travelhound wrote:As such, if the 778 uses 20% more fuel to do a one-stop it will still only be 3-4% less efficient than a 77W or have 2% higher trip costs. Not too bad an option considering a one stop would all have a positive impact on maintenance, airport fees and aircraft utilisation costs.
You made a comparison against the 77W but forgot to include the 779.
Thing is that a 779 will be more efficient than a 778 because a stopover comes with lower operating costs, and generates more revenue. So the reason why airlines preferred a 77W over a 77L also applies to the 779 over the 778.