B747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2650 times:
Just got back from a trip where I was seated next to a senior NW captain on the MSP-ATL. We got to talking and he told me that NW is gonna make an announcement on the replacement for the 742 within the month.
I will spare y'all the details of the conversation, but the gist of it was that the 772 is the likely choice to replace the 742 on secondary Japan markets and on intra-Asia flights. The 340 is "highly unlikely" and the 330 has "raised a few concerns".
Finally, NW is actually looking to EXPAND its DC-10 fleet. It is trying to buy up old DC-10s being retired by other airlines for a pittance sum and either renovating them for a few more years, or using them for parts.
American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3517 posts, RR: 13 Reply 1, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2476 times:
That's nice to hear. The 777-200IGW would make sense, considering it would the the 747-100/200 replacement, I'm sure they would choose the PW-4000 engine for the 777. They already have the 747-400 so the 777 would complement the long haul fleet. Yes, sure they will keep the DC-10's for a while unlike other carriers which are getting rid of those, but they should also think of a replacement. In my opinion, although they've been thinking of the A330, the 767-400 would be perfect since they already have a fleet of 757's.
This is what the Northwest fleet should be in ten years from now:
Domestic fleet: Airbus A319/A320 and Boeing 757
Long haul fleet transatlantic: B767-400
Long haul fleet transpacific and intra-Asia: B747-400 and 777
JWM AIRTRANS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2423 times:
That makes sense. I hav known for a while that they are building up the DC10 fleet, which is smart in a sense I cannot explain, but I know in my head it is smart for one freason or another. I think they will replace the -200s with -400s. Or they probably will keep the -200s for a long time, considering they are considered relitivley new in NWA's fleet (I have nothing against NWA). The 777 is an odd choice because they seem to be going Airbus, or maybe not. I guess only time will tell. (I'm cvery excited being a DTW resident).
Sammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1686 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2407 times:
Why do you think its an odd choice to choose the 777? They are going Airbus, yes, but only on the narrowbody side, similar to United. Not like they could take advantage of any commonality between A330/340 and A32X cockpits since unions probably wont allow it.
Also only the A330 has the option of PW engines, whereas no A340 is available with PW engines.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7866 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2390 times:
Actually, the 777-200IGW might be a good choice for NW because it has the range to fly MSP or DTW directly to NRT or SEL easily.
If it weren't for the engine choice issue, NW would be better served by buying the 777-300 Long Range version, because this new version of the 777 would have about the same carrying capacity as the 747-200, cruise just about as fast (the cruising speed will be around 0.85 Mach), but have quite a bit lower fuel burn per passenger mile. Alas, Pratt & Whitney is not producing any engines in the 110,000 to 115,000 lb. thrust range; only GE (with the GE90-115B) and Rolls-Royce (with a growth version of the Trent 800) will work on the 777-300 LR's.
FLY DC JETS From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 199 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2311 times:
Rolls Royce does not and will not offer an engine on the 777LR. The Lr would not make sense. To operate such a heavy aircraft on these routes would defeat the economics of the plane. The regular 777ER would fit the need perfectly.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7866 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2310 times:
Hold it right there.
I just checked Rolls-Royce's web page (www.rolls-royce.com) and they said that the Trent 800 (rated between 94,000 to 104,000 lb. thrust) is aimed specifically at all versions of the 777-including what was originally called the 777-200X/300X versions.
Because the Trent 800 has been run at 104,000 lb. thrust already, all they need are a few improvements and the Trent 800 could be uprated to 115,000 thrust or more, which will match the GE GE90-1xx versions now planned for the 777 Long Range models.
This is why I expect Boeing and Rolls-Royce to make an announcement at least before the end of 2000 that the uprated Trent 800 rated at 110,000 to 115,000 lb. thrust will become the second engine choice for the 777 LR models.
Besides, the economics of the 777 LR models are obvious: the 777-300 LR has carrying capacity almost identical to the 747 "Classics" but has almost the range of the 747-400 and way, way lower fuel burn per passenger mile.
Sammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1686 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2297 times:
The original 777X and todays 777X are not exactly the same plane. At the time 104k was supposedly good enough. A lot more work was needed to bring the Trent 800 upto 115k, and it could not be done in the timeframe Boeing was looking for. Also, the GE90 supposedly still has growth left in it possibly upto 130k.
FLY DC JETS From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 199 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2291 times:
Rolls Royce stopped development of this engine in September of 1999.
From wire reports:
Sep 13, 1999
Rolls-Royce has stopped work on the Trent 8115 engine it planned to
build for the proposed Boeing 777X.
The British engine maker has apparently accepted that General
Electric Co, which has secured an exclusivity deal with Boeing, is
likely to become the sole power supplier for the big twin-jet.
"It (the Trent 8115) is on the backburner, but the Trent program is
moving forward," according to a spokesman for the company.
The Trent 8115 was to have been derived from the existing Trent 800
group of engines that compete with GE and Pratt & Whitney to power
Boeing said in July that GE alone had been selected to build the
power plant for the B-777X, because not enough planes would be built
to justify more than one engine type with the required thrust of 510
Rolls-Royce had kept working on its engine in the hope that airlines
would force Boeing to change its mind and offer a choice of
powerplants. The fear now must be that airlines might now prefer to
standardize on GE for current-model 777s as well.
GE's exclusivity contract is reported to expire if Boeing has not gained
launch customers for the 777X by December. Boeing has said it
expects to sell about 500 of the new model.
The GE deal is EXCLUSIVE--EX-CLU-SIVE. Meaning GE only. GE has paid possibly upwards of a billion dollars to help develop this aircraft. That money assures that RR will NOT be on the plane.
Sammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1686 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2291 times:
GE supposedly paid around $500 million towards the development of the 777X, plus whatever it takes to develop the higher thrust GE90s. However, there are some exceptions in the contract, I dont know the details, but its things like "If there arent X amount of orders by so and so date, the exclusivety is void" But hey, who knows.
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11150 posts, RR: 60 Reply 17, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2150 times:
Boeing will probably offer Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce engines to power the 777X in the future due to demand. Many airlines are currently sticking with the 777ER due to the fact that they are offered with the PW and RR engines while the 777X will only be powered by the GE90 engines. Although Boeing is in talks with Rolls-Royce and Pratt & Whitney to have 777X powered by them. Boeing believes they will get more airlines interests this way. These days airlines will only stick with a particular aircraft engine manufacturer. For example British Airways would choose the RR engine to power there 777s any day. BA was VERY disapointed with the GE90 powered 777 which they recieved in there first few orders, then they switched those orders to RR powered 777s.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran