Boeing B777 is the largest twinjet in the world. This design provides unparalled economy for short distance & high passenger amount routes, such as intra-Asia routes. This also explains why Boeing B777 is so popular in Asia.

But the twin engine design of B777 makes its operation very constrictive due to ETOPS constraints. This making B777 unsuitable for long distance routes with no diversion airports, such as southern hemisphere inter-contrinential routes, trans-Indian Ocean routes & transpolar routes.

Because of this, there is not any orders of B777 from southern hemisphere nor any B777 opreated by southern hemisphere airlines, except Garuda Indonesia & Varig, which is a very stubborn Boeing customer. They choose Airbus A340 or Boeing B747 of quad engine design instead, so the aircrafts can fly safely over large oceans or Antarctic without any diversion airports.

The newly launched Boeing B777-200LR (16000km range, 305 passengers) & B777-300ER (13000km range, 368 passengers) are the heaviest twinjet in the world (368t MTOW), thus they have to be powered by GE90 of 115,000lb thrust. Engines of such high thrust are much less reliable than 60,000lb-thrust class engines, and since B777s are sucject to ETOPS constraints, so the new ultra long range B777 are very unreliable.

This also makes airlines need to design routes of much longer distance for the same starting / ending points than the routes served by quadjets, so to ensure availability of diversion airports along the route. For example, it takes only 12 hours for an Airbus A340 to fly from Sydney to Buenos Aires & fly over Antarctica. But if the route is served by B777, then the aircraft must first go to places like Guam / Taiwan / Japan, then to Hawaii, then US West Coast and finally Buenos Aires, thus making trip time of over 30 hours!!

Thus Boeing's decision to produce ultra long range B777 of 368t MTOW instead of producing quad engines versions of such aircrafts, like Airbus A340-500/600, is the largest joke in aviation industry!!

One reason when I book intercontinental flight, I check with travel agent and make sure it's not 777, I simply refuse to board this aircraft. There're already reports of defects, even on brand new aircraft (ie: Emirates 777 had one engine blade coming loose during takeoff, causing the engine to explode in Melbourne and aborted the takeoff, Singapore Airlines lost a piece of metal from the engine when taking off from Copenhagen).

The only reason 777 is selling well is due to the political pressure from Uncle Sam toward many countries to order Boeing jets rather than Airbus.

So why airlines flying only 4-engined aircrafts for intercontinental flights, like Cathay Pacific (except Hong Kong - Australia flights), Virgin Atlantic, Lufthansa, Air Canada (except flights to Europe) are so popular.

And I think most Asian airlines especially that of Japan & Korea, and EVA Airlines of Taiwan, as well as USA airlines, are very silly because they order only B777 and not much more reliable A340.

I'm frequent flyer of EVA and I love 747-400, if EVA switches to 777, they'll at least lose me as a frequent flyer to Singapore Airlines which have at least 10 A380 orders confirmed, as well as new versions of 747 called 747-400QLR orders planned, any of those 2 aircraft will beat 777 any day.

Besides political pressure, one reason of 777 popularity is economics, it costs less to operate this aircraft and airlines can cramp the same number of passengers in a 747 into a 777, thus saving money.

All of this is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!
All of the incidents you cited about the 777 being unsafe involve problems with the ENGINES, in particular, the Rolls Royce Trent 892 engine, which powers the Singapore and Emirates 777 fleets. The Trent has had problems lately, however, these were all minor incidents of contained engine failure and in no way posed any dangers to passengers on the plane. GE90 and Pratt & Whitney powered 777s do not have problems. It is silly and ignorant to avoid the 777 and deride it as a bad aircraft just because Trent-powered 777s have had problems- I suggest you slander Rolls Royce instead.

And the comment about 777's selling well only due to political pressure is also nonsense. Do you have any facts to back your statement up? Nope, because airlines buy the 777 because it is far more efficient than the A340 and performs far better (not to mention a much more superior interior design as compared to the A340).

Airlines are silly because they order the 777 over the "much more reliable A340?"

Let the facts speak for themselves:
- the 777 is MORE reliable than the A340 (99% as compared to 98.5%)
- the 777 has always been more reliable than the A340, ever since 1996, just a year after it entered service
- Sales figures, as of Sept. 2002:
777: 607 sold
A340: 325 sold (and the 777 entered the market after the A340)

So I suppose major 777 customers such as Singapore Airlines, Japan Airlines, United Airlines, British Airways, Air France, ANA, Malaysia Airlines, Cathay Pacific, KLM, American Airlines, and Emirates are "SILLY"? Seems to me that all of the ones I just cited above are large, successful airlines that know what they're doing when they ordered the 777. Singapore Airlines even ordered more 777's and are getting rid of their A343s because they are not meeting performance requirements. I highly doubt that a world-class airline like Singapore Airlines would make a "silly" decision.

What? B777 is of superior interior design?

Its cabin is so wide that airlines cannot install only 6 normal long haul business class seats economically, so most airlines use 7-abreast design, thus making passengers have to suffer middle seat.

This also makes airlines cannot install 8 normal economy class seats per row economically, and have to install 9 or even very congested 10 seats per row, thus some passengers are 2 seats away from aisles, and the seats are dubbed as 'double excuse-me' seats.

On the contrary, A340 is of narrower fuselage, so airlines can use 6-abreast business class design having no unwelcomed middle seats, 8-abreast economy class design with no passengers more than 1 seat away from aisles and hence no 'double excuse-me'.

And B777 uses only drop-down bins, so there are less headroom when the bins are opened, and there is risk of luggage fall onto the seats causing serious injury to passengers.

On the contrary A340 uses only articulated bins instead of drop-down bins, so there are always 76" (1.93m) of headroom below the bins. This also prevents nuisance to passengers during mid-flight when the bins are opened, and prevents injury to passengers due to luggage fall.

What's more is the articulated bins can be removed in A340 according to demand, such as provision of seat side personal storage space in first class, thus making even larger headroom of 94" (2.36m), much better than B777 of only 74" (1.88m) headroom below middle bins when closed.

True, but seats on the 777 are just as wide or wider. And a 2-3-2 arrangement in business is hardly considered so horrible that passengers "suffer" a middle seat. Yes, the 2-5-2 arrangement on the 777 is not good; the alternate 3-3-3 arrangement is better.

The 777 has superior overhead storage and headroom though. I suppose you're referring to that ridiculous diagram on the Airbus website, which suggests that airlines fly with the overhead bins open (that's the only time when the A340 would have more headroom). Which would you rather have: less headroom for most of the flight on the A340, or 5 minutes of less headroom on the 777 when someone opens the bins? The 777's innovative drop-down bins are large, deep, and easier to reach when opened, and they neatly retract back up. The A340's bins are a typical old design that you find on any other plane. And danger of luggage falling on passengers? Do you have proof that that is a problem? Doesn't seem like a problem.

And very rarely do airlines remove the middle bins.

In the industry, it is widely recognized that the 777's interior design is the best of any airliner flying today. It's sleek and very modern with curved walls and ceilings.

See the difference yourself:
Singapore Airlines 777: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/233996/L/
SAS A340: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/191769/L/

Yes there are some aircrafts having middle bins removed in A340 especially in First Class, because there are fewer passengers in First Class and each passenger takes up more floor space, so less amount of storage per unit length is needed than economy Class. There are even some short haul carriers have their A300/A310/A330/A340 without middle bins. Check the photos from www.airliners.net

Just because a FEW select airlines remove overhead bins for FC passengers does not give the A340's interior a significant advantage. Just because the A340 has the capability to remove bins does not mean that it is better than the 777's interior, which provides more headroom and is sleek and modern throughout the entire plane.

What? It is not a suffer to seat a middle seat in business class??

If this is not a suffer, then why many airlines, like Virgin Atlantic, US Airways, Air Canada, LanChile, advertise their no middle seat business class service?

This proves middle seat is NOT welcomed in business class.

In fact Air Canada and Virgin Atlantic once ordered B777, but cancelled because B777 is so wide that 7 seats have to be installed per row in business class, thus making some passengers have to suffer middle seat. B747, on the contrary, has the front cabin so no middle seat can be installed.

I agree. If I pay for business class I don't want to be in a middle seat.

the 777 is a beautiful piece of engineering. I feel just as safe in a twin as in a 4 engine jet. ETOPS will someday be a thing of the past, because long range flights in twins are the thing of the future. After enough twin engine intercontinental time is logged safely in twins, ETOPS will be less restrictive or just as flexible as 4 engine crossings. ETOPS will evolve with aviation.

I don't think so. There are flights having diversion time as long as 8 hours, such as South America - Australia flights over the Antarctic, and 8 hour ETOPS is impossible (A huge amount of fuel reserve is needed for 8 hour diversion at 10,000 feet, which uses much more fuel than cruising altitude!)

So twins would never be as flexible as quads.