gopal
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 1999 3:05 am

Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:02 am

Apart from not being able to provide an answer for A380, Boeing has been lagging behing Airbus in the long range, high capacity airliner market. For example, the 777-300ER is behind the A340-600 by 20 months. 777LR is also lagging behind the A340-500 which is already scheduled for fly its first commercial flight. Also the HGW A340-600 may arrive earlier than B777-300ER. Looks like Boeing were kind of late in responding to the long range models brought by airbus. Could this be because of the 2 engine design for the 777. Could it be that Boeing is taking longer to design and develop the 773ER and 777LR becuase of the extra testing (such as ETOPS) required of twins. Also is it difficult to increase the MTOW of a twin as opposed to a 4 engined airplane because of higher safety margins that need to be provided?

Why were Boeing always "responding" to models brought by airbus. Why did they not forecast the need for ultra long range airplanes before airbus ?

I would hate to see Boeing loose the widebody market to airbus.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4859
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:10 am

IMHO the answer is no. If the twin concept is hurting Boeing then the 777 would be a failure. It's order book says otherwise. Same goes for the A330.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13223
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:30 am

The A340 program was launched a few years before the 777-200, of course some of their models would be launched before Boeing launched similar version.

IMO..

The 777-200ER has been a resounding success, much better than the A340-200/300.

777-300ER will eventually have a similar advantage over the A340-600.

Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:36 am

Hmm, let's see...

  • thousands upon thousands of 737s sold
  • more than a thousand 757s sold throughout their lifespan
  • 767 crossed the Atlantic more than all of its competitors combined
  • 777, launched more three years after the A340 has already doubled it in sales

    yep... look like the twinjet design is seriously hurting Boeing  Laugh out loud
  • Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    StevenUhl777
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 11:02 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:46 am

    I would have to turn the question around: has the A318/319/320/321/330 programs hurt Airbus?

    The answer there is a resounding no!

    Aircraft like the DC10, MD11, and L10-11 were LESS beneficial because of the 3rd engine and the associated costs and weight, which put a drag on operating efficiency.

    Overall, combined with technological advances, the two-engined aircraft is highly efficient in terms of fuel burn and operating costs for all airlines worldwide. Further, I would argue that the A340/747/A380 aircraft only have four engines due to their physical size.

    Sorry to be blunt here, I don't normally say this kind of thing, but I don't think a lot (if any) of thought went into this question before it got posted. A quick analysis of airline fleets today could have answered the question before it got asked.
    And the winner for best actress is....REESE WITHERSPOON for 'Walk the Line'!!!!!!!!
     
    AMM744
    Posts: 202
    Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:23 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Tue Oct 21, 2003 9:01 am

    I don't think that Boeing is going to get too seriously hurt but it's seems like complete madness to keep pushing out these massive twinjets. This is especially true when flying across the Atlantic or Pacific - c'mon Boeing, it's fairly obvious how risky this kind of thinking can be.

    Virgin have a great logo on some of their excellent 747-400's that goes something like "Four Engines For Long Haul". That says it all really. The 777 is a great piece of engineering but if both engines fail over the Atlantic then no amount of technology will save the day.

    Personally I would never take a flight across large expanses of water in a twinjet, let's face it the 777 is basically a 737 that's grown up !

    [Edited 2003-10-21 02:03:27]
     
    desertjets
    Posts: 7575
    Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 3:12 pm

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Tue Oct 21, 2003 9:06 am

    The 20+ years of successful and safe ETOPS flights proves the safety and reliability of twinjets. Dispatch reliability and in-flight shutdown rates of ETOPS maintained aircraft are noticably better than the non-ETOPS brothers.
    Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
     
    BCAInfoSys
    Posts: 2617
    Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 11:09 pm

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Tue Oct 21, 2003 9:07 am

    AMM744.. I couldn't disagree more. The 777 is a grown-up 737? Not even. And I can't really compare, since I've only flown trans-atlantic on the 777, but I can tell you it was fantastic. It was by far the best flight of my life; if not the best 8 hours of my life. The seats were comfortable, the plane was very quiet, the IFE was great, and the digital map was a definite bonus. To be able to read my book all night and watch the sun rise as we started our descent over Ireland; priceless. I am dying to get back to the UK, and back on a 777.
    Militant Agnostic - I don't know and you don't either.
     
    tommy767
    Posts: 4658
    Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Tue Oct 21, 2003 9:09 am

    definately not:
    757, 767, 777, 737 have all been sucessful. Boeing has to be doing something right.
    I think now boeing has to come up with a new widebody to replace the older 767, which is the 7E7. That will be very sucessful as various carriers NEED to replace there 762/763's
    "KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
     
    AMM744
    Posts: 202
    Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:23 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Tue Oct 21, 2003 9:32 am

    Agree with Tommy767 about the 767 should be replaced, this aircraft has no buisness crossing major oceans. I flew from DFW - LGW on one of these and it was so tiny when compared to the KING, the 747-400.

