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 .

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.

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.

No. But I think some B748F buyers probably wish they bought B777F instead

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.

How many ETOPS twinjet diversions have there been that would have been in big big trouble (Ditching) had the other motor quit? Probably less than 10 in the history of ETOPS flight.

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.

Couldn't agree more, and I'll add the other watery patch seperating the Americas from Europe and Africa to the list. For many years LH pilots successfully argued 3 or more engines was mandatory for crossing oceans, relenting only when LH dipped into the A330 bandwagon.

Sadly chosing '3 or more engines' for travels across oceans are becoming increasingly difficult, but from Europe there are still plenty of options.

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.

While I'd prefer a twice lower probability of uncontained engine failure.
Not to mention that until EROPS came into force, the possibility of common-cause multiple engine failure was much lower on twinjets than on 3+ engine jets. For an example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_855

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.

AA doesn;t have A380 , A340 or 747 so they are all twin, so are Air Canada and Cathay ( once A340 are gone). Both ANA( until A380) and JAL are all twin and have been for several years.

I think if any airline had buyers remorse it was the other way around, IE Virgin and anyone else who realized the cost savings they could have realized by going all Twin earlier

I LOVE looking at and flying 340, 747, 380. The economics just cant compete with twins.

CX seems to be happy with their decision of no more A380/747 and they have just retired A340?

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 .

Why feel remorse? Going twin is cheaper and make the airlines more money. Airlines are businesses not a hobby..

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.

What would VA have used to cross the pacific to the US?

with the increased reliability reporting and more stringent ETOPS regulations (At least in the USA) flying ETOPS has been very reliable. But?
If you REALLY want a 4 engine airplane to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific? Your choices are pretty limited..

This thread is better positioned in 2004/5.

I liked big American cars like old Buicks and Caddys...but that ship has sailed. Today every plane looks the same (and in the US) so does every sedan and crossover.

Efficiency and Technology.

Onward and Upward.

When airlines erase all 4 engine planes from their fleets then I will not go overseas then. they lost my business.

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.

They still got 16 Aircraft With 4 engines. 22 With 2

ILUVDC10S wrote:

When airlines erase all 4 engine planes from their fleets then I will not go overseas then. they lost my business.

That is certianly your choice, but that sounds a lot like people that do not fly and take cross country car trips in the US for fear of crashing. It is just not logical or factually backed up. I am guessing there are a 1000 things you do every week or month that are way more likley to kill you than a twin engine across the Ocean.

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 .

That's your right. But you seem to be equally determined to fly to Europe only with Skyteam airlines. BA will still be operating 744s into the mid 2020s, and then they have A380s. LH has 19 748i and 14 A380. They aren't going away either.

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 .

That is a very ignorant and factually incorrect statement. No airline who operates a 2-engined aircraft over TransAtlantic or TransPacific is putting profits over passenger safety. You sound like a looney bird with that statement. You obviously have no idea how safe 2-engined planes are.

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.

Until the 787-9 came along, what else could do LAX without significant restrictions that is also a twin? Today, those planes would likely be 787-9s, similar to United's Australia service.

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 .

That's just the point, twins are perfectly safe for crossing oceans. Thousands of twins cross the oceans every day and nothing ever happens. The thought that you'd need three or more engines for crossing the ocean is very old-fashioned and dates back to the days when engines were less reliable than they are today. Today we live in a different era that requires a different way of thinking.

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 .

Again, the purpose of an airline is to make money. The fact is further, that twins have become very long range with high payloads, and are very reliable. Therefore, they can deliver passengers to their destinations at a much lower operational cost. I believe Virgin Atlantic tried to use their only flying four engine planes as a advertising point against their rivals. It did not work. Now, the few remaining 747's and A-340's are due to be replaced by A-350-1000s. Everything else is a twin. There are A-380's on order that have been deferred. We will see if they get delivered.

The fact is airlines normally do not buy planes based on glamour liking the looks. They buy planes that can perform the missions the airlines have and do so most efficiently.

Mortyman wrote:

They still got 16 Aircraft With 4 engines. 22 With 2

For now, yes. But they won't be adding more 4 engined aircraft, all new aircraft will be twins. One day all aircraft with 4 engines that remain in service today will be phased out and then they will be a twin-only airline just like about every airline then. There's absolutely no need for 4 engines anymore.

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 .

So what rock to you crawl under when there are no more four engine jets flying for airlines? I do not fly as often as I would like to but I have flown form Houston to Gatwick on a 777 and, as evidenced by my typing this, lived to tell about it. Additionally, I have flown on a 787 non-stop from Los Angeles to Sydney, Australia, and, again, lived top tell about it. The airlines put no one's safety at risk by going to twins and anyone maintaining that they have are ignorant. The new twins, such as the 787 has allowed service in markets that would not have worked out with older jets with more engines. I know you do not like profits but, without profits, there is no airline.

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 .

Even when NW still continued to operate the DC-10 over the Atlantic? What about when BA or LH? They have A380s that will still be around for another 20 years, and LH still has the 748 in the same boat as the A380. There are stricter regulations on twins than tris or quads, and that's why they are just as safe as their predecessors. There have been more deaths in tri or quad widebodies since the 767s introduction than deaths in twins, and as far as the widebodies are concerned, I would actually like to know how many deaths were in accidents attributed to an engine failure. That rate would be pretty low regardless of aircraft type. The GEnX of today isn't your dads JT-8.

Good luck flying anywhere buddy, you're going to need it. Even the narrowbodies are crossing the Atlantic. AC has been doing it for years with an A319 from St. Johns to Heathrow, the countless 757s since TWA started it in 1994... Hell, I flew IAH-NRT on a 777 in March then NRT-ICN in a 737 and was more worried about a surprise North Korean attack when I was in Seoul than dying in that 777.

I respect your decisions but I reserve the right to think they are nonsensical, irrational, and illogical.

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:

When airlines erase all 4 engine planes from their fleets then I will not go overseas then. they lost my business.

I wonder if there's a way around this? If you're US-based, you could take Emirates and fly their A380's (presumably in both directions from both US coasts) to Dubai, and then you're onward destination (if overseas) on an A380, or a twin (if not entirely over water). The way Emirates is going with their Trans-Atlantic service (New York to Athens, Milan, etc), you could use those airports for jumping off points to other destinations. Appears Emirates will be using these A380s for awhile. Perhaps when they erase them from their fleet, you won't be able or interested in flying? (A little humor).

This idea gives new meaning to Round-the-World travel.

[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.

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.

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 .

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.

This thread is about "buyers remorse", you're talking about passengers preference. No probable remorse that I can imagine from an airline perspective.

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 .

That flight ran out of fuel, 2, 3, 4 or 16 engines without fuel doesn't make a difference.

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:

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.

Yes can you please elaborate on which incidents a twin has crashed where a tri or quad would not have? The Transat A330 does not count as it was a fuel leak, the number of engine had no influence.

Hell, even the BA9 747 that ran into an ash cloud almost crashed, and it was a quad.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Okay, Sorry I was unaware that we had to use Business language in this forum. I will try to do better in my future postings.
Do not get me wrong , I love ALL Planes, Just I have my reasons for my opposition to the use of twins going trans-Continental some I wish I could discuss here .
I despise the Flying Canadian Regional Sardine Can Jet as a passenger, yet I like it since its a plane. I would rather be stuck in the SF-3 or the ARJ or DH8 personally.

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.

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,

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.....

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.....

From Time Magazine via MSN News
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/united ... li=BBnb7Kz

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.

I believe there is a weekly airship from New Jersey, might want to look into that. No reason to trust Bernoulli's principle, after all!

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.

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.

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 .

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?

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?

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?

You think United issues a statement each time a plane has a issue? That would keep their Media Relations and Spokespeople busy 24-7 would it not ?
Depending on how bad the issue was with one of the 3 engines and Pilots decisions the 727 could have completed the flight to IAH at the decision of the PIC and ORD HDQ right ? just as did NWA 38 upon takeoff out of BOS a DC-10 One engine went haywire and if it were not for the skills of NWA Pilots and having 2 extra engines they would have not made it back to BOS for landing that one engine on that bird was bad enough to cause it to turn back around over the North Shore dumping its fuel onto the residents of the North shore of BOS . before VERY QUICKLY landing back in BOS. NWA sent a replacement DC-10 from DTW so they could complete NW38 BOS-AMS . I was below that flight path at that time when I lived in BOS in the suburb of Revere and was about to reach home when I saw the plane dumping and making the U turn back to BOS.

ericalexandre76 wrote:

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?

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.

The engine shutdown must have happened not long after takeoff. If it had happened in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, the flight would have probably continued on to IAH.