My dad worked on 777 when they were first developing them in the mid 90. He was an aircraft electrician. I wish I could have been there to watch them being built.
I've always preferred airbus aircraft to boeing but the boeing 777 is my all time favourite, it's just such an amazing aircraft! It's ashame they had to ruin it with air france colours lol!
That's not smog! the airport is located on the city's outskirts and every morning that place's pretty foggy! (well add a little bit of smog as well xD ) Great video, 5 stars, i just love to travel by plane and all its stuff! greatings!
sumtimes atc will let u know if u shold do a quick take off and not position and hold...if another plane is coming behind etc. other than that i think a rollng one can b done anytime if possible
777 is the best there no comparison between in a double decker and a single deck plane ,plus 777 has a record of is own longest none stop flight .380 needs more fuel due to size and huge tanks make it a long range candidate. a 380 -9400nmi, 777-9380 nmi, bottom line Boeing is the best,one company against airbus many countries.
Planes will have to carry more people in the future. As the worlds population grows and the demand for flying increases in line with this growth, bigger planes will be needed otherwise the skies will be too crowded and dangerous.
Airbus has taken a strategic decision to build a plane that is able to accomodate a large number of people.
Airbus would not have built the A380 with such capacity if the demand wasn't there. They don't just make planes and hope for the best.
Not true really. It is really efficient. It burns less fuel per passenger than an average Diesel Car does with only the driver onboard. Fuel burn on an aircraft is always measured against the passengers in this way. This means it is 20% more fuel efficient than the Boeing 747-400 and 4% more efficient than the new Boeing 747-800.
You must be using Airbuses propaganda statistics for your posts. Airbus' stats come from calculations in board rooms, Boeing from the field. Remember how "fuel efficient" the A340 was supposed to be? What a joke. Rich Branson is crying...Airbus is being sued and having to pay back airlines for their lies. (Cargo placement or not, all figures were way off).
Boeing outsources work to many countries too. They copied Airbus in this strategy except it has backfired on Boeing where the 787 is concerned at least.
As "Boring" made a grave mistake outsourcing the 787 (the -9 and -10 will be built in the US and maybe Japan - where a lot of 767's are made - Japan's air industry is 92%+ Boeing only)..."AirBUST" is going to make Euopean taxpayers pay for the most expensive Air Museum piece in history. I have flown for 17 years and believe, even the 747-8 will see limited runs - but still sell MUCH MORE than the A380. Cargo for 747-8 mainly (which is sad). Airshows for the A380.
The same sort of thing was said when the 747 launched. People were very sceptical that it would be as successful as it evntually became. Sales for the A380 have been quite strong considering the industry plunged into uncertainty with global recession after EIS. It took the 747 40 years to reach 1400 sales. The A380 has 200 on order (1/7th total of 747 sales) in a relatively short time. Bigger planes are going to be needed eventually as more passengers start to fly. We'll see what happens!
The 787 has 900+ on order....so that flys in the face of your theory a bit...see what happens.
Now on numbers - you are ahead of yourself. Airbus (or Boeing) can only make so many large planes each yr/mo. So to reach 1400 - which the A380 likely never will, would take - at current rates (now slower actually) at 19 a year - until 2082 to reach 1400 or 70+ years!!!!!!!! It is 777, A330, A350 (maybe) and 787 for long range. 747 to Cargo and A380 to Airshows. Hard to argue really.
It doesn't really matter to be honest. We can each quote figures until the cows come home it doesn't alter what will happen.
The 787 doesn't have 900+ orders though. It did have but it has also had a lot of cancellations so firm orders now stand at 840. Also I have not compared the 787 with the A380 because the two cannot be compared. They are each for different markets.
The A380's closest rival is the 747-8I and that is doing very badly sales wise - Something even Boeing recognises.
840 or 900 - whatever. It is an apples to oranges on size, but not so much markets. The orders show which way Airliners want to move, thus people will want more of the here and now, non-stop - not to wait 13 hours in transit at HKIA to continue on to LHR. The 747-8 is doing poorly, due to the current econ market. Pehaps it will pick up. Ironically Lufthansa is the launch partner - a major Airbus player. Words, lies and politics and...the world remains the same.
