Talk:Boeing 777/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Comparable Aircraft

I think it is a mistake, and frankly misleading to the average reader, to list the A350 as a comparable aircraft. It hasn't been built yet, and will not enter airline service for four more years, if that. I recommend that one be removed from the list.

--EditorASC 00:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. How can the 777 be a direct competitor of the a330, a340 and the a350. The A340 claims to be a 747 competitor. The A330 a 767 competitor. Airbus doesnt really have a competitor for the 777 until the XWB is built.

This is nonsense. The A350XWB as built is competitor to the B-787 creamliner. The B-777 is a developmental dead-end because its huge engines are a logistical nightmare. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Do your research. Only the smallest XWB competes with the 787. Only the largest A340 directly competes with the 747. How can the 777 be a dead-end when only now Airbus is playing catch-up in that market? Get your POV out of here.--67.173.248.35 (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

777-300ER launch customer

Current text mentions that AF is the launch customer but for political reasons, JL is listed as the launch customer. Plan to remove this because Boeing has multiple launch customers and no citation can be found for the political reason. See http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q4/nr_041101g.html showing ANA as "a launch customer" Chergles (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Source 34, Alain Mengus' article on the 777X, lists it: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205142232/airtransportbiz.free.fr/Aircraft/777X-10.html
"The first official firm order for the 777-300ER came only in March 2000, when Japan Airlines announced an order for eight airplanes of the type. The next order followed in June, with an order from EVA Air for four 777-300ERs alongside three the -200LR airframes. In October, Air France placed an order for ten 777-300ERs and took options on ten further airplanes. For political and marketing reasons, the carrier chose not to be advertised as the launch customer, although it was actually slated to take delivery of the first 777-300ER. This announcement was followed, on 08 November, by an order from Alitalia, which took six options on -300ERs, in addition to six firm order for six -200ERs and an equal number of rolling options"
Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Since that reference is an archive copy, it might be good to replace uses of it where possible. I could not find numbers in my books for the Market A, B & C ranges. But some of the other uses could be replaced I bet. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Haven't seen other sources for the ranges, but the first two are being replaced. The 777-X ref is clear, and the AF political one is controversial so I'm removing it. What is left now of the referencing is to get the number of Boeing/RR/Goodrich press releases replaced with 3rd party ones. SynergyStar (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. I'll try to help with 3rd party refs... -Fnlayson (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Per the FA review, I have replaced about six Boeing Company references with 3rd party ones. The RR/Goodrich ones may need replacing as well. I will update the changes on the FA review page. However, after this I am rather busy for the next few weeks, so I may not be able to make as extensive edits to this article. Thanks to all the other major contributors for your help and best wishes on the review. SynergyStar (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

correct reference style

There are several. Let's make it like this.

<ref>[http://www.logistics-business-review.com/article_news.asp?guid=E08C1935-F0F2-467E-BC04-EC351F405245 Air France takes delivery of Boeing 777-300ER], ''Logistics Business Review'', May 5, 2008, Retrieved 2008-10-20.</ref>

Which looks like reference 53 (at least 53 now)

Chergles (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Look fine. But article titles are generally in quotes. Or use the {{cite web}} template. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to standardize reference styles. Anyone's help appreciated. Will start tomorrow and do a few at a time. Chergles (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe MLS style. Example: Author. "Article name". Publisher, Date published. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Test reference {{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=15 November 2008 |work= |publisher= |date= }}

"Boeing's instructions for Wikipedia idiots". The Boeing Company. 1 January 2008. Retrieved 15 November 2008.


Chergles (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion I will use the above style for website references. We'll decide how to treat books and journals later. We'll use the day month year style (like 15 November 2008). We can do it the other way if desire but must do it the same way. I will start from the top and do only two or three today to test it. Chergles (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is harder than I thought. I just reviewed the introduction and made minor changes. One thing I will follow is to use "8 November 2008" not "08 November 2008". Changing all of the references to the citeweb version is very hard so I have tentatively decided not to do it. Chergles (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've run into another problem. 8 November 2008 or 2008-11-08? I chose 8 November 2008. Any violent disagreements, let me know. I will hold off mass changing to let anyone say something. Chergles (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

error in logic or description

The 777-200ER section says (paraphrased) "the plane can be powered by engine A, B, C, D, E....In 1988, Air France ordered a plane with engine Z".

How do we fix this?

1. List all engines, including a dizzy list of variants (too long) 2. List the originally offered engines (specify so) then say that AF got the 94,000 lb. engine. 3. other ways

Chergles (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Boeing specs currently lists 3 engines for the -200ER.[1] Not sure it'd help to list the original -200ER engines. I suggest just listing the current engines themselves. Maybe say they have thrust ratings over 90,000 lb. The current thrust values are listed in the spec table if someone wants more details. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a big chore to find out what variants were actually ordered. Anyone ordered the Trent 884 or the PW4084. UA probably ordered the PW4084. So I think it is ok to go with your idea of listing the current engines offered and maybe mention the launch customer's engine, if it was United and the lower thrust PW4084. Chergles (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC) The first 3 -200ER were GE90 powered British Airways followed by a GE powered China Southern and 2 PW powered United aircraft. Chergles (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

accidents and incidents

I have no hidden agenda, whether to maximize the number of events or to hide them. Is the current list ok? Or should we just include hull losses and fatalities?

I think including everything, like it is now, makes the article not comparable to the Boeing 707 or other earlier aircraft. The modern, internet era, makes reporting more comprehensive so we can find references to obscure events, even those with no hull losses or loss of life.

I am slightly inclined to include only hull losses and fatalities? What do you think? Chergles (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Within the last few months WP:Aircraft has added guidelines for what is a notable incident or accident at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Incidents. However, the Boeing 777 has only a few serious incidents and 1 accident so the criteria used here has been looser. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Fnlayson is correct because of the lack of serious accidents the more serious incidents were added. I suspect that most are not notable and could be deleted apart from the BA38. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
How about only keeping the BA 38 incident per MilborneOne and also the fire incident where a person was burned to death? Chergles (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
This change has been done. I hope it's not controversial. Chergles (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Not really. I don't see the point in bothering with just a few entries. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider this an incident but due to the previous cases of engine problems on the GE90 115B, i thought i would add mine. I was taking off from Taipei in an Eva Air 777 300ER and as we lifted off there was a massive vibration throughout the cabin, it lasted 15 seconds. I believe the pilot powered down and continued to LAX with no issues. I'm no mechanic but it seemed like the engine was the cause of this deafening sound. Just don't trust these new engines after the experience. Feb 1 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorneh (talk • contribs)

Sources, reliability

The FAC lists concern over airliners.net and other similar sources. I am very open to suggestions. Those website has numbers of aircraft per airline. If we don't use this then we have to stick with a general description of the 777, we can't say United has 53 or 45 planes, etc. That's ok with me. In short, if SandyGeorgia insists we musn't use those type of websites, then I will comply and adjust the article text according. Chergles (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Understandable. I can replace airliner number reference with Flight International data, but it is data from August. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Our collaborative effort is working! Thanks to everyone working on the FAC! I was going to do some creative re-writing but then I stopped because the goal now is FA and the technical improvements needed to get that! Chergles (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

4th paragraph

The beginning of the article should have 3 or 4 paragraph according to WP:LEAD. There is currently one oppose to FA, mistakenly citing the requirement for 4 paragraphs. What if we attempt to add another paragraph? This doesn't seem to be a requirement. If we do, what do we include?

