Quoting Zeke (Reply 33): BTW have you also surveyed the AC passengers to see how they feel about staying in the likes of Anchorage, Shemya, Adak, Magadan, Khabarovsh, Petropavlovsk, Chitose, Cold Bay, King Salmon, Elmendorf, or Fairbanks, for what could be days in the aircraft due to a a enroute diversion

Could you tell us how many AC 777 flights have had to divert to the likes of Anchorage, Shemya, Adak, Magadan, Khabarovsh, Petropavlovsk, Chitose, Cold Bay, King Salmon, Elmendorf, or Fairbanks and how many days they were delayed?

I'm sure you've done the survey  

Notwithstanding what you list as owned, the Embraers have considerable debt on that. So they are owned, but not paid for.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 50): has implies its happening already, their 773s aren't in service yet so while its unlikley he is off base, it hasn't happened yet, has it?

I think he knows his cost base, and knows, or at least have their internal expert calculate it, how much operating 773ER cost the company much better than any of us here.

Cheers,
PP

Quoting Antskip (Reply 26): One of the reasons the B787 is going to be loved by the passengers as much as the airlines is that it is another example of a medium-sized B767-sized, long-distance aircraft. It will again give the intimacy and features of a comparatively small cabin

The 787 has a far wider cabin than the 767, it can fit eight or even 9 across as it is wider than the A340.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 48): I think Milton had decided to buy the 777 a long, long time ago.

And I'm sure he concluded that the 777 has superior operating economics compared to the A343 BEFORE he made his decision.

[Edited 2007-03-04 20:00:53]

Quoting Da man (Reply 31): Perhaps he has learned some restraint during his year-long ban he has recently returned from?...

not your business, or mine. What happens in the past stays in the past and has nothing to do with you, me, ... just A.NET and concordeboy. Next time try and stay on the topic at hand.

Quoting Sebring (Reply 52): Air Canada's A340-300s are all leased.

News to me, when did that happen ?

Quoting Sebring (Reply 52): For example, on YVR-SYD, both the 773 and 772LR will carry a full payload in both directions, whereas the 343 was incapable of making the distance nonstop in both directions. Southbound, the 343 had to go through HNL, a distance deviation (more fuel) and an inconvenience for customers. Northbound, it could just barely do it nonstop but with a large payload penalty that made the option uneconomic.

Doubt that, the distance is too far to a 773ER or a 343, the 343 is a 7200 nm aircraft the 773ER a 7800 nm aircraft, you would be pushing to get that range with 350 seats. SQ are already at max weight doing their flights to Paris, which is about 6000nm on a 280 seat aircraft. The nil wind distance (YVR-SYD) is over 7600 nm along the airways.

AC said a few days back "777-200LR that will be operated on the Sydney route from February 1, 2008 will be configured with 42 Executive First Suites and 228 seats in Economy Class.", which to me makes sense as the capacity decrease over the 343 is only 16 seats, and it has more range.

Quoting AirCanada014 (Reply 53): Hey Zeke go to this link and its on page 14 and you will find your answers there regarding lease and own by AC.

I did have a look, but it did not help me. The "Capital Lease" column you posted has the following note under the table "Owned aircraft as well as capital leases and leases consolidated under AcG-15 are carried on the combined consolidated statement of financial position. Owned aircraft include aircraft financed under conditional sales agreements."

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 54): Could you tell us how many AC 777 flights have had to divert to the likes of Anchorage, Shemya, Adak, Magadan, Khabarovsh, Petropavlovsk, Chitose, Cold Bay, King Salmon, Elmendorf, or Fairbanks and how many days they were delayed? I'm sure you've done the survey

When they start NORPAC flights and have a reason to divert, we will see.

BTW, you have any idea where they are, and why I mentioned them ?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 60): BTW, you have any idea where they are, and why I mentioned them ?

Yes I know where they are. As to why you mentioned them, I can only guess. I assume it's because they're on the great circle route and would be diversion airports on NORPAC flights.

But tell me, how much more likely is a 777 to divert than an A340?

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 61): But tell me, how much more likely is a 777 to divert than an A340?