Plus the 787 and 747-8I have yet to get off the ground which must be very embarrasing for Boeing. How could Boeing make such a mistake with the wings. They obviously rushed the design process to try and beat their competition.
Don't get me wrong though the 787 and 747-8I are really nice looking, great aircraft. But being British and having the A380 wing factory 30 miles from my house I support Airbus all the way.
I would too - seeing as you are paying for it (whether you like it or not) and being British (my wife is too) your money is paying for croissants, boiled eggs and coffee in Toulouse on a rainy day where nothing gets done, except collect pay cheques (again funded by YOU). Merci mon ami! And the say to themselves: quelle aveugles anglais gens, uhhhhuhhh (the french laugh). :o)
Sure - thats why Airbus/Northrop are trying to get a piece. Boeing gives the US a product that is tried, tested, proven, secures jobs - and your British forces (as well as the rest of the free world)overseas that fight for the very freedoms that many people in the UK (and the US sadly) take for granted. Airbus does nothing of the sort. The A400M (I think it is called) is what 9B EURO over budget and, yes 40 years in design? You are proud of that? You want to pay for that? Go ahead.Come on mate!
I woudl love to chat more - but I am coming your way in a few hours. I have to fly to LHR, on yes (thankfully) a 777-2 and NOT an Airbus. I will tip my wings to you when I pass over! Be well.
And i'm almost positive Boeing and the like haven't wasted a cent - such as the huge amounts of money wasted on the dead in the water SST program. At least the forerunners to Airbus where able to develop Concorde - even if it didn't sell well. America has never been able to get close to making their own Concorde. Concorde was the ultimate commercial passenger plane and it was British/French/Airbus!
We are delayed at the airport for a little while. I cant help thinking your right about how much Boeing wasted on SST, but yet HOW MUCH MORE BA and AF wasted on actually flying the Concorde - losses were 100's of thousands in 1970's and 1980's dollars per flight from 1976 to 2003. I researched and in $2009 each cost $165M or GBP100M . The plane, which I rode from LHR to JFK once and it was very nice - was financially a disgrace to any business. Then again same story with the space shuttle.
YES! You are absolutely correct. Like a Jaguar, lovely to look at, but a piece of crap to own, expensive to drive and costly to maintain. Like you said - BRITISH engineering at its best! Well done, on the mark, my good man.
...and NO, the 747 is the ultimate passenger plane. The Concorde the coolest, but TOTALLY impractical. 100 people at $10,000 each one way - it flys in the face of your A380 and 1000 people packed in (actually the Concorde was not much more larger than Economy +). Truth be told in the name of R&D, the Concorde like the space shuttle, are necessary evils so we can have items like velcro and teflon pans made. I will tip my wings tomorrow afternoon for you. Like the Concorde, the A380 will flop too
Well, Boeing secures jobs too doesn't it? Both companies are full of subsidies. There is nothing to argue about... they make great planes and as long as their competition isn't life threatening who cares how they stay afloat (or in flight..)? The aviation world needs their competition, otherwise there would be no innovation and we'd still be flying in MD-80's, 727's, and A300's.
ahh i never said i like air france infact i hate that airline i like klm but i love boeing and the 777 thats why and klm should not have merge with nasty air france they should stick it out like contiental airlines
hey great video man love thise 777 and to the question the longest flight is singapore airines using a340-500 from singapore to new jersey 18hrs i work at that airport thats why and it arrives around 5pm and the second longest is continental airlines 777-200ER from newark to hong kong so yeah newark is in the house f++k JFK and LGA lol
Never heard of this flight. Plus I dont see it on the Singapore Airlines website..... :/ Maybe that's a future possible flight for an A380.... But as far as I know, the longest flight is the ATL-Mumbai on Delta (~18h). :)
Man, gotta respect the 777. Best in... Looks Fuel efficiency Safety comfort cockpit engines (IMPORTANT!) range size If anyone wants to arge with the 777 come speak to me about it. LOL
That's ridiculous. No plane is designed for looks. They are designed to serve a purpose. The 747's look stems from the design which allowed loading through the nose of the aircraft. The hump was only ever intended for that purpose as the 747 was first conceived as a cargo transporter. The 747 looks great there is no doubt but the looks where likely to be the last thing on the designers mind.
I disagree that the 747 was FIRST conceived as a Cargo transporter. Pan Am contracted Boeing to build the 747 to carry more people, higher, faster, farther and in grater comforth than ever before. Boeing was near bankruptcy, Pan Am ordered the 1st 25 of them exclusively. During design the cargo loading was added "thru' the nose" but it WAS NOT ORIGINALLY conceived as a cargo transporter.
I remember with nostalgie this airport because for almost three years I live en Argentina, and every Christmas season I flew to Mendoza then to SCL and then took a flight to Mexico City and viceverse in febraury when I used to return.
My dad worked on 777 when they were first developing them in the mid 90. He was an aircraft electrician. I wish I could have been there to watch them being built.
comsfan09 7 months ago
@virtuelevent
LR: 17,395 km
-500: 16 670 km
FLIGHTCOMPANY 8 months ago
GE90 FTW
hiroale 10 months ago
Boeing 777 is a great plane
bluestar7337 1 year ago
Nice 777 i have been inside that plane . I was going to paris it was a long 14 hour flight
andresberndtb 1 year ago
@shotokantkic
"mejorando"
joshuanaconda 1 year ago
@shotokantkic
no tienes por que disculparte, lo hize con animo de ayudar, no para polemizar
te felicito por las ganas de seguir mejorar
Beatiful es con 1 l al final, yo tambien cometia ese error, por la palabra "full" .
saludos!
joshuanaconda 1 year ago
@shotokantkic
made BY boeing
joshuanaconda 1 year ago
Even the basic version looks great!!!
SuperBoris81 1 year ago
A340 is my favorite aircraft but the 777 is cool
1Mannes9 1 year ago
I've always preferred airbus aircraft to boeing but the boeing 777 is my all time favourite, it's just such an amazing aircraft! It's ashame they had to ruin it with air france colours lol!
prussell890 1 year ago
That's not smog! the airport is located on the city's outskirts and every morning that place's pretty foggy! (well add a little bit of smog as well xD ) Great video, 5 stars, i just love to travel by plane and all its stuff! greatings!
666Goatlord 2 years ago 2
As wonderful and awesome as the 380 is, it was built, operates now, and will operate at a huge financial loss to everyone involved.
transdrole 2 years ago
Interestingly that was said about the 747 too.
mcpcshowcaseHD 2 years ago
Haze or smog? You decide!
CptSchmidt 2 years ago
roling take-off and quick one too
boeingt 2 years ago
can u request a rolling take off instead of position and hold
forces077 2 years ago
sumtimes atc will let u know if u shold do a quick take off and not position and hold...if another plane is coming behind etc. other than that i think a rollng one can b done anytime if possible
boeingt 2 years ago
777 is the best there no comparison between in a double decker and a single deck plane ,plus 777 has a record of is own longest none stop flight .380 needs more fuel due to size and huge tanks make it a long range candidate. a 380 -9400nmi, 777-9380 nmi, bottom line Boeing is the best,one company against airbus many countries.
elcora18 2 years ago
your right all airbus cares about is getting the most amount of people on one plane!
yankeesfan135 2 years ago
Planes will have to carry more people in the future. As the worlds population grows and the demand for flying increases in line with this growth, bigger planes will be needed otherwise the skies will be too crowded and dangerous.
Airbus has taken a strategic decision to build a plane that is able to accomodate a large number of people.
Airbus would not have built the A380 with such capacity if the demand wasn't there. They don't just make planes and hope for the best.
We'll see what happens!
mcpcshowcaseHD 2 years ago
its one of the most worst fuel efficient planes on the market efficient
but i see what you mean
yankeesfan135 2 years ago
Not true really. It is really efficient. It burns less fuel per passenger than an average Diesel Car does with only the driver onboard. Fuel burn on an aircraft is always measured against the passengers in this way. This means it is 20% more fuel efficient than the Boeing 747-400 and 4% more efficient than the new Boeing 747-800.
mcpcshowcaseHD 2 years ago
You must be using Airbuses propaganda statistics for your posts. Airbus' stats come from calculations in board rooms, Boeing from the field. Remember how "fuel efficient" the A340 was supposed to be? What a joke. Rich Branson is crying...Airbus is being sued and having to pay back airlines for their lies. (Cargo placement or not, all figures were way off).