The sections of the article are:
Development somewhat covered in a sentence
Design covered
Variants covered
Operators not covered but a very short section
Incidents not covered but not appropriate?
Specifications not covered but it's a chart
Sales covered

So should we create a 4th paragraph to satisfy the objection/oppose even though we meet the requirements for FA, but don't meet the erroneously stated requirement? A 4th paragraph is permitted.

Here's a sample 4th paragraph that could be inserted between paragraph 2 and 3: United Airlines was the first airline to operate the 777 in commercial service. Singapore Airlines operates the most 777 aircraft among the airlines. (editor's note: worded so we'll have airlines listed, not leasing companies). British Airways operates -- 777, one of which was involved in the only hull loss to date.

Chergles (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, the 747 article which is FA has only 3 paragraphs. others and I have already expanded the lead to over twice its former size...maybe they could take a look... IMO, incidents don't need to be included up there as it is a small section...and neither included in the 747 or other airliner articles. SynergyStar (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that 3 paragraphs meet the requirements. However, an administrator put an "oppose" because of the 3 paragraphs. I am just throwing out ideas for a possible 4th paragraph, not insisting on it. Chergles (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the possible extra paragraph you've proposed is a logical one (if one were to be added). Made some additions:


All the references can be found in the article, just can move them up if this were to be added to the lead. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • That seems fine, except I'd say the -200ER is an extended range (or longer range) version of the -200. It's both, but the longer range part seems more important. These new sentences are sort of tied to what's is in the 3rd lead paragraph now as well. That covers every major thing in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • For whatever it is worth the 747 article had 4 shorter paragraph in Feb 2008 before it got FA status. The content has been reworked into 3 longer paragraph since then. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the article history info. I've added the paragraph into the lead, with the -200ER listed for its extended range aspect, and moved a sentence up for flow and so that the 3rd paragraph doesn't seem so small. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

200ER

Interestingly the 777-200ER does not appear on the FAA type certificate and the JAA type certificate just mentions that an increased gross weight version of Model -200 was approved by JAA on 22 January 1997. It would appear the the 200ER is just a marketing name and official they are still 200s with an approved increased gross weight. MilborneOne (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The -200ER had been called -200 IGW early on. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Understood just wanted to make the point that -200ER is not an official designation so would not appear on the aircraft documents or manuals. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review or Good Article nom?

This article has failed Featured Article review twice. It is in much better shape after the FA review in Dec. 2008. I suggest either a Peer review or Good article nomination at this point. What do you think? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a GA nomination is a good idea. SynergyStar (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep. The GA criteria look very achievable. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a final check is in order, just to make sure the article is fully ready, particularly regarding WP:MOS and third-party, reliable refs, then I'll be happy to nominate the article for GA review. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Having done a review of the prose and some references, and overall flow of the article, I've made some fixes and adjustments. It would probably be helpful to add:

  • References for all ranges; some have them already, but not the 772, 772ER, and some 772LR refs (could someone check against and add <ref name="Boe_777_specs">) for following?:
  1. 772: "range capability between 3,780 and 5,235 nautical miles (7,000 to 9,695 km)."
  2. 772ER: "Range capability is between 6,000 and 7,700 nautical miles (11,000 to 14,260 km)."
  3. 772LR: "surpassed 777-200LR's operating range of 9,380 nautical miles (17,350 km)."
  4. 772LR: "The 777-200LR is capable of flying 9,450 nautical miles (17,501 km, equivalent to 7/16 of the Earth's circumference) in 18 hours." (this one may probably be changed as it does not match the 9,380 nmi in the other statements and chart)
  • Is there a better 3rd party ref for the "three optional auxiliary fuel tanks manufactured by Marshall Aerospace in the rear cargo hold" for the 772LR section? The current link doesn't work; also for the sake of consistency, given that the 77W section mentions how much add'l. tankage there is (in gallons/L), is the added tankage volume listed somewhere?

Also for consistency some additional 77W order data may be included in its section. Some additional tweaks here and there will improve the standard of the article. All help is appreciated as this article moves forward. Thanks and regards SynergyStar (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Covered a lot of that, I believe. I have not found anything on the C-market in my 777 books yet. That might be too new. Will try to find something on the Marshall tanks... -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help, Fnlayson! The range refs are great, now looks like the tankage/C-market ref(s) remain...also, perhaps replacing company references with 3rd party ones where possible would help. I'll look into that. Additionally, there is an extra PIA 772ER photo at the bottom of the page, it seems a bit redundant; I know there's been a concerted effort to add PIA 777 photos, maybe if a high-quality PIA 772LR photo were found that could work, but otherwise right now that photo probably is extra. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping on the additional refs; hope you don't mind me replacing the Boeing fuel tank ref for a German aviation publication, I've tried to reduce the number of company refs so that reviewers will be more satisfied with the information coming from outside sources. I also tried to find extra sources for the 77W landing gear tire loading, but got only general mentions. Refs have been added for the current competitors to the 777NG and 773; if a ref could be added to (a) 777-200's rival being the A330-300 and (b) 777-200ER's rival the A340-300, that would complete the citations. Thanks for your continued assistance! Regards SynergyStar (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. Tag parts that need a cites, clarification or other. I've worked on this article a lot and can miss these things. The part of the extensive flight testing should be added back with a book footnote. A good bit more testing was required to get ETOPS approval early on. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and found references that best fit those areas regarding competing info, and I've restored the extensive flight test statement, using a published account in a Seattle newspaper from program officials, which was the best ref I could find. I think for the most part the citations have now been examined and made reliable to a greater degree. This will help the article in GA evaluation; and presumably during it, if some references need to be tweaked they can be. Now I think the article is close to being submitted for review, which covers the areas of 1) well-written, 2) accurate, 3) broad, 4) neutral, and 5) stable; perhaps a final check of the article with regards to the MoS (punctuation, endashes, etc.)? Regards SynergyStar (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
As far as MoS, perhaps some of the specs in the paragraphs could use the {{convert}} template? Also some of the refs use the # month year format while others use the 200#-##-## format, do they need to be aligned? Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think the dates should be in (Month day, year) format instead of ISO (year-month-day) format. I started on that last week. The spec values had unit conversions listed before. There's generally no problem using the convert template unless a number is below 10 and needs to be spelled out. I'll work on those. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through the article and completed a series of prose, reference, and other adjustments. Before taking this article to GA review, it would be helpful if all the dates are fully converted (yes it is annoying but some remain), some are still "1 December 2008" instead of "December 1, 2008" and also "2008-12-10" instead of "December 12, 2008" (real examples). Is there a bot to help this or is it a manual operation? Also, I have used the convert template on all data points in the text that it can be used for; the specifications table does not have them, but neither does the 747 article table. Lastly, in adding references, I could not find one which states that the 777F's landing gear is the same semi-articulating ones as on the 777W, instead references indicating the same fuel tankage for both have been used.