If I am flying HKG-YVR up near Cold Bay, I am not diverting unless I am fire. The airports I mention are the enroute diversion airports, we have not diverted in there at all with a 340 with years of operational experience on the route, I understand a US carrier has diverted into there with a 777.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 60): Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 54): Could you tell us how many AC 777 flights have had to divert to the likes of Anchorage, Shemya, Adak, Magadan, Khabarovsh, Petropavlovsk, Chitose, Cold Bay, King Salmon, Elmendorf, or Fairbanks and how many days they were delayed? I'm sure you've done the survey When they start NORPAC flights and have a reason to divert, we will see. BTW, you have any idea where they are, and why I mentioned them ?

Regarding locations of alternates, I know:
Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Elmendorf are in the 'main' part of Alaska, King Salmon is near the start of Bristol Bay by the north shore of the start of the Alaska Peninsula, Adak & Cold Bay are further out on the peninsula, Shemya (a.k.a. The Rock), is out in the Aleutians, Magadan, Khabarovsk, and Petropavlosk are in the Russian Far East along the Pacific coast, Chitose is in Japan.

As for diversions, CX flu T7s HKG-YVR all the time. I have not heard of a diversion, yet.

I love threads like this...sit down with a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the show! Now this is entertainment!

Now for my    .

Both aircraft have a particular market segment that they are trying to cater to. At the time AC placed their order for the A343/5, that was the best option that they felt was available at that time. Technology evolves and situations change, and now AC thinks that the 773ER and 772LR are the right aircraft for their fleet. Perhaps once the technology is proven and AC has a couple of routes that would support the volume required, we may see an order for the 747-8 OR A-380. Situations change, and its up to upper manangement and their crystal balls to make decisions today that affect tomorrow.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 62): I understand a US carrier has diverted into there with a 777.

But your leaving out key information (as usual); the reason for the diversion. IIRC, it was due to an 'air rage' incident and had nothing to do with the performance of the airplane.

But you ignored my question: how much more likely is a 777 to divert than an A340?

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 63): As for diversions, CX flu T7s HKG-YVR all the time. I have not heard of a diversion, yet.

Nope, only 747 and 340 at the moment.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 65): But you ignored my question: how much more likely is a 777 to divert than an A340?

For us, higher for the T7, and the reasons for which are in our fuel policy, and no, you may not have a copy of it, nor am I going to post it. I like to keep my job.

On another thread there is the rumor of 2x AC 340-500 going to TK. Anyone here has any info on this?
TK has 7x343s, 5x332s and trying to fill the gap while making a decision on the 787/350. I think if this is true they might get some 343 from AC also.
Thanks.

Quoting Adria (Reply 4): But yes comparing the A343 and the 773ER doesn't make sense.....

Actually the 777-300ER's main purpose is to make up for extra capacity lost when the 747-100/200 and 74M (744 Combis) were retired. (The ex-CP 744s are the only former AC aircraft with more capacity than the 777-300ER.) It is therefore incorrect to compare a 777-300ER to a A343 - they are two different aircraft size classes).

It is feasible to compare the 777LR to the A345 - they are similar in terms of passenger capacity and most of all - range.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 63): CX flu T7s HKG-YVR all the time.

I can't think of a single time where CX has used the 777 on the HKG-YVR route.

Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 69): It is therefore incorrect to compare a 777-300ER to a A343 - they are two different aircraft size classes).

I believe you're missing the point of Brewer's comments (and by extension, the point of this thread). As mentioned in several preceding replies (14, 16, 19, etc), the comparison is NOT among aircraft within a particular capacity or range class. The cost and revenue potential comparisons are made between the current and imminent fleet that AC operates over given routes. The fact they may slot into different categories is irrelevant.
Using the same principle (admittedly to an extreme), it would be valid to compare an airline's old Cessna 172 with a new 744 if that was the fleet evolution of that hypothetical carrier.

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 71): Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 63): CX flu T7s HKG-YVR all the time. I can't think of a single time where CX has used the 777 on the HKG-YVR route.

Perhaps my brain is wasted after all these years.
Thought CX did T7s HHKG-YVR, but maybe I'm thingking
SQ SIN-INC-YVR on the T7. I do know there are T7 operators at YVR.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 72): I do know there are T7 operators at YVR.