onecunningfox 2 years ago
Not at all. These figures are widely quoted from various sources. I rarely get my information from the manufacturer directly for obvious reasons.
mcpcshowcaseHD 2 years ago
Boeing outsources work to many countries too. They copied Airbus in this strategy except it has backfired on Boeing where the 787 is concerned at least.
mcpcshowcaseHD 2 years ago
As "Boring" made a grave mistake outsourcing the 787 (the -9 and -10 will be built in the US and maybe Japan - where a lot of 767's are made - Japan's air industry is 92%+ Boeing only)..."AirBUST" is going to make Euopean taxpayers pay for the most expensive Air Museum piece in history. I have flown for 17 years and believe, even the 747-8 will see limited runs - but still sell MUCH MORE than the A380. Cargo for 747-8 mainly (which is sad). Airshows for the A380.
onecunningfox 2 years ago
The same sort of thing was said when the 747 launched. People were very sceptical that it would be as successful as it evntually became. Sales for the A380 have been quite strong considering the industry plunged into uncertainty with global recession after EIS. It took the 747 40 years to reach 1400 sales. The A380 has 200 on order (1/7th total of 747 sales) in a relatively short time. Bigger planes are going to be needed eventually as more passengers start to fly. We'll see what happens!
mcpcshowcaseHD 2 years ago
The 787 has 900+ on order....so that flys in the face of your theory a bit...see what happens.
Now on numbers - you are ahead of yourself. Airbus (or Boeing) can only make so many large planes each yr/mo. So to reach 1400 - which the A380 likely never will, would take - at current rates (now slower actually) at 19 a year - until 2082 to reach 1400 or 70+ years!!!!!!!! It is 777, A330, A350 (maybe) and 787 for long range. 747 to Cargo and A380 to Airshows. Hard to argue really.
onecunningfox 2 years ago
It doesn't really matter to be honest. We can each quote figures until the cows come home it doesn't alter what will happen.
The 787 doesn't have 900+ orders though. It did have but it has also had a lot of cancellations so firm orders now stand at 840. Also I have not compared the 787 with the A380 because the two cannot be compared. They are each for different markets.
The A380's closest rival is the 747-8I and that is doing very badly sales wise - Something even Boeing recognises.
mcpcshowcaseHD 2 years ago
840 or 900 - whatever. It is an apples to oranges on size, but not so much markets. The orders show which way Airliners want to move, thus people will want more of the here and now, non-stop - not to wait 13 hours in transit at HKIA to continue on to LHR. The 747-8 is doing poorly, due to the current econ market. Pehaps it will pick up. Ironically Lufthansa is the launch partner - a major Airbus player. Words, lies and politics and...the world remains the same.
onecunningfox 2 years ago
Plus the 787 and 747-8I have yet to get off the ground which must be very embarrasing for Boeing. How could Boeing make such a mistake with the wings. They obviously rushed the design process to try and beat their competition.
mcpcshowcaseHD 2 years ago
They did and it is bad. Outsourcing to Europe was one part of their mistake. Outsourcing period was a bad idea. They wanted to rush. bad, bad, bad.
onecunningfox 2 years ago
Don't get me wrong though the 787 and 747-8I are really nice looking, great aircraft. But being British and having the A380 wing factory 30 miles from my house I support Airbus all the way.
mcpcshowcaseHD 2 years ago
I would too - seeing as you are paying for it (whether you like it or not) and being British (my wife is too) your money is paying for croissants, boiled eggs and coffee in Toulouse on a rainy day where nothing gets done, except collect pay cheques (again funded by YOU). Merci mon ami! And the say to themselves: quelle aveugles anglais gens, uhhhhuhhh (the french laugh). :o)
(Sorry if my french is off, a bit rusty I am).
onecunningfox 2 years ago
I'm happy to pay towards Airbus if it secures British Jobs and gives us a product range we can be truly proud of.