In summary, the article has been improved to the point where it is within GA nomination status; the prose, accuracy, breadth, neutrality, and stability are good, although it's probable that discussion of MoS and referencing suggestions will follow. Provided that the dates are fixed, I think it is about time to take this article for review. Any thoughts? Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the help Fnlayson, the dates are fixed now. Following these edits, the article looks to be in pretty good shape, and I think it's about ready for the nomination; given an article of this size and scope, there may be further edits made at the suggestion of reviewers, but hopefully they find it largely in order. Are there any further issues that need to be addressed? If you agree, I will submit the article for review shortly. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks, I planned to go back through the article this morning, but you already did it. I'll look some more for a better reference for the Market C range and the shorten model codes (. I can't think of anything else to do. Maybe nominate it later this week unless we find some issue needing more time. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I liked the existing AirTransportBiz.com reference,[2] it was excellently written, but I acknowledge that some have expressed concerns especially since it is now archived; I replaced that ref with one from Norris & Wagner's "Boeing 777: Technological Marvel" (2001) which discusses on p. 102 plans for a "super long-range version" that flies "9,000 miles" (which is 7,800 nmi), and refers to it as the "ultra-long range C-market version" based on the company's Z-chart for payload and range. As for the codes, they are the official IATA codes according to the link, and individual codes such as 77W etc are used on seatguru.com, airline websites, etc. SynergyStar (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I have added a table of the official ICAO type codes with a link and ref to ICAO. Didnt add it to the paragraph as not all the codes described in it are ICAO codes. MilborneOne (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help MilborneOne; I have found references for each of the 777-300ER codes and will be adding them in shortly. SynergyStar (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Codes are now fully referenced; and all http references now use the cite web template; also I checked and there are 3 main Boeing Co. references, the 1) program summary, 2) prices, and 3) technical data. Of the last category, it is multipled by several references for the variants, but all are linked directly from the "Boe_777_specs" source (if necessary could combine them to this one). The orders search page ref serves as a backup for the static data presented in the other orders and deliveries ref (but could also be replaced with the latter). I also found references mentioning the heavy landing gear loads of the 77W, but the specific number is only in the Goodrich reference. Upon reviewing the article, perhaps we can submit it for the review process to occur this week? Thanks for your help, and any further suggestions are welcome. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


This article has been nominated for Good Article, but is well down of the list under Engineering and technology, Transport. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Rolls royce to redesign engines over safety fears

This has been all over the news - should probably be added to the article, although I wouldn't make too much of it. Just something like "Following incidents in London and Atlanta, Rolls-Royce made alterations to the engines used in some of the planes to prevent a repeat incident."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008849166_webntsb12.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It is only one component needs changing and is not worth a mention here, better in the related engine and accident article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Minor overall engine changes do not need to be covered. A mention of engine changes may be in order at the end of the last related incident entry however. (Delta entry does not have an article.) -Fnlayson (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

featured article

After a year and a half of improvement since the featured article application was rejected, this article is now being considered for FAC (featured article). Help make it successful! People will be making comments and some will oppose it. Let's try to get it passed! WP:FAC Chergles (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the {{fac}} tag above, as this article is currently listed at WP:FAC. I am concerned, though, that a principle editor of the article previously removed the fac tag; it seems s/he feels the article is not ready for FAC. Further input from editors of the article (and, of course, anyone else) would be welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 777. Maralia (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
There was no discussion or notice here about putting this article for FA review. A week or two notice would have been good, allowed others to get everything referenced and so forth.. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
In retrospect, probably should have done but now it's just a race to do it right now instead of over a week or two. If we need more time, we could always ask for it.
Made some organizational/reference edits, and rewrote whole sections; the "Variants" subsections need some more referencing, also the Section 41 reference, landing gear record re 773ER, comparison to KC10 tanker range, etc. Any repeated wikilinks of duplicate items needs to be removed, also I think the external links can be looked at. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Whew! That took a while, but a lot more references have been added; all that is left that I can see are the Section41 reference, the 77W vs. 773 refs, and refs for the 777F section. Any one got some of those? Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Good work SynergyStar. I have not found anything on the common section 41. Nothing in 3-4 books and I've tried internet searches with combinations of Boeing 777, 767, Section 41, nose, share, & common, but have not found anything solid. Section 41 for the 767 and 777 are made in Wichita (Spirit AeroSystems now) though. So there is probably are a lot of similarities at least. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I did also google it, but so far nada. I have placed exclusion marks around that sentence for now. Maybe the person who came up with that Section 41 picture has a reference? Also, whoever added the 77W vs. 773 comparisons, and the 777F vs A330F/MD-11F comparisons. SynergyStar (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to make a big issue of it, some people do like variety, but it was also nice to have all the Variants pictures on one side, except for 2 in one section (777-300ER), like the 747 article. But either way works for me, anyhow the FA reviewers probably have bigger fish to fry (so to speak)...thanks for the collaborative effort! SynergyStar (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. If the sections are long enough mixing in some images on the left is good to reduce image crowding. I tried some adjustments tonight. If you have some better ideas, give it a go. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

FA review recs

Of the issues recently brought up on the review page, I have tried to address most of them (30/35 total). These issues still remain, for whoever would like to tackle them (quote/paraphrase):

  • lb to tonne conversion. Should that be lb to kg or tons to tonnes?
  • info cited to the Goodrich Corporation/Rolls Royce
  • sales figures = original research?

I will be busy in the next few weeks--best wishes for the review. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I had the conversions done and cut out the blacklog row in the orders and delivery so no math would be required to get the numbers. But it failed. No reason given. Guess it was not getting enough votes to stay open or something. Had 1 support and 1 oppose. Oh well. Maybe go for Good Article status early next year.. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, got to see the article and the review details...it was a valiant effort by those involved, but it probably would have been better to have gotten more preparation and advance notice before the FA nomination went ahead. Still, the article benefited a lot from the flurry of improvements made during the FA attempt. I agree, GA status first is probably better. Not quite clear on what issues remain for FA status, other than the references. My guess is that the 2-week period came and went. Maybe try again later. SynergyStar (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Good work writing and rewriting content. I think it'd be better to get a Wikipedia:Peer review before putting it up for GA or FA again. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks also to you for your hard work maintaining these aircraft articles. Actually I think that a peer review is the best way to go, and after changes have been incorporated from there, go to FA review again (perhaps directly there if those involved agree). The latest review had 1 for 1 against, hopefully the peer review will give good suggestions and evaluation to progress the article further in content and status. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FA nom?

The article has now successfully passed GA review, and since then has received some touchups/updates. Perhaps we could consider putting it up for peer review as a prelude to FA nomination, or perhaps go to the nomination directly? Comments are appreciated, thanks in advance Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What about A-class review? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. The A-class criteria are within reach, and the final step prior to FA. Would you be willing to put forward the review request? SynergyStar (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I can do that. Is starting that this week OK? -Fnlayson (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good! Thanks in advance. SynergyStar (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Good article nomination

  1. Well-written: pass
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable: pass
  3. Broad in its coverage: pass
  4. Neutral: pass
  5. Stable: pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: pass

After reviewing this excellent article I also had a quick glance at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 777/archive2. The issues addressed here are far ahead of GAN, so therefore this article passes. My only concern is the lead. My understanding of the lead is that it ought to be a summary of the article, hence no references are required. Nothing should be mentioned that isn't mentioned later, so I would incorporate all "unique" information from the lead into the body, and transfer/remove duplicate referencing. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought the Lead summarized everything in the article without adding anything new. Will look into it... -Fnlayson (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
On behalf of all the contributors who have improved the article, thank you for your review and suggestion. SynergyStar (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding citations, based on WP:LEAD#Citations it is decided on a case-by-case basis, but generally yes redundant refs should be avoided. I'll move some of the duplicate refs into the body. SynergyStar (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

neck removed

The introduction refers to a neck, which has a clarify tag. I have not seen any good reference that clarifies this. It may be jargon and not essential to the article. I will remove it for now.

Distinguishing features of the 777 include the six wheels on each main landing gear,[3] its circular fuselage cross section,[4] the largest diameter turbofan engines of any aircraft, the pronounced "neck"[clarify] aft of the flight deck, and the blade-like end to the tail cone.[3]

Actually, the tail cone is not that distinguishing. The later B-52's have them. So does the MD-80 and MD-11. Chergles (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The tail cone is a distinguishing feature particularly against other Boeing types like the 767. MilborneOne (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The 777 is indeed the only large twin with a blade tail. The "neck" is the compound bend from the flightdeck to the rest of the fuselage. There is one bend, then an almost conical section, then it smoothes out into the tube. I read somewhere that this is due to having the 767 nose cone, but I don't have a ref for that. Mgw89 (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This image: thumb|right|"Boeing Section 41 on the Boeing 777, the only major part shared with the 767" was also removed as the 777 connection claim could not be cited. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Need better 777-300 photos

The two -300 photos show profiles that are mostly from the front. The article needs a good side profile to illustrate the length of this plane. -68.89.238.25 (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a length wise 77W pic:

Regards SynergyStar (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This photo is now used, a lengthwise one:
An Air Canada 777-300ER landing with flaps deployed

Regards SynergyStar (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the new AeroMexico photo has some nice elements, but it sandwiches a section with pics on both sides. SynergyStar (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Article size

This article is now 78.5 k. Is there anyway it could be cut down to 77.7? Cause, I mean, how cool would that be? Lampman (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be pretty neat, especially as the 777th 777 has just been delivered, but right now to remove some 1,000 bytes would need some special thoughts on what to excise. It's a challenge...maybe if someone has time... :) SynergyStar (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It just happens that now the article is 77.701 kb! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review

The A-Class review for Boeing 777 has been opened today. All editors are invited to participate. Thanks for any input provided. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the request. I suppose there is now a one-month period for contributions. SynergyStar (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. I don't know what the time limit is. The page only says "Reviews will be closed after a sufficient time has elapsed." I guess that would be after a long stretch of inactivity. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct, I was however referring to Wikipedia:AVR#A-CLASS, the peer review guidelines which say that if the review request is inactive for more than a month, it can be archived. Hopefully there will some input before long. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for putting up the notice on WP:Aviation's talk page. SynergyStar (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


I am happy for it to be rated as a A-class article and so have promoted it to one. Well done!

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 1st June 2009.

(Review Department coordinator of Wikiproject Aviation).

On behalf of the editors of this article, thank you for your review! Just to check though, the A-class criteria may need to be completed... SynergyStar (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
DAFMM has not completed any kind of review for this article and his/her claim that he/she is the "Review Department coordinator of Wikiproject Aviation" is false. I would not take the promotion to A-class from this user seriously. BarretBonden (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification. SynergyStar (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It was good for a chuckle, though... from the Imperial Wizard of the WickyWacky Realm (see, anyone can claim anything?!). FWiW (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC).
Any willing serious reviewers, please feel free to comment at the A-Class review page. Thanks in advance. SynergyStar (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been over a month, no takers I guess? SynergyStar (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thx to the reviewers, the article is now A-class. SynergyStar (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Gamma Airlines

The airline - the owner miljonar, Izidor D. Schenk von Ostrowich (owner (17) seventeen companies in the world with approximately U.S. $ 1.8 B. value. Slovenia-AOC-OM-OK-N - The fleet - (8) Embraer 190/195 - (6) six BAE Avro 146-300 - (3) Boeing 777-200 LR. In GammaAirlines Gamma-AIR - employees 186 people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.56.35 (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