You bet. SQ as you mentioned. KE also brings one in. Expect AC and NZ by the end of the year of course.

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 73): You bet. SQ as you mentioned. KE also brings one in. Expect AC and NZ by the end of the year of course.

You'll see AC's 777s in YVR within 90 days,

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 30): I'm amazed, a 777 vs 340 thread and ConcordeBoy has not piped in yet...

What's to say?

The market has, by this point, unquestionably decided that the A340 is a 2^ndrate product compared to Boeing's largest twinjet in nearly every segment of nearly every application for the overwhelming majority of international airlines. QED.

What do you expect me to do, other than chime in and spout something along the lines of:
"Everyone knows A340s don't really fly, they're just repelled from Earth by their ugliness", or something?  

These comments are what has been said again and again. He is doing his job = trying to "advertise" his company. Nothing wrong with that.

I am just skeptical about this. What does he mean:

Quoting Viscount724 (Thread starter): Every passenger in the economy cabin will have the same personal in-seat video system being installed fleet-wide – and we intend to charge for premium content.

---------

Quoting B707Stu (Reply 10): Though the A340-600 is an improvement (love the cameras)

How come? The cabin width is EXACTLY the same! And some 340-300 have cameras too (LX). I think some 777s have it as well (airlines?).

Quoting B707Stu (Reply 10): From a passenger point of view the 777 is far superior to the A340. I've ridden both, a lot. I find the A340-300 cramped and uncomfortable.

The opposite is true for me. Being two seats away from the aisle when I'm sitting by a window is "cramped" to me, regardless of ceiling heigth or seat width... I can only wish you happy flights on the T7 then!

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 65): But you ignored my question: how much more likely is a 777 to divert than an A340?

Sorry, I'm barging in as I feel that you are being very nasty to Zeke.
BVoom, these statixtics must be with B or A.
What I know is that I've seen 777 divert a lot more often than 340 or 74x s.
Just from one airline, diversions that have hit the news :
- 2005 :EZE- CDG turned back to the continent from the south Atlantic, for in-flight shut-down, diverted to Fuertaleza after two hours and 50 minutes on one engine.
Pax evacuated the following day to Recife via small local planes.
Took 10 days to get that plane back to Paris and another three or four to put it back on the line.
That adventure reads like a political thriller (for instance, how to get trucks big enough to carry a T7 engine BUT with hydrostatic shock absorbers....)

- 2006 SEL-CDG diverted to Irkutsk. Engine severe vibration .Most pax found accomodation with the locals, taken to Moscow the following day (as forbidden to take pax from Irkutsk to Paris !)... Airplane stayed there another ten days due to Engine transport, extreme weather,construction of an inflatable igloo , sub zero temperatures.... Put back on line after - IIRC two weeks...

- 2004 : Diversion to Churchill for a cracked windshield. Pax accomodated in local hotels / motels. Airplane recovered a week later.
I would say Zeke's scenarii are not far fetched, are they ?

A last thought on this subject :
I challenge any body to come up with all the diversion instances of the latest ETOPS planes :76,77, 33, ewtc...
The best kept secret in the industry.

Regards

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 72): Quoting Threepoint (Reply 71): Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 63): CX flu T7s HKG-YVR all the time. I can't think of a single time where CX has used the 777 on the HKG-YVR route. Perhaps my brain is wasted after all these years. Thought CX did T7s HHKG-YVR, but maybe I'm thingking SQ SIN-INC-YVR on the T7. I do know there are T7 operators at YVR.

If not mistaken, the only current 777s from YVR are KE 3/week YVR-ICN and SQ 3/week YVR-ICN-SIN, both 772.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 77): What I know is that I've seen 777 divert a lot more often than 340 or 74x s.

You ave a very selective memory. If you haven't seen A340s diverting, maybe it's because your'e just not looking.

Quote: "Don't fall for this four-engine stuff," said Randy Baseler, vice president of marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes. He said airlines don't take chances, and if one engine goes on a four-engine plane, it diverts to the nearest airport. About 90 percent of of all diversions, be they on four- or two-engine planes, are not because of engine problems, he said. A sick passenger is often the reason a plane is diverted. He went on to say that all available data show that the A340 has had twice as many diversions and turnbacks as the 777. It also has had twice as many dispatch delays at the airport, he said.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/80048_air26.shtml

Quoting Pihero (Reply 77): - 2005 :EZE- CDG turned back to the continent from the south Atlantic, for in-flight shut-down, diverted to Fuertaleza after two hours and 50 minutes on one engine.

two hours and 50 minutes on one engine? Do you realize that's only 170 minutes? The 777 earned 180 minute ETOPS in 1995! During flight testing, the 777 performed eight 180-minute single-engine diversions for a total of 24 hours.
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1995/news.release.950530.html

Quoting Pihero (Reply 77): - 2004 : Diversion to Churchill for a cracked windshield. Pax accomodated in local hotels / motels. Airplane recovered a week later.

What does a cracked windshield have to do with ETOPS?

As you have a better memory - you're younger - I'd like you to find those instances. As I started with AF, let's stay with that airline, shall we ?
As far as I always do, Mr RB is not one of my sources, you may therefore stop quoting him to me.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 80): two hours and 50 minutes on one engine? Do you realize that's only 170 minutes?

Yes, and one of the pilots has gone to four engined liners. And the captain said it was the longest three hours of his life, he can't wait to have the seniority for the 744 or the 380.

As for me, I probably have some german genes in me as I refuse to fly over adverse terrain / sea.... with anything less than three engines.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 80): What does a cracked windshield have to do with ETOPS?

Should be part of the same certification, shouldn't it ? after all, an axploded windscreen 217 minutes from an alternate must be a very interesting exercise in survival... Just showing that there is a lot more on these ETOPS regs than mere engine out considerations.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 81): As I started with AF, let's stay with that airline, shall we ?

No, we shall not. You can't dictate the parameters of the discussion, or what sorces one can use.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 81): And the captain said it was the longest three hours of his life

Imagine how long it was for those BA passengers who lost an engine taking off from LAX going to LHR and proceeded across the N Atlantic, only to have divert to MAN anyway.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 81): after all, an axploded windscreen 217 minutes from an alternate must be a very interesting exercise in survival...Just showing that there is a lot more on these ETOPS regs than mere engine out considerations.

And just how would a 4 engine plane mitigate the effects of a exploded windshield?

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 80): What does a cracked windshield have to do with ETOPS?

If you believe the 777/ETOPS haters they'd have you to think that the engines are made of glass....

You know it's always the same thing, when the 777 haters can't win the argument on the economics they trump up safety "concerns" using facts out of context to scare people to their side. Geesh!

The ETOPS thing has been done to death and if you're one that believes ETOPS is a stupid, irresponsible idea then plead your case to the stupid and irresponsible manufactures of ETOPS airplanes and engines on both sides of the Atlantic.

Engine failures are a far smaller portion of diversion causes than things that have nothing at all to do with the airplane itself and the years of data show that engine failures are nearly half as likely on twins than quads which falls right along what the theoretical ratio should be. You can argue the impact of an ETOPS diversion vs a quad continuing on to wherever, but to make the assertion that operators should base their economic models around that so-called calamity is not realistic at all. There are any number of possible calamities that airlines face every day but to bite bullets operationally for nothing more than the perception or better feeling about safety is the wrong way to go.



-widebodyphotog

As much as I love the A340 over the B777, I'm not going to let my personal preferences get into this discussion.

Having said that, even though ETOPS is a great thing, and aircraft are being certified for even longer ETOPS, is the 2 vs.4 engine argument more about redundancy then anything else?

As an example, if a twin-engine has an engine out inflight, chances are they would divert to the nearest airport just as a safety precaution regardless of the aircrafts ETOPS certification. If a quad has an engine out inflight, would it not be more realistic to carry on (depending on the distance) to it's destination or at least a more suitable alternate? Of course, I would imagine company policies would play into affect as well.

Did BA not fly a B744 with an engine out from the Western US back to LHR last year? If the aircraft were a twin, I highly doubt that would have been the case.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 82): And just how would a 4 engine plane mitigate the effects of a exploded windshield?

Same thing will happen.

