[frik]

From a safety point of view, I take a 747 or A380 any day or a (now defunct Trijet) to a twin engine 777 or A350. Guess were flying hours over the open sea (Atlantic) is safer because of redundancy, the more engines the more can go out and it still can land.

The 777 is way too crammed. The washrooms are on the side instead in the middle aka mini-washrooms (but with window). In general it feels like the first computer designed airframe, they forgot about the size of humans, it's made for short people. I take a 747 or even better A380 any day over the 777. I mean who seriously prefers to sit in a narrow long can for 12 hours, when you can choose a double decker A380 were you can stretch your legs, walk around and have big washrooms were you can stand even upright. And don't get me started on the entertainment system of the 777 - needs a serious upgrade.

The 757 will go out of service next, United still has some 757 from the 1980s - sure the seats are super comfortable because in the 1980s the were bigger and softer, but the airframe is old and the entertainment system was added as addon, meaning a computer box is below every other seat and gives the unlucky guy (who doesn't know about seatguru) little leg room.

Why is the very very odd 737 still going? It's older than the 747, I wonder when they finally design a new smaller airframe.

[seanmcdirmid]

Airlines decide on their 777 interiors and entertainment centers, so your experience on a Delta 777 will be very different from an air Singapore one. The 777 was a huge advance in composites, which were continued in the 787. My gf at the time dad worked on the plane and was very proud of it.

The 737 has been updated many times and Boeing hasn’t seen the need to introduce a completely new narrow body. It is still very successful, so I guess they are right. In contrast, the 767 was dying and needed replacing by the 787, it couldn’t be updated.

The 747 is still in production and is very successful in freight and other applications. It isn’t going away anytime soon.

[kalleboo]

> and the entertainment system was added as addon, meaning a computer box is below every other seat and gives the unlucky guy (who doesn't know about seatguru) little leg room.

I've been on Dreamliners with entertainment boxes intruding on the legroom. That's 100% up to the implementation by the airline

[btgeekboy]

Having 2 engines go out is such a rarity that it almost never happens. And when it does, it’s usually due to something that would have affected 3 or 4 as well.

ETOPS regulations also ensure (at least for the US) that if one engine does go out somewhere over the ocean, you’ll at least get to land somewhere.

[fyfy18]

For anyone wondering the longest ETOPS diversion was for a 777 which flew (and landed without incident) for 192 minutes on a single engine.

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=191343

[seanmcdirmid]

The end of the Cold War made direct two engine flights viable because (a) we could fly over Russia and (b) Russia was nice enough to open up a bunch of airports in the Far East (with money from western airlines) to comply with regulations.

[FabHK]

Agreed that the 380 is still the most comfortable for pax (unless you crave lower cabin altitude), but the 777 safety record is stellar (only 6 hull losses with 1500 built: BA 38 with ice in the fuel lines, EgyptAir 667 fire on the ground, Asiana 214 in SFO, MH 370, MH 17 (rocket), and the Emirates 521 bounce in Dubai). Looks like a pretty sound design to me.

[valuearb]

4 engine plans lose an engine almost twice as often as twin engine planes do.