BA 777

Fri Jan 21, 2000 10:17 pm

Hey Guys!!

I'm going to fly from LHR-Tel Aviv.they say the new World traveller is great.Has anyone flown on it? By the way I'v never flown on a 777 before. Another question about BA's 777,in the 2000 Airliner World calender the BA777 had RR Trent engines, why did they swap from the GE90?


Posts: 609
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 10:07 am

RE: BA 777

Fri Jan 21, 2000 10:30 pm

Let me answer your last question by asking another...

You are an english government owned airline, you have three engine choices:

1.Rolls Royce
2.General Electric
3.Pratt & Whitney

Where are these engines made?


Are we learning? Sorry to be pedantic but Britain resents the fact that they were never able to produce a "good" airliner. They try to make their aircraft as "british" as possible, the RR engines are as close as they can get.

User avatar
Posts: 1560
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 1999 11:31 am

RE: BA 777- Pmk

Fri Jan 21, 2000 10:38 pm

If buying British, or even European was so important, then why does BA buy Boeing? I know they bought Airbus NOW, but how about all these years? Why didn't they buy them earlier when LH and AF were buying them, I mean hey, BAe does make the wings for all the Airbus aircraft, which is located in Britain. Explain that.

The reason they switched to Rolls-Royce was not based on the GE90 being American, or for not performing, but probably because they cancelled their 747-400 orders which had RR engines, and they had to make up for that. But hey, who knows.

Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 1999 8:25 pm

RE: BA 777

Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:03 pm

PMK wrote:

You are an english government owned airline, you have three engine choices:


What the hell? When did the government nationalize the airline? And there I was thinking they were a private company (British Airways PLC). Well poor shareholders.

Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 1999 12:35 am

RE: BA 777

Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:39 pm

BA has been everything but loyal to British aircraft in the past. Even in sixties BOAC hated having the VC10 thrust upon them. The fact of the matter is that any airline or pilot who knows their stuff will tell you that the Trent is a much more reliable engine than the GE90.
User avatar
Posts: 1560
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 1999 11:31 am

RE: BA 777

Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:52 pm

Isnt any brand new engine allowed to have its teething problems?? The RB 211 wasnt so great when it first came out either, was it now??

User avatar
Posts: 948
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:56 am

RE: BA 777

Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:59 pm

The Trent-powered 777s in BA's fleet are part of a large 'second wave' of orders for the 777-200 placed in 1998.

The GE90 has been at the center of some controversy with BA. I've heard various things .... they felt that GE used them as a guinea pig to iron bugs out of the new engine ..... of course the Buy British theme is likely to crop up in this situation. It is true that reports about the RR Trent in 777 service have been very good. I talked with a guy at Delta who is close to such things and he said there was no contest (they have Trents). Note that I am only quoting things I have heard.

For my part I have flown on a CO 777 and I thought the GE90s were really smooth. I was right in the engine line and didn't feel any vibration from those huge fans, except at start up and spool down when there are these interesting resonances and the whole structure vibrates. Quite unique.


RE: BA 777

Sat Jan 22, 2000 12:05 am

British Airways is NOT owned by the British Government.

It is one of the greatest success stories of privitization that Britain has to show.

However, before 1982, it was owned by the government. It was sold in 1982 and the first thing they changed was the livery - to the nice smart one before the one we have now (which looks equally as smart, if not more so, when it has the 'United Kingdom' design on it)

BA has no loyalty to British engineering - they usually buy American - and so they did when they ordered their 777s with GE engines. They just decided to switch to RR Trents ONLY on the 777-200 'ER's - or IGWs. All standard 777-200s have GE engines, while 777-200IGW/ER planes have RR engines. Fair dos.
Delta has GE engines on domestic 767s and PW engines on intercontinental 767s.

No-one makes a big deal of that do they?

And incidentally Delta's 777s are also powered by RR Trent engines.

User avatar
Posts: 1560
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 1999 11:31 am

RE: BA 777- DLMD-11

Sat Jan 22, 2000 1:43 am

Not true, not all BA GE90 powered 777 are -200s, some are -200ER (or IGW as they called it then) Check the Boeing website for proof, I will paste a portion of it.

"The first five Boeing 777s delivered to British Airways will have a range of up to 5,330 miles. The 10 remaining aircraft from the firm order will be of the longer-range version, with capability to fly up to 7,300 miles."

Posts: 5597
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: BA 777- DLMD-11

Sat Jan 22, 2000 2:20 am

That is correct. The first 5 777-200s delivered were non IGWs. This aircraft operate into the Middle East with a great first and business class section available. The rest of the GE engined 777s are 777-200IGWs and were ordered to replace the 747-100s. A need was then seen few years later to compliment and eventually replace the 747-200s. The RR engine was choosen for higher thrust. They are called 777-200IGW/ERS If you are flying to Tel Aviv you will most likely be on a 777-200. Registrations being G-ZZZA-G-ZZZE. 777-200IGW registrations are G-VAES along with G-VIIA-VIIY. 777-200IGW/ER registrations are G-YMMA onward.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User avatar
Posts: 1560
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 1999 11:31 am

RE: BA 777- DLMD-11

Sat Jan 22, 2000 3:29 am

Also, now that I think about it, not only do they have GE90 ERs, but wasn't it BA that launched the longer range IGW/ER version of the 777?

Posts: 609
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 10:07 am

BA Ownership

Sat Jan 22, 2000 5:46 am


I'm gonna try and explain this without having to teach an into to economics course.

1.BAe does make the wings for Airbus, however the British government did not choose to participate in the Airbus group and kind of regrets it.

2.BA is a PLC, kind of. The labor government took control after WWII, they privitized in 1982-83. The government still has control on the board of directors (I don't remeber the names at the moment).

3.Boeing has a long standing relationship with the British Government since WWII and the B-17, the english liked it so much that we gave them B-17's and they bought them after the war and named the fortress I. The british could not compete with the B-17, the shackelton was close but not as good on range. The British did not forget this and kept them for reconnasance(sp) until the Nimrod was developed of the Comet.

4.It makes no difference in the US as we have our hand in every aircraft in the world -including Airbus. US carriers pick whatever they get the best deal on.


RE: BA 777

Sat Jan 22, 2000 7:55 am

Let me solve the missing clue from this mystery of why British Airways dumped GE 90's in favour for Rolls Royce Trent engine on their Boeing 777 aircrafts.

Firstly, being a British airline company owned by a group of shareholders, BA is certainly not a government owned airline and having a group of conservative shareholders at an Annual General Meeting, it could come down to resolving some issues such as why GE90 engines over Rolls Royce and it is true that this was on the agenda of some shareholders and when youread their AGM minutes, you will come to learn that this had some controversial implications.

In other words, it was the shareholders who made this decision and this was also compared to BA having Rolls Roycec RB 211-524G and -H engines models on its Boeing 747-400 aircrafts. An interested issue and I would be interested to hear from you all on this matter and what you think.
Posts: 11664
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Question About Piloting

Sat Jan 22, 2000 10:05 am

So, here's an interesting question. When you are typed for an aircraft (777 or otherwise) are you typed for that aircraft regardless of the engines? I know that once an aircraft is fit with say GE engines, you can't swap on RR engines at a later date.
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 6:05 am

RE: BA 777-PMK

Sat Jan 22, 2000 7:16 pm

Dear Peter

you keep stating that BA is owned by the government, i can assure you that it is not controlled or owned by the government whatsoever.
By the way I work for them OK??
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6050
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Question About Piloting

Sat Jan 22, 2000 8:00 pm

It is possible for an aircraft to switch engines, although it is no easy task. For example, there is an A330-342 in Cathay's fleet that was not originally fitted with Trent 700s. It was B-HLK, line no. 017 that was part of the A330 test program. This was a -322 which I believe was a PW4168 powered aircraft. I know that some other airlines have done it as well. I seem to remember something about a couple of Atlas 742s getting GEs in place of the PWs. Weren't the USAF 747s re-engined at some stage as well? So it is done.

Apart from that you then have all the 727s/707 that are getting new engines.
Feel free to correct me if my info is lacking/wrong.
Posts: 2757
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 1999 7:40 am

RE: BA 777

Sun Jan 23, 2000 11:35 pm

I heard BA is still having problems with their 777s...the 777s contracted to Flying Colours for the Caribbean routes are unpopular with travellers because of their cabin layout and the 777s were due to enter the Far East market with new flights from LHR to Kuala Lumpur...a decision that has been delayed. Anyone know why?
Posts: 1054
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

GE90 Very Reliable

Mon Jan 24, 2000 1:35 am

To Viscount ("any airline pilot who knows his stuff will tell you the Trents are much more reliable than the GE90), you are sorely mistaken and should know better than to make such a blantantly incorrect comment. First (and most obvious) point is, the GE90 is ETOPS qualified. How can it vary even a small bit from the reliability of the other big fans? That is a statistical measure. Second, the GE90 is as efficient (if not more so) and less polluting than the other fans in it's class. I would have no compunction buying GE90's for 777's if it was my choice. It simply comes down to who is going to give you the best deal, and last time I checked, BA had quite a few million in deposits on Rolls engines for 747's which they subsequently switched to 777's, hence the RR Trent transition. Finally (this is directed to a couple of fellows who remarked on thrust of the respective engines), the GE90 comes in a 94,000 lb. thrust model. Just ask Air France who will be getting them. The RR Trent can be had with up to 95,000 lb of thrust. PW presently runs their PW4090 up to 90,000 lb of thrust. You can use a GE90 on the highest gross weight 777ER made.

