ual747-600
Posts: 595
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 1999 12:57 pm

777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 12:16 am

Boeing is saying that the 777-300ER has 99.2% dispatch rate in the first year of service. Do anybody have any numbers on A340-600 and A340-500, first year and current???

UAL747-600
 
na
Posts: 9171
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 12:33 am

I don't know, but it seems like it is with cars and women: The uglier, the more reliable.
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 12:39 am

well then I would suspect the A380 would be achieving a 100% dispatch rate straight out of the box.
 
MarBergi
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:56 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 12:43 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 2):
well then I would suspect the A380 would be achieving a 100% dispatch rate straight out of the box

 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 
 
BA
Posts: 10134
Joined: Fri May 19, 2000 11:06 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 12:51 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 2):
well then I would suspect the A380 would be achieving a 100% dispatch rate straight out of the box.

Nah, I'd say a 102% dispatch rate.  Smile
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 1:06 am

You have to compare the 777 with a Twinjet.
SriLankan says to have a reliability of 99,06% with their A330.

http://www.srilankan.aero/aboutus_news/news95_airbus.shtml
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 1:12 am

I think we are talking about a whole fleet, not 4 aircraft.

Does anyone know what the numbers were for the A330 in it's first year of revenue service?
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5021
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 1:14 am

99,06 for A330? Way to go!!

Micke  cool 
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 1:15 am

99.2% seems a little low, especially for a "mature" series since the 300ER is based on an existing model.

Wasn't Boeing touting a 99.8% dispatch reliability on the original 777 when it went into service a decade ago?
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 1:20 am

Quoting UAL747-600 (Thread starter):
Boeing is saying that the 777-300ER has 99.2% dispatch rate in the first year of service. Do anybody have any numbers on A340-600 and A340-500, first year and current???

According to the last week's Flight article, A345/6 operators are reporting dispatch reliability below 98%. Airbus' goal is to get it up to 98.5%. If they achieve that goal it means the A345/6 takes a delay twice as often as the 773ER. At the current rate, the A345/6 is delayed three times as often.

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 5):
You have to compare the 777 with a Twinjet.

I don't quite follow your logic. The A330 does not have the same payload/range characteristics as the 773ER. In the Airbus product line, only the A346 competes with the 773ER.

Or are you implying that 4 Engines 4 Long Range is incorrect?
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 1:25 am

Excellent points OAG, thank you for sharing them.

Welcome to my RR list.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 1:26 am

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 5):
You have to compare the 777 with a Twinjet.

Why is that? If a comparison between twins and quads shows that twins have a substantially higher dispatch rate, as intuition would suggest, then such a comparison would be very useful.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 1:26 am

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 7):
99,06 for A330? Way to go!!

Still below the 777 fleet average of 99.3%

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 8):
99.2% seems a little low, especially for a "mature" series since the 300ER is based on an existing model.

Wasn't Boeing touting a 99.8% dispatch reliability on the original 777 when it went into service a decade ago?

Nope, Boeing never claimed the 777 would be at 99.8%. The 99.3% 777 Fleet Average is the target that was talked about ten years ago and is still a best in class for a fleet number.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
N60659
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:24 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 1:27 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 8):
99.2% seems a little low, especially for a "mature" series since the 300ER is based on an existing model.

Wasn't Boeing touting a 99.8% dispatch reliability on the original 777 when it went into service a decade ago?

The following excerpt from Boeing's press release (while not completely answering your question) somewhat glosses over your question. Please take it FWIW.
"The technologically advanced 777-300ER flew more than 32,000 hours during its first year, amassing a 99.2 percent average schedule reliability rate that surpasses previous 777 model introductions and is in line with the 99.3 percent overall rate for the 777 family."

-N60659

[Edit: Looks like OldAeroGuy got to your question as I was typing up my response. Sorry for the duplicaion]

[Edited 2005-05-12 18:29:54]

[Edited 2005-05-12 18:30:20]
Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 1:28 am

Quoting Na (Reply 1):
The uglier, the more reliable.

Were that the case, the A345 would have a perfect D.R. for its entire service life  Yeah sure

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 5):
You have to compare the 777 with a Twinjet.

...why?

True that quads have a higher probability of engine failure, but it's not like carriers consider (which, in the end, is what really matters) that to be an excuse for shortfalls, after they've been pitched quads (e.g., A346s) that Airbus claimed to have twinjet-level D.R.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
WestWing
Posts: 1133
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:01 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 3:20 am

How many scheduled departures do the statistics represent ? Approximately 4000 ? Does anyone have an exact number ? Thanks
The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
 
AirbusCanada
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:14 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 12:13 pm

ON the 346/345
the fuel management software had some glitches and the galleys had some Both of those systems were breand new. Other than than 346/345 did not have any major problems. I guess 773ER did not have any software glitchs thus the higher DR numbers.
 
dalecary
Posts: 834
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2000 10:28 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 12:39 pm

The 345/346 have had many issues with the Trent 500s as well resulting in a relatively high degree of IFSDs and engine removals. Not one IFSD or engine removal for the 773ER in it's 1st year. Fuel consumption is still an issue with some airlines flying 345/346. LH was quoted in the recent FI article as saying there were some fuel consumption abnormalities that appeared to be fleet wide on some of the routes.
It's blindingly obvious that the 772LR/773ER are about to dominate this sector. The next year or 2 should confirm that.
 
abbs380
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:25 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 4:39 pm

Several places in this thread where reliability is mentioned the "mature" qualifier is used. I think A300/310 series is about as "mature" as you can get. Yet there is one large freight operator who is about to comitt to a replacement of the exsisting fuel quantity indicating system on the entire fleet, with a new system (manufactured by a third party vendor) including all probes and wiring. Because system reliability is so poor, and dispatch reliability is affected.
 
windshear
Posts: 2261
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 4:45 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 6:17 pm

Sebolino ye your right, but again you could question the Airbus decision to do long haul planes with 4 engines, instead of 2...
This was a major reason for doing the new lines with 2 engines only...
A340 family has 4 engines, and that means lower dispatch rates, either way a higher dispatch rate, is better for the airline.

And em how dare anyone say the 777 is ugly  Smile
Boaz...
"If you believe breaking is possible, believe in fixing also"-Rebbe Nachman
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9864
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 8:24 pm

Quoting Na (Reply 1):
The uglier, the more reliable.

A380 will also have basically the same dispatch rate also then?
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net for all Moderator contact
 
isuA380B777
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 7:34 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 8:36 pm

Quoting Windshear (Reply 19):
And em how dare anyone say the 777 is ugly

exactly !! no one can say lovely 777 is ugly
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 4837
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 9:17 pm

Quoting Windshear (Reply 19):
And em how dare anyone say the 777 is ugly

OK, not ugly as such. What about 'bland'?
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 9:24 pm

Quoting Windshear (Reply 19):
Sebolino ye your right, but again you could question the Airbus decision to do long haul planes with 4 engines, instead of 2...

This is another story.
The point, if I understand well, is to be more relaxed with engines power, and to be ETOPS free. Of course it has a cost.
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 9:29 pm

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 14):
Quoting Sebolino (Reply 5):
You have to compare the 777 with a Twinjet.

...why?

Because the "unreliabilities" of all engines are added, and each engine decreases a bit the reliability of the plane.

[Edited 2005-05-13 14:32:44]
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 9:55 pm

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 24):
Because the "unreliabilities" of all engines are added, and each engine decreases a bit the reliability of the plane.

[Edited 2005-05-13 14:32:44]

Fair enough, but I doubt that you'll find engines at the top of the list for what causes delays on either the A345/6 or the 773ER. It's usually more mundane systems issues, as mentioned by:

Quoting AirbusCanada (Reply 16):
the fuel management software had some glitches and the galleys had some Both of those systems were breand new. Other than than 346/345 did not have any major problems. I guess 773ER did not have any software glitchs thus the higher DR numbers.

If it is engines issues for the A345/6, then that is a deeper problem.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 10:08 pm

According to http://www.aeroweb-fr.net/dossiers/dossier,29,airbus-a340-300.php ,

the A340 since 1999 have been improved, and have now at Cathay Pacific a DR of 98,7%
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Fri May 13, 2005 10:15 pm

I found this on the web:

Stricter maintenance helped the 777 achieve a dispatch reliability of 98.1% within a year of its introduction to service, according to Boeing and United officials. By comparison, the 747 reached only 91% at the same milestone in 1970.

So Boeing was speaking about the 777-300ER and only it.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 12):
Still below the 777 fleet average of 99.3%

777-3OO ER, not 777.
 
ContnlEliteCMH
Posts: 1376
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Sat May 14, 2005 12:24 am

Quoting BA (Reply 4):
You have to compare the 777 with a Twinjet.

Nonsense. The stockholders, customer service reps, accounts, pilots, nor anybody else, give any dispatch problem a pass because an aircraft has four engines instead of two.

When you have a load of paying passengers ready to go, and they are delayed or cancelled due to MX, you can and should freely draw comparisons between twins and quads. In fact, if the airlines can get such data, those results can and should influence their decisions to buy quads vs. twins.

The comparison between 777 and A340 is quite valid, just as the comparison between 777 and 747 would be equally valid.
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
 
dhefty
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:04 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Sat May 14, 2005 2:10 am

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 17):
It's blindingly obvious that the 772LR/773ER are about to dominate this sector. The next year or 2 should confirm that.

Correct. Airbus does not have a long-range high-capacity twin. The A340-500/600 is dying. The A340-200/300 are already dead. Only a few A340's will be sold as add-ons to existing fleets. Freighter conversions, anyone?
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Sat May 14, 2005 4:55 am

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 27):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 12):
Still below the 777 fleet average of 99.3%

777-3OO ER, not 777.

No, the current 777 Fleet is 99.3% and the 777-300ER is a shade under that at 99.2%. The remarkable feat is to have a new airplane at the mature fleet average level in the first year of service. Many posters on this board have excused the A345/6 D.R. record by saying that it was only natural for a newly introduced derivative airplane to be significantly below the original version.

The comparable A340 Fleet statistic is about the 98.5% that Airbus hopes to get the A345/6 up to.

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 26):
the A340 since 1999 have been improved, and have now at Cathay Pacific a DR of 98,7%

That's very good. If you want to pick individual airlines, Korean 777 D.R. is 99.7% on a daily utilization of 13 hrs. Naturally, the Fleet is lower since it is an average.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Sat May 14, 2005 5:06 am

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 23):
The point, if I understand well, is to be more relaxed with engines power, and to be ETOPS free. Of course it has a cost.

....more along the lines of them not having sufficient engines for the MTOWs specified by the A343 family during the design phase.

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 24):
Because the "unreliabilities" of all engines are added, and each engine decreases a bit the reliability of the plane.

You've managed to completely miss what I was trying to tell you. ContnlElite spelled it out for you perfectly however........

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 28):
The stockholders, customer service reps, accounts, pilots, nor anybody else, give any dispatch problem a pass because an aircraft has four engines instead of two.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Planesmart
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Sat May 14, 2005 5:30 am

The devil is in the detail.

For example, i presume the statutory and company discretionary go/no go requirements differ for short, medium and long duration flights. Therefore, aspects like how the fleet is used, technical support at destination, frequency company operates to destination (hub?) would impact discretionary despatch reliability.

For example, a Virgin flight to HK versus a 3hr over land Continental flight to a hub. Would the company discretionary go/no go requirments be different? Would Virgin be more likely to fix the problem before departure rather than at destination? Would a galley problem stop a short duration US domestic flight?

On the face of it, the 777 achieves excellent reliability, but unless you analyse fleet use profile, frequency of company arrivals at destination, technical support at destination, distance from support at destination, it's hard to be sure when the difference is only a few %.

Best test would be an airline that uses 777 and A34 on the same routes, and then analyse reliability just on those dual use routes.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Sat May 14, 2005 6:02 am

Quoting PlaneSmart (Reply 32):
Best test would be an airline that uses 777 and A34 on the same routes, and then analyse reliability just on those dual use routes.

Try Air France. Although the routes aren't exactly the same, as the 777 usually flies futher, but utilization is about equal and you can probably assume maintenance practicies are consistent.

The data I have says their 777 D.R. is about 1.5% higher than their A340's. Note that the 773ER's is included in these statistics.

[Edited 2005-05-13 23:35:08]
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
N60659
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:24 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Sat May 14, 2005 6:16 am

Quoting PlaneSmart (Reply 32):
Best test would be an airline that uses 777 and A34 on the same routes, and then analyse reliability just on those dual use routes.

