Jump to content

Talk:Boeing 777/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

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
    Current photo
  • Proposal
    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)

Hi

I propose to change picture to

  • Current photo
    Current photo
  • Proposal
    Proposal

The 300ER is newer and most sold aircraft. People are likely to fly or see this version of series. I don't see any orders needing to be fulfilled with the 200ER. The picture I chose shows very little livery and the angle of plane is so we have good view.

Thanks for the suggestion, anon, but as enumerated in previous discussions there are historical reasons to put the original length 772 model picture. Moreover, there are already four 77W pictures in the article already; the article generally has a good balance of different type pictures. Incidentally, with 400+ deliveries/in service, the 772ER is the closest variant to the 77W in numerosity (however, popularity has not been the deciding criterion thus far). Sincerely, SynergyStar (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi

Thanks for a very good, clear and very pleasent answer. I'm not good but I do my part to improve wiki. Thanks again sir

Thanks for your efforts! It's a very nice picture. For airliner articles, editors (both new and experienced) discuss the merits of infobox and other important pictures on the talk page; this is the correct place to do this. In my experience proposing new pictures will attract different opinions before a consensus can be reached. Thanks again for working to improve the site. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Value?

I saw an interesting chapter in the Boeing 747-400 article titled "Retirement and economic value". B777 has been in production for 20 years. Early -200 and -300 models were produced in pretty large numbers but quickly became obsolete when longer range variants appeared. Some early -200ERs and -300ERs are nearing retirement or have been retired from fleets. What happened to them? How do they do on the second-hand market? How is the freighter conversion programs work. Does it even exist? Would be really cool if someone added this information to this article. I know I'd like to read that. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Me too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.178.239 (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Freighter conversions are big business, Google will get you many companies doing them. Boeing themselves are apparently thinking of going into the business as well. KoolerStill (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Template produces poor PDF output

PDF output using Google Chrome's built-in distiller produces poor results with this page. (Use the Ctrl P command in Chrome to preview). Issue may be with the template used or (more likely) the the way content was entered (coded) into the template and saved by the contributor. For example, when printing this article with Google's PDF printer, the font size is scaled down too much. Note that the font size should not dynamically scale up or down to fit a page; font size of the main-body text content should be about 12 points on outputted PDF page(s); it is the images and table cells that should dynamically scale up or down to fit the info box and template in order to maintain the two-column Wikipedia layout. The offending element appears to be the table (class wikitable). Printchecker (talk) 04:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Production updates: United Airlines 10 777-300ER order for $130m

Contrary to the revert explanation : "individual orders are not that notable", I think having a good source for usual market value (Leeham) is interesting, and seeing the impact on the largest -300ERs order since the 777X launch enlightening too, it should meet Wikipedia:Significant coverage. And for the 2d part of the explanation "at this stage for the 777" I don't understand the relation with our present time, please explain, thanks. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The point of the 2nd part is that this not an initial or launch order for the 777 or 777-300ER; launch orders are much more significant than orders 10-15 years later. I missed the discounted part. So the text seems fine to mention. Flight International reported this week that UA plans to convert other existing orders for the 10 -300ERs, and implies to order has not been completed/signed. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, of course a 10 planes order at the end of the production cycle isn't historically significant. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Circular fuselage cross-section

Greetings! The following feature of the 777 was removed twice recently: circular fuselage cross section. The second time, the comment was made (bold added): "Most fuselage cross-sections are relatively circular in shape" - it would be more distinguishing if it WASN'T!" citing [9]. I've added it back but this time with a highly reliable published book source and a clarification (bold added):


Source: Birtles, Philip (1998). Boeing 777, Jetliner for a New Century. St. Paul, Minnesota: Motorbooks International. ISBN 0-7603-0581-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The key point here is that the 777's cross section is fully circular. That's different from its single aisles (e.g., 707, 727, 737, and 757), which are partially circular (upper and lower lobes differ), as well as the 747 and 767 (ovoid). An example graphic is here: [10]. The point is, of all Boeing jet airliners, ONLY the 777 has a fully circular fuselage cross section. (the latest, the 787, also is not fully circular; they are using double-bubble per Norris & Wagner 2009, p. 38). It's really apparent when you look at the plane head on.

