Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Clarkxwb wrote:Possibly. No matter how reliable Jet engines have become I'd still prefer 4 engines under the wings when flying the Southern Pacific or Indian oceans.
Clarkxwb wrote:Possibly. No matter how reliable Jet engines have become I'd still prefer 4 engines under the wings when flying the Southern Pacific or Indian oceans.
Clarkxwb wrote:Possibly. No matter how reliable Jet engines have become I'd still prefer 4 engines under the wings when flying the Southern Pacific or Indian oceans.
ILUVDC10S wrote:Just pondering allbeit with some nostalgia has any airline had buyers remorse by going with all Twin engine crafts IE A 330, B-777,787,767 instead of buying the A 340 or the 747-400's? Man I miss the DC-10's .
keitherson wrote:No. Usually for any buyers' remorse it's the opposite for twin engine widebodies: for example VA with their 77Ws. They would have done much better only with 330s or smaller planes.
Bongodog1964 wrote:Remember when VS painted "4 engines for long haul" on the side of their fleet of 744's and A340's ? A comment firmly aimed at BA with their 777's.
Now we have VS with a fleet of mainly A333's and 787's and the slogan has been quietly dropped. The only remorse I can see here is one of choosing a fleet that was too big/too expensive to operate.
ILUVDC10S wrote:When airlines erase all 4 engine planes from their fleets then I will not go overseas then. they lost my business.
ILUVDC10S wrote:I am in my 40's Cunard FYI. And yes its my choice. I refuse to fly intercontinental with 2 engines period!. And no I will not offer up my money to a company that puts profits over passenger safety sorry. Thats why I have done my flying on KLM rather than DL for my Europe trips. Once KLM ends the 747 US or Canada Service I am done traveling to Europe. Once NWA got the A-330 I stopped taking NWA to Europe I talk with my wallet .
keitherson wrote:No. Usually for any buyers' remorse it's the opposite for twin engine widebodies: for example VA with their 77Ws. They would have done much better only with 330s or smaller planes.
ILUVDC10S wrote:I am in my 40's Cunard FYI. And yes its my choice. I refuse to fly intercontinental with 2 engines period!. And no I will not offer up my money to a company that puts profits over passenger safety sorry. Thats why I have done my flying on KLM rather than DL for my Europe trips. Once KLM ends the 747 US or Canada Service I am done traveling to Europe. Once NWA got the A-330 I stopped taking NWA to Europe I talk with my wallet .
ILUVDC10S wrote:Just pondering allbeit with some nostalgia has any airline had buyers remorse by going with all Twin engine crafts IE A 330, B-777,787,767 instead of buying the A 340 or the 747-400's? Man I miss the DC-10's .
Mortyman wrote:They still got 16 Aircraft With 4 engines. 22 With 2
ILUVDC10S wrote:I am in my 40's Cunard FYI. And yes its my choice. I refuse to fly intercontinental with 2 engines period!. And no I will not offer up my money to a company that puts profits over passenger safety sorry. Thats why I have done my flying on KLM rather than DL for my Europe trips. Once KLM ends the 747 US or Canada Service I am done traveling to Europe. Once NWA got the A-330 I stopped taking NWA to Europe I talk with my wallet .
ILUVDC10S wrote:I am in my 40's Cunard FYI. And yes its my choice. I refuse to fly intercontinental with 2 engines period!. And no I will not offer up my money to a company that puts profits over passenger safety sorry. Thats why I have done my flying on KLM rather than DL for my Europe trips. Once KLM ends the 747 US or Canada Service I am done traveling to Europe. Once NWA got the A-330 I stopped taking NWA to Europe I talk with my wallet .
ILUVDC10S wrote:When airlines erase all 4 engine planes from their fleets then I will not go overseas then. they lost my business.
ILUVDC10S wrote:I am in my 40's Cunard FYI. And yes its my choice. I refuse to fly intercontinental with 2 engines period!. And no I will not offer up my money to a company that puts profits over passenger safety sorry. Thats why I have done my flying on KLM rather than DL for my Europe trips. Once KLM ends the 747 US or Canada Service I am done traveling to Europe. Once NWA got the A-330 I stopped taking NWA to Europe I talk with my wallet .
Carpethead wrote:I get what you are saying, there are plenty of people worldwide with quirky beliefs.
Anyways back to the topic, I believe AirTransat almost ate it back in 2001, fortunately the Azores were nearby.
Clarkxwb wrote:Possibly. No matter how reliable Jet engines have become I'd still prefer 4 engines under the wings when flying the Southern Pacific or Indian oceans.
ILUVDC10S wrote:Carpethead wrote:I get what you are saying, there are plenty of people worldwide with quirky beliefs.
Anyways back to the topic, I believe AirTransat almost ate it back in 2001, fortunately the Azores were nearby.
Yes thankful for the Azores for sure . some have been not so lucky .
BoeingGuy wrote:[threeid][/threeid]ILUVDC10S wrote:I am in my 40's Cunard FYI. And yes its my choice. I refuse to fly intercontinental with 2 engines period!. And no I will not offer up my money to a company that puts profits over passenger safety sorry. Thats why I have done my flying on KLM rather than DL for my Europe trips. Once KLM ends the 747 US or Canada Service I am done traveling to Europe. Once NWA got the A-330 I stopped taking NWA to Europe I talk with my wallet .
As other posters have indicated, enjoy sitting home then. You really don't understand ETOPS or the statistics. There has never been an accident caused solely by ETOPS operations.
ILUVDC10S wrote:BoeingGuy wrote:[threeid][/threeid]ILUVDC10S wrote:I am in my 40's Cunard FYI. And yes its my choice. I refuse to fly intercontinental with 2 engines period!. And no I will not offer up my money to a company that puts profits over passenger safety sorry. Thats why I have done my flying on KLM rather than DL for my Europe trips. Once KLM ends the 747 US or Canada Service I am done traveling to Europe. Once NWA got the A-330 I stopped taking NWA to Europe I talk with my wallet .
As other posters have indicated, enjoy sitting home then. You really don't understand ETOPS or the statistics. There has never been an accident caused solely by ETOPS operations.
Extended range twin engine Operational Performance standards AKA as Engines Turn or Passengers Swim deals with engine failures over primary over long distances between suitable airports for a diversion using the science of gliding into that said airport or into the ocean and become fish food.
ILUVDC10S wrote:some have been not so lucky .
ILUVDC10S wrote:Extended range twin engine Operational Performance standards AKA as Engines Turn or Passengers Swim deals with engine failures over primary over long distances between suitable airports for a diversion using the science of gliding into that said airport or into the ocean and become fish food.
ILUVDC10S wrote:BoeingGuy wrote:[threeid][/threeid]ILUVDC10S wrote:I am in my 40's Cunard FYI. And yes its my choice. I refuse to fly intercontinental with 2 engines period!. And no I will not offer up my money to a company that puts profits over passenger safety sorry. Thats why I have done my flying on KLM rather than DL for my Europe trips. Once KLM ends the 747 US or Canada Service I am done traveling to Europe. Once NWA got the A-330 I stopped taking NWA to Europe I talk with my wallet .
As other posters have indicated, enjoy sitting home then. You really don't understand ETOPS or the statistics. There has never been an accident caused solely by ETOPS operations.
Extended range twin engine Operational Performance standards AKA as Engines Turn or Passengers Swim deals with engine failures over primary over long distances between suitable airports for a diversion using the science of gliding into that said airport or into the ocean and become fish food.
FriscoHeavy wrote:ILUVDC10S wrote:BoeingGuy wrote:[threeid][/threeid]
As other posters have indicated, enjoy sitting home then. You really don't understand ETOPS or the statistics. There has never been an accident caused solely by ETOPS operations.
Extended range twin engine Operational Performance standards AKA as Engines Turn or Passengers Swim deals with engine failures over primary over long distances between suitable airports for a diversion using the science of gliding into that said airport or into the ocean and become fish food.
1. Please start using commas and periods, instead of grammatically incorrect run-on sentences. It sounds more like you are 12, not in your 40's.
2. I would question why you are on this forum since this forum is about passion for aviation and airplanes. You refusing to fly after 4-holers are taken out of service really shows that aviation isn't your thing. Yes, I love 747's more than any other plane and wish they'd be around forever, but I still love all airplanes and I'm certainly not afraid to fly them.
LAX772LR wrote:ILUVDC10S wrote:some have been not so lucky .
Like who? Name them.ILUVDC10S wrote:Extended range twin engine Operational Performance standards AKA as Engines Turn or Passengers Swim deals with engine failures over primary over long distances between suitable airports for a diversion using the science of gliding into that said airport or into the ocean and become fish food.
That ridiculous run-on aside, please name ONE time in the 30yrs+ and billions of seat miles since the advent of ETOPS.... where even 1 pax died in a twinjet, where having more engines would've prevented the situation.
Just once. In the span of 4 decades and billions upon billions of miles flown. ONE.
We'll wait.
citationjet wrote:Do you have a source for this instance? The quote from a passenger may not be very accurate or reliable. I have looked for this instance on Aviation Herald, but could not find it.
This thread is about "airline's" remorse with going with twin engines, not passenger's remorse.....
ILUVDC10S wrote:If there is a airline which operates a 4 engine aircraft I will fly them when there is no other option I simply will not go. Sorry if that seems irrational illoogical or whatever word you want to use. Engines may be different now and I understand that engines may have improved over the years.
If it is BA or LH then I will have to fly them. And I am not opposed to profits FYI just you are not going to force me to buy a product that I do not want or feel safe in . I just ask for respect for my opinion and views.
ILUVDC10S wrote:Try this one on for size okay :
United Flight 1516 bound for Houston, Texas, from Liberia, Costa Rica, because of the engine problem on the Boeing 737-800. Engine failure due to overheating ! Over the Gulf of Mexico
From a Passenger perspective :One of my plane's engines overheated over the ocean. We about crashed in an emergency landing before the pilot quickly pulled up. So scary," Jody Genessy
PDX88 wrote:ILUVDC10S wrote:Try this one on for size okay :
United Flight 1516 bound for Houston, Texas, from Liberia, Costa Rica, because of the engine problem on the Boeing 737-800. Engine failure due to overheating ! Over the Gulf of Mexico
From a Passenger perspective :One of my plane's engines overheated over the ocean. We about crashed in an emergency landing before the pilot quickly pulled up. So scary," Jody Genessy
Are you suggesting United should be running a tri or quad between IAH and LIR? That's insane.
And we have no news sources saying the plane was anywhere close to doomed, just one passenger who sounds like they have no idea what they're talking about. Even you should notice that.
All I see is the 2nd engine doing its job and the plane landed safely. So you still have 0 examples of a twin crashing where a quad wouldn't have.
ILUVDC10S wrote:See my next post below that one !
Second yes a four engine plane would make a difference BIG difference!!!! that plane would have 3 other engines operating properly. A 727 would be a better fit for that route oh wait they do not fly them anymore .
PDX88 wrote:ILUVDC10S wrote:See my next post below that one !
Second yes a four engine plane would make a difference BIG difference!!!! that plane would have 3 other engines operating properly. A 727 would be a better fit for that route oh wait they do not fly them anymore .
Sorry, I meant to say there's no official sources that back up what the passenger said. A passenger testimony is the worst proof that a plane almost crashed.
A 727 would have also had the same outcome as the 737 did, it would have diverted and landed safely. So what would the 727 have done better other than drinking more gas?
ericalexandre76 wrote:I know its not transcontinental. It only takes one to call into question operational deployments of the fleet . Now as far as going North to South America since there are plenty of Out's in the islands in the Gulf of Mexico I may consider a twin engine. IT darn well better be a wide body I will not be having a fight with the FA over my medical needs under doctors orders to walk every 30 minutes or get DVT . And yes I do have a written order for you to read FA/PIC if you have any questions or problems with that.So how many flights between Houston and Liberia and one possibly had en engine issue and still landed safely? And for the record that is not transcontinental, I thought you were only opposed to flying between continents on anything less than 3 engines?