DeltaAir
Topic Author
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 4:41 am

777X Has A Launch Customer, SAA Ready As Well

Thu Feb 10, 2000 7:17 am

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
 
TP343
Posts: 364
Joined: Sun May 23, 1999 9:01 pm

RE: 777X Has A Launch Customer, SAA Ready As Well

Thu Feb 10, 2000 7:40 am

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
 
kaitak
Posts: 9033
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: 777X Has A Launch Customer, SAA Ready As Well

Thu Feb 10, 2000 8:12 am

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 . . .
 
CX747
Posts: 5622
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: 777X Has A Launch Customer, SAA Ready As Well

Thu Feb 10, 2000 10:45 am

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
 
First Class
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2000 3:46 pm

RE: 777X Has A Launch Customer, SAA Ready As Well

Thu Feb 10, 2000 4:27 pm

SAA will never buy 777s.
They are going towards A340-500/600 and A330s.
 
Udo
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

B777X Problem...

Thu Feb 10, 2000 5:53 pm

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
Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
 
777200
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 1999 10:26 pm

RE: 777X Has A Launch Customer, SAA Ready As Well

Thu Feb 10, 2000 6:02 pm

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.
 
Guest

RE: 777X Has A Launch Customer, SAA Ready As Well

Thu Feb 10, 2000 6:12 pm

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.
 
777200
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 1999 10:26 pm

RE: 777X Has A Launch Customer, SAA Ready As Well

Thu Feb 10, 2000 6:32 pm

Hey Udo that is really pessimist. If this incident hapened
that was not a problem with the engines but a problem of the maintenance.
 
First Class
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2000 3:46 pm

To Udo

Thu Feb 10, 2000 6:53 pm

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?
 
ZRH
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: 777X Has A Launch Customer, SAA Ready As Well

Thu Feb 10, 2000 7:13 pm

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.
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6056
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

To Udo As Well.

Thu Feb 10, 2000 7:27 pm

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.
 
TP343
Posts: 364
Joined: Sun May 23, 1999 9:01 pm

Attn CX747

Thu Feb 10, 2000 8:04 pm

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 avatar
ravi
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:04 am

Re: MAS B777 Oil Issues...

Thu Feb 10, 2000 8:08 pm

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.
 
CX747
Posts: 5622
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

TP343

Fri Feb 11, 2000 1:57 am

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
 
Navion
Posts: 1055
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

Udo:Remember Eastern L1011

Fri Feb 11, 2000 2:54 am

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.
 
CX747
Posts: 5622
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Udo:Remember Eastern L1011

Fri Feb 11, 2000 4:17 am

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
 
kaitak
Posts: 9033
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: Back To The 777X

Fri Feb 11, 2000 5:18 am

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

RE: Kaitak & 777-300X Length

Fri Feb 11, 2000 5:32 am

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.
 
DeltaAir
Topic Author
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 4:41 am

RE: Kaitak & 777-300X Length

Fri Feb 11, 2000 5:50 am

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 avatar
ravi
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:04 am

To: DeltaAir

Fri Feb 11, 2000 7:36 am

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.
 
teahan
Posts: 4993
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 1999 11:18 pm

RE Delta Air

Fri Feb 11, 2000 8:49 am

Mail them to me @: jeremiahteahan@hotmail.com
Jeremiah Teahan
Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
 
Udo
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

Udo

Fri Feb 11, 2000 4:16 pm

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
Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
 
User avatar
ravi
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:04 am

RE: Udo

Fri Feb 11, 2000 5:37 pm

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.
 
Airbus A3XX
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 5:12 pm

RE: Udo:Remember Eastern L1011

Fri Feb 11, 2000 8:30 pm

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.
 
Udo
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

Ravi Wants To Play Word Games?

Fri Feb 11, 2000 8:38 pm

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?

Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos