Bbobbo From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 183 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8596 times:
Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 1): How? It just seemed a comment on the recent news about twin ops...
Airbus used to have the slogan "4 Engines 4 Long Haul", and Virgin had it painted on their A340s.
ClassicLover From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4528 posts, RR: 25 Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8565 times:
Quoting Bbobbo (Reply 3): Airbus used to have the slogan "4 Engines 4 Long Haul", and Virgin had it painted on their A340s.
Yeah so did Airbus, but that's like saying the 744 is just as bad.
I mean, you could argue that GE and RR (and P&W if they ever get their act together and become a major supplier again) should develop a massive engine for the 744 and 380.
So I don't think it was a veiled reference to Virgin or Airbus.
I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
Bbobbo From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 183 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8505 times:
Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 4): So I don't think it was a veiled reference to Virgin or Airbus.
Except Randy has talked about it before in his blog:
RIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 774 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8507 times:
If Boeing is serious in selling the 747i, which is a four engine aircraft, then I think that Randy should have changed one word from "more" to "just," or left that sensitive subject alone.
Quoting Randy:
"twin-engine airplanes are more efficient, more economical, and more reliable than three- or four-engine airplanes."
Osiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3182 posts, RR: 25 Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8482 times:
Or maybe it's a subtle hint at something
Either that or (sorry bbobbo) it is a mild swipe at Virgin's marketting slogan.
What I'm curious about is Randy mentions the quads being treated like twins, not the otherway around. Does this mean quads will be subjected to the same requirement for x years of trouble free 120 etops before getting 180 or similar???
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8427 times:
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 7): What I'm curious about is Randy mentions the quads being treated like twins, not the otherway around. Does this mean quads will be subjected to the same requirement for x years of trouble free 120 etops before getting 180 or similar
Quote: ...Essentially, the FAA said it's time to treat two-engine and four-engine passenger planes the same when it comes to these extended-range flights. The agency will require that four-engine jets meet the same standard as two-engine planes when flying long-haul routes.
This means, for example, four-engine planes will need to have equipment on board to extinguish cargo fires for as long as it takes to reach a diversion airport. This was previously required only for twin-engine jets.
Four-engine planes operating on long-haul routes also will have to have satellite-based communication equipment, which now is required on only twin-engine planes when they operate on extended-range flights...
Bbobbo From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 183 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8363 times:
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 7): Or maybe it's a subtle hint at something
Either that or (sorry bbobbo) it is a mild swipe at Virgin's marketting slogan.
Sorry for what? I'm a little dense today....
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 7): What I'm curious about is Randy mentions the quads being treated like twins, not the otherway around. Does this mean quads will be subjected to the same requirement for x years of trouble free 120 etops before getting 180 or similar??
I noticed that too. I think your interpretation is correct. 12-months of operation for 120-minute ETOPS, another 12-months of operation for 180-minute ETOPS, although those periods can be shortened at the FAA's discretion.
It makes sense, really--don't base it on number of engines, base it on actual reliability statistics for each airplane/engine combination.
Here is the actual FAA rule document (296 pages long!!!):
Osiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3182 posts, RR: 25 Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8320 times:
@bbobbo:
Sorry man I'm posting from my cell that should have read "sorry, agree with bbobbo" but the brain got ahead of the fingers.
If quads are truly being treated the same as twins (no way I'm reading 296 pages on my cell LOL) then that changes things quite a bit for a startup doesn't it. No way to avoid 120 ETOPS now, so the old "get a quad to run long flights" for startups goes away.
A lot of possibly interesting ramifications to that.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8128 times:
From what i understand diversions will be the same. Quads will still be unresticted and twins will still rely on diversion airports being within a certain flight time. The difference is quads will need similar fire fighting equipment to twins operating under ETOPS to gain their LROPS certification. Also better communication and medical equipment are needed. It is a type approval and not an operational certification.
It makes very little difference. In fact, it means quads will be that little bit safer.
Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2803 posts, RR: 10 Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7834 times:
The 748 is a derivative of a popular design. Boeing aren't marketting it's four engine attribute as an advantage as Airbus did with the A340, so there isn't much of a contradiction.
Besides, what engine could power a 747 sized twin?
FlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15 Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7699 times:
Quoting Art (Reply 2): I think that Randy is right - more direct flight paths from A to B should cut costs and I would add, cut flight times, too.
Another nail in the coffin of the A340?
Especially since, as he said, the same procedures developed for ETOPS will be extended to all aircraft, having 4 engines used to mean less hoops to jump through, not any more though. It seems like one of the very few remaning advantages A340 had is gone. We haven't really seen any new customers order A340s recently though, safe to say, A340 is all but dead.
Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 4): So I don't think it was a veiled reference to Virgin or Airbus.
Virgin and Airbus have used
"4 Engines 4 Long Haul"
Randy said:
"2 Engines for the Long Haul"
Do you not see a similarity, which is not likely coincidental? It was a joke about the virgin/airbus slogan.
"twin-engine airplanes are more efficient, more economical, and more reliable than three- or four-engine airplanes."
Well, it is the truth. Boeing does not have its future in 4 engined aircraft. The 748 well certainly sell enough aircraft to cover its fairly scant development costs. It's a parts bin plane, 787 engines, 777 composite additions and interior, 747 airframe. It will keep a few key airlines in the Boeing family for their next generation long haul and cargo jets instead of hopping over to A380, but Boeing's future is staked on Y3, which will be a twin. Randy knows things we don't, and he knows Boeing has put its eggs in the twin engine basket.
Quoting Glom (Reply 12): Besides, what engine could power a 747 sized twin?
Let's say we take a 777-300ER, stretch it another 20 feet, so it is now 262ft long, and we use 17.2" seats, like 744 does for Y, and pack it 10 abreast, like ANA does on some, and Emirates does, we can now fit as many people, and more cargo on board than on a 747 classic, and about as much as on a 744, and this stretched aircraft would need what? only slightly larger GE90's right? maybe 125,000lb or so? I'd bet GE could squeeze another 10k lb of thrust out of that engine, one way or another.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
Jimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 640 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7466 times:
The quote from the blog that interested me was...
"For example, the A340-600 consumes over 20% more fuel compared with the 777-300ER."
20%? Whoa. It seems to me that the A346 would be positively rejected by everyone if the fuel burn was that much more.
Is this a fair statistic? I remember hearing that the 777 has a sweet spot of speed and fuel efficiency that's a bit faster than the A340. However, if you fly the A340 slower, you get a pretty efficient fuel burn (though its quite the disadvantage on long flights.)
Could he be comparing a 777 at its sweet spot with an A340 flying faster than it's normally operated, which accounts for the huge fuel burn difference?
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 7338 times:
Quoting Art (Reply 17): I am suprised to hear that quads lose power on 2 engines more often than twins lose power on 1. That is what he is saying, isn't it?
No, he's saying quads lose power on one more often than twins lose power on one. Which is understandable, as a quad has twice as many engines and they don't have to be maintained to Etops standards. However, depending on how far you are through a flight you can sometimes proceed to your intended destination with one engine down on a quad.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 7340 times:
Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 4): I mean, you could argue that GE and RR (and P&W if they ever get their act together and become a major supplier again) should develop a massive engine for the 744 and 380.
Trying to revise either the Jumbo or the WhaleJet into a twin would require an all-new wing. At that point, one had might as well start with a clean slate and design an all-new airliner.
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 13): Let's say we take a 777-300ER, stretch it another 20 feet, so it is now 262ft long, and we use 17.2" seats, like 744 does for Y, and pack it 10 abreast, like ANA does on some, and Emirates does, we can now fit as many people, and more cargo on board than on a 747 classic, and about as much as on a 744, and this stretched aircraft would need what? only slightly larger GE90's right? maybe 125,000lb or so? I'd bet GE could squeeze another 10k lb of thrust out of that engine, one way or another.
Boeing considered a 777-400X several times. The idea was finally and permanently put to rest when the 747-8 SuperJumbo was launched.
Quoting Art (Reply 17): I am suprised to hear that quads lose power on 2 engines more often than twins lose power on 1. That is what he is saying, isn't it?
No, that's not what he's saying. The chances of losing one engine are higher with a quad than with a twin and the consequences are not very different. Losing two engines on a quad (especially but not only on the same side) is more consequential than losing one engine on a twin. I don't think any commercial quads can maintain speed and altitude with a payload and two engines out on the same side. It's going down. Depending on the payload, the same could be true if the shut-down engines are on opposite sides -- especially if one is inboard and the other is outboard. In that case it would probably be necessary to jetison fuel in order to maintain speed and altitude. Obviously, losing two engines on a twin also means you're going down. The main advantage of a quad with two engines out over a twin with two engines out is that the rate of descent at constant velocity will be a lot lower providing much greater range in which to find a suitable landing site.
Also, the chances of losing all four engines on a quad are only a little bit smaller than the chances of losing both engines on a twin. Engines have become so reliable that the chances of two engines shutting down because of independant engine failures is vanishingly small compared to the chances of a problem which would affect all engines such as contaminated fuel or flying through volcanic ash.
Manni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 23 Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7294 times:
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 13): We haven't really seen any new customers order A340s recently though, safe to say, A340 is all but dead.
Kingfisher and Finnair are real new customers, LH added 7 more to their large fleet. Reportedly, Airbus could not produce them quick enough for SAA, so they had to let the opportunity go.
I wonder why Mr. Baseler titles his blog with a slogan that seems to reffer to Virgin Atlantic. Did something not work out the way he expected. Did a Virgin airline decided to place an Airbus widebody order again (Virgin Blue?)? Sour grapes ala Iberia? To finish with Mr. Baseler's title of his previous blog it seems 'Deja vu all over again'.
Glideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1549 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7138 times:
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 7): Or maybe it's a subtle hint at something
A wise man this one is, yes.
"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved"
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 23, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7123 times:
Glideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1549 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7100 times:
Quoting Manni (Reply 20): I wonder why Mr. Baseler titles his blog with a slogan that seems to reffer to Virgin Atlantic. Did something not work out the way he expected. Did a Virgin airline decided to place an Airbus widebody order again (Virgin Blue?)? Sour grapes ala Iberia? To finish with Mr. Baseler's title of his previous blog it seems 'Deja vu all over again'.
Depends on if King Richard has given up on Virgin USA. I doubt it. Not much of a choice wirh Airus these days unles you need a 320, or 330 at close to cost.
"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved"
25 Aviator27: Randy never ceases to amaze me. He's a salesman and not an aeronautical engineer. He really should be held liable for spouting nonsense on his blog. T
26 Art: They do have another little model in their range called the A380!
27 EBJ1248650: I don't agree the A340 is all but dead, but that's my opinion. On the flip side, the new ruling might encourage Boeing to begin thinking of its Y3 (7
28 Zvezda: The question will be: Can Boeing sell enough Y3s to justify development of an engine that will not sell in large numbers? It might be better to use f
29 Art: That's an interesting question, the problem of potential Y3 sales not justifying the cost of developing an engine to suit a big twin. That's the only
30 Oldeuropean: Time for VS to place an A350 order. Axel
31 Zvezda: Yes, indeed. It would be good to use those WhaleJet deposits for something VS need. Airbus won't be thrilled to lose 6 more WhaleJet orders, but ther
32 Zeke: Often misunderstood thing by many is that the 340 shares the same systems as the 330, it has the ETOPS equipment onboard. It has the same fire suppre
33 Kaddyuk: You hit the nail on the head, both aircraft have a very specific flight profile inside which they operate the most efficient. outside this envelope,
34 Cobra27: According to his comments, Airbus lacks in every aspect behind Boeing. I wonder why his mouth is so shut about A330
35 BoomBoom: Where did Randy say this? Would you like him to compare the A330 with the 787? Just how would that fit into a discussion of the advantages of twins v
36 Ikramerica: No, "just" is a lie, so why would he say "just" for any reason? He should have said: "twin-engine airplanes are more efficient, more economical, and
