Gopal From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 112 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13588 times:
Apart from not being able to provide an answer for A380, Boeing has been lagging behing Airbus in the long range, high capacity airliner market. For example, the 777-300ER is behind the A340-600 by 20 months. 777LR is also lagging behind the A340-500 which is already scheduled for fly its first commercial flight. Also the HGW A340-600 may arrive earlier than B777-300ER. Looks like Boeing were kind of late in responding to the long range models brought by airbus. Could this be because of the 2 engine design for the 777. Could it be that Boeing is taking longer to design and develop the 773ER and 777LR becuase of the extra testing (such as ETOPS) required of twins. Also is it difficult to increase the MTOW of a twin as opposed to a 4 engined airplane because of higher safety margins that need to be provided?
Why were Boeing always "responding" to models brought by airbus. Why did they not forecast the need for ultra long range airplanes before airbus ?
I would hate to see Boeing loose the widebody market to airbus.
StevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13188 times:
I would have to turn the question around: has the A318/319/320/321/330 programs hurt Airbus?
The answer there is a resounding no!
Aircraft like the DC10, MD11, and L10-11 were LESS beneficial because of the 3rd engine and the associated costs and weight, which put a drag on operating efficiency.
Overall, combined with technological advances, the two-engined aircraft is highly efficient in terms of fuel burn and operating costs for all airlines worldwide. Further, I would argue that the A340/747/A380 aircraft only have four engines due to their physical size.
Sorry to be blunt here, I don't normally say this kind of thing, but I don't think a lot (if any) of thought went into this question before it got posted. A quick analysis of airline fleets today could have answered the question before it got asked.
AMM744 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2003, 211 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13096 times:
I don't think that Boeing is going to get too seriously hurt but it's seems like complete madness to keep pushing out these massive twinjets. This is especially true when flying across the Atlantic or Pacific - c'mon Boeing, it's fairly obvious how risky this kind of thinking can be.
Virgin have a great logo on some of their excellent 747-400's that goes something like "Four Engines For Long Haul". That says it all really. The 777 is a great piece of engineering but if both engines fail over the Atlantic then no amount of technology will save the day.
Personally I would never take a flight across large expanses of water in a twinjet, let's face it the 777 is basically a 737 that's grown up !
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7680 posts, RR: 18 Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13056 times:
The 20+ years of successful and safe ETOPS flights proves the safety and reliability of twinjets. Dispatch reliability and in-flight shutdown rates of ETOPS maintained aircraft are noticably better than the non-ETOPS brothers.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
BCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13053 times:
AMM744.. I couldn't disagree more. The 777 is a grown-up 737? Not even. And I can't really compare, since I've only flown trans-atlantic on the 777, but I can tell you it was fantastic. It was by far the best flight of my life; if not the best 8 hours of my life. The seats were comfortable, the plane was very quiet, the IFE was great, and the digital map was a definite bonus. To be able to read my book all night and watch the sun rise as we started our descent over Ireland; priceless. I am dying to get back to the UK, and back on a 777.
Tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6195 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13046 times:
757, 767, 777, 737 have all been sucessful. Boeing has to be doing something right.
I think now boeing has to come up with a new widebody to replace the older 767, which is the 7E7. That will be very sucessful as various carriers NEED to replace there 762/763's
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
AMM744 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2003, 211 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 12942 times:
Agree with Tommy767 about the 767 should be replaced, this aircraft has no buisness crossing major oceans. I flew from DFW - LGW on one of these and it was so tiny when compared to the KING, the 747-400.
BCAInfoSys, I'm sure that seeing the sunrise over Ireland was great, I've seen this many many times, Ireland, Cornwall and The South Coast, all on a Four Engined bird. I can tell you that this made me feel at ease.
As I said the 777 is a truly fantastic marvel of aviation engineering but I wouldn't fly on one nor put my family on one over the Atlantic. I guess that BA and Virgin or Air New Zealand will remain as top choice for this route. I'm simply amazed that American and Delta couldn't support Boeing by flying 747's.
B2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1350 posts, RR: 60 Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12874 times:
The possibility of unrelated double engine failure on an ETOPS-certified aircraft is so remote as to be statistically insignificant. Killer asteroid imacts are more likely, not to mention far greater risks like cancer or car accidents. The few total losses of power on twins (Air Transat A330, AC "Gimli Glider" 767) would have been just as debilitating to a trijet or quad as well. I much prefer the 777 to the MD-11 I flew ATL-FCO in January and would have gotten on the twin in a heartbeat.