FA nomination

Greetings all, since its nomination earlier in the year, the article has now passed A-Class review. With the article remaining stable and sourced, along with some stylistic tweaks here and there, perhaps it is now ready for FA review? I am considering putting such a nomination forth in the near future. Thanks to the editors who have helped improve the article to this point. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll help, but we will probably need some other editors to help with Featured Article review comments. Maybe go through WP:Peer review first?? -Fnlayson (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll submit a request. SynergyStar (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's a link to the peer review in case people want to add to it or review it. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help...the peer review suggestions were implemented (alt text, disambig, references, order, ToC, etc.). Anything else we can do to improve the chances of a successful FA review? I'm planning to nominate soon. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks ready, unless there are some loose ends to tie up. The things the peer review tool now comes up are not valid. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, after some additional checks I'll probably nominate the article in a few days. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Issues have been brought up there and addressed. But no support votes. Things don't look good... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Chris Parham's comments state "I read the article through and would support it for promotion" which I took to be Support, however that was not bolded. I will ask him for clarification on the talk page. However, you are right, there are no support votes as yet. So far there are comments by Tony (suggestions), Ealdgyth (suggestions), Awadewit (oppose photos), Johnbod (oppose prose), Christopher Parham (comments). Of these, Tony is busy, but I'll send a message; and Johnbod hasn't read through the article yet. Messages to them as well? Perhaps I should also ask some of the reviewers for A-class and GA status? SynergyStar (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe ask the first 2-3 about it. I posted a comment at WT:Air today, so the WP:Aircraft editors should see that. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I've sent a message to Chris Parham, and I already sent a message to Tony (but he is very busy at the moment, and said would check back later). Looking at the records, Ealdgyth usually checks links, and Awadewit usually checks photo criterion, so I haven't sent messages as of yet. Johnbod was waiting for further comments, no message sent of yet given only 1 commenter so far following him. I also placed a message on WP:AVIATION and am thinking of sending messages to contributors who helped with the A-Class and Peer Review. SynergyStar (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
So, we've gotten a support vote clarified, and some further suggestions from reviewers. It's proving to be a challenging process; I expected as much, but was thinking that there would be more active engagement from reviewers as was the case last year. Nonetheless, I hope that we will be able to address reviewer concerns, at least to the point that the review does not stagnate and get closed without further comment. However, given the scope of the article and the many different concerns people bring to the table, I fully expect the FA nom to be archived/on hold while discussion or debate continues. Should the article not get a full hearing, I am prepared to go through the process again, but in the interim thanks for the help in keeping the effort alive. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The article has come a long way over the last 1+ year. You have done a great job writing and citing things. I'm starting to tire of jumping through FA hoops though. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, it's challenging. A fellow editor once advised me that the FA process involves lots of nit-picking along with the substantial suggestions, and sometimes it takes repeat FA nominations to get a full hearing. Hopefully the collaborative effort will pay off with a successful result. SynergyStar (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • An additional thought...it seems that some commenters make some suggestions on a particular topic, but don't have time to read the article, and then are too busy to say anything further. Leaving talk page messages can sometimes elicit further responses, but not always. Furthermore, some of the suggestions may contradict others--the notion of replacing the lead image (perhaps with the Transaero one, is an idea I thought of in response)--nonetheless does go against the consensus that editors reached for several years on using the UA photo. So it might be the case to defend decisions made instead of immediately acquiescing and making suggested changes. A further area I've considered is citing the Boeing 747 article as an example FA model, when considering such ideas as splitting the variants section off (when the 747 article has such sections), in the name of consistency. Despite changes in WP requirements (such as alt text), I think it might be worth considering the precedent set by the 747 article FA process. SynergyStar (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The 747 article is a good example. But there are articles on the 747SP, 747-400, 747 LCF, and 747-8 variants, plus E-4, VC-25 (Air Force 1 plane), and Shuttle Carrier Aircraft articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, if necessary we can create stub articles, should the other reviewers agree. Interesting it didn't come up in any of the GA, A-Class, Peer Review, but such is the nature of the more rigorous FA process I guess. However the variants info thus far is not anywhere near the level of detail as regards to the 747SP, -400, or -8, each of which has a fairly radical change; to my mind although perhaps more of an advance, the 767-400ER comes to mind. SynergyStar (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The 777 variant sections are similar in length to the variant sections in the Boeing 747 article. Splitting off the newer -300ER/-200LR/Freighter variants to one article would be the good way to do one. But I don't feel there a solid enough reason to do so now. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed, especially given how relatively new the variants are, not a lot of operational history thus far. SynergyStar (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the suggestion of splitting off the variants section and/or the specs table, should that be done? SynergyStar (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the specs table is OK. The table can be simplified some. A Variants article might work. Not sure if that would help with this FA review.. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
At present, it seems we have only 1 active reviewer, who's of the opinion that this being the 3rd review is an indicator of the article's unfitness for FA status. I've noted that the first commenter has not responded to 2 requests for further comment on the review page. That leaves 1 support, 1 active reviewer, and 2 reviewers who have made general comments but not read the article in detail. With only 1 active reviewer, the review is largely beholden to those suggestions, which include 1) specs table move, 2) removal/replacement of numbers. If we haven't decided to do the first, how about the second? SynergyStar (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Photo update

Per FAC rec, I've added a photo next to the ToC File:Japan.airlines.b777-300.ja733j.arp.jpg ...it's possible to replace some of the Development section photos (to greater balance out # photos of each variant), but for stability I've left them intact. Candidates include: File:All Nippon Airways B777-300 JA757A.jpg and File:Boeing777 200F AeroLogic.jpg. Also, because of reviewer suggestions, photos have been selected to face the article center (which rather crimps possible selection). SynergyStar (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If the hide option is clicked on the ToC, the image is next to background text it does not match. Don't think images should go in the Lead for this reason. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Interesting point, and I was just trying to make it work with IE (now it does). Maybe something can be mentioned on the FAC page? BTW, we are now at 3 support votes. SynergyStar (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Good news!!! The article has reached FA status...it appears that third time's the charm! :) Ultimately the review had five support votes from outside editors. Thanks to Fnlayson and all editors who made this possible. SynergyStar (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Finally! Well done and you're welcome. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

AA Door loss Notable?

http://startelegram.typepad.com/sky_talk/2010/06/american-response-on-777-door-incident-at-dfw.html

Is this worth including, the June 16 chock/brake failure and subsequent door loss? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgw89 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That does not seem to meet criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Rolls Royce Trent engines (modifications)

good evening,i am a concerned aircraft passenger. Can i be reassured that the modifications have been carried out on all the Rolls-Royce Trent engines regarding (modifications to fuel-oil heat exchanger)especialy to the Emirates fleet, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.228.169 (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this is an encyclopedia we cant speak for RR or Emirates, have you tried contacting the airline directly. MilborneOne (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Variant updates

Approaching mid-2010, and some updates that may be in the article's future--firstly, the orders & deliveries page now lists 777-200ER orders at 434, while the 777-300ER is at 407; the most popular ordered 777 variant may change. Also, there are media reports of a future 777 variant, it might be in line with the 747-8 program and could involve added sections/subsections to the Development and Variants sections, and possibly another article. SynergyStar (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

During the January 25, 2011 earnings call, Jim McNerney made mention of the 777-8 & 777-9 but I can seem to find any more info than it was mentioned. Does anyone else know any more? JhanJensen (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Most likely those are 787-8 & -9, which are current or upcoming already. -fnlayson (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Unless it was a slip on his part, he said 777-8/-9. I know Boeing has talked in the past of making a 777NG, not a clean sheet design but one that uses composites. Also Boeing has not competition for the A350-1000 so I imagine there would be a stretch to the -300 to accomplish this.JhanJensen (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Range unit conversions

I have noticed 2 issues with this article's ranges of the 777-200 and the 777 Freighter. (1) The article's ranges for these 2 variants are correct as far as what the Boeing website says (see the spec page on the first external link), but if you do the math, the kilometres vs nautical miles don't compute right. For example (on the 777-200) 9,700 Km does not equal 5240 NMI. It is 5238 (a Km is .54 NMI so 9700 * .54 = 5238). What figure should be changed, the KM or NMI? The same is true for the 777 Freighter. 9070 KM is not 4900 NMI, it is only 4898. (2) in the section on the 777-200 variant a range of 9695 KM or 5235 NMI. 9695 KM does equal 5235 NMI, but these figures are not listed on the offical Boeing website. What numbers should be used here? Rocketmaniac RT 14:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

US units are primary (nmi before km). Check both the Boeing specs pages and the airport report. The converted units were probably rounded in some cases. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Update links

These links appear to be the correct replacements for the current tagged dead links:

(update "Datafile: Boeing 777-300". Flug Revue. 2006. Archived from the original on January 30, 2008. http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRtypen/FR777300.htm. Retrieved March 20, 2009)

(update external link: European Aviation Safety Agency Type Certificate Data Sheet EASA.IM.A.003)

Regards SynergyStar (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thx Fnlayson for updating the links! One concludes then that the EASA updated link is the correct one. SynergyStar (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. Thanks for finding them and posting. The first ref was on its way to being fixed. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Further links

Update: 7 articles have been lost from the Seattle-PI archives. Here are replacement links or substitutes:

(replace ref #7: "Boeing 777 stretches its wings, record")
(replace ref #11: "$11 billion order puts Boeing 777 on launch pad")
(update ref #30: "BA Gets New 777 Model")
(replace ref #42: "A New Jetliner Spreading its Wings at Boeing")
  • {{Harvnb|Norris|Wagner|1996|p=35}}
(replace ref #106: "Boeing 777 Lights up with Plastics")
(update ref #127: "Aerospace Notebook: Conner's best bet -- Let it ride on the 777s")
(replace ref #153: "Aerospace Notebook: Boeing now offers the 777 as a tanker")

Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thx Sp33dyphil for updating the links! Please note that ref #7 is now updated and no longer needs to be tagged as an inactive link. SynergyStar (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 links

Regarding:

- Ref #7 is still incorrectly tagged as a dead link

- Ref #113 is archived here:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-190312953.html

- Ref #114 is archived here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090615231836/http://www.lufthansa-technik.com/applications/portal/lhtportal/lhtportal.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=Template7_8&requestednode=421&webcacheURL=TV_I/Media-Relations/Media-Archive/Archive-Press-Releases/Previous-Press-Releases/Press-Releases-2000/First_VIP_B777.xml

- External EASA link new URL here:

http://www.easa.europa.eu/certification/type-certificates/docs/aircrafts/EASA-TCDS-A.003_(IM)_Boeing_777-08-03022010.pdf

Cheers SynergyStar (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, however the EASA link still has the dead link tag which should be removed. Cheers SynergyStar (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Further developments: 777-9X and -8X

there has been new information about the 777 about a study to increase the length an the wingspan of the 777.is this worth mentioning in this article http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/06/21/358550/paris-boeing-mulls-777-9x.html --Nrpf22pr (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. I'm not sure whether this should be included or not. —Compdude123 (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Not yet. Wait until info from other sources surface, before making a decision. If that was the case, I think we need to write the info in "blocks", and paste them into the article, so as to preserve the FA status. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe a sentence saying Boeing is studying improvements to the 777. The 777+ is near term improvements and -8X/-9X changes would come later. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
lets wait a little more to see if there is more information about the -8X/-9X. for now lets watch this development.--Nrpf22pr (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sure. But I did add a few words that different fuselage lengths are being studied. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • thanks for that--Nrpf22pr (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change lead image

I propose to replace File:United Airlines B777-200 N780UA.jpg in the infobox with File:Air France B777 F-GSQG.jpg. The newer image has a much higher resolution. Since Air France's livery is simple most of the aircraft is white and thus more details of the aircraft can be seen. The older image has a much lower resolution is comparison. --Jovian Eye storm 14:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the United image looks better in the infobox, nothing wrong with a bit of colour and it fills the frame better. MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
For a couple of reasons, the original United Airlines photo works better: one is that the image enters the frame right to left and fits the infobox format better, as well, the image uses more of the space compared to the new Air France image, which has lots more sky (this is a bit subjective, and can be cropped accordingly to reduce the overall effect of small plane, big sky). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC).
The launch customer UA 772A lead pic has been updated with a high-res version. SynergyStar (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The high res version now makes the image appear out of focus at the size used in the infobox! MilborneOne (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The original resolution has been restored for the infobox image; the higher-res version is now separately linked. SynergyStar (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Market names/ranges

Can someone explain what is meant by the terms "A-market", "B-market" in relation to commercial aircraft? I couldn't find a reference to this anywhere else. 219.89.82.248 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There is some explanation at the top of the Variants section. They are just different range lengths. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Orders and deliveries page

Would it be appropriate to split the List of Boeing 777 operators page into 2 with the other one being List of Boeing 777 orders and deliveries? As well as the full order history the page could include a recent orders table i.e. last 12 months, which more accurately shows the recent demand for the aircraft. I would be willing to start the page if others feel it is worthwhile.

Bthebest (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  • It may help the current operators page is difficult to follow and understand in what should be just a list of operators. Creating a new daughter article might help tidy up the original page and as you said reflect the demand for the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
A mock up for the page. Thoughts? Bthebest (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. Initially I thought that it might be simpler to retitle the article "list of orders and operators" but split into two might work better, particularly if a full order history, more details, are included. The list of operators would probably rely mainly on the Flight International census of operators, plus have references to former operators, while the orders page probably relies on manufacturer order data, plus articles on major orders. The split could also affect, either obviate or simplify, attempts to re-do Featured List nominations for the page. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Singapore 327

I reverted the addition of a non-notable accident to SIA327 at Munich, it has been added again but as the addition has been challenged it really needs consensus to stay. Suggest it is removed and not added, thanks, MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing indicates serious aircraft damage and nobody was hurt. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I also agree. I informed the user who was adding the info of the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines, but then he posted a desperate-sounding message on my talk page pleading for me not to remove this incident. —Compdude123 19:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it can be moved to the incidents section of Singapore Airlines...particularly if it leads to any pilot training review etc. within the company. SynergyStar (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

New 777-8X and 777-9X

Hi everyone! A major update to the article shall be set due to the "news" by Boeing to develop the new 777X: Flightglobal special on the 777X

Greetings, --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This is already covered in the article in the "Further developments". User:SynergyStar used that Flight Global page as a reference as well. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

Hi,

I was playing about with some timelines on my sandbox page and used the 777 as an example. If someone wants to use it in the article your free to do so :-) --JetBlast (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Boeing 777 production timeline
1990s 2000s 2010s
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
777-200
777-200ER
777-300
777-300ER
777-200LR
777F
Thanks, maybe it can go next to the 7x7 timeline, provided it's collapsible. SynergyStar (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
777-200 and -300 were discontinued in 2007 and 2006 respectively. BadaBoom (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Two-engine vs. four-engine airplanes

(Concept. I may be wrong so BE NICE and patient!)

I really like this aircraft and really like this article, but I still think it lacks a little bit of criticism for balance. 777 is by all means an excellent airplane, BUT it has some flaws the talk of which I hear in the pilots and aviation enthusiasts forums.
The biggest problem with 777 is that it's fuel consumption rises significantly as it gets loaded. An empty 777-200LR is capable of flying 22,000 km non-stop, while it's fully loaded regular airline colleague can barely jump over the pole from Hongkong to Newark.
777 was designed to displace 747-400 and compete with A340 on trans-Pacific routes, both of which didn't really happen - Asian and Australian airlines still prefer four-engine airplanes to do the job. And the reafson is that, while being an ultra-long-haul, 777 simply can't cope with winds and load as effectively as A340 or B747, forcing airlines to choose between passengers/cargo numbers and not plunging into the ocean.
Do you think all this is worth "investigating" to add to the article? Would make it more balanced, because right now it's doing more for Boeing than their own promotional department. BadaBoom (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I question the truth of most of the points you bring up. I think that the 777 is a GREAT aircraft with no limitations whatsoever. Just like every Boeing aircraft from the 707-320B and onwards, it is (nearly) perfect. If the 777 really "can't cope with winds and load as effectively as A340 or B747" do you really think airlines would be rushing to buy it? Do you really think that the A340 (I like to call it the crap340) would have ceased production due to lack of orders? Do you really think that airlines would be using the 777-300ER to replace gas guzzlers like the A340 and the 747? Do you really think that they would have reached the "1000 built" mark? All of this would not have been possible with the limitations you are describing with the 777. —Compdude123 15:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
You know this article is a featured article for a reason. It is neutral and balanced and it is not "doing more for Boeing than their own promotional department." —Compdude123 16:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, aparently this is not a neutral point of view and is largely based on "like it - don't like it" concept. "No limitations whatsoever" contradficts even to the known limitations like ETOPS.
Like I said, 777 is an excellent airplane. But, again like I said, it has its limitations. If you want to go with "why do you think", here are some points for you to consider. Why do you think 777 is not used on trans-Pacific routes? Why do you think Asian airlines like SIA (who have plenty of 777's) use "gas-guzzlers" like A340 on their longest flights instead? Why do you think Qantas who desperately need the 777's long-range capabilities, never even tried to order them but instead operates a fleet of 26 gas-guzzling 747's. And why do you think the "bad" A340 was decomissioned (which happened not because the 777 is better but because the new A350 is on the horizon) 17 years (!) after the "perfect" 777 was introduced?
There's an answer. Four-engine airplanes' range doesn't change as drastically with added load as 777. You can't argue with that. It's a fact, proven by this article. They are also better in flying against the wind. BadaBoom (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
If you believe the article is lacking, you have the power to edit it and make it right. I assume you have verifiable, reliable sources to back up your claims (hint: what some "expert" on some "internet forum" said doesn't cut it). I also assume these sources criticizing the 777 aren't Airbus press releases (see WP:NPOV). It's also fairly hard to argue with the numbers. 377 A340s were built, vs. 1000 777s with 350 unfilled orders (and counting). Airbus already has over 500 orders for the A350. Over 1000 767s have been built. So by the numbers, you're looking at 377 four engine aircraft in the roughly 300 seat market vs. over 3000 twin engine aircraft in that market (note I'm not including 747s). Of course I'm not going to put any of this in the article because it is my own synthesis of the data which would be original research which we don't put in articles here. Best of luck finding reliable sources for your claims! N419BH 18:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I know what reliable source and NPOV are and not going to post my theories. You're totally missing my point. It's not about good vs. bad, Boeing vs. Airbus or America vs. Europe. I'm just interested to explore, why, with all those cool low-maintenance-cost twin-engines available, four-engine airplanes are still very well there, have their own niche and not going to give up?
I'm not looking at 3000 vs. 377 (even though I don't quite understand how 1000 + 1000 equals 3000 but that's a different story). What I'm looking for is why those 377 exist at all, if the airlines have access to (their own!!!) twin-engine aircraft.
And why are you not counting 747s? If you combine 747s, A340s and A380s (with orders), the count 4 vs. 2 engines will be very different, especially considering the fact that 747 takes more passengers and cargo. Again, this is NOT about Boeing being better or worse than Airbus or visa versa. ALL airplanes have drawbacks and limitations, and 777 is not an exception. BadaBoom (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, counting is interesting:
Four-engine - 1435 747s, 85 A380s, 377 A340s, 86 Il-96s. Total 1983.
Two-engine - 1009 777s, 854 A330s, 1023 767s, 15 787s. Total 2901. BadaBoom (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay, I think the reason why airlines prefer 4-engine aircraft over transpacific routes is because there's a safety regulation known as ETOPS, which generally limits twin-engine planes to be flying on a route that keeps them within 180 minutes of the nearest suitable airport at which to land at. So if an engine goes out, they can be able to make an emergency landing somewhere other than the water. Because there are less airports to make emergency landings at in the Pacific, airlines would rather use 4-engined aircraft on transpacific flights. —Compdude123 23:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Compdude has it correct, it has to do with ETOPS and load factor. The longer Pacific routes (North America to Australia) require 240 minute ETOPS for a twinjet to make the flight, which wile doable is fairly uncommon. Hence Quantas prefers 4 engine aircraft. Additionally, the extremely long flight times make the hub and spoke system most effective than point to point, so where a number of 777s, 767s, and A330s serve numerous European destinations from numerous North American destinations, in the Pacific it's more economical to operate fewer 12-18 hour flights from fewer hubs using larger 4 engine aircraft. The only time you'll see a four engine jet on a transatlantic route is when load factor requires more seats than are available on a 777. I left 747s out of the argument because I was looking at the roughly 300 seat market, and while some 747s are in the high end of that market most are in the 400 seat market. As for 300 seat market A340s they're really only used on ultra long range routes. You must also understand the A340 was designed when ETOPS was in its infancy and didn't exist beyond 120 minutes. 180 minute and 240 minute ETOPS pretty much relegated the A340 to the history books since now 300 seat twinjets can operate the same routes once the domain of the A340 more efficiently. N419BH 05:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm... this is interesting and sounds correct. But I don't think ETOPS has much to do with it. Twins and quadros fly the same routes. On the same routes (including transpacific) different airlines use different airplanes. Qantas only uses 747s on their US-Downunder routes, while Virgin flies LAX-MEL on 773. On SYD-DXB/AUH line there are THREE aircraft - Etihad's A340, Virgin's 773 and Emirates' A380. Thai uses 777 to fly to US, while SIA flies A340-500. I wish I could see the actual routes for those to see if 777s have to fly closer to the land somehow. BadaBoom (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Long-haul 777 transpacific services

As a sidebar/update: the Non-stop_flight#Longest_flights list shows that 777s now operate over two-thirds of the world's 30 longest non-stop flights. Maybe it might be worth mentioning that in 2011, Air New Zealand became the first carrier to have 777s with ETOPS-330, which ups the aircraft's flexibility from ETOPS-240: Air New Zealand to take 777-300ERs with 330min ETOPS (Flightglobal)

On a related note, the manufacturer implied in 2004 that ongoing route fragmentation of Pacific routes is/will result in the 777 enjoying the same dominance as the 767 has over the Atlantic: Nonstop to the future (Frontiers) Wiki already has a related 2008 reference: Boeing under pressure as demand rises for fuel-saver 777 (The Australian) It mentions Asian carriers Cathay Pacific, Japan Airlines, and Singapore Airlines taking 77Ws to replace 747-400s on long-haul services.

Some 777 transpacific carriers unmentioned: Air China, All Nippon Airways, Asiana Airlines, China Southern Airlines, EVA Air, Korean Air, Malaysia Airlines, Philippine Airlines, Thai Airways, Virgin Australia, and others. It seems conceivable that 777s are near being the most common aircraft for transpacific services (the 77W is now the backbone of many Asian fleets), but I haven't yet found general references like those available for the 767. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Does British Airways have a time machine?

"Air accident investigators called for this component on the Trent 800 series engine to be redesigned, and manufacturer Rolls-Royce said the new part should be ready by about March 2010. Redesigned fuel oil heat exchangers were installed in British Airways' 777s by October 2009." How did BA manage to install a part that wouldn't be available for another five months? But what the source dated March 2009 quotes Rolls-Royce as saying is that the redesigned part should be available "within 12 months", which is quite different from saying "about March 2010". George Ponderevo (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just looks like they got it done early. The "within 12 months" and "by March 2010" refer to the latest expected time/date. The confusing text has been removed as it was no longer needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Today's featured article for June 12

Greetings, per this edit at WP:TFA, Boeing 777 has been selected to appear on the Wikipedia front page as "Today's featured article" for June 12, 2012. This would coincide with the 18th anniversary of the first 777 flight, which occurred on June 12, 1994. Thanks to User:Cyan Gardevoir who nominated the article, to everyone who supported it, and to everyone who helped edit into the featured article it is today! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Good as this article is, it would still benefit from a section with fuel economy heading, with comparisons to other planes. Also, discussion of overall costs for an airline to keep it going.76.218.104.120 (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The Competition between Airbus and Boeing article has competitive comparisons for the 777 and other planes; references on fuel economy would possibly go there, although such data fluctuates on the price of oil. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

To note, yesterday as Today's Featured Article, the 777 page had around 70,000 views...shows that being linked from the Wikipedia front page, which is one of the internet's top 10 sites, has an impact. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

New infobox picture

Update UAL B777 to new merger livery

I was told I needed to discuss this here. I wanted to changed the infobox picture of the UAL B777 to a UAL B777 in new UA/CO merger livery. I did change it but it was reverted so if everyone agrees then any one can go into the edit section and revert the reverted changed, if you understand what I mean. I presume most people will agree it would be best to update the picture to the new livery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DONALDderosa (talk • contribs) 23:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

To repeat as you asked a similar question at 737NG the marking or operator of the aircraft are not important in picking an image for the infobox, it just needs ideally to be airborne and shows the aircraft configuration, the aircraft markings dont really matter. Sometimes it is nice if it points left into the page but not really important. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh and I changed the image back, your edit was challenged and you really need to get a consensus here before changing it. Editors are not against change but you need to get other editors to agree with you first. It may take a few days or even a week before other editors comment rather than the few hours you waited before adding the image again. MilborneOne (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what livery it is in. Personally I don't want to see the lousy new livery on the top of this page. The former photo was actually facing the text which is generally preferred for infobox images. —Compdude123 18:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I feel it would be nice to update it since the merger is done, well, has been done for a few months, and would be good to display the new livery. Just my opinion. User:DONALDderosa (talk) 24:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed photo

Greetings all, in light of the recent discussion, perhaps we could consider a new infobox image. Based on some of the criteria developed at the 757 article here, which are not binding but for reference, it would be good to have a photo that faces the text. Other considerations include image quality, significance of the airline/model, etc.

The following text-facing Cathay Pacific photo is particularly significant as the first 777 built, B-HNL. Now available to wiki, it is high-resolution and cleanly composed. The article body already has a second UA 777 photo; this would add another "Working Together" and major 777 customer. Any thoughts? SynergyStar (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Current photo
    Current photo
  • Proposal
    Proposal
So we go from old UA livery, to proposed new UA livery to Cathay Pacific. Sorry, thumbs down. I just feel the image should be one of the four primary operators, which Cathay is not. Plus, UA was the launch customer of the B777 so it's makes it a double reason to have it as the infobox image. User:DONALDderosa (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Cathay has 70+ 777s in operation or on order, so it is headed to be the third largest operator after Emirates and Singapore; that would be a third reason for the image. That being said, I acknowledge the significance of having a UA 777-200 photo, having put the current one there several years ago. Still, there is no requirement to put the latest livery version, and I also share Compdude's preference for showing the final "tulip" livery on an aesthetic basis. Moreover, as the oldest version of the 777, a past historical photo may best suffice. However, if a high quality, text facing pic can be found that achieves consensus as better than the current UA one, it could be considered. Overall, the CX pic presented IMO meets directional, lighting, background, composition, detailing, resolution, and other criteria, which if also in any other infobox picture suggestion would enhance its appeal. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Cathay has 45 B777's in service with 45 on order. A total of 90 B777's when they are all delivered. United currently has 74 B777's in service with non on order (all according to Wiki, of course). When all of Cathay's B777's are delivered, it bumps AIRFRANCE off the primary users list but, United will still be one of the 4 primary users. I understand the most current livery is not required but I feel that it would be good to have it. Just like what is being discussed below about how the Cathay image does not have the weel's down, which is significant to the B777, as the picture should show all details of the aircraft. I feel it's the same with the livery. The most up to date one should be there. But, that's just my opinion and once again I understand it is not required. An image of the first B777 would work, such as the one on United's Wiki page. It's not "high quality" but what was really "high quality" in 1995. User:DONALDderosa (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The underside of the UA photo is dark, but it does have the characteristic feature of the six-wheel bogie, which the Cathay photo lacks. On that basis alone I would opt to remain with the current picture. However, the photo of the first B777 makes the second picture historically significant. Hmm, it's pretty hard to determine which one should be the infobox photo. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
That's an excellent point, the six-wheel main gear is an identifying feature and it happens to be right next to the lead text which mentions that. The existing photo has worked quite well, and last year a high-res version of it was made available and linked. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The wheels are a significant part of the B777 and in my opinion, the Cathay picture displayed above should not be used. In all I would love to stick with a United B777, either is being the current one, my proposed new globe livery one, or what SynergyStar recommend, using the first B777 built, which was delivered to UA in 1995. As I said above, a historical image that could be used would be the one on United's page. It's not "high quality" but what was really "high quality" in 1995. User:DONALDderosa (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Please note: Cathay's B-HNL is the first 777 built; United's N777UA is the first 777 in service (photo in article already) and the seventh 777 built. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I stand corrected. So, what is everyone's thoughts on the infobox image? User:DONALDderosa (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The existing photo was the one that this article achieved FA status with, and while there have been several proposals since, it has retained the consensus favor of editors. Factors in favor include: facing text (related to WP:IMAGE), composition (fills the frame) and angle (5/6ths view; shows the aircraft more), visible details (triple-bogey gear; extended flaps and slats, no major obstructions), historical significance (a 777-200, and a launch customer), etc. Any new picture probably needs to be better on most or all of these criteria to achieve consensus. If such a picture surfaces, it could be considered.
After several high-quality PMUA globe photos were added to the United Airlines article, they were repeatedly replaced with tulip photos by multiple editors. I added back a few which remain. IMO, the UA article needs several current photos to show airline branding. But this article is focused on an aircraft, and showing a 777-200, the original and oldest model, doesn't require the newest livery. Moreover, the PMUA version of the globe livery is not the most appealing (particularly IMO on the 777). And with 777-200s nearing retirement, an older historical photo can suffice. It is a nice idea to update the photo, but other considerations exist. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference a was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Mengus, A. "Boeing 777X". AirTransportBiz.com. Archived from the original on January 3, 2006.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_777/Archive_2&oldid=1038275070"