Contrarily to what widebody said, I have absolutely no interest in the A vs B war you seem to enjoy.
What I want to introduce is some sort of objectivity in the discussion. (Not entirely true, I've always been very wary of the ETOPS concept, but that does include twins from this side of the Atlantic).
To me, air safety is too important to be left to statisticians only and there are some domains of the airplane's ops -the windscreen is a glaring example - that have not been considered at all. That consideration is in my opinion a lot more relevant than the now - abandoned EROPS regulations (Now that the 748 has a future !)

On the other hand, that incident happened to a T7 and not to another airplane and it was the cause to a diversion to the nearest applicable airfield. You can't have it both ways, on one hand disregard what happens to a twin and go for all the diversions instances you would find for another airplane.

Given that ETOPS is going away and being replaced by LROPS, Er... the number of engines is near meaningless in the near future. No longer will Airlines be able to take you to the most remote parts of the world with only a minimum of fire suppression, or w/o impeccable MX. Now they will have to follow the same routes as a 777, and have the same fire suppression and MX.

In real terms anything that would have caused 2 engine out on a 2 engine plane will have caused a 4 engine out on a 4 engine plane. Certain differences in the risk, but some the 4 engine plane carries more risk, and some the 2 engine does so lets call it a wash.

All in all the cries for "UNSAFE ETOPS" has been proven by real experience to be much the same as the cries that Elvis is alive and creating 1/2 alien babies in Yuma, AZ.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 83): to make the assertion that operators should base their economic models around that so-called calamity is not realistic at all. There are any number of possible calamities that airlines face every day but to bite bullets operationally for nothing more than the perception or better feeling about safety is the wrong way to go.

I just re-read your post and it deserves an answer.
Though I would tend to agree with you, I have this very uncomfortable feeling that statistics are not all.

Above, I gave the instance of the loss of a windscreen. Catastroiphic failure ? hardly ... Now imagine yourself at 207 minutes from an alternate innormal one engine out speeds...Will your speed with a failede window be the same ? No, probably down to 250 kt /.70 Mach... Add another 35 minutes to your 207 original ones. Funny ! you are now facing a four hour flight in an open cockpit with temps around -55°c... Will your instruments cope ? Will you cope ?... or have you enough fuel to go down to lower / warmewr altitudes ?...but then how long before you reach safety ?

Did statisticians cover the human element involved in the AT 330 which lost all its fuel ? What would have happened had the plane kept its original - and much further north - track ?
And with an airplane lost in ETOPS conditions without any way of knowing what happened (there is an oceanic trench in that area ), would ETOPS still be as it is now ?

As an airline pilot I have to weigh all the infos I have at my disposal... As I have NEVER won anything with lotteries,...etc...I'll gladly pass on the opportunity to become another statistical event.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 82): You can't dictate the parameters of the discussion, or what sorces one can use.

Ok, still waiting for yours.

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 84): Did BA not fly a B744 with an engine out from the Western US back to LHR last year? If the aircraft were a twin, I highly doubt that would have been the case.

It did not make it. It ran low on fuel and had to divert to MAN anyway. BA came in for a lot of criticism for that decision.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 85): You can't have it both ways, on one hand disregard what happens to a twin and go for all the diversions instances you would find for another airplane.

I'm not disregarding what happens to a twin, but as widebody said "years of data show that engine failures are nearly half as likely on twins than quads". Those are the facts whether you choose to accept them or not.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 82): Imagine how long it was for those BA passengers who lost an engine taking off from LAX going to LHR and proceeded across the N Atlantic, only to have divert to MAN anyway.

It happened to me once on a CDG-LAX run on a 744.
Very cozy, went down four thousand feet, lost two points of mach, ended up getting flak from the chief purser as we had to add an extra 25 minutes of flight without telling him and buggered his rest period !

Happened to me on a BKK-BAH on a 1011.
Very comfy, too.
What's your point ?

Quoting Pihero (Reply 87): What would have happened had the plane kept its original - and much further north - track ?

