Air France B777

Air France operates 5 versions of Boeing 777-200.

• Air France B777
• Air France B777-300er
• Air France B777-300 Seat Map
• Air France B777-300er Seating Plan

This article lists the orders and deliveries for the Boeing 777.As of April 2019, the largest airline orders are by Emirates (289), Qatar Airways (138), and Singapore Airlines (105). Air France Boeing 777-300 and American Airlines Boeing 737-800 experienced a near miss over the Caribbean Sea. The planes were safely separated after the TCAS got activated. An Air France Boeing 777 was performing flight to Lima from Paris, when the American Boeing 737 was performing flight from St. George to Miami. The incident occurred. Air France launched its newest business class seat in 2014. It is only available on select B777-300ERs and B777-200ERs. Whereas the superior version reviewed here is fully flat, the older angled.

First version of Boeing 777-200 has two classes of seats and may transport 251 passengers. It is the most common version.

First class has only 4 closed suited located in a row with 24 inches width.

The Boeing 777 is a wide-body airliner developed and manufactured by Boeing Commercial Airplanes. It is the world's largest twinjet and commonly referred to as the Triple Seven. The 777 was designed to bridge the gap between Boeing's 767 and 747, and to replace older DC-10s or L-1011s.

Business class consists of 7 rows of angle-flat seats per 7 in each. The seats are located into two sections. First section has 3 rows of seats that have 2-3-2 configuration. All these seats are standard only close location of the lavatory may cause discomfort to passengers of the seats 5GKL.

Second section of business class seats is located behind exit row and lavatories. Passengers traveling with infants are often seated on the seats of 6th row as they have bassinet location. Proximity of the galley and lavatories may represent problem.

Premium Economy class includes 3 rows of seats that have 2-4-2 configuration. Passengers of the seats of 22nd row will take advantage of extra legroom. At the same time these seats have no floor storage during take-off and landing and their width is reduced a little as the tray tables are built-in the armrests making them immovable. The seats 22KL have bassinet location position of which may be bothersome.

The seats 23A and 23L have no windows.

Economy class may accommodate 174 passengers. The seats of economy class are divided into two sections.

First section contains 48 seats in 5 rows. The best seats here are considered the seats of the 27th row. Among disadvantages of these seats: lack of floor storage during take-off and landing, position of the bulkhead and bassinet location may be bothersome and as the ray tables are in the armrests the width of these seats is reduced.

As there are no seats in front, the seats 28C and 28J have extra space for passengers’ legs. However these seats have immovable armrests.

The seats located in the last row of the section, i.e. the seats of the 31st row are less reclining and located close to lavatories which may represent a problem.

The second section of economy class includes 14 rows of seats. Because of protrusion of the exit door the seats 35A and 35L have limited legroom. The other disadvantages are: lack of windows, lack of floor storage during take-off and landing, proximity of the lavatories and reduced width of the seats.

The seats 35BC and 35JK are designated by Air France as preferred seats to reserve which an extra fee must be paid. Passengers of these seats will take advantage of extra legroom that these seats offer. However the disadvantages of these seats are the same: proximity of the lavatories, lack of floor storage during take-off and landing and reduced width.

The legroom of the seats 36EFGH is restricted. Also these seats have bassinet location which may be bothersome. As the tray tables are in the armrests making them immovable these seats are narrower than standard. Lack of floor storage during take-off and landing is another disadvantage of these seats.

As there are no seats behind, the seats 43C and 43J are often bumped by other passengers and crew members passing by.

The main disadvantage of the seats 44B and 44K is limited space for passengers’ legs.

The seats of the last 48th row are considered bad seats due to close location of the galley and limited recline.

Second cabin version operated by Air France may accommodate 309 passengers in three classes: business, premium economy and economy.

Business class consists of 5 rows of seats that 2-3-2 configuration. Position of the bulkhead and bassinet may cause discomfort to passengers of the seats 1AB and 1KL.

Close location of the galley may represent a problem to passengers of the seats 5AB and 5KL.

Premium Economy class has 3 rows of seats per 8 seats in each. All these seats are standard only the seats of the 10th row have some peculiarities. The main advantage of these seats is extra space for passengers’ legs. However, close location of the lavatories and galley may be bothersome. As the tray tables are in the armrests the width of these seats is reduced. Also these seats have no floor storage during take-off and landing.

Economy class seats are located in two sections. There are 250 seats here. Most of them have 3-4-3 configuration.