RE: GE90 NOT Very Reliable

Mon Jan 24, 2000 4:45 am

just a few reasons why GE90 is the worst of the three as evidenced by its being chosen for the fewest airframes, customers, and marketshare.

1. GE90 Five (5) tons heavier than Rolls Royce, 2 tons heavier than PW. Though it has a better fuel burn figure the higher weight offsets its advantage.
2. GE90 hrust at 92,000 pounds currently hasn't yet made the 95er. Pratt Whitney 4098 has 98,000lbs. Rolls Royce at 92,000lbs.
3. GE90 least reliable of the three, of 5 most often used reliability figures GE90 is last inall but one: dispatch reliability where it is first. In flight shutdown rate it has the most frequent occurance and it has the least amount of a hours between shop visits compaired with the PW4000 and Trent 800.

The GE90 is a flop. On paper it is clearly superior, however once on a wing it's disadvantages far overcome its advantages. It has been chosen to power the least number of 777s and has yet to make money for GE. In fact in 1997 they wrote down its development costs and labeled the program as one that would never make money. However, this July by offering the most money to Boeing, they were given the contract to built the GE90 115B which stunned and angered much of the airlines. United, British Airways, Singapore, El-Al, JAL, All Nippon and many others all denounced the decision. The GE90 is the worst engine for the plane, and the customers have proven that in their choices for RR and PW time and time again.


RE: BA 777

Mon Jan 24, 2000 5:05 am

At the risk of getting on Pratt-Whitney's shit list....

1. The PW 4098 was only introduced in August of 1998 almost 4 years after the B777 was first rolled out and was intended for the IGW versions only. Sure the GE90 is slightly heavier (you exaggerate greatly the extent however) but it is the quietest, the most earth-friendly, and the most efficient of the three.
2. Bullshit. Several variants of the GE90 are available and an engine of 98K simply isnt necessary or cost efficient.
3. GE90 has had teething problems but so has every engine. In defense of the GE 90, consider your fabulous RB 211 which nearly destroyed the company...the GE90 was all new technology and has performed extremely well considering. RR and PW couldn't be bothered to make a new engine for such an important project as the 777.

The GE90 is no flop sir. Nobody denounced anything. I realize you love PW very much but embellish much too much for a sane person.

RE: BA 777

Mon Jan 24, 2000 5:07 am

Correction: the PW 4098 was introduced in August 1999.
Orders for a/c with the PW 4098: less than 10.

So by your standards, I guess the PW 4098 is a flop.
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:32 am


Mon Jan 24, 2000 5:59 am

GE 90 was too crappy, so BA decided they'd switch to RR Trents for 777s!! i'm gald...

RE: BA 777

Mon Jan 24, 2000 6:08 am

GE90 is not crappy you dimwit.

BA didn't switch....the first few 777's (non IGW) are still GE90 powered.

Why did they switch to RR? Shareholder pressure to buy British--not the company's autonomous choice as it should have been.

RE: BA 777

Mon Jan 24, 2000 6:18 am

Actually I think the RR Trent 800 is the best engine for the 777, I only prefer the PW4000 because my welfare is related to PW.

Trent 875
/8777 /884
/892 /895
5.942-6.531 This is the weight Figure for the TRENT in KG.
34, 9-45
B-777-200 /300
/200X /300X
GE-90-76B /85B
/90B /92B
7.556 This is the weight for the GE90 In Kilograms do the conversion! Much heavier

Sure the GE90 may have some things such as the environmental and the fuel burn, etc. However its heavy weight and unreliablity have made it much more costly to operate than the RR and to a lesser extent the PW4000.

The only thing I embellished on may have been the weight. In sales the Ge90 has been dismal read any halfway accurate census. The reliability figures I quoted are correct and can be backed up via numerous sources. The airlines I mentioned all did say they were unhappy with Boeing's Ge90 exclusive deal.
So I would ask you to point out all the areas I embellished on? The only area you may be able to catch me is the weight issue. Even then the point was not the exact weight, but the fact that the GE is heavier.

About the PW4098 being a flop. No I don't consider individual variations of a model. The PW4098 is a higher thrust derivative of the PW400 112 inch fan, to consider it individually and label it as a flop is rather pointless. As a whole the PW4000 series is not a flop, it has secured a fairly good piece of the market 38-40% depending on where you look. THe GE has secured 23% overall. I think you should stop reading the few things that GE hype's about the engine and listen to what airlines and engineers are saying. They prefer the RR and to a lesser extent the PW.