Also, responding to the original post, the 777LR program was halted for over a year after 9/11, not because of design problems but due to customer request - the airlines couldn't handle the extra capacity of the 777LRs during a major slump. Had the original schedule laid out in Feb. 2000 been followed, the first -300ER would have been delivered last month, with the -200LR not far behind. The very rapid A340-500/600 development program, on the other hand, has incurred delays caused by technical problems on the aircraft themselves, as well as trouble placing the A340-500 with customers - the first aircraft has still not been handed over.
The overwhelming success of the 777 vs. the A340, as well as the impressive sales of the A330 and the early demise of the MD-11, make it unambiguously clear that long-range twinjets are here to stay. The 7E7 looks to be another big winner.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12759 times:
I don't think it is Boeing's design of twins, rather, their practice of repeated designs from the same source. Sure, if a market can be filled wwith the same original plane except stretched or increasing range, then it is a done deal. But what if one day a requirement comes along and this derivation doesn't work anymore? Some will argue that the 7E7 is that calling, while I agrue otherwise because it still has the capability of derivatives, which is nice, but when does it not work all the time?
Sooner or later, a req will come along that most companies can't deal, what does that mean? No market? For whom does this beneift?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Airways6max From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 494 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12734 times:
It would be a blow to American prestige if America's biggest aircraft manufacturer, Boeing, lost the widebody market to Airbus. For years, Boeing's 747 was the largest airplane in the skies and it symbolized American industrial might the world over. Boeing ought to reclaim the widebody market with new and updated versions of the 747 as well as a large, four-engined version of the 7E7 with ultra-long range.
AMM744 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2003, 211 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 12536 times:
At last, someone has seen sense. The Boeing 747 was and is the greatest commercial aeroplane that has ever graced the skies. Even today in the 21st century it still leaves one in total awe, there is simply no other aeroplane that can match it for style, performance and sheer guts.
Boeing really should have carried on with it's 747 development programme, I believe that there is a market for a 747-500, 600 etc. This would have given Airbus something to think about. C'mon Boeing have a rethink, you already have the greatest flying machine on this planet, why not develop this further ?
Shenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1701 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 12497 times:
I think the original post is wrong in saying that Boeing was behind the A340-600, since they have been selling 777-300 airplanes before the A340-600 was launched.
However, the -300ER was lacking an engine that would enable the increased weight for the extended range vesion. So, yes having the big twin did hurt Boeing, until GE stepped up with the 115K engines.
I remember back when, before it was launched, Boeing couldn't get the required thrust, and even thought about a thrust producung APU that would provide the extra bit of power for those hot days. Thank goodness that didn't happen.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7717 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12278 times:
The twin-engine airliner has not hurt Boeing. It certainly hasn't hurt Airbus, what with strong A320 Family sales, and good sales of the A330-200.
By the way, I think before 2010 we may see Rolls-Royce finally convincing Boeing to offer a variant of the Trent engine on the 777-300ER. A future Trent model combining the technology of the Trent 800 and 900 series engines could result in an engine with 120,000 lb. thrust, which is the thrust level necessary for the 777-200LR and 773ER.
Caetravlr From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 898 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12233 times:
"Boeing really should have carried on with it's 747 development programme, I believe that there is a market for a 747-500, 600 etc. This would have given Airbus something to think about. C'mon Boeing have a rethink, you already have the greatest flying machine on this planet, why not develop this further ?"
Ummm.... dude, I believe that they did consider every possible modification, stretch, and enhancment that they could think of for the 747 series. When you say "I believe that there is a market for a 747-500, 600 etc" what you are saying is that the Boeing analysts and sales people who spend every single work day communicating with the major airlines and fleet planners of the world have totally misread the market. They spend their development dollars on what they believe the airlines want. And guess what? This input comes from the airlines themselves.
I have flown over the Atlantic on the 747, 767, and 777. Never once did I feel unsafe on ANY of those aircraft. You also have to remember that the A330 is also a twin used on transatlantic flights. I might prefer the 777 and 747 because of the spaciousness of the interior cabin, and I LOVE flying on the upper deck of a 747, however, I will "cross the pond" on anything that happens to be going my way at the time I need to go.