37 Cobra27: Cause A330 has the loest operting trip costs of any twin
38 Zvezda: Only on short routes and only until the 787 enters service.
39 BoomBoom: Mr. Z: Doesn't the 767 have a lower trip cost than the A330, and doesnt the 777 have a lower CASM?
40 Rheinbote: Well, according to a German newspaper, Hamburg-based Llloyds Fonds has acquired from Virgin December 20th, 2006 an A346 that had been delivered Augus
41 Zvezda: In both cases, it depends on the route, which model, which engines, how the interiors are configured, etc. A330s are not normally configured for long
42 Aviator27: Boeing doesn't develop nor build engines. Boeing builds airframes. The engines are done by Rolls Royce, Pratt & Whitney, GE, and some others. In fact
43 Zeke: Not according to people who can put a figure on it. See "Exhibit 29 : CASM of Selected Widebody Aircraft" on page 28 of http://www.securitization.net
44 Cobra27: Really, that about 767 really surprises me since there are selling really badly. But they burn less, how come then?
46 Cobra27: The A330 is a real moneymaker with routes of around 8000km The 777-2ER has range of 14500 km. Can you find me some routes where I could fly the distan
47 Zvezda: The 767 is a smaller aircraft than the A330.
48 Cobra27: actually you sad that 767 has lower cost per trip than A330. But the A330-200 clearly burns less than 767-400 (the most fuel efficient 767). You just
49 Cubastar: You crack me up! Start a thread......finish it off by reply 8 and let the confused begin. A breath of fresh air!
50 Zvezda: No, I didn't. Why do you just make this stuff up?
52 Ha763: Not according to the report in Zeke's post. It shows a fuel CASM of $1.72 for the A330 (includes both the A330-200 and the bigger and lower CASM A330
53 Jacobin777: depends on the type of trip(stage length), configuration, cargo, etc.... The A330's ability to maximumly carry cargo (LD's) below which gave it the u
54 SSTsomeday: Well, Randy seems to take a few subtle digs, perhaps inadvertently... He mentions that the way airlines are ordering A/C indicates there is sustained
55 OldAeroGuy: To name one, how about EWR-HKG as flown by CO?
56 Jacobin777: It's actually 13,000km.... That being said, Boeing states 14,500km, but list "typical city pairs" as much shorter distances...ie..-ORD-ICN at 10,500k
57 Zeke: I assume people are comparing the 764ER to the 332 ? They are very similar if carrying the same payload the 332 is does burn more due to higher thrus
58 Cobra27: These 2 models are the only comparable. But with all that dadidaa, the A330 outsold 764 with around 10 to one
59 Aither: Because routes were previously opened from nowhere to nowhere ? Almost all LR routes have a hub at both or one side. Simply because very few routes a
60 Jacobin777: 1)The A333 competes with the B772A to a certain extent (even the -200ER) also, so one must add that to the mix 2)The purpose of the 764 was to keep t
61 Osiris30: Wow!... Sorry nothing more to add, but if that's what Virgin paid for that 346 all I can say is wow... And Boeing very nearly did on the initial 747s
62 BoomBoom: It not a fact, it's simply your opinion, with nothing to back it up. Maybe you should ask Air Canada: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...47a0-878
63 SSTsomeday: I would suggest three points I can think of, though: 1) Smaller, long range A/C with good CASM allow point-to-hub traffic, as you say, but therefore
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4528 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2978 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3182 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Finland, joined Dec 2004, 3962 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 795 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