    BCAInfoSys, I'm sure that seeing the sunrise over Ireland was great, I've seen this many many times, Ireland, Cornwall and The South Coast, all on a Four Engined bird. I can tell you that this made me feel at ease.

    As I said the 777 is a truly fantastic marvel of aviation engineering but I wouldn't fly on one nor put my family on one over the Atlantic. I guess that BA and Virgin or Air New Zealand will remain as top choice for this route. I'm simply amazed that American and Delta couldn't support Boeing by flying 747's.
     
    B2707SST
    Posts: 1258
    Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Tue Oct 21, 2003 9:52 am

    The possibility of unrelated double engine failure on an ETOPS-certified aircraft is so remote as to be statistically insignificant. Killer asteroid imacts are more likely, not to mention far greater risks like cancer or car accidents. The few total losses of power on twins (Air Transat A330, AC "Gimli Glider" 767) would have been just as debilitating to a trijet or quad as well. I much prefer the 777 to the MD-11 I flew ATL-FCO in January and would have gotten on the twin in a heartbeat.

    Also, responding to the original post, the 777LR program was halted for over a year after 9/11, not because of design problems but due to customer request - the airlines couldn't handle the extra capacity of the 777LRs during a major slump. Had the original schedule laid out in Feb. 2000 been followed, the first -300ER would have been delivered last month, with the -200LR not far behind. The very rapid A340-500/600 development program, on the other hand, has incurred delays caused by technical problems on the aircraft themselves, as well as trouble placing the A340-500 with customers - the first aircraft has still not been handed over.

    The overwhelming success of the 777 vs. the A340, as well as the impressive sales of the A330 and the early demise of the MD-11, make it unambiguously clear that long-range twinjets are here to stay. The 7E7 looks to be another big winner.

    --B2707SST
    Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
     
    lehpron
    Posts: 6846
    Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:28 am

    I don't think it is Boeing's design of twins, rather, their practice of repeated designs from the same source. Sure, if a market can be filled wwith the same original plane except stretched or increasing range, then it is a done deal. But what if one day a requirement comes along and this derivation doesn't work anymore? Some will argue that the 7E7 is that calling, while I agrue otherwise because it still has the capability of derivatives, which is nice, but when does it not work all the time?

    Sooner or later, a req will come along that most companies can't deal, what does that mean? No market? For whom does this beneift?
    The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
     
    airways6max
    Posts: 474
    Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 6:22 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:33 am

    It would be a blow to American prestige if America's biggest aircraft manufacturer, Boeing, lost the widebody market to Airbus. For years, Boeing's 747 was the largest airplane in the skies and it symbolized American industrial might the world over. Boeing ought to reclaim the widebody market with new and updated versions of the 747 as well as a large, four-engined version of the 7E7 with ultra-long range.
     
    AMM744
    Posts: 202
    Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:23 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Tue Oct 21, 2003 5:05 pm

    At last, someone has seen sense. The Boeing 747 was and is the greatest commercial aeroplane that has ever graced the skies. Even today in the 21st century it still leaves one in total awe, there is simply no other aeroplane that can match it for style, performance and sheer guts.

    Boeing really should have carried on with it's 747 development programme, I believe that there is a market for a 747-500, 600 etc. This would have given Airbus something to think about. C'mon Boeing have a rethink, you already have the greatest flying machine on this planet, why not develop this further ?

    Keep the twinjets off longhaul.
     
    Shenzhen
    Posts: 1664
    Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Tue Oct 21, 2003 5:25 pm

    I think the original post is wrong in saying that Boeing was behind the A340-600, since they have been selling 777-300 airplanes before the A340-600 was launched.

    However, the -300ER was lacking an engine that would enable the increased weight for the extended range vesion. So, yes having the big twin did hurt Boeing, until GE stepped up with the 115K engines.

    I remember back when, before it was launched, Boeing couldn't get the required thrust, and even thought about a thrust producung APU that would provide the extra bit of power for those hot days. Thank goodness that didn't happen.
     
    User avatar
    RayChuang
    Posts: 8007
    Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:15 pm

    The twin-engine airliner has not hurt Boeing. It certainly hasn't hurt Airbus, what with strong A320 Family sales, and good sales of the A330-200.

    By the way, I think before 2010 we may see Rolls-Royce finally convincing Boeing to offer a variant of the Trent engine on the 777-300ER. A future Trent model combining the technology of the Trent 800 and 900 series engines could result in an engine with 120,000 lb. thrust, which is the thrust level necessary for the 777-200LR and 773ER.
     
    caetravlr
    Posts: 856
    Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 8:19 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:36 pm

    "Boeing really should have carried on with it's 747 development programme, I believe that there is a market for a 747-500, 600 etc. This would have given Airbus something to think about. C'mon Boeing have a rethink, you already have the greatest flying machine on this planet, why not develop this further ?"