...the exact same thing that would've happened had it been a 3 or 4-engined aircraft suffering from a total flameout.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 87): Above, I gave the instance of the loss of a windscreen. Catastroiphic failure ? hardly ... Now imagine yourself at 207 minutes from an alternate innormal one engine out speeds...Will your speed with a failede window be the same ? No, probably down to 250 kt /.70 Mach... Add another 35 minutes to your 207 original ones. Funny ! you are now facing a four hour flight in an open cockpit with temps around -55°c... Will your instruments cope ? Will you cope ?... or have you enough fuel to go down to lower / warmewr altitudes ?...but then how long before you reach safety ?

Please read how ETOPS works

Diversion airports are done based on time it takes to arrive there ONCE AT SINGLE ENGINE SPEEDS. Fuel loads are also required to be able to achieve an alternate at any point in the flight, PLUS reserve fuel. ETOPS means that twins usualy carry alot more fuel than they would need to otherwise.

Oh and whats this "open window" nonsense. really that one takes the cake.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 92): Diversion airports are done based on time it takes to arrive there ONCE AT SINGLE ENGINE SPEEDS. Fuel loads are also required to be able to achieve an alternate at any point in the flight, PLUS reserve fuel. ETOPS means that twins usualy carry alot more fuel than they would need to otherwise.

If they did, that would really upset the economics of ETOPS.
The open window nonsense is just a possibility of failure, so much that a T7 diverted because of it.
Go back to actual flight planning, then come back to fight me. As of now,we're just not in the same league.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 93): If they did, that would really upset the economics of ETOPS. The open window nonsense is just a possibility of failure, so much that a T7 diverted because of it. Go back to actual flight planning, then come back to fight me. As of now,we're just not in the same league.

Please read how ETOPS works. I assume a quick 5min web search would get you plenty of non-biased sources.

And you are full on nonsense, As far as I know, no airliner has EVER had a "open window" style failure at altitude. when they fail they crack severely, and thus need to be taken care of before complete failure can possibly occur. Airliner main cockpit windows are very tough and in fact more or less only break themselves when a heater fails in some way and a thermal shock does in the outer layers.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 87): Though I would tend to agree with you, I have this very uncomfortable feeling that statistics are not all.

I am far more uncomfortable with the idea that people will make decisions of my safety based on their feelings instead of statistics. Your ETOPS arguments in this thread have revolved around the fact that you don't trust statisticians and statistics because you have a bad feeling about things. I guarantee you that the statisticians have far more evidence on their side than your gut gives you on yours. Instincts have their place, but it does not belong in aircraft design or maintnance, thank you.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 94): And you are full on nonsense, As far as I know, no airliner has EVER had a "open window" style failure at altitude.

An open window at 470kts would likely kill or severely injure the crew...instantly between the high velocity material blown at them and the subsequent depressurization it's hard to imagine that being a surviavable event. Just IMO...

I was doing a survey ride in a 777-200ER NRT to SFO two years ago and about 4 hours away from SFO the windshield "cracked" Big one. No casue for alarm as the windshields have multi-layers of polymer reinforced glass so it did not go all the way through. We landed without irregularity at SFO but the return flight was delayed three and a half hours to replace the windshield.

Ironically about 8 months before that the 747-400 I was getting on from JFK to NRT cracked a windshield on the way in and we were delayed three hours leaving JFK.

Both cases were interesting...I learned a lot about windshields...

In the cracked windshield case Pihero mentioned I can't imagine why it would take a whole week to bring a plane back to base after just a cracked windshield if there was no other structural damage to the airplane. I've seen airplanes with moderate structural damage recovered faster than that which included flying parts in from 7,000 miles away on chartered freighters!


I think someone made the a comment about flying 150,000 miles a year and preferring the A340? Well I did about 166,000 miles last year with the majority of those miles in the 777-300ER and actually I don't have an opinion as a passenger Airbus to Boeing, because if I'm not doing a survey ride for the segment I'm asleep by wheels up!



-widebodyphotog

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 95): I am far more uncomfortable with the idea that people will make decisions of my safety based on their feelings instead of statistics

Statistics can be helpful, but not always. They can be misleading too. They can be misused. In an era when science and statistics have an almost religious power to persuade, uncritical use of their data is too common. The devil, as always, is in the detail. Human imagination, reason and logic are primary material, not subsidiary / mere fantasy in relation to statistical data. Every science (including the science of statistics, as well as mathematics) is founded firstly on an act of human imagination. It's fine to refer to statistical analysis, but never on its own. And of course the softer sciences like psychology have their rightful place in any study of human air transport activities.

