Would a flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo be on a 747 or a 777?
I know that either one would do the job, but with the economy the way it is, many are starting to switch to more fuel-efficient planes. When I was a child, all of my flights were on Boeings; nowadays, my three previous flights were on Airbuses. The 777 only has two engines, but they're larger than those of the 747, which has 4 engines. Also, there could be other issues such as comfort, number of passengers, etc. Plus, the hump on the 747 would probably increase drag, although at 36,000 ft, the air is so much thinner than at ground level, so it may be an irrelevance. Given all of these circumstances, would it be a 747, 777, or none of these?
Aircraft - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
DOES NOT MATTER BOTH ARE GOOD PLANES AND WILL GET YOU TO TOKYO.
2 :
It depends on the airline.
3 :
It depends on an airline. Japan airlines sometimes puts B747 or B777 on this route. B747 can carry a little bit more passengers. I live ten minutes from Chicago O'hare International Airport, and every morning, around 7 am I see either Japan Airlines' 777 or 747 flying from Tokyo.
4 :
I dont think it matters i believe the 777 is a little more fuel efficient but if the airline has more passengers they would use the 747
5 :
It can be either, but I'm telling you man the Boeing 747 is the best jetliner ever made.
6 :
Well you are right economics are really the bottom line when it comes to determine what plane is being used. The 777 is an interesting plane in that it fills up a long range capability with a large load. I would guess the 747 would be the pick for he LA/Tokyo flight because it's a popular route and would easily fill a 747ER. However a Seattle to Tokyo might be a 777, as demand may be great but not great enough to fill out a 747 consistantly. Here is another thing - depends what airline. Many US Airlines don't purchase 747 - I think Northwest/Delta and United are the only 2 airlines that actively fly 747's. Let's face a 747 is really for long distance/high volume type routes and that really doesn't work into a lot of US airline routes. The 777, because it has lower loads is more versitile it want it can be used for - as a matter of fact, American Airlines uses a 777 on a LAX-Miami route - always found that strange but using a 747 for the route makes no sense. Also, you have to factor in the engines and mechanical work that goes into the engines - airlines want to cut costs and to streamline the equipment is cheaper. What the means is that for every 747 they buy/lease, the airline has to be able to service the airplane. So unless you have multiple 747's - which means you have to a lot of long range/high volume routes - and usually only international carriers can guarantee that. International Carriers are Government owned or have significant Government assistance when they are contracting the routes. So that is one reason you see international carriers purchasing larger 747's. Especially in Asia where 1,200 to 3,000 mile routes from populous cities can be serviced by 747 because they can pack people in. As for Airbus making in roads in the commercial airliner market - well there are many reasons for that. Airbus has the luxury not really having to pay R&D cost. EU countries - led by France have subsized Airbus on all it's failures. I could go on for many paragraphs about this but I'm going hang back. However - that allows Airbus to present the product at reasonable prices. Also, they have designed fuel efficient airplanes - the A320 has done some nice things for the passengers compared to the 737's. Airbus offers airlines some great passagner entertainment. I always thought that was determined by the carrier but it seems that Boeing aircraft don't offer the same systems Airbus has - like DirecTV and things like that. Todays 747's are amazing works of engineering. The fuel effiency of this airplane is probably 20% to 25% more effiecient that 747's that were flying in the mid-70's. You mentioned "the hump" of the 747. Well, I believe it's probably more efficient with draft then the A380 - if anything less over all draft is produced on a 747 then an A380. The 787 is going to be the interesting airplane. Were talking about an airplane that can fly from New York to Hong Kong and service only 200 passengers. It's going to be a plane that an airline can use for NY to LA and also use for a route like Seattle to London - both in great comfort and efficiency. Boeing took a different approach to the future the Airbus. Airbus is putting the future on big numbers over large distances - Boeing's future is better point to point long distance flights that are cost effective. Both have questions but the A380 Market is limited and we know that they are - it's the same as 747. The 787 market is unknown - but it looks exciting.