    Ummm.... dude, I believe that they did consider every possible modification, stretch, and enhancment that they could think of for the 747 series. When you say "I believe that there is a market for a 747-500, 600 etc" what you are saying is that the Boeing analysts and sales people who spend every single work day communicating with the major airlines and fleet planners of the world have totally misread the market. They spend their development dollars on what they believe the airlines want. And guess what? This input comes from the airlines themselves.

    I have flown over the Atlantic on the 747, 767, and 777. Never once did I feel unsafe on ANY of those aircraft. You also have to remember that the A330 is also a twin used on transatlantic flights. I might prefer the 777 and 747 because of the spaciousness of the interior cabin, and I LOVE flying on the upper deck of a 747, however, I will "cross the pond" on anything that happens to be going my way at the time I need to go.

    That being said, I hope that the 7E7 is a resounding success. I can't wait to see what it looks like in production. Apparently, if Boeing is giving it the go ahead, there must be some launch customers in mind.

    Regards,
    CAETravlr
    A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her. - W.C. Fields
     
    BeltwayBandit
    Posts: 474
    Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:25 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:47 pm

    Airlines require absolute safety (and nothing in the air today is inherently unsafe) and then make a decision on economics. I thought the A340 was an odd throwback, going with 4 engines when it was becoming clear that 2 engines were enough.

    Does anyone have efficiency stats for the 777 versus A340? (Of course, you would need to factor in maintenance, not just fuel burn.)

    Does Airbus have the label "4 engines 4 the long haul" on the A330?
     
    Alpha 1
    Posts: 12343
    Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:51 pm

    Aircraft like the DC10, MD11, and L10-11 were LESS beneficial because of the 3rd engine and the associated costs and weight, which put a drag on operating efficiency.

    Maybe that's because they were ALL based on 1960's technology, and were not as technologically advanced as today's aircraft-even the MD-11, although a young aircraft, was based on this 1960's design. It wasn't a matter of being less beneficial, it was a matter of technology. Today, the technology exists to make safe, long-range, twin-engine aircraft. That's the only difference.

    -This is especially true when flying across the Atlantic or Pacific - c'mon Boeing, it's fairly obvious how risky this kind of thinking can be.

    -Personally I would never take a flight across large expanses of water in a twinjet, let's face it the 777 is basically a 737 that's grown up!

    -Agree with Tommy767 about the 767 should be replaced, this aircraft has no buisness crossing major oceans.


    Ignorance is bliss sometime, AMM744. Statistics and history show you're just plain dead wrong in those assessments. They're made out of either fear or ignorance. Millions have crossed oceans on twin-engines, safely, efficiently and without incident.

    You say it's obvious how risky it is? What statictics are you looking at that back this up? With the ETOPS program and with the advancements in technology, it's not risky at all! There's NOTHING to back your assertion.

    You then say it's just a "grown up" 737? Again, an incredibly ignorant statement. Just because it "looks" like a big 737 doesn't mean it IS a big 737. The 737-900, while it LOOKS like the original 737, doesn't even resemble it in technology and efficiency, so how could you say the same about a 777, that was made entirely by computer, and is a totally different type of aircraft?  Laugh out loud

    Then you say it has no business crossing an ocean. Why-simply because YOU are afraid to fly it? It has every business crossing the ponds, because it's safe, it's reliable, and it's efficient-be it a 777, 767, 757 or an A330. Hell, LH flies a 737NG, for crying out loud, across the Atlantic in a Business config!

    Again, with all respect, your statemets are made out of pure ignorance and a touch of fear, seems to me. You can't do that on here, because there are people (and I'm not one of them, technically), who can refute sucn nonsense.
     
    B747FAN
    Posts: 78
    Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 12:07 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:04 am


    Boeing has stated somewhat indirectly that they will use advance technologies designed for the 7E7 on the future 747's. Technologies such as Extensive use of wireless systems, Composite materials, new engine designs, etc..

    Only makes sense. I do beleive that they will not let the 747 program die. They need a large capacity aircraft to compete with the A380. It is my personal opinion only that Boeing is playing a waiting game with its furthur development of the ultra capacity 747X or stretch. I know that they have already put such ideas out there a few years ago, but since the development of the A380, they are letting Airbus take the lead to see if such ultra capacity aircrafts are worth developing. Again it is my opinion only. May be simplistic in theory, but may very well be worthy of thought.
    ) He turns not back who is bound to a star. - Leonardo Da Vinci.
     
    gigneil
    Posts: 14133
    Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:40 am

    C'mon Boeing have a rethink, you already have the greatest flying machine on this planet, why not develop this further ?

    Easy answer - nobody wants it.

    N
     
    CanadianNorth
    Posts: 3133
    Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:41 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:54 am

    The Boeing 767 does have every business crossing the ponds... I flew YVR-HNL on a DC-10 once, and after that all my flts over the ponds have been on 767s, and they do more than a fine job of it too!