Passengers of the seats of 19th row will feel comfortable thanks to extra legroom. Among disadvantages of these seats: lack of floor storage during take-off and landing and reduced width. Bassinet location may be also bothersome for passengers of the seats 19AB and 19KL.

Due to missing seats in front, the seats 20C and 20J provide extra legroom for passengers. Another advantage of these seats are movable armrests. But these seats are often bumped by other passengers passing by and crew members as these seats jut out into the aisle.

The seats of the 31st row are less reclining and their close location to the lavatories may be bothersome.

The second section of economy class seats is located behind exit row.

The seats 35A and 35L have no windows, the legroom of these seats is restricted because of the protrusion of exit door. All the seats of the 35th row have the following disadvantages: other passengers tend to gather in this area while waiting to visit lavatories. There is no floor storage for these seats during take-off and landing and these seats are narrower than standard. However the seats 35BC and 35JK are designated by Air France as preferred seats to reserve which an extra charge should be paid. Passengers of these seats will feel comfortable thanks to extra legroom.

Other passengers often bump into the seats 43C and 43J causing discomfort to passengers of these seats.

Proximity of the galley and limited recline make the seats 47EFGH and the seats of the 48th row bad seats.

The third version of Boeing 777-200 consists of three classes of seats.

Business class consists of 40 flat bed seats located in two sections. First section includes 7 rows of seats that have 1-2-1 configuration. The only disadvantage of the seats of the first row is close location of the lavatory and galley the noise from which may be bothersome.

Second section of business class seats has 3 rows of seats per 4 in each. Passengers traveling with infants are often seated on the seats 10A and 10L as these seats have bassinet locations. However, proximity of the lavatory may be bothersome for passengers of the seat 10L.

Behind the seats of business class 24 seats of premium economy class are located. There are totally 3 rows of seats here that have 2-4-2 configuration.

Economy class may transport 216 standard seats. Economy class is divided into two sections.

First section includes 9 rows of seats. 8 of them have 3-4-3 configuration and the first row has seats that have 2-4-2 configuration. The seats of the 23rd row are considered good seats as they have extra space for passengers’ legs. However, position of bassinets may cause some discomfort.

As there are no seats in front, the seats 24C and 24J have extra legroom providing additional comfort to passengers of these seats.

The main disadvantage of the seats of 31st row is close location of the lavatories.

Behind the exit row the second section of economy class seats is located. Passengers of the seats of 35th row will feel comfortable thanks to extra legroom. Among disadvantages of these seats: lack of floor storage during take-off and landing, reduced width and proximity of the lavatories and galley.

Passengers traveling with infants are often seated on the seats 36EFGH as these seats have bassinet location. Close location of the galley may cause inconvenience as well.

As there are no seats behind the seats 44C and 44J are often bumped by other passengers and crew members passing by.

The seats of the last 48th row are considered bad seats as other passengers tend to gather here while waiting to visit lavatories. The noise from the galleys may cause discomfort as well.

This version is operated by Air France during long-haul intercontinental flights.

316 passengers may transported by this airplane. Passengers may choose their seat among three classes: business, premium economy and economy.

First 4 rows of seats are the seats of business class. These seats have 1-2-1 configuration, so there are totally 16 open suites here. Business class suites have 180 degrees recline.

The only disadvantage of the seats of the 1st row is close location of the galley and lavatory. For passengers with infants the seats 1E and 1F offer bassinets.

Next three rows of seats represent seats of economy class. These seats have 2-4-2 configuration. The tray tables of the seats of the 7th row are in the armrests making them immovable and reducing the seat width. In addition these seats have no storage during take-off and landing.

The other two rows are designated by Air France as Seat Plus to reserve which an extra fee should be paid. Location of the galleys behind will cause discomfort to passengers of the seats 9AB and 9KL.

Behind the exit row the other 4 rows of economy class seats are located. Congregation of passengers in the area of the seats 12AB and 12KL as well as the noise from the lavatory located here may cause discomfort to passengers of these seats. As there are no seats in front the tray tables of these seats are built-in the armrests making them immovable are reducing the width of the seats. Lack of storage during take-off and landing is another disadvantage of these seats.

As to the other 3 rows their seats are denoted as Seat Plus.

Premium class seats are located in the rows 19-21. These seats have 2-4-2 configuration. Passengers of the seats of the 19th row will take advantage of extra legroom. These seats are considered good seats. Among disadvantages: no storage during take-off and landing and slightly reduced seat width.