That being said, I hope that the 7E7 is a resounding success. I can't wait to see what it looks like in production. Apparently, if Boeing is giving it the go ahead, there must be some launch customers in mind.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her. - W.C. Fields
Beltwaybandit From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 495 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12188 times:
Airlines require absolute safety (and nothing in the air today is inherently unsafe) and then make a decision on economics. I thought the A340 was an odd throwback, going with 4 engines when it was becoming clear that 2 engines were enough.
Does anyone have efficiency stats for the 777 versus A340? (Of course, you would need to factor in maintenance, not just fuel burn.)
Does Airbus have the label "4 engines 4 the long haul" on the A330?
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12175 times:
Aircraft like the DC10, MD11, and L10-11 were LESS beneficial because of the 3rd engine and the associated costs and weight, which put a drag on operating efficiency.
Maybe that's because they were ALL based on 1960's technology, and were not as technologically advanced as today's aircraft-even the MD-11, although a young aircraft, was based on this 1960's design. It wasn't a matter of being less beneficial, it was a matter of technology. Today, the technology exists to make safe, long-range, twin-engine aircraft. That's the only difference.
-This is especially true when flying across the Atlantic or Pacific - c'mon Boeing, it's fairly obvious how risky this kind of thinking can be.
-Personally I would never take a flight across large expanses of water in a twinjet, let's face it the 777 is basically a 737 that's grown up!
-Agree with Tommy767 about the 767 should be replaced, this aircraft has no buisness crossing major oceans.
Ignorance is bliss sometime, AMM744. Statistics and history show you're just plain dead wrong in those assessments. They're made out of either fear or ignorance. Millions have crossed oceans on twin-engines, safely, efficiently and without incident.
You say it's obvious how risky it is? What statictics are you looking at that back this up? With the ETOPS program and with the advancements in technology, it's not risky at all! There's NOTHING to back your assertion.
You then say it's just a "grown up" 737? Again, an incredibly ignorant statement. Just because it "looks" like a big 737 doesn't mean it IS a big 737. The 737-900, while it LOOKS like the original 737, doesn't even resemble it in technology and efficiency, so how could you say the same about a 777, that was made entirely by computer, and is a totally different type of aircraft?
Then you say it has no business crossing an ocean. Why-simply because YOU are afraid to fly it? It has every business crossing the ponds, because it's safe, it's reliable, and it's efficient-be it a 777, 767, 757 or an A330. Hell, LH flies a 737NG, for crying out loud, across the Atlantic in a Business config!
Again, with all respect, your statemets are made out of pure ignorance and a touch of fear, seems to me. You can't do that on here, because there are people (and I'm not one of them, technically), who can refute sucn nonsense.
B747FAN From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 82 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12137 times:
Boeing has stated somewhat indirectly that they will use advance technologies designed for the 7E7 on the future 747's. Technologies such as Extensive use of wireless systems, Composite materials, new engine designs, etc..
Only makes sense. I do beleive that they will not let the 747 program die. They need a large capacity aircraft to compete with the A380. It is my personal opinion only that Boeing is playing a waiting game with its furthur development of the ultra capacity 747X or stretch. I know that they have already put such ideas out there a few years ago, but since the development of the A380, they are letting Airbus take the lead to see if such ultra capacity aircrafts are worth developing. Again it is my opinion only. May be simplistic in theory, but may very well be worthy of thought.
) He turns not back who is bound to a star. - Leonardo Da Vinci.
CanadianNorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3371 posts, RR: 10 Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12002 times:
The Boeing 767 does have every business crossing the ponds... I flew YVR-HNL on a DC-10 once, and after that all my flts over the ponds have been on 767s, and they do more than a fine job of it too!
Has the 2 engine design hurt Boeing?
777 - one of the most efficient, safest, and most technologically advanced widebodys out there.
767 - over the years it's more than proven its success, making money on everything from 2 hour hops to 10 hour hauls.
757 - also proven itself as a good versitile money maker for airlines.
737 - the best selling jetliner of all time.
yes, it really looks like the twin engine design hurt Boeing.
Motech722 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 211 posts, RR: 3 Reply 22, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 11955 times:
As always there is a wide variety of ideas and opinions here, which is always great to read through. I have recently been reading Stephen Aris' book "Close to the Sun" which talks about the history of Airbus and the development of all their aircraft as well as how Boeing, Mcy D, and Lockheed responded.
To say that the twin engine market is hurting Boeing is to say that the A300 helped McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed when it first came out. When Airbus came out with the A300, the world's first twin-engine wide-body, the pressure was on for competition between it and the tri-jets. Because of the oil prices skyrocketing during this time, and because of the limited market, the tri-jets hurt from the twin-engine A300. By operating a plane with two instead of three, it definately saved money.