    Has the 2 engine design hurt Boeing?

    777 - one of the most efficient, safest, and most technologically advanced widebodys out there.
    767 - over the years it's more than proven its success, making money on everything from 2 hour hops to 10 hour hauls.
    757 - also proven itself as a good versitile money maker for airlines.
    737 - the best selling jetliner of all time.

    yes, it really looks like the twin engine design hurt Boeing.


    CanadianNorth
    What could possibly go wrong?
     
    motech722
    Posts: 177
    Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 12:10 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:38 am

    As always there is a wide variety of ideas and opinions here, which is always great to read through. I have recently been reading Stephen Aris' book "Close to the Sun" which talks about the history of Airbus and the development of all their aircraft as well as how Boeing, Mcy D, and Lockheed responded.

    To say that the twin engine market is hurting Boeing is to say that the A300 helped McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed when it first came out. When Airbus came out with the A300, the world's first twin-engine wide-body, the pressure was on for competition between it and the tri-jets. Because of the oil prices skyrocketing during this time, and because of the limited market, the tri-jets hurt from the twin-engine A300. By operating a plane with two instead of three, it definately saved money.


    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



    Today Airbus has the A340s which were originally designed for the long/thin routes, but then the A330s were designed originally for the short/fat routes, just as the B777 was originally designed for. As many have pointed out in here, the A340 has lost its ass to the B777, but originally that is not what the B777 was deisgned for. The B777 was a direct competitor to the A330. Over the years, it has be upgraded to compete head to head with the A340, in the way of the -300.


    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © Andrew Hunt


    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © Derek Pedley



    Airbus, concerned with this, developed the A340-600 and -500 to try to take back the market, but with the IGW 777s coming out, the competition continues to push both manufacturers. Twin engines do not hurt Boeing, and 4 engines does not hurt Airbus, they both fill a niche.


    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © K.H. Ng


    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © Stuart Lawson



    As for Boeing currently not being able to provide a competitor to the A380, well, yes, that's true at the moment. But look at the hisotry behind the B777, it was originally lookied at as being a stretch to the B767, but then Boeing decided to build a brand new plane instead. With the 7E7 on the drawing board now, what if the lessons learned from that design could then be used to bring out a new super-jumbo to compete against the A380?

    I know everyone wants to see another model of the B747, but when Boeing originally tried to market a stretched -500/600, very few were interested. If Boeing can come out with an 7E7-technology-based jumbo in the future, then they could once again capture the market, but at the moment, Boeing is doing what it does best, concentrating on a new design for a niche that needs to be filled.

    "Why is Boeing always "responding" to models brought by airbus. Why did they not forecast the need for ultra long range airplanes before airbus?"

    This is a good question, but perhaps it is not because Boeing is behind, but because they have bene in the business longer and wish to wait to see how the market reacts. If it is positive, then they can come out with something "better", if the reaction is negative, then they don't waste money. Remember, when the DC10 and L1011 came out, they were practically the same plane, and there was not a market to sustain both of them at the same time, so both compaines lost.


    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © K.H. Ng


    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © Michael F. McLaughlin



    "I would hate to see Boeing loose the widebody market to airbus." Don't worry, if Boeing is playing their cards right, they will not be losing out. Just wait and see.
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Wed Oct 22, 2003 4:03 am

    think before 2010 we may see Rolls-Royce finally convincing Boeing to offer a variant of the Trent engine on the 777-300ER.

    For the ten thousanth and one time...

    Boeing is not the one who called for exclusivity on the 777NGs and therefore not authorized to break it! Must that simple fact be applied with a sledgehammer to finally sink in?!

    *****


    Boeing wanted all three producers making an engine. RR was the only one willing to share the market, but GE was the only one whose then-existing engine core could be expanded to the specifications Boeing wanted within the three year time frame Boeing had in mind... hence, GE got what it wanted (exclusivity) to produce what Boeing wanted.

    In summary, RR can plead all it wants to (which I rather doubt it's doing); but until Boeing is willing to pay tens/hundreds of millions of dollars for violating contractual obligation; GE will remain the sole producer of engines for Boeing twinjets in excess of 700,000lb MTOWs
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    rb211
    Posts: 413
    Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:09 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Wed Oct 22, 2003 4:44 am

    I don't think the "twins" have hurt Boeing in any way. I think that alot of it has to do with the impact on the market after September 11th as well as the fact that "twins" are more cost efficient. However, I think the fact that Airbus Industrie sells its aircraft for a little less plus everyone is scraping together their pennies to get a hold of an A380 has somewhat of an impact.
    Airline photography. Whether they're fully clothed, butt naked, having issues or confused I'm taking pictures!!
     
    AMM744
    Posts: 202
    Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:23 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Wed Oct 22, 2003 5:11 am

    Nice to see some healthy debating going on, obviously this subject is fairly touchy especially to you TwinJetters...

