Nice!

 

[jis]

I am not aware of anyone being dragged off an international or mainline flight, specially from BC or FC. Are you? [emoji12]