leelaw
Posts: 4520
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:49 am

http://www.boeing.com/randy/

In this week's episode Randy gives Airbus and SRB a mild poke.  Smile
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 3940
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:03 am

Quoting Leelaw (Thread starter):
In this week's episode Randy gives Airbus and SRB a mild poke.

How? It just seemed a comment on the recent news about twin ops...

If he was giving them a poke, he would also be giving the 747-8 and A380 a poke, which he isn't.

Thanks for the heads up though, I was wondering when his next update was.
I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
 
art
Posts: 2679
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:08 am

I think that Randy is right - more direct flight paths from A to B should cut costs and I would add, cut flight times, too.

Another nail in the coffin of the A340?
 
bbobbo
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:33 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:14 am

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 1):
How? It just seemed a comment on the recent news about twin ops...

Airbus used to have the slogan "4 Engines 4 Long Haul", and Virgin had it painted on their A340s.
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 3940
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:20 am

Quoting Bbobbo (Reply 3):
Airbus used to have the slogan "4 Engines 4 Long Haul", and Virgin had it painted on their A340s.

Yeah so did Airbus, but that's like saying the 744 is just as bad.

I mean, you could argue that GE and RR (and P&W if they ever get their act together and become a major supplier again) should develop a massive engine for the 744 and 380.

So I don't think it was a veiled reference to Virgin or Airbus.
I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
 
bbobbo
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:33 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:28 am

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 4):
So I don't think it was a veiled reference to Virgin or Airbus.

Except Randy has talked about it before in his blog:

What happened to "4 engines 4 long haul"?
 
RIXrat
Posts: 671
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:20 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:28 am

If Boeing is serious in selling the 747i, which is a four engine aircraft, then I think that Randy should have changed one word from "more" to "just," or left that sensitive subject alone.

Quoting Randy:

"twin-engine airplanes are more efficient, more economical, and more reliable than three- or four-engine airplanes."
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:33 am

Or maybe it's a subtle hint at something  Wink

Either that or (sorry bbobbo) it is a mild swipe at Virgin's marketting slogan.

What I'm curious about is Randy mentions the quads being treated like twins, not the otherway around. Does this mean quads will be subjected to the same requirement for x years of trouble free 120 etops before getting 180 or similar???
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
leelaw
Posts: 4520
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:42 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 7):
What I'm curious about is Randy mentions the quads being treated like twins, not the otherway around. Does this mean quads will be subjected to the same requirement for x years of trouble free 120 etops before getting 180 or similar



Quote:
...Essentially, the FAA said it's time to treat two-engine and four-engine passenger planes the same when it comes to these extended-range flights. The agency will require that four-engine jets meet the same standard as two-engine planes when flying long-haul routes.

This means, for example, four-engine planes will need to have equipment on board to extinguish cargo fires for as long as it takes to reach a diversion airport. This was previously required only for twin-engine jets.

Four-engine planes operating on long-haul routes also will have to have satellite-based communication equipment, which now is required on only twin-engine planes when they operate on extended-range flights...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/299052_air10.html
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
bbobbo
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:33 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:55 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 7):
Or maybe it's a subtle hint at something  wink 

Either that or (sorry bbobbo) it is a mild swipe at Virgin's marketting slogan.

Sorry for what? I'm a little dense today....

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 7):
What I'm curious about is Randy mentions the quads being treated like twins, not the otherway around. Does this mean quads will be subjected to the same requirement for x years of trouble free 120 etops before getting 180 or similar??

I noticed that too. I think your interpretation is correct. 12-months of operation for 120-minute ETOPS, another 12-months of operation for 180-minute ETOPS, although those periods can be shortened at the FAA's discretion.

It makes sense, really--don't base it on number of engines, base it on actual reliability statistics for each airplane/engine combination.

Here is the actual FAA rule document (296 pages long!!!):

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic.../recently_published/media/6717.pdf
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:01 am

@bbobbo:

Sorry man I'm posting from my cell that should have read "sorry, agree with bbobbo" but the brain got ahead of the fingers.

If quads are truly being treated the same as twins (no way I'm reading 296 pages on my cell LOL) then that changes things quite a bit for a startup doesn't it. No way to avoid 120 ETOPS now, so the old "get a quad to run long flights" for startups goes away.

A lot of possibly interesting ramifications to that.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:06 am

From what i understand diversions will be the same. Quads will still be unresticted and twins will still rely on diversion airports being within a certain flight time. The difference is quads will need similar fire fighting equipment to twins operating under ETOPS to gain their LROPS certification. Also better communication and medical equipment are needed. It is a type approval and not an operational certification.

It makes very little difference. In fact, it means quads will be that little bit safer.

[Edited 2007-01-13 01:08:19]
 
Glom
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:51 pm

The 748 is a derivative of a popular design. Boeing aren't marketting it's four engine attribute as an advantage as Airbus did with the A340, so there isn't much of a contradiction.

Besides, what engine could power a 747 sized twin?
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:14 pm

Quoting Art (Reply 2):
I think that Randy is right - more direct flight paths from A to B should cut costs and I would add, cut flight times, too.

Another nail in the coffin of the A340?

Especially since, as he said, the same procedures developed for ETOPS will be extended to all aircraft, having 4 engines used to mean less hoops to jump through, not any more though. It seems like one of the very few remaning advantages A340 had is gone. We haven't really seen any new customers order A340s recently though, safe to say, A340 is all but dead.

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 4):
So I don't think it was a veiled reference to Virgin or Airbus.

Virgin and Airbus have used
"4 Engines 4 Long Haul"

Randy said:
"2 Engines for the Long Haul"

Do you not see a similarity, which is not likely coincidental? It was a joke about the virgin/airbus slogan.

Quoting RIXrat (Reply 6):

Quoting Randy:

"twin-engine airplanes are more efficient, more economical, and more reliable than three- or four-engine airplanes."

Well, it is the truth. Boeing does not have its future in 4 engined aircraft. The 748 well certainly sell enough aircraft to cover its fairly scant development costs. It's a parts bin plane, 787 engines, 777 composite additions and interior, 747 airframe. It will keep a few key airlines in the Boeing family for their next generation long haul and cargo jets instead of hopping over to A380, but Boeing's future is staked on Y3, which will be a twin. Randy knows things we don't, and he knows Boeing has put its eggs in the twin engine basket.

Quoting Glom (Reply 12):
Besides, what engine could power a 747 sized twin?

Let's say we take a 777-300ER, stretch it another 20 feet, so it is now 262ft long, and we use 17.2" seats, like 744 does for Y, and pack it 10 abreast, like ANA does on some, and Emirates does, we can now fit as many people, and more cargo on board than on a 747 classic, and about as much as on a 744, and this stretched aircraft would need what? only slightly larger GE90's right? maybe 125,000lb or so? I'd bet GE could squeeze another 10k lb of thrust out of that engine, one way or another.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
OHLHD
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 6:02 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:51 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 13):
We haven't really seen any new customers order A340s recently though, safe to say, A340 is all but dead.

Lufthansa and Finnair???
 
jimbobjoe
Posts: 450
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2001 2:04 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:52 pm

The quote from the blog that interested me was...

"For example, the A340-600 consumes over 20% more fuel compared with the 777-300ER."

20%? Whoa. It seems to me that the A346 would be positively rejected by everyone if the fuel burn was that much more.

Is this a fair statistic? I remember hearing that the 777 has a sweet spot of speed and fuel efficiency that's a bit faster than the A340. However, if you fly the A340 slower, you get a pretty efficient fuel burn (though its quite the disadvantage on long flights.)

Could he be comparing a 777 at its sweet spot with an A340 flying faster than it's normally operated, which accounts for the huge fuel burn difference?
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5015
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:48 pm

As usual, Airbus basher hired for Boeing, need I say more?

Over n Out

Micke//  zzz 
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
art
Posts: 2679
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:02 pm

Quoting RIXrat (Reply 6):
Quoting Randy:

"twin-engine airplanes... more reliable than three- or four-engine airplanes."

I am suprised to hear that quads lose power on 2 engines more often than twins lose power on 1. That is what he is saying, isn't it?
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:27 pm

Quoting Art (Reply 17):
I am suprised to hear that quads lose power on 2 engines more often than twins lose power on 1. That is what he is saying, isn't it?

No, he's saying quads lose power on one more often than twins lose power on one. Which is understandable, as a quad has twice as many engines and they don't have to be maintained to Etops standards. However, depending on how far you are through a flight you can sometimes proceed to your intended destination with one engine down on a quad.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:27 pm

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 4):
I mean, you could argue that GE and RR (and P&W if they ever get their act together and become a major supplier again) should develop a massive engine for the 744 and 380.

Trying to revise either the Jumbo or the WhaleJet into a twin would require an all-new wing. At that point, one had might as well start with a clean slate and design an all-new airliner.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 13):
Let's say we take a 777-300ER, stretch it another 20 feet, so it is now 262ft long, and we use 17.2" seats, like 744 does for Y, and pack it 10 abreast, like ANA does on some, and Emirates does, we can now fit as many people, and more cargo on board than on a 747 classic, and about as much as on a 744, and this stretched aircraft would need what? only slightly larger GE90's right? maybe 125,000lb or so? I'd bet GE could squeeze another 10k lb of thrust out of that engine, one way or another.

Boeing considered a 777-400X several times. The idea was finally and permanently put to rest when the 747-8 SuperJumbo was launched.

Quoting Art (Reply 17):
I am suprised to hear that quads lose power on 2 engines more often than twins lose power on 1. That is what he is saying, isn't it?

No, that's not what he's saying. The chances of losing one engine are higher with a quad than with a twin and the consequences are not very different. Losing two engines on a quad (especially but not only on the same side) is more consequential than losing one engine on a twin. I don't think any commercial quads can maintain speed and altitude with a payload and two engines out on the same side. It's going down. Depending on the payload, the same could be true if the shut-down engines are on opposite sides -- especially if one is inboard and the other is outboard. In that case it would probably be necessary to jetison fuel in order to maintain speed and altitude. Obviously, losing two engines on a twin also means you're going down. The main advantage of a quad with two engines out over a twin with two engines out is that the rate of descent at constant velocity will be a lot lower providing much greater range in which to find a suitable landing site.

Also, the chances of losing all four engines on a quad are only a little bit smaller than the chances of losing both engines on a twin. Engines have become so reliable that the chances of two engines shutting down because of independant engine failures is vanishingly small compared to the chances of a problem which would affect all engines such as contaminated fuel or flying through volcanic ash.
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:01 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 13):
We haven't really seen any new customers order A340s recently though, safe to say, A340 is all but dead.

Kingfisher and Finnair are real new customers, LH added 7 more to their large fleet. Reportedly, Airbus could not produce them quick enough for SAA, so they had to let the opportunity go.

---------------------------------------------------------

I wonder why Mr. Baseler titles his blog with a slogan that seems to reffer to Virgin Atlantic. Did something not work out the way he expected. Did a Virgin airline decided to place an Airbus widebody order again (Virgin Blue?)? Sour grapes ala Iberia? To finish with Mr. Baseler's title of his previous blog it seems 'Deja vu all over again'.  snooty 
SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
 
art
Posts: 2679
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:03 pm

RJ111, Zvezda - thanks for the clarification.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:04 pm

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 7):
Or maybe it's a subtle hint at something  

A wise man this one is, yes.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:07 pm

Looks like Branson threw in the towel....

Virgin Atlantic removes Airbus slogan
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:09 pm

Quoting Manni (Reply 20):
I wonder why Mr. Baseler titles his blog with a slogan that seems to reffer to Virgin Atlantic. Did something not work out the way he expected. Did a Virgin airline decided to place an Airbus widebody order again (Virgin Blue?)? Sour grapes ala Iberia? To finish with Mr. Baseler's title of his previous blog it seems 'Deja vu all over again'.

Depends on if King Richard has given up on Virgin USA. I doubt it. Not much of a choice wirh Airus these days unles you need a 320, or 330 at close to cost.  Cool
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
Aviator27
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:09 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:26 pm

Randy never ceases to amaze me. He's a salesman and not an aeronautical engineer. He really should be held liable for spouting nonsense on his blog. Then again its his blog of his own opinions.

In regards to some statements by some people. Airplanes with more than two engines don't have ETOPS restriction. That's why they call it ETOPS? What the FAA ruling is aiming to do is have 3 and 4 engine airplanes have more reliable systems.

ETOPS airplanes must have guaranteed APU start capability in flight. Along with more reliable back-up hydraulic systems. Three and four engine airplanes don't need to have those. The ruling doesn't allow twins to fly all routes, because twins are still limited by how far they can fly on one engine. Twins will also be limited over mountainous terrain because of single engine drift-down requirements. If you can't maintain a safe altitude over the mountains at your current weight on one engine, then you aren't allowed to fly over those mountains.

The ruling in effect is bringing airplane system reliability of three and four engine airplanes up to par with those on twins (which is a darn good idea). Twins will still need diversion airports. They will only be limited by the airplane's capability to reach that diversion airport based on weight and winds. I know a few years back Boeing demonstrated the B777 could fly up to 5 hours on one engine.
 
art
Posts: 2679
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:34 pm

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 24):
Not much of a choice wirh Airus these days unles you need a 320, or 330 at close to cost.

They do have another little model in their range called the A380!
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:59 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 13):
Especially since, as he said, the same procedures developed for ETOPS will be extended to all aircraft, having 4 engines used to mean less hoops to jump through, not any more though. It seems like one of the very few remaning advantages A340 had is gone. We haven't really seen any new customers order A340s recently though, safe to say, A340 is all but dead.

I don't agree the A340 is all but dead, but that's my opinion. On the flip side, the new ruling might encourage Boeing to begin thinking of its Y3 (747 and 777 replacement) in terms of a twin rather than four engine design. That's down the road a piece and may give engine designers time to come up with the ideal engine for just such an airplane.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:04 am

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 27):
the new ruling might encourage Boeing to begin thinking of its Y3 (747 and 777 replacement) in terms of a twin rather than four engine design. That's down the road a piece and may give engine designers time to come up with the ideal engine for just such an airplane.

The question will be: Can Boeing sell enough Y3s to justify development of an engine that will not sell in large numbers? It might be better to use four of an existing engine and save a few $Bs in development. If engine development were free, then of course it would be better for Y3 to be a twin.
 
art
Posts: 2679
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:42 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 28):
The question will be: Can Boeing sell enough Y3s to justify development of an engine that will not sell in large numbers? It might be better to use four of an existing engine and save a few $Bs in development. If engine development were free, then of course it would be better for Y3 to be a twin.

That's an interesting question, the problem of potential Y3 sales not justifying the cost of developing an engine to suit a big twin. That's the only foreseeable civil application, isn't it? Furthermore, the more successful the 787-1000 and 748-I prove to be, the more they erode potential Y3 sales.

Any chance of a military heavy lift application for the engine?
 
oldeuropean
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 5:19 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:32 am

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 23):
Looks like Branson threw in the towel....

Virgin Atlantic removes Airbus slogan

Time for VS to place an A350 order.  Big grin

Axel
Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:55 am

Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 30):
Time for VS to place an A350 order.

Yes, indeed. It would be good to use those WhaleJet deposits for something VS need.  Smile Airbus won't be thrilled to lose 6 more WhaleJet orders, but there is some number of A350 orders that would make Airbus happy to do the conversion. Probably 15 to 20.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9850
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:19 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 13):
Especially since, as he said, the same procedures developed for ETOPS will be extended to all aircraft, having 4 engines used to mean less hoops to jump through, not any more though. It seems like one of the very few remaning advantages A340 had is gone. We haven't really seen any new customers order A340s recently though, safe to say, A340 is all but dead.

Often misunderstood thing by many is that the 340 shares the same systems as the 330, it has the ETOPS equipment onboard. It has the same fire suppressant as the 330, it has the APU available in flight for start up to FL410, it has SATCOM, ACARS etc etc. The 747 never had ETOPS like systems straight out of the factory (cargo fire suppressant time, APU cannot be started in flight etc), when Randy is talking about quads not being as safe as twins, it is a comparison the on Boeing line, not Airbus.

Quoting Jimbobjoe (Reply 15):
20%? Whoa. It seems to me that the A346 would be positively rejected by everyone if the fuel burn was that much more.

The fuel burn figures depends on the airline configuration, eg the SQ 7773ER comparing it to say the LH configuration the 346 would be burning less per seat. Comparing LH to EK 773ER, EK would be better. Configured the same, the 346 will burn more per flight, how much more depends on the type of flight, sector length etc, it is not 20% over all sectors, that is like the worst case.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
kaddyuk
Posts: 3697
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:04 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:32 am

Quoting Jimbobjoe (Reply 15):
Could he be comparing a 777 at its sweet spot with an A340 flying faster than it's normally operated, which accounts for the huge fuel burn difference?

You hit the nail on the head, both aircraft have a very specific flight profile inside which they operate the most efficient. outside this envelope, they quickly become inefficient.

Thats how boeing come up with a 20% burn difference. You make the competition fly in the most uncomfortable circumstances while your own aircraft flies in the best possible configuration possible...

RJ111, Welcome to my RU... Finally someone who understands the complex relationships behind aircraft economics!
Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:02 am

According to his comments, Airbus lacks in every aspect behind Boeing. I wonder why his mouth is so shut about A330
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:21 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 32):
when Randy is talking about quads not being as safe as twins

Where did Randy say this?

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 34):
According to his comments, Airbus lacks in every aspect behind Boeing. I wonder why his mouth is so shut about A330

Would you like him to compare the A330 with the 787? Just how would that fit into a discussion of the advantages of twins vs. quads?
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13762
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:26 am

Quoting RIXrat (Reply 6):
If Boeing is serious in selling the 747i, which is a four engine aircraft, then I think that Randy should have changed one word from "more" to "just," or left that sensitive subject alone.

Quoting Randy:

"twin-engine airplanes are more efficient, more economical, and more reliable than three- or four-engine airplanes."

No, "just" is a lie, so why would he say "just" for any reason?

He should have said:
"twin-engine airplanes are more efficient, more economical, and more reliable than competing three- or four-engine airplanes of the same size flying the same missions."

or something like that.

But honestly, I don't think Randy is really concerned about his comments being taken by airlines to mean "the 747-8 is a piece of crap" and even it they did think that, it means Boeing sells more 77W or 787s instead, does Boeing lose?

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 11):
It makes very little difference. In fact, it means quads will be that little bit safer.

Exactly. That's the whole point.

The FAA, in a rare move not motivated by multiple tragic accidents, realized a few years ago that it made no sense to require twins to carry fire fighting and medical equipment sufficient for their ETOPS time rating, but to exempt quads from carrying such advanced equipment considering quads can fly further away from safety!

Part of the struggle to get this worked out was to decide how the rules should apply.

From what I understand, LROPS or whatever it is called, will require that a tri or quad have fire and medical equipment that would be "rated" in terms of minutes, and then the plane can only venture that far from a suitable diversion point. So the time rating wouldn't be based on when an engine fails, but when a passenger has an emergency, a fire breaks out, (or when the plane de-pressurizes). If the quad is equipped to fly 360 minutes under these conditions, then that would be acceptable. A twin, however, is limited even further by it's engine out certification, and that is max 240 on some aircraft, 207 on others, 180 on others.

At least that's how it was presented to me.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 23):
Looks like Branson threw in the towel....

The plot thickens...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:49 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 35):

Would you like him to compare the A330 with the 787? Just how would that fit into a discussion of the advantages of twins vs. quads?

Cause A330 has the loest operting trip costs of any twin
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:21 am

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 37):
Cause A330 has the loest operting trip costs of any twin

Only on short routes and only until the 787 enters service.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:43 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 38):
Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 37):
Cause A330 has the loest operting trip costs of any twin

Only on short routes and only until the 787 enters service.

Mr. Z:
Doesn't the 767 have a lower trip cost than the A330, and doesnt the 777 have a lower CASM?
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:44 am

Quoting Jimbobjoe (Reply 15):
20%? Whoa. It seems to me that the A346 would be positively rejected by everyone if the fuel burn was that much more.

Well, according to a German newspaper, Hamburg-based Llloyds Fonds has acquired from Virgin December 20th, 2006 an A346 that had been delivered August 23rd, 2006. The plane will be leased back to Virgin. Nothing unusual, unless one notes that according to Lloyds Fonds they paid only US$103m for the plane. That kind of puts your comment into perspective. Even a fuel guzzler is attractive if only the price is low enough!

Quoting Zeke (Reply 32):
The fuel burn figures depends on the airline configuration, eg the SQ 7773ER comparing it to say the LH configuration the 346 would be burning less per seat. Comparing LH to EK 773ER, EK would be better. Configured the same, the 346 will burn more per flight, how much more depends on the type of flight, sector length etc, it is not 20% over all sectors, that is like the worst case.

Fully second that.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:58 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 39):
Doesn't the 767 have a lower trip cost than the A330, and doesnt the 777 have a lower CASM?

In both cases, it depends on the route, which model, which engines, how the interiors are configured, etc. A330s are not normally configured for long haul; 777s usually are.
 
Aviator27
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:09 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:07 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 28):
The question will be: Can Boeing sell enough Y3s to justify development of an engine that will not sell in large numbers? It might be better to use four of an existing engine and save a few $Bs in development. If engine development were free, then of course it would be better for Y3 to be a twin

Boeing doesn't develop nor build engines. Boeing builds airframes. The engines are done by Rolls Royce, Pratt & Whitney, GE, and some others. In fact, Boeing and Airbus have to design airplanes around the engines that will be available around EIS. Sometimes, promising engine technology never pan out. Airbus got burned by this a few times.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 32):
The fuel burn figures depends on the airline configuration, eg the SQ 7773ER comparing it to say the LH configuration the 346 would be burning less per seat. Comparing LH to EK 773ER, EK would be better. Configured the same, the 346 will burn more per flight, how much more depends on the type of flight, sector length etc, it is not 20% over all sectors, that is like the worst case.

You hit the nail right on the head and yet so many here on ANET seem to forget that actual in service seat count and is almost always different than those presented by the manufacturers for widebody long haul airplanes.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9850
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:25 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 39):
Mr. Z:
Doesn't the 767 have a lower trip cost than the A330, and doesnt the 777 have a lower CASM?

Not according to people who can put a figure on it.

See "Exhibit 29 : CASM of Selected Widebody Aircraft" on page 28 of http://www.securitization.net/pdf/publications/aircraftABS_7sept05.pdf
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:35 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 38):

Only on short routes and only until the 787 enters service.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 43):

Not according to people who can put a figure on it.



Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 39):
Mr. Z:
Doesn't the 767 have a lower trip cost than the A330, and doesnt the 777 have a lower CASM?

Really, that about 767 really surprises me since there are selling really badly. But they burn less, how come then?
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:39 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 41):
etc. A330s are not normally configured for long haul; 777s usually are.

So then please define long haul !
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:55 am

The A330 is a real moneymaker with routes of around 8000km

The 777-2ER has range of 14500 km. Can you find me some routes where I could fly the distance?
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:59 am

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 44):
Really, that about 767 really surprises me since there are selling really badly. But they burn less, how come then?

The 767 is a smaller aircraft than the A330.
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:17 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 47):

The 767 is a smaller aircraft than the A330.

actually you sad that 767 has lower cost per trip than A330. But the A330-200 clearly burns less than 767-400 (the most fuel efficient 767). You just don't have evidence to support your words
 
cubastar
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:48 pm

RE: Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul"

Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:18 am

Quoting Leelaw (Thread starter):
Leelaw From United States



Quoting Leelaw (Reply 8):
Leelaw From United States

You crack me up! Start a thread......finish it off by reply 8 and let the confused begin. A breath of fresh air!