    Alpha 1 - you were almost right on two points,

    I wasn't referring to the 777 when crossing oceans was mentioned, it was the 767 I was referring to. The two single worst Trans Atlantic crossings I've ever encountered were on 767's, something to do with...oh yes, space or lack of and very poor seat comfort and/or configuration.

    It's not the fear of flying long haul on twinjets that worry me, more so the fear of crashing !!!

    At the end of the day we all have a choice and as long as these choices remain then we'll all be happy, ETOPS certifications or not, I have no desire to knock the 777, it is a truly fantastic piece of engineering and I'm sure that it will prove to be a classic in time.

    Oh by the way Gigneil you say that nobody wants it (747) well that's why it's the worlds most commercially recognised and successful widebody.

    Long may this continue.

    Yes I'm a 747 fan...no surprise there then.

     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Wed Oct 22, 2003 5:14 am

    more so the fear of crashing

    And that fear is based on what? ...the statistics which show there's never been a fatal ETOPS-related crash in history? .....or just phobic ignorance?



    well that's why it's the worlds most commercially recognised and successful widebody.

    because it had over 30yrs to get that way. Looking at orders since the turn of the decade alone shows that few non-cargo carriers are interested in ordering new 747s

    [Edited 2003-10-21 22:16:17]
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    gigneil
    Posts: 14133
    Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Wed Oct 22, 2003 5:15 am

    Oh by the way Gigneil you say that nobody wants it (747) well that's why it's the worlds most commercially recognised and successful widebody.

    People wanted it. Past tense.

    The 747 line is dismally short. When they run out of orders, they will close it as well, unless they do something about it.

    Its just like all the people saying Boeing is stupid for no longer producing the 757. Its a great aircraft, but you can't produce something with no orders for it.

    N
     
    caetravlr
    Posts: 856
    Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 8:19 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Wed Oct 22, 2003 5:18 am

    "Oh by the way Gigneil you say that nobody wants it (747) well that's why it's the worlds most commercially recognised and successful widebody. "

    Maybe because market conditions and newer technologies evolve over time? Maybe because there has been a demand for that aircraft for years, but changing times have dictated a change in demand? Just a thought.  Smile
    A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her. - W.C. Fields
     
    Alpha 1
    Posts: 12343
    Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Wed Oct 22, 2003 10:27 am

    The two single worst Trans Atlantic crossings I've ever encountered were on 767's, something to do with...oh yes, space or lack of and very poor seat comfort and/or configuration.

    Fine, AMM744, so you didn't find it comfy, but that has nothing to do with it being able to cross the pond safely and reliably. That's what's being discussed here-not seat pitch. We're talking worthiness to fly a route, and the B767 family is certainly qualified to fly Trans-Atlantic.

    It's not the fear of flying long haul on twinjets that worry me, more so the fear of crashing !!!

    Then I'd suggest don't fly at all, because you know even 4 engine aircraft have been know to crash. When's the last time you heard of a twin-engine commercial jetliner losing both engines in flight (someone play the Final Jeopardy song while he thinks about this one...). Not recently, eh? That's the point-airlines don't want planes that are prone to have dual-engine failures, you know? Again, ETOPS aircraft are perfectly safe and reliable. The fear is unfounded.
     
    Klaus
    Posts: 20622
    Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

    ConcordeBoy

    Wed Oct 22, 2003 11:42 am

    ConcordeBoy: And that fear is based on what? ...the statistics which show there's never been a fatal ETOPS-related crash in history?

    Not yet.

    There are not many absolutes in risk analysis; And the fundamentally higher risk of an all-engine-shutdown on a twin can indeed be somewhat compensated by additional measures.

    But the newer quads have not stood still in the meantime (as seems to be silently assumed by some).

    The cheaper ETOPS concept has paid off, so far. But the inherently higher risks may become an issue again as soon as something happens (which I hope it won´t for a long time yet).

    Betting the future of the company exclusively on twins may become a liability in such a case...
     
    manni
    Posts: 4049
    Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Wed Oct 22, 2003 10:31 pm

    Beltwaybandit,

    It's Virgin that has the slogan 4 engines 4 longhaul, not Airbus.  Insane

    SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
     
    Alpha 1
    Posts: 12343
    Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Wed Oct 22, 2003 10:57 pm

    AMM744, I don't think, on this subject, you SHOULD say anymore, since everything you have said has been debunked by reason, or by statistics, or by sheer common sense.  Smile
     
    Leskova
    Posts: 5547
    Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Thu Oct 23, 2003 1:16 am

    Alpha_1 (& others) - I don't quite understand why you keep hacking around on AMM744... he simply doesn't like flying on twins - so what? Yes, they are safe and absolutely capable of performing missions like trans-oceanic crossings, but - plain and simply - he simply doesn't feel well in them.

