Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777X Has A Launch Customer, SAA Ready As Well  
User currently offlineDeltaAir From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1094 posts, RR: 0
Posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1613 times:

Emirates is considering placing an order for half a dozen of the new Boeing 777X which is expected to be launched by Boeing later this month or next month.
The airline would use the aircraft to replace Boeing 777-200s. South African Airways is close to announcing as well a 747 replacement for up to 25 aircraft, some most likely the new 777X.

Justplanes.Com


25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTP343 From Brazil, joined May 1999, 312 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 1263 times:

Hello DeltaAir!

Are you sure about SAA? Their maximum representative in Brazil stated exactly the opposite some 1-2 monthes ago!

(What follows is part of a reply I gave to the topic "VARIG 777?" - Id=83465, posted by Argento - some days ago)

"I read in a travel agent's newspaper recently that SAA is very close from signing an order for many (I believe some 10) A340-300, and Johannesburg - São Paulo would be one of the first routes flown by the Airbus product. It was cotted that 'SAA considers the A340 far superior than the B777 because of the geographical position of South Africa. Due to ETOPS limitations, SAA would be unable to fly its B777 to Australia and South America and would be obliged to keep the non-economical (super capacity) B747-200 on these routes'"

Well... who knows? Aviation business and deals are a Pandora Box, specially nowadays!

Regards,


TP343, São Paulo, Brazil.
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/a3pocentral


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12526 posts, RR: 35
Reply 2, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 1233 times:

Emirates, I agree, seems likely (although I am surprised) given that it has already ordered the A340-500. Still, it has stated the aircraft will replace the old -200s (yeah, really old they are!). Still, it shows they're happy with the 777 anyway. Now if only they could cop onto 9 abreast in the 777, they'd be even better . . .

Now, Suid Afrikaans Lugdiens . . . 777s? I think not. Coleman Andrews (ex World) said in an interview in Airways that the 777 wasn't happening (he put it a bit more explicitly, but that's the general drift). The order will be for A340s and I would assume A321s will be ordered to replace the A300s, which are a bit big and a bit long in the tooth. An A330-200 order is also possible, but it will be Airbus . . .


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1216 times:

I have also heard the Emirates news. They have really fallen in love with the 777. They operate the 777-200, 777-200ER and 777-300. I sure hope that SAA picks the right tool for the job aka the 777  


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineFirst Class From Switzerland, joined Jan 2000, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1179 times:

SAA will never buy 777s.
They are going towards A340-500/600 and A330s.


User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1184 times:

I don't know if any of you has read the article about a serious Malysia B777 incident in the latest WAFN issue.
Following the article, a B777 bound for Auckland, while still in climbout from KUL suffered from an engine problem: The oil flow had suddenly stopped. The pilot immidiately shut down the engine, and while doing that the same problem appeared on the other engine. The crew couldn't shut down a second (and the last!) while still flying at relatively low speed, so they decided to fly back to KUL immidiately. No fuel dump was possible any more, as any delay would have caused a disaster. The pilot touched down far above the maximal landing weight.
The found out that a maintenance crew had forgotten to fix some items inside the engine and that caused a metal-metal touch, resulting in cutting the oil flow.

Now I ask you: What would happen if a 240-minutes ETOPS rated B777X, somewhere over the Pacific, suffers from such a problem, some four hours away from the next airport...
I don't know for sure, but I don't think that the plane could remain airborne for four hours without engine power. The Malaysia incident shows that two engines CAN fail, so nobody should doubt that.
In such a case, some four hours away from an airport, a B777X has a problem. Not the A340-500...it has another two engines.

I really like the B777, but I'm concerned about turning up the ETOPS limits just like adding new seats to an aircraft.

Regards
Udo


User currently offline777200 From Portugal, joined Aug 1999, 56 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1173 times:

With this order Emirates will have the best fleet with the B777X, A340/500/600 and A330 and this helps Emirates to grow and who knows maybe the best airline of the world with the awards they have right now.

User currently offlineA student From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1171 times:

This is a question for Udo....

I have not heard about this incident, and I am definitely not an expert, but somehow it sounds to me as if the maintenance guys had made a mistake that caused both engines to fail. Now, wouldn't they have made the same mistake on a 4-engine plane, causing all four engines to fail?

Don't get me wrong there, I am actually not a fan of two engines, and the thought of sitting in the biggest plane with only two engines is not necessarily comforting when I fly on a 777, but I get the impression that this could have happened to any plane. And engine failures can be caused by many factors, including running out of fuel, which would affect any plane seriously. In my opinion, the number of engines is most relevant on takeoff, and there a 2-engined plane is definitely more vulnerable. Apart from that, two engines are not that likely to be a problem.


User currently offline777200 From Portugal, joined Aug 1999, 56 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1162 times:

Hey Udo that is really pessimist. If this incident hapened
that was not a problem with the engines but a problem of the maintenance.


User currently offlineFirst Class From Switzerland, joined Jan 2000, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1168 times:

What is the difference between the current 180min ETOPS and the proposed 207min ETOPS?
If you are in the middle of the Atlantic some two hours away from the next runway what happens if a similar problem occurs as discribed?
You are going to ditch anyway.
So what's the difference?


User currently offlineZrh From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5569 posts, RR: 36
Reply 10, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1158 times:

As the SRgroup (Swissair) is one of most importent stock holders of SAA I think SAA will buy rather A-340/330 than B-777.

User currently offlineCX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6621 posts, RR: 55
Reply 11, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1164 times:

What happened is a very unusual case. Firstly, an obvious problem with the engineer which hopefully is an isolated case, and as other stated could have occured on any aircraft. Secondly, regulations, I believe, prevent the same engineer working on both engines of a twin to prevent the exact kind of problem that happened with the MAS. This arguement cannot be used against the 777. There are too many what ifs, if you start saying "ah, but what if the rules were broken and....." or 'What if regulations were not followed...". Simple probability will show that a 2 engine failure is more likely than a four engine failure, but does that make the 777 a dangerous aircraft, or a death trap? I don't think so. The chances are so slim. Hell, a China Airlines could drop an engine through my roof and kill me before I click 'post', but I'll take my chances and finish typing this before posting it.

User currently offlineTP343 From Brazil, joined May 1999, 312 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1166 times:

Dear friend!

Did I write in Greek?

You stated:

"I sure hope that SAA picks the right tool for the job aka the 777"

One of their SAA highest executives told SAA would have *SERIOUS* operational limitations with ANY 2-engine (aka, both A330 AND B777) on long-haul and YOU say exactly the opposite???

Who is wrong here? Brent Talaga, an enthusiast like myself or Mr. Nelson Oliveira, an experienced General-Director of SAA for Southern America?

Question to think about!

Kind regards,


TP343, São Paulo, Brazil.

P.S.: A piece of friendly advice: try to be less emotional on your analyses. You know, emotion turn the statements less rational and realistic, thus less credible!



User currently offlineRavi From Singapore, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1167 times:

The Malaysia Airlines B777 incident happened some time ago. In my opinion, I believe that this airline should have its ETOPS certification revoked immediately for breaking the measures outlined in Advisory Circular 120-42A.

However, Udo, you can rest assured knowing that oil issues such as that are very much less likely to happen away from an airport, as such instances develop quickly, and not some way into the flight. This was not "mechanical failure", but human error - each engine SHOULD have had different crews working on them to ensure less likelihood of such an event that did happen, happening.

I might remind you and everyone else that what happened to that Malaysia B777 goes against ETOPS certification, and, furthermore, such measures are NOT applied to 3 and 4 engined airplanes.


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1134 times:

I apologize for being a little zealous. Does SAA operate any ETOPs qualified aircraft? Are they themselves ETOPS qualified?


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1014 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1129 times:

Udo, the exact thing happened to an Eastern Airlines L1011 flying out of Miami toward the Bahamas. All 3 engines had not been properly closed out after some procedure regarding the oil, and all 3 had to be shut down with the #2 engine finally being restarted just so they could limp home on one engine. They made it, but this Malaysian 777 thing is the same, you keep an engine (or engines) going until they sieze. This would happen no matter what the number of engines. Each engine is suceptible to the same problem. Plus, non-ETOPS aircraft don't have all of the ETOPS maintenance requirements. Looks like Malaysian needs some recurrent training or they may lose their certification.

User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1110 times:

Yes the entire reason the situation happened in the first place was due to improper maintenance procedure. United Airlines is actually starting to apply ETOPS procedures to 4 engined aircraft and even twins that aren't even ETOPS qualified. This has boosted their availability and decreased maintenance glitches!!


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12526 posts, RR: 35
Reply 17, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1109 times:

First of all, can anyone answer a simple question (I should know this, but please refresh my memory!). How much longer is the -300X than the -300? I had understood it is a good deal longer, but any exact measurements and how does that affect the seating capacity?

Secondly, if it is that bit longer, why don't they call it a -400; it seems inconsistent with Boeing philosophy to date. (The same should apply to the new 747 models).

Thirdly, what sort of timeframe can we expect. I hear 3rd to 4th quarter of 2003 being mentioned for service entry?


User currently offlineSammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1690 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1104 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I thought the length was going to be the same length as the current 777-300, and that it would have more range, and other features. There is/was/will be a study for a further stretched 777-300XS which would hold an additional 60 passengers and be a true replacement for the 747-400.

User currently offlineDeltaAir From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1094 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1095 times:

The new Boeing 777X would actually not even be a 2 enigne aircraft. The reason Boeing has been waiting so long is due both to a launch order and a newly developed thrusting APU. There are 2 of them and are located near the tail section and can be deployed from the fuselage of the aircraft and have the ability to produce 15,000 lbs. of thrust each. I have design pictures if anyone would like them e-mailed to them.

User currently offlineRavi From Singapore, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1093 times:

The APTU (Auxillary Power and Thrust Unit) concept was rejected on the grounds of economics some time ago, in 1998, from memory. Boeing only ever expected to have ONE APTU at the back of the airplane, and engines under consideration were the BR710 and CF34, amongst a few others.

However as noted the concept was rejected and now that GE is developing the GE90-115B, with 115,000lb thrust per engine, there is no requirement for the tail thrusting unit.


User currently offlineTeahan From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 5305 posts, RR: 61
Reply 21, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1087 times:

Mail them to me @: jeremiahteahan@hotmail.com
Jeremiah Teahan



Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1072 times:

Many of you talk about a "maintenance problem" regarding the Malaysia incident. I don't know what that changes on the fact that two engines CAN fail inflight. Such maintenance problems can never be completely avoided, they happen, just because people who do that work can fail.
We had many incidents and accidents caused my human failures in the past.

One fact is: It's more likely that two engines fail than four.

Regards
Udo


User currently offlineRavi From Singapore, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1069 times:

Udo, I suggest that you read FAA Advisory Circular 120-42A. This document outlines ALL of the necessary requirements for ETOPS certification. Amongst them is the requirement of airlines to separate maintenance crews, ie - no one crew can work on the same area of BOTH engines. This is not a requirement for non-ETOPS operations.

And you should check your "facts". I'd like to see the statistics, please, that says that two (ETOPS) engines fail less than four. I really challenge you to find these statistics that you present as "facts".

Redundancy does NOT mean safety.


User currently offlineAirbus A3XX From Australia, joined May 1999, 507 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1054 times:

Yeah I do agree with you Navion, if the maintainence of the engin is no good, no matter if I had 100 engines, it will still fall!

Navion wrote:
-------------------------------
Udo, the exact thing happened to an Eastern Airlines L1011 flying out of Miami toward the Bahamas. All 3 engines had not been properly closed out after some procedure regarding the oil, and all 3 had to be shut down with the #2 engine finally being restarted just so they could limp home on one engine. They made it, but this Malaysian 777 thing is the same, you keep an engine (or engines) going until they sieze. This would happen no matter what the number of engines. Each engine is suceptible to the same problem. Plus, non-ETOPS aircraft don't have all of the ETOPS maintenance requirements. Looks like Malaysian needs some recurrent training or they may lose their certification.


User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 25, posted (14 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1056 times:

If you want to play word games, so do that.

Statistics is a fact, that's all what I mean.
Who ever has had statistics in school or at university knows that it is more likely for two things to happen at the same time than four (for example a failure of engines)

And there can be milliones of rules about ETOPS: What do they help when they are not fulfilled exactly?



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...
Why Has 737-600 Not Sold As Well As Other 737NGs posted Fri Jun 4 1999 05:13:25 by NYC Int'l
Emirates As Launch Customer For 7e7? posted Fri Dec 12 2003 23:25:05 by F4N
AS Launch Customer For The 737-900X? posted Sat Mar 1 2003 08:06:49 by United777
Qantas As Launch Customer----A3XX! posted Tue Aug 1 2000 05:45:33 by VH-EAA
B On 748i "We Dont Have A Launch Customer". posted Wed Nov 1 2006 06:37:22 by Manni
Delta Becomes US Launch Customer For 777-200LR posted Wed Oct 11 2006 21:17:33 by Leelaw
F Class Demand LH On The Rise, Are Others As Well? posted Mon Mar 6 2006 13:59:17 by Intothinair
787 - Launch Customer posted Tue Feb 7 2006 04:49:22 by Ctang
Definition Of A Launch Customer? posted Wed Dec 14 2005 17:19:34 by Kiwiandrew
SIA Cargo Launch Customer For 777LRF? posted Tue Nov 8 2005 14:28:44 by USAF336TFS