Today Airbus has the A340s which were originally designed for the long/thin routes, but then the A330s were designed originally for the short/fat routes, just as the B777 was originally designed for. As many have pointed out in here, the A340 has lost its ass to the B777, but originally that is not what the B777 was deisgned for. The B777 was a direct competitor to the A330. Over the years, it has be upgraded to compete head to head with the A340, in the way of the -300.
Airbus, concerned with this, developed the A340-600 and -500 to try to take back the market, but with the IGW 777s coming out, the competition continues to push both manufacturers. Twin engines do not hurt Boeing, and 4 engines does not hurt Airbus, they both fill a niche.
As for Boeing currently not being able to provide a competitor to the A380, well, yes, that's true at the moment. But look at the hisotry behind the B777, it was originally lookied at as being a stretch to the B767, but then Boeing decided to build a brand new plane instead. With the 7E7 on the drawing board now, what if the lessons learned from that design could then be used to bring out a new super-jumbo to compete against the A380?
I know everyone wants to see another model of the B747, but when Boeing originally tried to market a stretched -500/600, very few were interested. If Boeing can come out with an 7E7-technology-based jumbo in the future, then they could once again capture the market, but at the moment, Boeing is doing what it does best, concentrating on a new design for a niche that needs to be filled.
"Why is Boeing always "responding" to models brought by airbus. Why did they not forecast the need for ultra long range airplanes before airbus?"
This is a good question, but perhaps it is not because Boeing is behind, but because they have bene in the business longer and wish to wait to see how the market reacts. If it is positive, then they can come out with something "better", if the reaction is negative, then they don't waste money. Remember, when the DC10 and L1011 came out, they were practically the same plane, and there was not a market to sustain both of them at the same time, so both compaines lost.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (9 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 11823 times:
think before 2010 we may see Rolls-Royce finally convincing Boeing to offer a variant of the Trent engine on the 777-300ER.
For the ten thousanth and one time...
Boeing is not the one who called for exclusivity on the 777NGs and therefore not authorized to break it! Must that simple fact be applied with a sledgehammer to finally sink in?!
Boeing wanted all three producers making an engine. RR was the only one willing to share the market, but GE was the only one whose then-existing engine core could be expanded to the specifications Boeing wanted within the three year time frame Boeing had in mind... hence, GE got what it wanted (exclusivity) to produce what Boeing wanted.
In summary, RR can plead all it wants to (which I rather doubt it's doing); but until Boeing is willing to pay tens/hundreds of millions of dollars for violating contractual obligation; GE will remain the sole producer of engines for Boeing twinjets in excess of 700,000lb MTOWs
RB211 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 632 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (9 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 11738 times:
I don't think the "twins" have hurt Boeing in any way. I think that alot of it has to do with the impact on the market after September 11th as well as the fact that "twins" are more cost efficient. However, I think the fact that Airbus Industrie sells its aircraft for a little less plus everyone is scraping together their pennies to get a hold of an A380 has somewhat of an impact.
Airline photography. Whether they're fully clothed, butt naked, having issues or confused I'm taking pictures!!
25 AMM744: Nice to see some healthy debating going on, obviously this subject is fairly touchy especially to you TwinJetters... Alpha 1 - you were almost right o
26 ConcordeBoy: more so the fear of crashing And that fear is based on what? ...the statistics which show there's never been a fatal ETOPS-related crash in history? .
27 Gigneil: Oh by the way Gigneil you say that nobody wants it (747) well that's why it's the worlds most commercially recognised and successful widebody. People
28 Caetravlr: "Oh by the way Gigneil you say that nobody wants it (747) well that's why it's the worlds most commercially recognised and successful widebody. " Mayb
29 Alpha 1: The two single worst Trans Atlantic crossings I've ever encountered were on 767's, something to do with...oh yes, space or lack of and very poor seat
30 Klaus: ConcordeBoy: And that fear is based on what? ...the statistics which show there's never been a fatal ETOPS-related crash in history? Not yet. There ar
31 Manni: Beltwaybandit, It's Virgin that has the slogan 4 engines 4 longhaul, not Airbus.
32 Alpha 1: AMM744, I don't think, on this subject, you SHOULD say anymore, since everything you have said has been debunked by reason, or by statistics, or by sh
33 Leskova: Alpha_1 (& others) - I don't quite understand why you keep hacking around on AMM744... he simply doesn't like flying on twins - so what? Yes, they are
34 S.p.a.s.: @Leskova.. Hi mate.. so you´re paying a visit to us down here? nice to know... If staying in Sao Paulo, next sunday we will have a open day at Marte
35 Gigneil: It's Virgin that has the slogan 4 engines 4 longhaul, not Airbus. Naw. Its an Airbus slogan that Virgin adopted. It was Airbus' major advertising them
36 Canadi>nBoy: "The Boeing 747 was and is the greatest commercial aeroplane that has ever graced the skies." Nor argument here. I agree 100%. She's the undisputed Qu
37 Airbazar: Some posters here are saying that 2 engines are more efficient than 4. I always thought it was the other way around because a twin's burn rate is much
38 Canadi>nBoy: Motech722 wrote: "Why is Boeing always "responding" to models brought by airbus. Why did they not forecast the need for ultra long range airplanes bef
39 ConcordeBoy: But the inherently higher risks may become an issue again as soon as something happens That works both ways Klaus... ....what happens when a 4engine a
40 ConcordeBoy: It's Virgin that has the slogan 4 engines 4 longhaul, not Airbus Manni, he's right, you're wrong Airbus developed the slogan, Virgin rode in on its co
41 AMM744: Everything You have said has been debunked, these are your words Alpha 1. Perhaps you should check out this story that was posted on the forum October
42 Gigneil: A quad that suffer the loss of two engines will be in just about as much shit as a twin that does... especially if they're 5 hours away from an airpor
43 AMM744: That would depend on which two engines. I suspect that the survival odds on a quad with two engines out would be significantly higher than on a twin w
44 Hamlet69: A lot of misleading information has been raised here, and I'd like to correct what I can: "Also the HGW A340-600 may arrive earlier than B777-300ER."
45 Airbazar: Ironically there has been a very recent incident where an A330 lost both engines over the Atlantic (Air Transat), and landed safely. Luckily they were
46 Gigneil: Perhaps not recently... but an Eastern L-1011 lost two engines and a BA 747 lost all 4 engines due to volcanic ash. The Air Transat problem was easy -
47 ConcordeBoy: Boeing runs into the problem of not enough engine thrust, nor fuel tank volume to take advantage of further increases. Hamlet, something I've wondered
48 Joleb: People, Let me say what i think. As i am a 5 million miler accross the world i can tell you that i have flown on all types of aircraft that exist in t
49 Hamlet69: ConcordeBoy, I know it has been look at. However, IIRC, it was deemed the advantages were too small to be worth it. Remember that, comparatively, the
50 Thrust: I think that Boeing's twin-engine concept, well, without it, Boeing probably would have been gone a long time ago. Two engines are more fuel efficient
51 ConcordeBoy: However, has anybody ordered the 777-300ER yet? To date, 773ERs have been ordered/leased by EVA Airways, Pakistan International Airlines, Air France,
52 Ant72LBA: These kinds of post make me ask the question: can different types be compared given the variety of routes? For example if a plane is successful on LHR
53 Manni: Concordeboy, It seams very unreal that Airbus came up with the slogan. However if Airbus did indeed came up with the slogan, it's nice to see the conf
54 ConcordeBoy: It seams very unreal that Airbus came up with the slogan I too thought it incredibly foolish (both the slogan, and its creation by a company that also
55 Klaus: ConcordeBoy: ....what happens when a 4engine aircraft loses [nearly] all power and goes down far too from a diversion field. That's a scenario which
56 Thrust: I heard recently that UAL is bringing their 747-400s out of the desert. I knew that for a while, but here is the real brain-twister: I heard that the
57 B2707SST: This is mainly because UAL renegotiated their 747 leases and got a huge reduction in rates, so the 747s have become cheaper to fly than the 777s. Also
58 Artsyman: This is mainly because UAL renegotiated their 747 leases and got a huge reduction in rates, so the 747s have become cheaper to fly than the 777s. ****
59 ConcordeBoy: Same for both kinds. Just less likely on a quad. And do you have any corroboration for this claim whatsoever? ...of course not, because of the documen
