Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA To Look At 777-300  
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2428 times:

I have been told by a friend who works in the fleet aquisitions dept. at Speedbird House that they are looking at taking up to six new 777-300 aircraft to replace the first few of the 747 classics, as they are costing a lot more than was prviously thought to retrofit to their current fleet standard. These presumably are to be used on the Boston, Miami, Vancouver, and Toronto routes currntly served in part by the classics. I think a BA 777-300 would look awesome! RR Trent engines of course!!!


What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2295 times:

I agree that the basic 777-300 model with RR Trent 895s would be ideal for BA to replace their 747-200 Classics.

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7993 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2269 times:

Actually, BA would have no concerns about buying the 777-300ER powered by the GE90-115B engine. After all, BA does have 20 777-200's powered by the GE90 engine in its fleet, so engine commonality is not an issue.

User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2249 times:

I believe BA wants an IGW version of the 773 but not to the extent of the 773ER The GE exclusivitiy deal starts at I think 316tons, and BA wants a 773 at that weight so they can get an engine of their choice instead of the GE. That is what I heard.

BlatantEcho



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1314 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2215 times:

Mmmm, I think if BA wanted GE engines, they would have stuck with them and wouldn't opted for Rolls Royce with the lastest B777's.

User currently offlineBoeingrulz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 466 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2202 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Just hearsay from the grapevine, but I have to concur, BA is not happy with the GE exclusivity deal, they would rather have RR on their 777's from now on out.

This is not to say that they won't ever buy the 773 with GE engines, but they are not happy with this choice at the moment.

Carolyn


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2169 times:

What about BA going for the new RR Trent 500 powered A340-500/600, or RR Trent 700 powered A330-200/300, if they don't want the GE90 on the 777-300ER. At least with the above Airbus aircraft BA will have cockpit commonality with their current A319s/A320s and ordered A318s.

User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1314 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2151 times:

I doubt BA will go for A340's etc because it would introduce another type to the long-haul fleet. In fact, you would lose "commonality" here.

For example, it would be hugely expensive to investment in a new maintenance/ engineering infrastructure. I imagine the counter argument will be "they've taken on A319's" but the majority of BA's B757's are getting to the end of their existing fleet lives and BA have operated A320's for some years now.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7993 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2113 times:

G-CIVP,

BA will never buy the A340-500/600 series even if it does have the Trent 500 series engine.

The reason is simple: it would be too expensive to maintain due to the uniqueness of the airframe.

I think BA stands a way better chance of buying the 777-300ER for two reasons: 1) you can use pretty much the same crew training as that on the 777-200 series and 2) BA already flies 20 777-200's with the GE90 engine, so BA mechanics already knows how to service the GE90 family of jet engines.

Indeed, once the Bermuda II agreement is superceded (which may happen by the middle of this decade), the 773ER's will become useful for BA to supplement their 747-400 operations. The BA 773ER's could be assigned to fly additional LHR-JFK, LHR-LAX and LHR-SFO flights, plus provide additional capacity on BA routes to other US destinations like ORD, DEN, MIA and SAN.


User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1314 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2076 times:

RayChuang

You've made me smile. I was taught at University "never to say never" because this excludes all possibilities of an event actually happening. Well thats the theory, now back to reality!

I think there has been some mis-understanding regarding my previous posts. Just to clarify for all Forum contributors. Irrespective of engine type, BA aeren't going to opt for the A340 period. I think the main reason is engineering capital and expense cost. It would be prohibitively expensive to invest in new hangers, docking bays, training engineers to get the relevant licences etc to operate a completely different, new long-haul type.

I made references to the A319's because some may argue that, because BA has brought Airbus over Boeing for the short-haul fleet, it will do so again for the long-haul fleet. For some of the reasons outlined above, I doubt this will happen.

As for the General Electric engines for "future" BA B777-300, I know nothing about the "exclusivity deal" but I don't think GE, (as Boeingrulz notes) are going to get a look-in from here on in. Why would have BA opted for Rolls Royce on the B777 G-YMM* registered aircraft? If BA wanted GE, they would have gone with them for these aircraft but you can't ingore the actuality. Moreover, just because the BA's engineers know how to service GE90's doesn't necessarily mean that the airline is happy with engine selection and performance.


User currently offlineRaggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 998 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2071 times:

BA went with the Trent 895s on their last batch of 772ERs to avoid cancellation fees from RR..
They converted an order for 744s ( RR RB211 powered ) in favour of more 772ERs...
If the national airline of the UK should cancel a major RR order in favour of GE engines, the political uproar would be massive.....


raggi



Stick & Rudder
User currently offlineAF A380 From France, joined Dec 2000, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2062 times:

Hello

It's impossible for BA to get RR powered 777-300 because GE has an agreement with Boeing for the exclusive rights.

Lionel


User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1314 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2063 times:

A few points. I don't think cancellation fees has anything to so with it. I think its down to engine performance at the end of the day. That said, if you had a reference/source I would be interested.

As you may be aware, BA is a PLC; not a National airline in the traditional sense, ie. publicly owned by the State. Basically its autonomous from the State and free from direct political interference. To my knowledge there wasn't any great political out-cry when BA opted for GE in the first instance for the B777's in the G-ZZZ* range. No doubt a few people at Rolls Royce were highly disappointed but the aero-engine market is hugely competitive.


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2037 times:

The RR Trent 800 series engine is available on the basic 777-300 model. Look at Cathay Pacific and Thai Airlines, they have Trents on their basic 777-300s.

User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (13 years 4 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1994 times:

So what is the consensus of opinion?
I bet she will look wonderful in the BA livery? I see Emirates flying marker pens every day, and they look awesome....
I fervently hope Gemini Jets make a a model!
Chris Morgan



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (13 years 4 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1987 times:

Engine commonality is not as important as some of us on this forum would like to believe it is. Aircraft commonality is much more important. There is no way in hell, zero, that British Airways will order the 330/340 just because they come with Trent engines.

If BA orders the 777-300ER, their current 777-200ER certified pilots could fly the 773ER with no extra certification. Both aircraft have the exact same cockpit. It is the same aircraft, except for a fuselage stretch. Yes, the 330/340 would have a similar cockpit as the A320's they already operate, but extra training is required to go from a smaller aircraft like the 320 to a large one like the 330. If BA did not operate any GE engines, I could see a point in not operating the GE powered 777-300ER. However, a good deal of their current 772 fleet already has GE engines, so this still retains commonality.


User currently offlineRaggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 998 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (13 years 4 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1963 times:

After what I`ve read, there was political resistance and protests when BA ordered the GE90, instead of the RR Trent....
If BA orders the standard 773 instead of the -300ER, they are, well in my opininion, dumb.
Ordering a clearly less capabable aircraft just because the want to buy british engines, is just plain dumb. The increased range of the -300ER will make route planning and aircraft utilization much more easier, as it could operate US West Coast, East Coast, Far East and what have you without breaking a sweat, whereas the standard 773 will only be able to serve a limited number of BA`s destinations with Max take-off weight....
They already have 20 772s powered by the GE90, what`s the problem ?????
Well, not to piss you RR fans ( Tedski included ) off too much, but of the three engines avaible on the 777, the GE90 has the lowest fuel burn...
Yes, it had a few problems in it`s early life, due to it being an entirely new engine, while the Trent 800 and PW4000 are both upscaled derivatives of old ( yet excellent ) designs...
Go for the -300ER, BA!!


raggi



Stick & Rudder
User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 4 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1937 times:

Don't be surprised if GE has problems with this high thrust GE90-115B engine which will delay deliveries to customers who ordered the 777-200LR & 300ER models.

User currently offlineRaggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 998 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (13 years 4 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1925 times:

Yeah, like the RR L1011s.....
I can`t help but chuckle when I read your posts, Tedski...
It seems you wish GE to have problems....
Well, it`s a free world....  Smile


raggi



Stick & Rudder
User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (13 years 4 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1912 times:

No, don't wish GE to have problems there are some GE engines that I really like such as the CFM56 on the 737 & A320 or the TF-34 on a CRJ. Regarding the GE90, they are pushing it too far without making sure first that this engine's components are durable enough for these high thrust outputs of 115,000lbs.

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7993 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (13 years 4 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1910 times:

TEDSKI,

I have news for you.

The GE90-94B engine that is now in service will have the same engine core as the GE90-110B and -115B engines. The only difference is the larger fans on the 115B.

I do know that bench testing of both engines may have already begun.


User currently offlineRaggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 998 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (13 years 4 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1899 times:

Well, I feel pretty confident that GE, the world`s biggest aero-engine manufacturer, know what they are doing....



raggi



Stick & Rudder
User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (13 years 4 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1894 times:

You think maybe GE may change the fan blades from being made with composites to 100% titanium to handle the higher thrust rating of 115,000lbs?

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7993 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (13 years 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1889 times:

TEDSKI,

I believe that the GE90-110B/115B will not be using a composite blade front fan, given the sheer size of the front fans on these planes.

It'll likely be single-crystal metal blades like what Pratt & Whitney did with the PW4084/4090/4092 engines.

By the way, you might want to know that GE is one of the most experienced gas turbine companies in the world, given the fact that GE was the company that built the first practical turbocharger applications for a piston aeroplane engine (this was way back in the 1920's) and was chosen to build the jet engine based on the Frank Whittle design in the early 1940's.


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (13 years 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1882 times:

I am very much aware of the accomplishments that GE has made including the supercharger which was installed on WW2 bombers like the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress and fighter planes like the twin engine Lockheed P-38 Lightning.

User currently offlineTaliban From Ukraine, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (13 years 4 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1871 times:

It would certainly be great. Also, I believe that 777s will come and BA will sell out their 747 400 which PIA (Pakistan International Airlines) will be keen enough to lease or to buy.

It would be great if Chepos could respond to this post.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Connecting From BA To AA At LHR posted Tue Jul 11 2006 23:43:18 by RJpieces
Emirates Is Starting To Look At MEX posted Sun Jul 17 2005 22:16:42 by KLM685
Mojave - Can You Go Inside To Look At The Planes? posted Fri Jun 3 2005 00:54:04 by Snn2003
Aer Lingus Looking To Look At Asian Option? posted Tue Apr 26 2005 06:37:30 by Kaitak
Both US & Canada To Look At Further Liberalization posted Thu Feb 24 2005 20:21:33 by PlaneGuy27
Scheduled Flights Routing To Look At "Scenery" posted Sun Jul 25 2004 16:30:37 by Maiznblu_757
Are U Afraid To Look At Engines Through Windows? posted Sun Feb 24 2002 23:47:31 by FlyboyOz
What Plane Are You Sick Of Having To Look At? posted Tue Oct 2 2001 04:57:33 by Delta777-XXX
JetBlue To Look At Bullet Proof Doors; 3x Security posted Thu Sep 27 2001 04:17:48 by Mah4546
AA To Look At FLL-CCS posted Fri Aug 10 2001 19:04:00 by Mah4546