    After all, there are those who'll say "I won't fly in an Airbus, because I don't feel safe in them": there's no logic to that, it doesn't make sense - but hey, that's just the way it is (and, yes, you can certainly also exchange the word "Airbus" in that for the word "Boeing").

    ... and I'm really looking forward to my CDG-GRU flight on Friday... on a twin... an A330-200...
    Smile - it confuses people!
     
    s.p.a.s.
    Posts: 916
    Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2001 2:04 pm

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:04 am

    @Leskova..

    Hi mate.. so you´re paying a visit to us down here? nice to know... If staying in Sao Paulo, next sunday we will have a open day at Marte airfield, as we are in the middle of the "aviation week" here..

    If you need some directions on spotting or else, please don´t be shy...

    Freundliche gruesse

    Renato

    [Edited 2003-10-22 20:13:53]
    "ad astra per aspera"
     
    gigneil
    Posts: 14133
    Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:10 am

    It's Virgin that has the slogan 4 engines 4 longhaul, not Airbus.

    Naw. Its an Airbus slogan that Virgin adopted.

    It was Airbus' major advertising theme at Paris, and at Farnborough last year.

    N
     
    Guest

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:29 am

    "The Boeing 747 was and is the greatest commercial aeroplane that has ever graced the skies."

    Nor argument here. I agree 100%. She's the undisputed Queen of the airways
    (aside from the many male flight attendants the world over who claim that title for themselves! ......kidding!).

    "Even today in the 21st century it still leaves one in total awe, there is simply no other aeroplane that can match it for style, performance and sheer guts."

    Well, IMHO, the B777-200/300 series comes pretty damn close!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
    Incredible machine (both series), and beautiful to look at.

    "Boeing really should have carried on with it's 747 development programme, I believe that there is a market for a 747-500, 600 etc. This would have given Airbus something to think about. C'mon Boeing have a rethink, you already have the greatest flying machine on this planet, why not develop this further?"

    I myself love the idea of the double-decker for long-haul/extra long haul sectors, and I agree it would have been great to see Boeing develop a longer ranger, larger capacity series of the '47, especially in regards to competing with the A380. However, as many have stated here, ETOPS and great advancement in engine development has made the long haul twinjets a SAFE and reliable reality. And in terms of fuel savings and maintenance budgets, the twins make logical sense, especially in todays lean and mean civil aviation market. Of course, there will always be many pax who feel more secure on the 4 engine equipment.

    Signed,
    Canadi>nBoy LOVES Boeing!

    P.S: I always thought it would have made logical sense on Boeing's part to have developed the B737-next generation series with a slightly wider cabin/fuselage. I found it dissapointing that they merely worked from the same frame/mold in developing the 600/700/800/900 series. Too bad.
     
    airbazar
    Posts: 6954
    Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:43 am

    Some posters here are saying that 2 engines are more efficient than 4. I always thought it was the other way around because a twin's burn rate is much higher than a quad. At least that's what I've read in the past. So what is it, really?
     
    Guest

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:50 am

    Motech722 wrote:

    "Why is Boeing always "responding" to models brought by airbus. Why did they not forecast the need for ultra long range airplanes before airbus?"

    And responded to this question with:

    "This is a good question, but perhaps it is not because Boeing is behind, but because they have been in the business longer and wish to wait to see how the market reacts. If it is positive, then they can come out with something "better", if the reaction is negative, then they don't waste money. Remember, when the DC10 and L1011 came out, they were practically the same plane, and there was not a market to sustain both of them at the same time, so both compaines lost."

    Bravo. Excellent answer.

    Canadi>nBoy
    "Boeing, Boeing, Bong!"
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:04 am

    But the inherently higher risks may become an issue again as soon as something happens

    That works both ways Klaus...

    ....what happens when a 4engine aircraft loses [nearly] all power and goes down far too from a diversion field. That's a scenario which also has yet to occur, but has come pretty-darn-close on a few occuasions as well.


    Then there's also the possibility that modified ETOPS/LROPS specifications will eventually be placed on ALL aircraft.
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:07 am

    It's Virgin that has the slogan 4 engines 4 longhaul, not Airbus

    Manni,
    he's right, you're wrong  Smile Airbus developed the slogan, Virgin rode in on its coat-tails


    I always thought it was the other way around because a twin's burn rate is much higher than a quad

    That's Airbuses argument against developing a longer ranged A333 vs selling A343 to its clients. Take it for what you will  Laugh out loud
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    AMM744
    Posts: 202
    Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:23 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:36 am

    Everything You have said has been debunked, these are your words Alpha 1.

    Perhaps you should check out this story that was posted on the forum October 21st "An Incident With A Edelweiss A330 Departing MIA".

    Yes, as you and many others have stated, this should have been virtually impossible, losing No2 which did NOT happen but could quite easily have should be even more unlikely. As you can see it can happen.

    Hmmm...let's just picture the scene.

    "Ladies and Gentlmen I am sorry to inform you that we will have to make a quick return to the nearest airport, oh and by the way we'll have to glide in cause we ain't got no more engines left"
     
    gigneil
    Posts: 14133
    Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:38 am

    A quad that suffer the loss of two engines will be in just about as much shit as a twin that does... especially if they're 5 hours away from an airport.

    Tne increased drag and firewall conditions will cause them to run out of fuel, or cause an sd of one of the remaining engines.

    N
     
    AMM744
    Posts: 202
    Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:23 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:50 am

    That would depend on which two engines.

    I suspect that the survival odds on a quad with two engines out would be significantly higher than on a twin with both out !
     
    Hamlet69
    Posts: 2469
    Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:58 am

    A lot of misleading information has been raised here, and I'd like to correct what I can:

    "Also the HGW A340-600 may arrive earlier than B777-300ER."

    The first available A340-600HGW will be delivered no earlier than summer 2006 (Qatar), while Emirates won't get their first until June 2007 (per Airbus). The first 777-300ER will be delivered to ILFC (Air France) this April, and would have been delivered last month had Air France not wanted to postpone the delivery.


    "Could it be that Boeing is taking longer to design and develop the 773ER and 777LR becuase of the extra testing (such as ETOPS) required of twins."

    Actually, its the other way around. It took Airbus a half-year longer to develop the A340NG's than did Boeing the 777LR's. Airbus launched the A340-500/-600 program in December 1997, and delivered the first aircraft to Virgin Atlantic in late July, 2002. That's a total of 56 months, if my math is right. OTOH, Boeing launched the 777-200LR/-300ER program Feb. 28, 2000, and, as I mentioned earlier, the first aircraft will be delivered this coming April. That's a total of 50 months.


    "Also is it difficult to increase the MTOW of a twin as opposed to a 4 engined airplane because of higher safety margins that need to be provided?"

    Yes and no. Structurally, there is no difference in increasing the MTOW between, say, the A340 or 777. Of course, both have run into their own specific difficulties. The A340 is literally at its structural limit as far as how much weight the airframe can accomodate. Remember, the A340-300 is a much lighter aircraft than either the -500 or -600. OTOH, while the 777's airframe can still go physically much higher than the current limit of the -200LR, Boeing runs into the problem of not enough engine thrust, nor fuel tank volume to take advantage of further increases. These issues must be solved before the 777 can increase MTOW much further.


    "Why were Boeing always "responding" to models brought by airbus. Why did they not forecast the need for ultra long range airplanes before airbus ?"

    Again, there's two answers here. One, is that Boeing has 'responded' for most of its commercial history. Many of the aircraft we no longer really think about were not the first in their class. Boeing usually waits a little to see how its competitors products are going to turn out, then up the ante (the A340 v. 777 is a perfect example). However, that does not mean that Boeing did not see the need later or 'too late' than its competitors. The 777 was designed from the outset to be an ultra-long range aircraft (more below).

    BTW - When it comes to the question of "Has the twinjet design hurt Boeing?" don't forget that the A330 continues to strongly outdistance the A340 in sales, thanks in large part to the long-range A330-200 twin.


    "This is especially true when flying across the Atlantic or Pacific - c'mon Boeing, it's fairly obvious how risky this kind of thinking can be."

    Twins have been flying across the Atlantic for over 20 years without incident, and this is "obviously risky?" Give me a break!


    "Today Airbus has the A340s which were originally designed for the long/thin routes, but then the A330s were designed originally for the short/fat routes, just as the B777 was originally designed for."

    No. Just as the A330/340 were designed from the outset for different markets, Boeing designed the 777 to attack those different markets with the same airframe. From the outset, the 777 was designed as a family of aircraft, with "A" market, "B" market, and "A-stretch" market aircraft. Today, we know these as the -200, -200ER and -300, respectively. The 777 was by no means 'originally' designed for the short/fat routes, it was designed as a 300-seat medium and long-range aircraft.


    "The cheaper ETOPS concept has paid off, so far."

    Klaus, you and I have had many ETOPS-related discussions before, and I'm not going to rehash them here. But what do you mean by 'cheaper ETOPS concept'? You and I both know that ETOPS-standards cost the airlines more in maintanence than less-strict policies, which the airlines in turn make-up in better dispatch reliability and fewer in-flight diversions. Simply curious what you were intending. . .


    "Some posters here are saying that 2 engines are more efficient than 4. I always thought it was the other way around because a twin's burn rate is much higher than a quad."

    Airbazar: There is no one answer. Each airline, indeed, each route, is going to have a little different parameters that could make one aircraft more 'efficient' than another. As a general rule of thumb, think of it this way: A 4-engined aircraft of the same size as a competitive 2-engined aircraft is going to have smaller engines than the twin, correct? In turn, these smaller engines are going to burn less fuel individually than the larger engines on the twin. So per engine, they are more efficient. However, we are talking about a total system, here - in other words, while the engines may be smaller and burn less fuel, there are 4 of them, not 2. That means that unless the smaller engines only burn 1/2 the amount of fuel as the larger engines, the aircraft as a whole will not be as fuel efficient as the twin. Sometimes that's true, sometimes it isn't - again, it goes back to the airline and the airline's routes.
    Also, we must remember that there are other costs besides fuel efficiency: there's maintenance, purchase costs, spares costs, etc. All these must be x2 for a twin, x4 for a quad. Beginning to see?

    Regards,

    Hamlet69
    Honor the warriors, not the war.
     
    airbazar
    Posts: 6954
    Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Thu Oct 23, 2003 5:05 am

    Ironically there has been a very recent incident where an A330 lost both engines over the Atlantic (Air Transat), and landed safely. Luckily they were very close to the Azores. I can't remember a recent inicident where a 4 engine airplane has lost 2 engines.

    My point is, there are other factores besides number of engines, that will determine whether a loss of engine(s) will cause the airplane to crash or not. For me personally, the 2 vs. 4 engines is strictly an economic issue, not a safety issue.
     
    gigneil
    Posts: 14133
    Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Thu Oct 23, 2003 5:21 am

    Perhaps not recently... but an Eastern L-1011 lost two engines and a BA 747 lost all 4 engines due to volcanic ash.

    The Air Transat problem was easy - the plane ran out of fuel, the engines stopped turning. Would have affected any plane.

    N
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Thu Oct 23, 2003 5:46 am

    Boeing runs into the problem of not enough engine thrust, nor fuel tank volume to take advantage of further increases.

    Hamlet,
    something I've wondered is has Boeing investigated the feasibility of introducing an intra-tail fin fuel tank in the 777NGs?
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    joleb
    Posts: 248
    Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:01 pm

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Thu Oct 23, 2003 6:11 am

    People,

    Let me say what i think. As i am a 5 million miler accross the world i can tell you that i have flown on all types of aircraft that exist in the world. I respect all your opinions and please feel free to give me any feedback you like or questions.

    Answer to the question on this topic: NO
    I have flown : Boeing 707,717,727,737,747,757,767,777,MD88,MD90,MD11
    Airbus 300,310,318,319,320,321,330,340 and in the future maybe A380
    BA & AF Concorde

    Why no as an answer? well i think that nowadays 2 engines are as safe as 4 engines. its just a personal click in your head that says 2? 4? safer?

    777 avionics are very safe and sound
    I once flew 777 acrross atlantic before 9/11
    went to the cockpit.captain told me there was a problem with engine number one but it was safe he said to continue. no problem. same with 747 5 years ago. 2 or 4 no difference anymore to me
    its all personal preference anyway. les qoux et les couleurs ne se discuttent pas!

    B707 has 4 engines. why? to give a safer impression and at that time to have more chances if something happened to one of the engines. safe nr 1
    717 is a magnificent aircraft. very smooth and very quiet aircraft. very good. safe
    727 very nice aircraft at the time of production old now. revolutionary 3 engines aircraft. stable
    737 the taxi of the airplanes. every airline has them or has had them
    very safe and reliable. cant have better.
    737BBJ very safe and sound,avionics top knotch-->Privatair service for LH is huge success. no surprise.and very private
    747 The king that nobody can beat. safest aircraft in the world to my point
    safe, reliable ,secure, Nr1. my personal favorite
    757 nice aircraft, time to move on with something new. shaky. good aircraft nothing special
    767 nice aircraft. a bit small to my opinion to cross the atlantic but not bad
    sound aircraft
    777 very safe aircraft. new design.huge engines. top knotch avionics.very safe.safer than A330 in my opinion. hit in the target Again by boeing.


    A300 old aircraft ,not safe , ok plane
    a310 nice plane ,older now, not very safe
    a318,319,320,321: a321 nicest one form the 4. nice planes,don't fly the same as 737's. floats instead of flying. shaky.special. safe??? dont like them

    330 safe aircraft. reliable??. special, different from other aircraft. not my favorite.

    340 nice plane,not a good reputation though, special, fly by wire? nicest one of Airbus

    Concorde. nice planes,special design,magic,AF less clean and less maintained,something special. AF problem child so BA forced to pull out

    personal favorites considering safe and very good planes
    747,777,737BBJ,340




     
    Hamlet69
    Posts: 2469
    Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

    RE: Has The 2 Engine Design Hurt Boeing?

    Thu Oct 23, 2003 6:51 am

    ConcordeBoy,

    I know it has been look at. However, IIRC, it was deemed the advantages were too small to be worth it. Remember that, comparatively, the 777 has very small appendages, its vertical stabilizer especially. While there would be some room for fuel there, there would be virtually no range gain due to the weight penalty for adding the structural strengthening, fuel pumps and line. In other words, the fuel burned in the tail would only just make up for all the equipment needed to get it there in the first place.

    Regards,

    Hamlet69
    Honor the warriors, not the war.