OldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3683 posts, RR: 66
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7803 times:
Quoting UAL747-600 (Thread starter): Boeing is saying that the 777-300ER has 99.2% dispatch rate in the first year of service. Do anybody have any numbers on A340-600 and A340-500, first year and current???
According to the last week's Flight article, A345/6 operators are reporting dispatch reliability below 98%. Airbus' goal is to get it up to 98.5%. If they achieve that goal it means the A345/6 takes a delay twice as often as the 773ER. At the current rate, the A345/6 is delayed three times as often.
N60659 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7756 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 8): 99.2% seems a little low, especially for a "mature" series since the 300ER is based on an existing model.
Wasn't Boeing touting a 99.8% dispatch reliability on the original 777 when it went into service a decade ago?
The following excerpt from Boeing's press release (while not completely answering your question) somewhat glosses over your question. Please take it FWIW. "The technologically advanced 777-300ER flew more than 32,000 hours during its first year, amassing a 99.2 percent average schedule reliability rate that surpasses previous 777 model introductions and is in line with the 99.3 percent overall rate for the 777 family."
[Edit: Looks like OldAeroGuy got to your question as I was typing up my response. Sorry for the duplicaion]
True that quads have a higher probability of engine failure, but it's not like carriers consider (which, in the end, is what really matters) that to be an excuse for shortfalls, after they've been pitched quads (e.g., A346s) that Airbus claimed to have twinjet-level D.R.
AirbusCanada From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days ago) and read 7095 times:
ON the 346/345
the fuel management software had some glitches and the galleys had some Both of those systems were breand new. Other than than 346/345 did not have any major problems. I guess 773ER did not have any software glitchs thus the higher DR numbers.
Dalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days ago) and read 6981 times:
The 345/346 have had many issues with the Trent 500s as well resulting in a relatively high degree of IFSDs and engine removals. Not one IFSD or engine removal for the 773ER in it's 1st year. Fuel consumption is still an issue with some airlines flying 345/346. LH was quoted in the recent FI article as saying there were some fuel consumption abnormalities that appeared to be fleet wide on some of the routes.
It's blindingly obvious that the 772LR/773ER are about to dominate this sector. The next year or 2 should confirm that.
Abbs380 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6125 times:
Several places in this thread where reliability is mentioned the "mature" qualifier is used. I think A300/310 series is about as "mature" as you can get. Yet there is one large freight operator who is about to comitt to a replacement of the exsisting fuel quantity indicating system on the entire fleet, with a new system (manufactured by a third party vendor) including all probes and wiring. Because system reliability is so poor, and dispatch reliability is affected.
Windshear From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 2349 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5872 times:
Sebolino ye your right, but again you could question the Airbus decision to do long haul planes with 4 engines, instead of 2...
This was a major reason for doing the new lines with 2 engines only...
A340 family has 4 engines, and that means lower dispatch rates, either way a higher dispatch rate, is better for the airline.
And em how dare anyone say the 777 is ugly
"If you believe breaking is possible, believe in fixing also"-Rebbe Nachman