The last 23 rows on this airplane offer the seats of economy class. These seats are divided into 2 sections. First section contains 9 rows of seats. The seats of the first rows are considered the best seats. Passengers travelling with babies are often seated on the seats of the 23rd row as these seats offer bassinet locations. Also these seats have extra legroom providing additional comfort to passengers of these seats. However, these seats have no storage during take-off and landing and are a little narrower than standard.

As there are no seats in front, the seats 24C and 24J offer additional space for passengers’ legs.

The main disadvantage of the seats of the 31st row is location of the lavatories behind.

Second section of economy class seats is located behind the exit row.

Due to the exit row located in front the seats of the 35th row have extra legroom. However, location of the galley and lavatories in front of these seats, lack of storage during take-off and landing and reduced width of the seats may cause discomfort.

Extra legroom offered by the seats 36EFGH makes these seats good seats. For passengers travelling with infants these seats offer bassinets.

Because of missing seats behind the seats 44C and 44J passengers tend to bump into these seats when passing by.

The noise from the galleys and lavatories located behind may represent problem to passengers of the seats 47B, 47E, 47H, 47K and the seats of the last 48th row.

This airplane may accommodate 312 passengers: 28 in business class, 24 in premium economy and 260 in economy.

First 7 rows of the airplane contain 28 open suites of the business class. All these seats have 180 degrees recline. Passengers travelling with babies are often seated on the seats of the 1st row because bassinets may be located on a nearby bulkhead. Location of the lavatory and galley in front may cause discomfort to passengers of these seats. But lavatory and galley located behind the seats of the 7th row is the only disadvantage of these seats.

Behind the seats of business class 3 rows of premium economy class seats are located. These seats have 2-4-2 configuration. So, there are 24 seats here. The noise from the lavatory and galley located in front may cause discomfort to passengers of the seats of the 10th row. Also these seats have no floor storage during take-off and landing. Passengers travelling with infants should choose the seats 10K or 10L.

Economy class may accommodate 260 passengers. Most of the seats here have 3-4-3 configuration.

Passengers of the seats of the 18th row will feel comfortable thanks to additional space for their legs. Among disadvantages: these seats are a little narrower than standard because video monitors and tray tables are in the armrests making them immovable; there is no floor during take-off and landing. For passengers travelling with babies bassinets might be positioned on the bulkhead ahead of the seats 18AB and 18KL.

Air France designates the seats 18EFGH as Seats at the Front of the Cabin. These seats may be reserved for additional fee.

Due to missing seats in front the seats 19C and 19J have extra legroom. These seats may be selected for extra charge. But at the same time these seats are often bumped by crew members and other passengers passing by, have reduced width and have no floor storage during take-off and landing.

Proximity of the galley and lavatories will cause inconvenience to passengers of the seats 30ABC, 30 E, 31EFGH and 31JKL. Aisle position is one more disadvantage of the seats 30C and 31J because these seats may be bumped by crew members and passengers passing by. Because of the wall located behind the seats 30ABC, 31EFGH and 31JKL are less reclining than standard.

Second section of economy class seats is located behind the exit door.

Passengers of the seats 35ABC will feel comfortable thanks to additional legroom. Location of the tray tables and video monitors in the armrests reduced the width of these seats a little. Among other disadvantages: lack of floor storage during take-off and landing and close location of the lavatories and galley. Protrusion of the exit door inside reduces additional legroom of the seat 35A a little. An additional fee must be paid to reserve the seats 35ABC because these seats are designated by Air France as Seat Plus.

Passengers travelling with babies are often seated on the seats 36EFGH and 36JKL because these seats offer bassinet locations. Also passengers of these seats will take advantage of extra legroom. However, these seats are a little narrower than standard and have no floor storage during take-off and landing.

The seats 44C and 44J are often bumped by passengers and crew members passing by de to missing seats behind.

AB and KL seats of the rows 45-48 are ideal for passengers travelling with a partner. An extra fee must be paid to choose these seats.

The only disadvantage of the seats 47B, 47E, 47H and 47K is location of the lavatories and galleys behind.

Limited recline and lavatories and galleys located behind make the seats of the last 48th row bad seats.