60 MidnightMike: No. All you have to do is look at ANA, they are phasing out the "4" engine aircraft in favor of the Boeing "2" Engine aircraft. Of course the other e
61 Klaus: Klaus: Same for both kinds. Just less likely on a quad. ConcordeBoy: And do you have any corroboration for this claim whatsoever? ...of course not, So
62 ConcordeBoy: Sorry to disappoint you, but it´s an automatic consequence of redundancy You're not disappointing me at all... because your conclusion is anecdotal (
63 Shenzhen: I wonder just how many inflight shutdowns (just a single engine) have happend on an ETOPS flight DURING THE ETOPS PORTION OF THE FLIGHT not 20 minutes
64 Artsyman: I wonder just how many inflight shutdowns (just a single engine) have happend on an ETOPS flight DURING THE ETOPS PORTION OF THE FLIGHT not 20 minutes
65 ConcordeBoy: 777 crew shut down the No. 2 PW4077-90 power plant Great story, wrong engine: was a PW4090
66 Rickb: I have no problem with flying on ETOPS aircraft - I have made countless lounghaul flights on 777's, A330's, 767's etc. - I have even flown transatlant
67 ConcordeBoy: If I ever experienced an IFSD on a twin - I would be concerned The question is, "would you even be aware"? ... much less, "concerned". It's not like t
68 AvObserver: "Easy answer - nobody wants it." "Oh by the way Gigneil you say that nobody wants it (747) well that's why it's the worlds most commercially recognise
69 Ant72LBA: Is there any empirical evidence to backup the arguments here? On how many occasions has a plane lost all its (2,3,4,etc) engines? The flights through
70 AMM744: The Boeing 747, simply the best, today and tomorrow. Boeing, if you are reading this PLEASE continue to develop this project.
71 Klaus: Klaus: Sorry to disappoint you, but it´s an automatic consequence of redundancy ConcordeBoy: You're not disappointing me at all... because your concl
72 Mandala499: Well, one thing I know... the EIGHT engine design did hurt Hughes Aerospace! :D Seriously, if 2 engines can fail... why can't 4? If 4 can fail.. why c
73 MD-90: I wonder if the average passenger would notice an inflight engine shutdown? Maybe......maybe not. Any slight movement not fully intercepted by deft ru
74 ConcordeBoy: And that´s exactly how redundancy works: What you dont seem to understand about redundancy is that its utility plateaus after a given threshold. Cons
75 Klaus: ConcordeBoy What you dont seem to understand about redundancy is that its utility plateaus after a given threshold. Considering today's technology; ne
76 ConcordeBoy: "Good enough" is a concept that should be considered very, very carefully when applied to aviation safety. And my impression is that the progressive s
77 Shenzhen: "We´ve been lucky so far - why should it end tomorrow?" I think ETOPS operations goes a little bit further then a "hope and a prayer", each time a tw
78 Klaus: ConcordeBoy: Again, that goes back to the question of what on Earth do you think qualifies you to qualify that margin of safety; Several semesters of
79 ConcordeBoy: Several semesters of university statistics for theory; About 25 years of hardware and software design, implementation and debugging for a bit of pract
80 Klaus: ConcordeBoy: In summary... nothing Of course not. What can math and experience do against a firmly embedded infatuation? Nothing! ConcordeBoy: True, b
81 AMM744: He just doesn't get it Klaus, You've tried very hard but he's not having it. Two points here, Boeing has definitely been the watcher whilst Airbus has
82 Klaus: Yeah, seems like a lost cause... But I´ve always had a weakness for those...
83 AvObserver: "With other safety factors comparable, the new ETOPS-quality quads (A345/A346, soon A388 - Boeing apparently gave up on the quads) again have a fundam
84 Gigneil: With other safety factors comparable, the new ETOPS-quality quads (A345/A346, soon A388 - Boeing apparently gave up on the quads) again have a fundame
85 TrnsWrld: AMM744, man whatsup with you having a problem with twin engine jets??? every one of your posts on this thread has something negative about crossing an
86 AMM744: It's time to move on from this topic, there simply is nothing else to discuss and by now it must be clear that there are two distinct camps on this su
87 FlyLAX: I hear you AMM744. Now that we all know who prefers 2 and who prefers 4, its time to end it. Its going nowhere.
88 Shenzhen: Some numbers... not that is matters. 397,057,777 ETOPS flights (777) Of the 618 ETOPS events that have been reported, only 16 were during the ETOPS po
89 ConcordeBoy: They´re leaving it to the customer, while recommending their quad-engined models for the more demanding routes. They could recommend a horse in a hoo
90 FDXmech: Klaus, what other redundancy issues are you concerned about?