WN boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (13 years 8 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1708 times:
777, I have a quick linguistics question for you. Why is it that Britons capitalize only the first letter in an acronynm (e.g., Usa, Nato, Nasa) while we Americans capitalize all letters (e.g., NATO, NASA)? The American view seems to me to be preferable as NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, not North atlantic treaty organisation. Any thoughts?
Ishky15 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 717 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (13 years 8 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1661 times:
The possibility of British 777-300s is a mixed blessing. Older, verteran 747-200s/400s will be replaced by longer, sleeker, more modern 777-300s. Cities like Boston that will most likely never see 777-300 service now have the possibility of catching a glimpse of this fine aircraft. Whatever British decides to do is fine with me, the 747s are nice, but the 777-300s are rarer.
Air France's 777-300ERs will be used on routes from Paris to the Far East.
BA319-131 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 8564 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (13 years 8 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1637 times:
BA has requested a higher MTOW than the current 773.This rule's out the current RR power plants,leaving GE as the only suitable engine.BA is,as you may imagine,not happy with the idea of going back to GE as they are more than happy with the new Trent powered 777's.
Aa737 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 849 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 8 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1601 times:
I think it is great that we will be seeing the 773 here in the US.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't BA get RR engines on their latest 777s becuase a number of RR powered 744s were converted to 772 orders? BA choose to keep the RR engine so they did not have to pay a penalty for cancelling a order.
If that is correct, then I don't see why BA would mind going back to GE.