BOEING 777-300

From SKYbrary Wiki

B773

BOEING 777-300

Description

Long range high capacity wide-body airliner. In service since 1998. Stretched version of 777-200 as replacement of the 747-100/200. Largest twin engine passenger aircraft in the world. The 777-300 has a maximum range of 6005 nm11,121,260 m <br />11,121.26 km <br />36,487,073.517 ft <br /> with a MTOW of 299370 kg. The 777-300ER (Extended Range)is capable of flying 7880 nm14,593,760 m <br />14,593.76 km <br />47,879,790.061 ft <br /> with MTOW of 351,534 kg774,999.808 lbs <br />351.534 tonnes <br /> and has a wider wingspan. The B773 is member of the B777 family of aircraft.

Air France B777

Technical Data

Performance Data

Air France B777-300er

Accidents & Serious Incidents involving B773

Air France B777-300 Seat Map

• B773 / B738 / B738, Melbourne Australia, 2015 (On 5 July 2015, as a Boeing 777-300ER was departing Melbourne, two Boeing 737-800s which were initially on short final for intersecting runways with their ground separation dependent on one receiving a LAHSO clearance, went around. When both approaching aircraft did so, there was a loss of safe terrain clearance, safe separation and wake vortex separation between the three aircraft. The Investigation attributed the event to the actions of an inadequately supervised trainee controller and inappropriate intervention by a supervisory controller. It also identified a systemic safety issue generated by permitting LAHSO at night and a further flaw affecting the risk of all LAHSO at Melbourne.)
• B773, Abu Dhabi UAE, 2016 (On 27 September 2016, the left engine of a Boeing 777-300 failed on takeoff from Abu Dhabi after it ingested debris resulting from tread separation from one of the nose landing gear tyres and a successful overweight return to land then followed. The Investigation found that FOD damage rather than any fault with the manufacture or re-treading of the tyre had initiated tread separation and also noted the absence of any assessment of the risk of engine damage and failure from such debris ingestion which it was noted had the potential to have affected both engines rather than just one.)
• B773, Auckland Airport New Zealand, 2007 (On 22 March 2007, an Emirates Boeing 777-300ER, started its take-off on runway 05 Right at Auckland International Airport bound for Sydney. The pilots misunderstood that the runway length had been reduced during a period of runway works and started their take-off with less engine thrust and flap than were required. During the take-off they saw work vehicles in the distance on the runway and, realising something was amiss, immediately applied full engine thrust and got airborne within the available runway length and cleared the work vehicles by about 28 metres.)
• B773, Dhaka Bangladesh, 2016 (On 7 June 2016, a GE90-115B engined Boeing 777-300 made a high speed rejected takeoff on 3200 metre-long runway 14 at Dhaka after right engine failure was annunciated at 149KCAS - just below V1. Neither crew nor ATC requested a runway inspection and 12 further aircraft movements occurred before it was closed for inspection and recovery of 14 kg of debris. The Investigation found that engine failure had followed Super Absorbent Polymer (SAP) contamination of some of the fuel nozzle valves which caused them to malfunction leading to Low Pressure Turbine (LPT) mechanical damage. The contaminant origin was not identified.)
• B773, Dubai UAE, 2016 (On 3 August 2016 a Boeing 777-300 rejected a landing at Dubai from the runway following a late touchdown after floating in the flare. It then became airborne without either pilot noticing that the A/T had not responded to TO/GA switch selection and without thrust, control was soon lost and the aircraft hit the runway and slid to a stop. The Investigation found that the crew were unfamiliar with the initiation of a go around after touchdown and had failed to follow several required procedures which could have supported early recovery of control and completion of the intended go around.)
• B773, Hong Kong China, 2017 (On 28 April 2017, a Boeing 777-300 made a 3.2g manual landing at Hong Kong, which was not assessed as such by the crew and only discovered during routine flight data analysis, during a Final Line Check flight for a trainee Captain. The Investigation noted that the landing technique used was one of the reasons the Check was failed. The trainee had been an experienced 737 Captain with the operator who had returned from 777 type conversion training with another airline and was required to undertake line training to validate his command status in accordance with local requirements.)
• B773, Lisbon Portugal, 2016 (On 13 January 2016 ice was found on the upper and lower wing surfaces of a Boeing 777-300ER about to depart in the late morning from Lisbon in CAVOK conditions and 10°C. As Lisbon had no de-ice facilities, it was towed to a location where the sun would melt the ice more quickly but during poorly-planned manoeuvring, one of the wingtips was damaged by contact with an obstruction. The Investigation attributed the ice which led to the problematic re-positioning to the operator’s policy of tankering most of the return fuel on the overnight inbound flight where it had become cold-soaked.)
• B773, London Heathrow UK, 2016 (On 30 August 2016, a Boeing 777-300 crew began takeoff from London Heathrow at an intersection one third of the way along the runway using the reduced thrust calculated for a full-length take off instead of the rated thrust calculated for the intersection takeoff. As a result, the aircraft was only just airborne as it crossed the airport boundary and an adjacent public road. The Investigation attributed the data input error to crew failure to respond appropriately on finding that they had provisionally computed performance data based on different assumptions and concluded that the relevant Operator procedures were insufficiently robust.)
• B773, Mauritius, 2018 (On 16 September 2018, a Boeing 777-300 was beginning its takeoff from Mauritius when an inadvertently unsecured cabin service cart left its stowage in the forward galley area and travelled at increasing speed towards the rear of the cabin injuring several passengers before it stopped after meeting an empty seat towards the rear of the cabin. The Investigation noted that cabin crew late awareness of an abnormal aircraft configuration and its consequences had led to them generally prioritising service delivery over safety procedures prior to takeoff with this then leading to an overlooked safety task not being detected.)
• B773, Munich Germany, 2011 (On 3 November 2011, a Boeing 777-300ER crew lost directional control of their aircraft soon after touchdown and after veering off one side of runway 08R, it then crossed to the other side of it before stopping. The Investigation found that during the final stages of an intended autoland in CAT 1 conditions, an ILS LLZ signal disturbance caused by a departing aircraft had led a flight path deviation just before touchdown and, after delaying a pre-briefed automatic go-around until this was inhibited by main gear runway contact, the crew failed to either set thrust manually or disconnect the autopilot.)
• B773, Paris CDG France, 2013 (On 28 July 2013, with passengers still boarding an Air France Boeing 777-300, an abnormal 'burnt' smell was detected by the crew and then thin smoke appeared in the cabin. A MAYDAY was declared and the Captain made a PA telling the cabin crew to 'evacuate the passengers via the doors, only via the doors'. The resulting evacuation process was confused but eventually completed. The Investigation attributed the confused evacuation to the way it had been ordered and established that a fault in the APU had caused the smoke and fumes which had the potential to be toxic.)
• B773, Singapore, 2016 (On 27 June 2016, a Boeing 777-300ER powered by GE90-115B engines returned to Singapore when what was initially identified as a suspected right engine oil quantity indication problem evidenced other abnormal symptoms relating to the same engine. The engine caught fire on landing. The substantial fire was quickly contained and an emergency evacuation was not performed. The cause of the low oil quantity indication and the fire was a failure of the right engine Main Fuel Oil Heat Exchanger which had resulted in lubrication of the whole of the affected engine by a mix of jet fuel and oil.)
• B773, Tokyo Japan, 2016 (On 27 May 2016, a Boeing 777-300 crew made a high speed rejected take off when departing from Tokyo after a number one engine failure warning was quickly followed by a fire warning for the same engine and ATC advice of fire visible. As the fire warning continued with the aircraft stopped, an emergency evacuation was ordered. The Investigation found that the engine failure and fire had occurred when the 1st stage disc of the High Pressure Turbine had suddenly failed as result of undetected fatigue cracking which had propagated from an undetected disc manufacturing fault.)
• B773, en route, northern Turkey, 2014 (On 8 August 2014, the First Officer of a Boeing 777 in the cruise at night at FL340 inadvertently input a change of desired track into the MCP selected altitude window whilst acting as both PF and PM during controlled rest by the aircraft commander. The aircraft then descended for nearly 2 minutes without her awareness until ATC queried the descent and it was arrested at FL317.)
• B773, en-route, Bay of Bengal, 2011 (On 18 October 2011, an Etihad Boeing 777-300 encountered severe turbulence westbound over the Bay of Bengal because of a late track deviation whilst the aircraft commander was briefly absent from the flight deck. Two occupants, one a member of the cabin crew and the other a passenger, sustained severe injuries and 12 other occupants sustained minor injuries. The subsequent Investigation noted that the severe weather encountered was evident well in advance and could have been avoided. The low level of experience in role and on aircraft type of the operating crew was noted.)
• B773, en-route, Bering Sea, 2013 (On 2 July 2013, a Korean Air Lines Boeing 777-300 experienced an uncommanded in-flight shutdown of one of its GE90-115B engines while crossing the Bering Sea. The crew made an uneventful diversion to Anadyr Russia. The Korean Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board (ARAIB) delegated investigative duties of this event to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) which identified the cause of the failure as a manufacturing process deficiency which could affect nearly 200 similar engines.)