Americans pay for Boeing indirectly via Defence contracts so its swings and roundabouts.
mcpcshowcaseHD 2 years ago
Sure - thats why Airbus/Northrop are trying to get a piece. Boeing gives the US a product that is tried, tested, proven, secures jobs - and your British forces (as well as the rest of the free world)overseas that fight for the very freedoms that many people in the UK (and the US sadly) take for granted. Airbus does nothing of the sort. The A400M (I think it is called) is what 9B EURO over budget and, yes 40 years in design? You are proud of that? You want to pay for that? Go ahead.Come on mate!
onecunningfox 2 years ago
I woudl love to chat more - but I am coming your way in a few hours. I have to fly to LHR, on yes (thankfully) a 777-2 and NOT an Airbus. I will tip my wings to you when I pass over! Be well.
onecunningfox 2 years ago
Enjoy you're trip :0)
mcpcshowcaseHD 2 years ago 2
@onecunningfox man you talk a load of bollocks, stop talking out of your arse :)
prussell890 1 year ago
And i'm almost positive Boeing and the like haven't wasted a cent - such as the huge amounts of money wasted on the dead in the water SST program. At least the forerunners to Airbus where able to develop Concorde - even if it didn't sell well. America has never been able to get close to making their own Concorde. Concorde was the ultimate commercial passenger plane and it was British/French/Airbus!
mcpcshowcaseHD 2 years ago 2
We are delayed at the airport for a little while. I cant help thinking your right about how much Boeing wasted on SST, but yet HOW MUCH MORE BA and AF wasted on actually flying the Concorde - losses were 100's of thousands in 1970's and 1980's dollars per flight from 1976 to 2003. I researched and in $2009 each cost $165M or GBP100M . The plane, which I rode from LHR to JFK once and it was very nice - was financially a disgrace to any business. Then again same story with the space shuttle.
onecunningfox 2 years ago
Worth every penny for the pride of British Engineering at its best.
mcpcshowcaseHD 2 years ago
YES! You are absolutely correct. Like a Jaguar, lovely to look at, but a piece of crap to own, expensive to drive and costly to maintain. Like you said - BRITISH engineering at its best! Well done, on the mark, my good man.
onecunningfox 2 years ago
...and NO, the 747 is the ultimate passenger plane. The Concorde the coolest, but TOTALLY impractical. 100 people at $10,000 each one way - it flys in the face of your A380 and 1000 people packed in (actually the Concorde was not much more larger than Economy +). Truth be told in the name of R&D, the Concorde like the space shuttle, are necessary evils so we can have items like velcro and teflon pans made. I will tip my wings tomorrow afternoon for you. Like the Concorde, the A380 will flop too
onecunningfox 2 years ago
@onecunningfox
True true
yazpaul 2 years ago
Well, Boeing secures jobs too doesn't it? Both companies are full of subsidies. There is nothing to argue about... they make great planes and as long as their competition isn't life threatening who cares how they stay afloat (or in flight..)? The aviation world needs their competition, otherwise there would be no innovation and we'd still be flying in MD-80's, 727's, and A300's.
scaremenga 2 years ago 3
is this flight going to CDG by boeing 777-200ER
cx744 2 years ago
yeap,it is the dayly flight Santiago de Chile-Paris-Charles de Gaulle.
Gosseinoxidable 2 years ago
ahh i never said i like air france infact i hate that airline i like klm but i love boeing and the 777 thats why and klm should not have merge with nasty air france they should stick it out like contiental airlines
bigkevinpetrona 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why does everyone like the air france 777?
bryroute 2 years ago
hey great video man love thise 777 and to the question the longest flight is singapore airines using a340-500 from singapore to new jersey 18hrs i work at that airport thats why and it arrives around 5pm and the second longest is continental airlines 777-200ER from newark to hong kong so yeah newark is in the house f++k JFK and LGA lol
bigkevinpetrona 2 years ago
why does everyone like the air france 777?
bryroute 2 years ago
Becayse they're the best ??
psgman41 2 years ago
lol
1cronaldo1989 3 years ago
The 777 is a great plane
melonjb 3 years ago 11
LAX-BKK 17hrs. nonstop Airbus A350-500
773x744cap 3 years ago
what airport is BKK. Bankok?