If you are talking about the 773ER and A346, that is going to be rather limited in scope given that there are only two airlines (EK and EY) that have placed orders for both types. EK has just received the first two of it's order of 30 and EY is still waiting for theirs.

-N60659
Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Sat May 14, 2005 6:28 am

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 29):
The A340-500/600 is dying. The A340-200/300 are already dead. Only a few A340's will be sold as add-ons to existing fleets. Freighter conversions, anyone?

Not likely because the A340 does not have a very good payload/weight ratio at all. You actually need thrust in order to lift things.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Sat May 14, 2005 6:42 am

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 29):
The A340-500/600 is dying.

Not that I am disputing what you're claiming, but is this a generally accepted assessment? I mean, this is the first I've heard of it and I'm surprised none of the Airbus boosters on this forum have jumped on your comment.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Sat May 14, 2005 7:04 am

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 29):
The A340-500/600 is dying.



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 36):
is this a generally accepted assessment?

The A340-500 is probably about as dead as the B767. Airbus can sell more only for political reasons, not for business reasons because the B777-200LR is overwhelmingly superior. However, the A340-600 remains more or less competitive with the B777-300ER, the latter having a much smaller margin of superiority. Airbus are likely to win some orders yet for the A340-600 -- at least from airlines already operating the A340. I wouldn't write off the A340-600 until Airbus either announces an A350 in that size or plans to shut down A340 production.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Sat May 14, 2005 7:14 am

OAG

'Try Air France. Although the routes aren't exactly the same, as the 777 usually flies futher, but utilization is about equal and you can probably assume maintenance practicies are consistent.'

They fly standard 777's on longer routes than A34?

If A34 fleet is smaller and monthly cycles higher, wouldn't you expect lower despatch reliability?

The data I have says their 777 D.R. is about 1.5% higher than their A340's. Note that the 773ER's is included in these statistics.

Is the data just for Air France?
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Sat May 14, 2005 7:42 am

Quoting PlaneSmart (Reply 38):
They fly standard 777's on longer routes than A34?

Yes, their 777's consist of -200ERs and -300ERs. Both of these airplanes have greater range capability than the A343 and AF uses it.

Quoting PlaneSmart (Reply 38):
If A34 fleet is smaller and monthly cycles higher, wouldn't you expect lower dispatch reliability?

Average flight length and average daily utilization are usually the key factors in D.R. D.R. tends to drop as either one of these figures increase. The AF 777's lead the A340's slightly in both categories.

Quoting PlaneSmart (Reply 38):
Is the data just for Air France?

Yes
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
Planesmart
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Sat May 14, 2005 2:28 pm

Thanks OAG.

If the 777 flies further & utilisation is about equal (your reply 33), then the A34 presumably operate more cycles. More cycles, more departures and more opportunity for possible delay?

Even if Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) is identical for both aircraft, then more cycles (& 4 engines) will translate to lower reliability because i presume what AF require for a take off is more demanding than they require to continue in flight to destination.

What if you dial in all unscheduled maintenance? Still the same variance?
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Sun May 15, 2005 3:44 am

Quoting PlaneSmart (Reply 40):
If the 777 flies further & utilization is about equal (your reply 33), then the A34 presumably operate more cycles. More cycles, more departures and more opportunity for possible delay?



On the other hand, more takeoffs and landings mean opportunity to fix a problem between cycles. You can argue it both ways and there isn't a conclusive answer

Quoting PlaneSmart (Reply 40):
Even if Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) is identical for both aircraft, then more cycles (& 4 engines) will translate to lower reliability because I presume what AF require for a take off is more demanding than they require to continue in flight to destination.

It depends if MTBF is based on hours or cycles. As I said above, you can argue it both ways and it depends on the particular piece of equipment involved.

The factors in D.R. are an argument that is never ending. The example I've cited for a comparison of two types operated on similar missions by the same airline is about as unbiased a comparison as you're likely to get. Given the AF rates, in 1000 777 departures there will be five delays (15 minutes or more)due to mechanical issues. In A340 departures there will be 20, or 4 times as many. If the causes are related to the number of engines, it speaks to the validity of the operating cost advantage for a twin vs a quad. If the causes are airframe related, it speaks to a basic difference in design philosophy.

Quoting PlaneSmart (Reply 40):
What if you dial in all unscheduled maintenance? Still the same variance?