Finally, of the source that was cited earlier, it does indeed say "most fuselage cross-sections are relatively circular in shape." But later on it also points out: "many fuselages are not circular, however" and "...elliptical or double-bubble arrangements can used" of which an example is given: the 717. Sincerely, SynergyStar (alt) (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That's fair enough; a fully circular fuselage is certainly an oddity, the improved wording adopted communicates this better now, and the new sourcing is only positive too. Kyteto (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not Air Force One

"Although the USAF had preferred a four engine aircraft, this was mainly due to precedent". It was not. The only reason why neither 777, nor 787 were picked is because their two engines don't generate enough electrical power to supply all the loads onboard. With a four-holer it is possible to suck all power from one or even two generators, if necessary. With a twin that would be quite problematic. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Boeing 777. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boeing 777. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing 777. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

...making the -200LR the second Boeing widebody with a wingspan wider than its length after the 747SP and before the 787-8.

This phrase has now been reinserted by one editor several times and removed by two editors, but reverted twice. It is meaningless WP:TRIVIA. I propose it be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Concur with removal. - BilCat (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
This has now been removed by three editors, but the editor in question keeps putting it back in. We seem to now have both an editing and talk page consensus here that this is WP:TRIVIA and doesn't belong in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
and yet another editor put it back in and, in accordance with this consensus, I have removed it again. No one has made a case that this is significant in any way. - Ahunt (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Boeing 777. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

777X specs

since they are already in Boeing_777X#Specifications, perhaps they should be removed from the #specs table, since they are mostly incomplete? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree they should be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

777-200LR is not the longest range commercial airliner.

In the section talking about the 777-200LR, there is an incorrect statement saying that the 200LR is the longest range airliner in the world. According to Boeing's official website, the 777-200LR has a range of 8,555 nautical miles (boeing.com...777-200lr) which is less than the 9,000 nautical mile range of the A340-500 as stated by Airbus's official website (airbus.com...a340-500). This means that the 777-200LR is not the longest ranged airliner in the world but the second. I have repeatedly tried to correct this error only to have these corrections undone. Please correct this error in information. Once again here are the links to the official site information so you can see for yourself. Both nm and nmi are accepted ways of writing nautical miles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.26.34 (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your note. From doing some digging, the link you provided appears to be the range with that specific cabin layout (317 passengers in a 2-class configuration). Per this original press release the maximum range with 301 passengers (and perhaps a lighter configuration all around) is 9,420 NM which does exceed the A340-500. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The previous published Boeing ranges were overly optimistic and Boeing reduced them : flightglobal. Current websites reflect that, and the A340-500 is indeed longer ranged (albeit operational constraints vary) - but was doomed and isn't produced anymore, so the 777-200LR won, even if it is produced in low numbers.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Marc Lacoste: & @Fnlayson: (as you appear to be actively editing the article) Thanks for that link. After looking at it however, it makes no mention of Boeing slashing the range for the 777-200LR though it does mention the 777-300ER and the 200LR's replacement the 8X being shortened (though the replacement model having a shorter range than the original 200LR would be odd). Do we have a specific source for the range being shortened? It doesn't seem too implausible that with a premium heavy config, less corresponding passengers, and three auxiliary fuel tanks in one of the cargo holds that you could hit 9000+ NM of range on the LR. Also, here are some more links of Boeing's site saying the 777's max range is 9000+ NM: 777 family Spec sheet (see performance/payload chart on page 41), "stating The airplane seats from 301 ... with a range capability of ... to 9,395 nautical miles.", 2014 Farnborough Airshow spec sheet. If Boeing revised the range of the 777-200LR down I'm surprised that none of these materials were pulled/updated (as they all appear to be from prior to August 2015.) Mifter (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, this image which is currently on Boeing's site (under "Unmatched Capabilities" and "Fun Facts") on the current 777 page show the 777-200LR flying nonstop from London to Sydney which is 9,188 nm. Mifter (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The Flightglobal article [states] Boeing changed its range calculation method to "more closely represent what our customers are using" and applies to all its current aircraft types and variants. The article can't list each and every one. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Boeing only produces a few types (737, 747, 767, 777, 787) with a few subtypes (737-700, 737-800, et al) commercially. The 767 is really only a freighter/tanker now, and looking at the list it lists pretty much every subtype that Boeing currently produces with all the 737, 787, 747 (only one), and 777 variants except the 777-200LR and 777-200ER listed (the regular 777-200 I do not believe is sold anymore and the 737-600 is pretty much de-facto discontinued.) That is virtually every commercial plane Boeing produces (except oddballs like the BBJ/700ER, and later announcements like the 737-10X, etc.) I find it odd that the 777-200LR is omitted from the list as it is the longest range plane Boeing makes and a downward range modification on it is somewhat newsworthy as it places the A340 ahead of it. Combined with Boeing still listing the longer range in multiple places on its website with a 301 seat config vs the 317 seat shorter range config and I would prefer to see a specific cite for the 200LR having a downgraded range. Also, the flightglobal article states the revised numbers apply to "nearly all" of Boeing's planes, which in my estimation makes the exclusion of the 777-200 family noteworthy. Mifter (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The 200LR is dead : only 59 were made, last one delivered in 2014, before flight's article. There isn't any agenda behind the 200LR omission, just that nobody bothers. You can replicate flight's findings by comparing the current Boeing website (which should prevail if there is different specs : Boeing choses this and is the best to know what it makes) and archives / dated PRs. Don't bother to fall in sterile comparisons. The A345 was used on the longest route ever, but was a dumb and costly move for Airbus, Boeing was smarter. When you have multiple refs from a single source, you pick the last one.
In the specs, (ref : acaps, p.14, may 2015, before website revamp) you can see Boeing lists the 200LR OEW as 320,000 lbs vs 318,300 lbs for the 777F. Only 1700 more for 300 pax seats including biz/first seats, IFE, bags racks, lavs, galleys, crew rests and crews. You can see Boeing was optimistic, the similar config A359 OEW is 20t heavier than its MEW! If we start at 360,000lb OEW + 300pax PL (60,000lbs), you can see on the PL/range chart (acaps p.41) its range is 9000nmi with aux fuel tanks, 8500 without. 9400 is for 410,000 lbs OEW+PL. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

A350 Reference

As the A350 has been in service for a couple of years it's probably time the article stopped referring to it as "newly launched" (see last para of the introduction). I'd fix it myself but the article's currently protected and I can't remember my user name here. 82.11.64.250 (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Boeing 777. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boeing 777. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing 777. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boeing 777. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing 777. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2018

On Accident Section Please Add this → On 13 February 2018,United flight 1175, A Boeing 777-222 the aircraft carrying passengers and crew,the part of the plane's engine fell apart in midair, leaving metal pieces flapping in the wind[1] .The aircraft landed safely at Honolulu International Airport, at approximately 12.40 p.m local time.[2] AyaanLamar (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC) AyaanLamar (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Passengers recall 'horrible' moment when United plane engine fell apart in midair". ABC News. 2018. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  2. ^ "Engine Cover Blows Off on United Airlines Flight". The New York Times. 2018. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
It is a minor incident, not notable. We don't list every minor burp here. - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Singapore Airlines Flight 368 just had an oil leak and it is included in the section ,parts of planes engine falling apart in mid-flight is a very notable incident in civil aviation . Please add it AyaanLamar (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The Singapore Airlines Flight 368 incident resulted in an engine fire. This was just an insecure cowling that departed. Despite the media circus over it, there was little real risk and no significant outcome. It was likely a single latch that was just missed on walk around. The aircraft landed safely and there was no real risk to anyone. It is not notable. See WP:RUNOFTHEMILL - Ahunt (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Even if its not very significant incident it has the right to be in the section in consideration of being civil aviation accident and there is investigation going on AyaanLamar (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
We don't include things that are, as you wrote, "not very significant". This isn't a tabloid newspaper. - Ahunt (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

First CAD designed plane, is this true?

According to this documentary, the A320 family was the first and it was operational 7+ years before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.19.41.133 (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey (removal of minor engine fire incident)

I'm editing this article at the accidents page! The following is true... Why does it not appear??? ThanAtos101 (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You will need to explain what you are talking about. - Ahunt (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
This is about a minor engine fire incident that I removed the text on here. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, makes sense, too minor for a mention here, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. - Ahunt (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for new photo

  • current United -200
    current United -200
  • proposed Qatar Airways 777
    proposed Qatar Airways 777

I want to replace the current photo of a United airlines Boeing 777 with a new photo. May i change it? It is a photo of another in flight of a different airline. The photo is File:A7-BAE Boeing 777 Qatar Airways (7878810682).jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R32 nissan skyline (talk • contribs) 13:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to explain why this is a better photo. To me they are very similar in viewing angle. - Ahunt (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The proposed picture is worse as the wing and tail are cropped, and taken at a lower angle. The current is also more informative, showing the launch customer.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I have no strong views either way, though I would be happy to see a good photo of another operator's aircraft as I've never quite understood why the article needs two different photos of United 777s. DaveReidUK (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
why an operator couldn't be illustrated twice?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Well clearly it could be/can be/is :-) My question was why, when there are around 75 airlines operating the type, have two photos of the same airline's aircraft? Anyway, as I previously said, I have no strong views - I'd be perfectly happy to see that Qatar photo substituted.DaveReidUK (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The proposed Qatar image is clearly inferior to the existing United Airlines image because of the cropped wing and tail as Marc Lacoste pointed out. It should make no difference what airlines the aircraft fly's for. - Samf4u (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with User:Marc Lacoste that this proposed photo is inferior to the existing lede photo for then reasons stated. While it would be nice to show a diversity of operators the key thing is to show the aircraft itself as best as possible. - Ahunt (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • So if all 15 or so external aircraft shots illustrating the article were the same airline, you would be perfectly happy ? Really ?? DaveReidUK (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Sure. It would be better to have good photos showing the aircraft, even if the same airline is shown, rather than put in crappy photos that show the airlcraft poorly, just to get a variety of paint jobs. - Ahunt (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Cathay -200, almost clean config
    Cathay -200, almost clean config
  • Asiana -200 from top but over parking lot
    Asiana -200 from top but over parking lot
  • Asiana -200 with background clipped
    Asiana -200 with background clipped

Well I used the opportunity to look for better pictures, but I didn't found any obvious ones. The Cathay is interesting as it show s the aircraft with the gear up and the flaps almost up, for a simpler picture. Also, note the wing doesn't masks the tail and the belly is well lit. The Asiana is interesting as a top view, better showing the low wing airliner configuration, but the parking lot background is disturbing. I made a quick and dirty version with the background clipped to better show the plane.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC) I revamped the commons:Boeing 777 gallery if you want to see other possibilities

A photo of a UAL 777 is appropriate as it is the 777 launch customer, perhaps one of the prototype N777UA would be better? If it ain't broke, why fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.40.94.24 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  • current
    current
  • proposed
    proposed

Something like this might be better. It shows the plane from an angle that's basically completely to one side, showing the profile of the whole aircraft, with the wing blocking substantially less of the image. Also, showing the -200 as the representative of the whole series doesn't make sense. It's the smallest variant of a massive plane, the second least produced, and scarcest in current operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabst blue ribbon led zeppelin (talk • contribs)