and A350 is still in design mode. thats gonna take a long time till that flight comes out
PilotJamesD 3 years ago
a340-500 my bad and yes bangkok
773x744cap 3 years ago
you can make it shorter by writing
A345 (A340-500)
PilotJamesD 3 years ago
yeah yeah i know thanks, just like 744 for 747-400
773x744cap 3 years ago
The longest flight is now Mumbai(BOM)-Atlanta(ATL) on Delta Airlines. 17h55min. :) ! A Boeing 777 does it :)
psgman41 3 years ago 3
No it isn't. The longest flight is operated by Singapore Airlines from Singapore to New York on a A340-500. It takes 18h40 min
titanicnerd 3 years ago
Never heard of this flight. Plus I dont see it on the Singapore Airlines website..... :/ Maybe that's a future possible flight for an A380.... But as far as I know, the longest flight is the ATL-Mumbai on Delta (~18h). :)
psgman41 3 years ago
It's from Newark NJ, not New York. I know they're right next to each other, but Jersey deserves the credit.
jetboy66 3 years ago
FLIGHTCOMPANY 2 years ago 20
i never argued, that's my favourite plane too. i dont see why you say that but ok :/ .... Best range ?? um no.
psgman41 2 years ago
No im just saying, I know you didn't argue. And yes best range. 777-200LR
(9,000 NM) Longest in the world.
FLIGHTCOMPANY 2 years ago
Man!, Airline and aircraft, best combo! :-)
I like AF and I love B777-200ER cheers
AF401 2 years ago 2
No not comfort, A380 smashes it EG Singapore Airlines A380 Suite (THE BEST)
rhettski999 2 years ago
i say the 747 is better...why?...because if it looks right it is right!!
slysupersonic 2 years ago
That's ridiculous. No plane is designed for looks. They are designed to serve a purpose. The 747's look stems from the design which allowed loading through the nose of the aircraft. The hump was only ever intended for that purpose as the 747 was first conceived as a cargo transporter. The 747 looks great there is no doubt but the looks where likely to be the last thing on the designers mind.
mcpcshowcaseHD 2 years ago
thank you for proving me right. so like i said if it looks right it is right.
slysupersonic 2 years ago
I disagree that the 747 was FIRST conceived as a Cargo transporter. Pan Am contracted Boeing to build the 747 to carry more people, higher, faster, farther and in grater comforth than ever before. Boeing was near bankruptcy, Pan Am ordered the 1st 25 of them exclusively. During design the cargo loading was added "thru' the nose" but it WAS NOT ORIGINALLY conceived as a cargo transporter.
onecunningfox 2 years ago
Planes are not designed for looks, but the the A380 was designed to be ugly really...hard to argue that. It gets 1st place in the ugly competition.
onecunningfox 2 years ago
Looks aren't important - they are the least important function of any aircraft.
The 747 was expected to be replaced by supersonic travel, so the 747 was designed to carry cargo or be converted to carry cargo very easily.
mcpcshowcaseHD 2 years ago
I gotta aggree. But the cockpit part is slightly debatable :)
1kris007 2 years ago
@FLIGHTCOMPANY A345 is alot quieter than the 777 and has nearly the same range as the 777-200lr
SweatyFunSeeker 1 year ago
@SweatyFunSeeker Same range but need 2 extra power plants to do so. No very efficient.
pacificbound67 1 year ago
@pacificbound67 id take the A345 anyday, so much more comfterable than the 777
SweatyFunSeeker 1 year ago
@FLIGHTCOMPANY shut up you bitch
matthmatthmatth 9 months ago
@matthmatthmatth Oh hey whats up?
FLIGHTCOMPANY 9 months ago
@FLIGHTCOMPANY You are a stupid little kid who thinks he knows everything about aviation .. truth is, you know nothin' cause you are an IDIOT.
matthmatthmatth 9 months ago
@matthmatthmatth Cool, I like bananas too!
FLIGHTCOMPANY 9 months ago
Aircraft has dirty marks below the cockpit glass! 5/5.
jbjetairways 3 years ago
wooow. non stop from satiago chille. to paris. must be 12 hour flight anyway.
peteboy1113 3 years ago
13h and 30 min to CDG, from CDG to SCL it's 14h and 10 min around 6360 nautical miles
AF401 3 years ago
im now in scl hahahaha i like your video 5/5 stars!!!
mumisanmartin 3 years ago
I like the livery and the fact that they are using the GE engines for the 777. Gives it lots of power!
ipts5i 3 years ago
I remember with nostalgie this airport because for almost three years I live en Argentina, and every Christmas season I flew to Mendoza then to SCL and then took a flight to Mexico City and viceverse in febraury when I used to return.
yogurtlite 4 years ago