• B773, en-route, South China Sea Vietnam 2011 (On 17 October 2011, a Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-300 in the cruise at night with a Training Captain in command made what turned out to be an insufficient deviation around a potential source of turbulence and, with the seat belt signs remaining off, a number of cabin crew and passenger injuries were sustained during sudden brief but severe turbulence encounter. The Operator subsequently introduced enhanced pilot training to support more effective weather avoidance and better use of the various types of weather radar fitted to aircraft in their 777 fleet.)
• B773, en-route, east northeast of Anchorage AK USA, 2015 (On 30 December 2015, a Boeing 777-300 making an eastbound Pacific crossing en-route to Toronto encountered forecast moderate to severe clear air turbulence associated with a jet stream over mountainous terrain. Some passengers remained unsecured and were injured, one seriously and the flight diverted to Calgary. The Investigation found that crew action had mitigated the injury risk but that more could have been achieved. It was also found that the pilots had not been in possession of all relevant information and that failure of part of the air conditioning system during the turbulence was due to an improperly installed clamp.)
• B773, en-route, near Kurihara Japan, 2018 (On 24 June 2018, a Boeing 777-300 was briefly subjected to unexpected and severe Clear Air Turbulence (CAT) whilst level at FL300 which resulted in a serious injury to one of the cabin crew as they cleared up after in-flight service. The Investigation concluded that the turbulence had occurred because of the proximity of the aircraft to a strong jet stream and that the forecast available at pre-flight briefing had underestimated the strength of the associated vertical wind shear.)
• B773, en-route, north northwest of Adelaide Australia, 2017 (On 14 October 2017, a Boeing 777-300ER en route to Sydney declared a MAYDAY and diverted to Adelaide after the annunciation of a lower deck hold fire warning and the concurrent detection of a burning smell in the flight deck. The remainder of the flight was completed without further event and after landing a precautionary rapid disembarkation was performed. The Investigation found that the fire risk had been removed by the prescribed crew response to the warning and that the burning which had occurred had been caused by chafing of a wiring loom misrouted at build.)
• B773, vicinity Houston TX USA, 2014 (On 3 July 2014, a Boeing 777-300 departing Houston came within 200 feet vertically and 0.61nm laterally of another aircraft after climbing significantly above the Standard Instrument Departure Procedure (SID) stop altitude of 4,000 feet believing clearance was to FL310. The crew responded to ATC avoiding action to descend and then disregarded TCAS 'CLIMB' and subsequently LEVEL OFF RAs which followed. The Investigation found that an inadequate departure brief, inadequate monitoring by the augmented crew and poor communication with ATC had preceded the SID non-compliance and that the crew should have followed the TCAS RAs issued.)
• B773, vicinity Melbourne Australia, 2011 (On 24 July 2011, a Thai Airways International Boeing 777-300 descended below the safe altitude on a night non-precision approach being flown at Melbourne and then failed to commence the go around instructed by ATC because of this until the instruction had been repeated. The Investigation concluded that the aircraft commander monitoring the automatic approach flown by the First Officer had probably experienced ‘automation surprise’ in respect of the effects of an unexpected FMS mode change and had thereafter failed to monitor the descent of the aircraft with a selected FMS mode which was not normally used for approach.)
• B789 / B773, Delhi India, 2017 (On 7 October 2017, an arriving Boeing 787-9 and a departing Boeing 777-300 lost separation during intended use of runway 29 at Delhi when the 787-9 commenced a go around from overhead the runway because the departing 777-300 was still on the runway and came within 0.2 nm laterally and 200 feet vertically after ATC had failed to ensure that separation appropriate to mixed mode use was applied using speed control. The conflict was attributed to failure of the TWR controller to adhere to prevailing standard operating procedures.)
• Vehicle / B773, Singapore, 2013 (On 3 October 2013, a vehicle entered an active runway without clearance after partial readback of a potentially confusing clearance was not challenged by the controller. A different controller then cleared a Boeing 777-300 to land without taking all available action to ensure that the runway was clear. The aircraft crew saw the vehicle near the edge of the runway after touchdown and manoeuvred their aircraft away from it, although the aircraft wing still passed over it. At the time of the incident, vehicles with clearance were permitted to cross red stop bars, a policy which has since been changed.)

Air France B777-300er Seating Plan