Not really. The angle better shows the wing and the configuration (engine number and position, tail config), and is better lit with a visible underside. The BA pic shows the gear doors not completely closed, it may mislead the viewer. The -200 is more informative for the initial variants, and both length are equally produced. The 777X is longer with a main picture of a larger variant.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
For the reasons given above I thing the current one is better than the proposed one. - Ahunt (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This makes no sense

One sentence in the 777-300ER section states, "At its peak, a new 777-300ER was valued US$17 million, falling to US$150 million in 2019." This does not make sense ($150 million is much more than $17 million!) - is it an error or vandalism? Hkbusfan (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I have removed it. Aside from making no sense the ref is paywalled and it fails WP:NOPRICES anyway. The addition of all the pricing information is not all that relevant or useful. - Ahunt (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Didn't actually check the ref. Hkbusfan (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Never hurts! - Ahunt (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Reorder the US feet/miles/pounds to the metrical system, please

How can this article be considered "good" if the units are given American-only first, and then the metric? Please, reorder them, this is a disgrace to any international reader on Earth.--Adûnâi (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a US product and US customary units are primary. See the manufacturer's spec data for example. Also this is why unit conversions are listed. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Denver Engine Failure

The current Denver engine failure is relevant. The aircraft has been grounded in multiple countries, zo I will had appropriate links shortly. Carandol (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I've taken the word 'Uncontained' out for now. As per NTSB it has a specific meaning within the industry that this doesn't appear to match though clearly it's an ugly failure with stuff all over the place. Happy to revisit that as either the definition moves or more info becomes available. Skenu (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC) [1]

References

  1. ^ Reuters Attribution. Aero.UK https://www.aero.uk/news-38776/Damage-to-engine-consistent-with-metal-fatigue.html. Retrieved 23 February 2021. {{cite web}}: |last1= has generic name (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

GE90-94B

max TO thrust of GE90-94B is 97,300 lbf (433 kN)[1] . The value in specifications is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.76.218.195 (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

77L (700-200LR)

The article states "It has a maximum design range of 8,555 nautical miles (15,844 km) as of 2017.", isn't the maximum design range according to Boeing 17,205 kilometres (with 314 pax) (cite: https://www.boeing.co.kr/resources/ko_KR/Seoul-International/BCA/777-300ER-200LR.pdf )? As the "maximum design range" actually employs all 3 auxiliary fuel tanks in Center Aft (displacing cargo space). While I don't believe there is evidence of any of the operators currently keeping their tanks installed/using them as the range of the 77L is just so massive without them that they are uneconomical to sacrifice cargo space for further unneeded range. (Cited as one of the potential reasons why the type didn't have further success, even after not being chosen for SIN-EWR route). And while Boeing's current public website indeed cites the range without the auxillary tanks (I presume to make the type more marketable/reflect a more common configuration), the design of the aircraft & even Boeing's Fuel Management System are all built for the Auxiliary tanks if desired ( https://studylib.net/doc/8775156/b777-fuel---smartcockpit ). It also would make sense to cite the range of "17,205 km" as the previous cited facts in the article (connecting almost any two airports),setting the world record for flight, both would require keeping those tanks installed.

What are people's thoughts? As this is a very active article, I didn't want to make this change without discussion! DigitalExpat (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ https://elfc.com/engines/ge90-94b/

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 (orders & deliveries references)

The references O_D_summ, 777_O_D_summ, and BoeingOD are invoked but never defined. I couldn't find them in previous versions of the pages in 2022 and 2021. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Those refer to the Boeing orders and delivery page(s). Reference names like those have been used in this article going back over 10 years. One of main O & D web pages now is https://www.boeing.com/commercial/#/orders-deliveries. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Fnlayson.
777_O_D_summ is used in the article to source the following sentence: "The 777 has been ordered and delivered more than any other wide-body airliner" Can the page you mentioned be used for that as well? A455bcd9 (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
AnomieBot saved one of them. Still two refs missing though. A455bcd9 (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

KLM Flight 791

On Tuesday, May 9th, a Boeing 777-300ER registered PH-BVR had been tasked with operating flight KL791 from Amsterdam to São Paulo. As per data from FlightRadar24.com, the aircraft departed Amsterdam Airport Schiphol at 13:17 local time - nearly 30 minutes after its scheduled departure time of 12:50.

According to The Aviation Herald, the aircraft was performing its initial climb out of Amsterdam's runway 24 when the left-hand engine, a General Electric GE90, began to vibrate. However, as these vibrations remained within "acceptable ranges," the crew continued the climb to cruising altitude. The jet was enroute at an altitude of FL300, about 310nm westsouthwest of Amsterdam, in English Airspace, when a failure of the aircraft's number one engine occurred, prompting a diversion and the decision to return to Amsterdam. Referencing a map, this incident would have occurred somewhere above Swindon or Bristol.

Flying over the Bristol Channel and making its turn over the North Devon Coast, the crew lowered the aircraft to FL170 for the remainder of its flight to Amsterdam. A safe landing on runway 18C took place at 15:12, approximately two hours after departure.

according to simpleflying we should add this to accidents and incidents DarkknightSup (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not notable. See the inclusion criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Help

How can I find the cite web template via "<ref name=O_D_summ>", "<ref name=777_O_D_summ>", and "<ref name=BoeingOD>" in the editing page of article Boeing 777?

Because this is a featured article of English Wikipedia and I would like to translate this to Chinese Wikipedia and send to W:zh:WP:FAC if I can. Sinsyuan~Talk 02:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

777x range in miles

The ranges provided in the subsection on the 777x show mile conversion that do not agree with the nautical miles or kilometers values. 2A00:A041:3A2:4900:3CAA:AE6C:427C:F505 (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes you are right, thanks for mentioning it,  Fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The quantity of Boeing 777 in service as of 2023?

A Chinese Wikipedia user @Dragoon17cc wants to know how many Boeing 777 aircrafts are still in service as of 2023, but I can't find that via the reliable website (for example "floghtglobal.com"), so please help me find that. (In fact, in "W:zh:Special:PermaLink/78362973", it states, "服役機隊數據仍停留在2018年" (the quantity of Boeing 777 in service is still in 2018).) Sinsyuan~Talk 14:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It is FlightGlobal and its website is flightglobal.com. The print magazine used to be named Flight International. The aircraft data is subscription content at least for the latest data. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Typo in "talplanes"

In the last sentence of the second paragraph:

The 777 became the first Boeing airliner to use fly-by-wire controls and to apply a composite structure in the talplanes.

Should this be "tailplanes"? Searching for the literal on google points back to this article. ChaoShuCai (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Quite right, thanks for mentioning it.  Fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Ambiguous info on infobox

The image caption on infobox says - “The first Boeing 777 built, operated by Cathay Pacific in 2011…”. However, it lists shortly after that the introduction of the aircraft was with United Airlines in 1995. The two info sounds ambiguous to me. Can someone please explain it? Thanks! Jsengupt (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Not ambiguous. Airliners often get sold by their original owners at some point as they age. Here's a summary for 777 #1: B-HNL on planespotters.net. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2024

change Donbass insurgency to Donbass War Dmk aft (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

UA 35 wheel loss

Is there any value in briefly describing the UA35 incident out of SFO where the plane lost a wheel on take-off? It was filmed by a streamer and is still getting a fair bit of media play are part of larger stories on issues with Boeing and United Airlines aircraft. I'm happy to write it up, but wanted to check with the regulars to see what the standard for such inclusions is before I do. Drmargi (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this wheel loss event truly notable/significant overall? Unless it really affected the subsequent landing, it probably a non-notable event per WP:NOTNEWS, etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I lean towards no. It was a wild video, but in the grand scheme of things, it was thankfully a rather minor incident. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_777/Archive_3&oldid=1258757056"