Unscheduled maintenance as it impacts D.R. should be showing up in the D.R. numbers.

Good discussion in a civilized tone. Thanks
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Sun May 15, 2005 4:09 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 30):
No, the current 777 Fleet is 99.3% and the 777-300ER is a shade under that at 99.2%. The remarkable feat is to have a new airplane at the mature fleet average level in the first year of service. Many posters on this board have excused the A345/6 D.R. record by saying that it was only natural for a newly introduced derivative airplane to be significantly below the original version.

The comparable A340 Fleet statistic is about the 98.5% that Airbus hopes to get the A345/6 up to.

Hmm, .985 is fairly close to .993 squared = .986, which is what you would expect if 99.3% reliability was dependent solely by the likelihood of a single engine fault when you have two engines.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
dhefty
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:04 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Sun May 15, 2005 4:26 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 37):
However, the A340-600 remains more or less competitive with the B777-300ER, the latter having a much smaller margin of superiority. Airbus are likely to win some orders yet for the A340-600 -- at least from airlines already operating the A340.

Yes. I've said, the add-on market is their only hope. The A340-600 had a two-year head start, but is now lagging by a wide margin. The B777-300ER will now garner the lion's share in this segment. Again, there is no reason to have a twin, except for the VLA market. And the VLA market is stagnating.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Sun May 15, 2005 7:44 pm

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 43):
there is no reason to have a twin, except for the VLA market.

A twin with the MTOW of the A380 WhaleJet would need at least 155K lbs of thrust per engine. When the WhaleJet was developed, the development cost of 155K lbs thrust engines would have been prohibitive for the market size, hence Airbus chose a quad design. However, when Boeing eventually develop a clean-sheet replacement for the B777-300 and B747 families, it will almost certainly be a twin. The WhaleJet is probably the last all-new quad.
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Sun May 15, 2005 11:34 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 44):
However, when Boeing eventually develop a clean-sheet replacement for the B777-300 and B747 families, it will almost certainly be a twin.

Does the GE-90 have the potential to grow to 155K lbs? Or are we looking at an entirely new engine?
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Mon May 16, 2005 2:03 am

Quoting NorCal (Reply 45):
Does the GE-90 have the potential to grow to 155K lbs? Or are we looking at an entirely new engine?

Reworking the GE-90 to a certified thrust of 155K lbs would require a larger fan and probably some major changes to the compressor. I don't think it would make a lot of sense to call such an engine a GE-90. It might have commonality similar to that between the Trent 500 and Trent 700. I think the GE-90 as it exists now could probably be certified to 125K lbs. Note that any possible B777 requiring more than 125K lbs thrust would also require both a new wing for greater lift and more landing gear wheels to distribute the weight.

A very large single-deck twin using follow-on B787 technologies to replace the B777-300 and B747 would require engines with a thrust of significantly less than 155K lbs. The B777-300ER has an OEW of 370,000 lbs., a fuel capacity of 320,000 lbs., a structural payload capacity of 154,000 lbs., and a MTOW of 775,000 lbs. The B747-400 (PW engines) has an OEW of 395,000 lbs., a fuel capacity of 384,000 lbs. (max), a structural payload capacity of 148,000 lbs., and a MTOW of 875,000 lbs.

A 270" circular cross-section composite fuselage twin with seating capacity comparable to the B777-300 would be about 60 meters long. If Boeing were to produce such a plane in 60, 70, and 80 meter lengths, with a fuel capacity of 400,000 lbs. and a structural payload capacity of 160,000 lbs., the OEW might range from 300,000 to 360,000 lbs. and the MTOW might range from 800,000 to 900,000 lbs. Such a hypothetical replacement for the B777-300 and B747 would require 125K to 135K thrust engines.

If Boeing were to offer such an aircraft in 60 and 70 meter versions with a smaller wing (ala B787-3) having half the fuel capacity, then the GE-90 would certainly suffice. Such a version might sell well within Asia.
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: 777-300ER In-Service Dispatch 99.2%

Mon May 16, 2005 2:47 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 31):
You've managed to completely miss what I was trying to tell you. ContnlElite spelled it out for you perfectly however........

You didn't say anything related to my answer, you just aked "why ?" !!
You managed to lose an occasion to "keep quiet" and remain civil.