I agree with the statement that the key to machine safety analysis is levels of redundancy once breakdown occurs, not the situation when the machine is working normally. e.g. the starting point of analysis of redundancy levels is not when all four engines are operational on a quad / two on a twin, but when three engines are operational on a quad / one on a twin.

I'm going to miss the A340-300, 500 and A330-300. They are such a wonderful aircraft to travel on. I'm looking forward to traveling on B777s and B787s..

Quoting Antskip (Reply 97): Statistics can be helpful, but not always. They can be misleading too. They can be misused.

That's fine and dandy, and anyone who works with stats knows that's the case...but that does not in any way disprove what I am saying, which is that gut feelings do not work better that statistics when it comes to designing a safety regime for mechanical systems. I understand you're just being a nay-sayer for the devil's sake here and don't really disagree.

Really, in this context can anyone say that the aviation industry has gone in the wrong direction? ETOPS has taken analysis of in-service operation, put together guidelines for maintnance to prevent IFSD events to begin with, and implemented it successfully for the last 20 years. It has been a resounding success by all acounts, so trying to dismiss it with ill-defined fears of "knowing better than to trust statistics" is just baloney.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 80): two hours and 50 minutes on one engine? Do you realize that's only 170 minutes? The 777 earned 180 minute ETOPS in 1995! During flight testing, the 777 performed eight 180-minute single-engine diversions for a total of 24 hours.

I assume the record for the longest single-engine ETOPS diversion remains the UA 777-200 en route AKL-LAX on March 17, 2003, that shut an engine down and diverted to Kona, Hawaii. I believe the flying time on one engine was originally reported at a few minutes over the 180 minutes limit due to stronger winds than forecast, but was later amended to 177 minutes. Coincidentally, that event was two weeks before UA suspended service to AKL.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 85): To me, air safety is too important to be left to statisticians only and there are some domains of the airplane's ops -the windscreen is a glaring example - that have not been considered at all. That consideration is in my opinion a lot more relevant than the now - abandoned EROPS regulations (Now that the 748 has a future !)

Statistical analysis is the basis for ALL aerospace engineering. From material allowables, to stress analysis methods, to fatigue analysis methods to maintenance intervals and yes, even to reliability and maintainability. Statistical analysis is the basis for all of it. EROPs is based on statistical analysis and probability of failure, even 4 engine aircraft have statistical based analysis for redundant systems. How the hell do you think the airlines determine seasonal winds and fuel loads... Statistics.

Any pilot that says he doesn't trust statistics should be raising goats not flying.

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 101): Any pilot that says he doesn't trust statistics should be raising goats not flying.

eh raising goats requires statistics too... Well atleast if you want to be decent at it, you need to have a basic grasp of it. You have bad bad times if you can't run the math to figure the avg number of kids per Doe... Nothing says fun like having no kids to replace natural losses....

Quoting Pihero (Reply 87): Above, I gave the instance of the loss of a windscreen. Catastroiphic failure ? hardly ... Now imagine yourself at 207 minutes from an alternate innormal one engine out speeds...Will your speed with a failede window be the same ? No, probably down to 250 kt /.70 Mach... Add another 35 minutes to your 207 original ones. Funny ! you are now facing a four hour flight in an open cockpit with temps around -55°c... Will your instruments cope ? Will you cope ?... or have you enough fuel to go down to lower / warmewr altitudes ?...but then how long before you reach safety ?

Wow... Hold on... What about if you're flying a 4-engine plane and have a loss in wind screen at say 6 hours from nearest diversion airport? You should change everything in your post with 6 hours time... I think you would be in the worst situation... at that time, I will be glad that I'm flying in a twin rather than a 4 holers...

What if you have medical emergency and you are on a 4 holers and the nearest diversion airport is 6-7 hours away? aren't you screwed?

You make your post like only a twin can fly far from diversion airport and 4 holers can always land in the nearest airport in 5 seconds....  

Cheers,
PP

Just a shot in the dark. But if AC continues to grow, wouldn't the B748 be a perfect a choice for a high capacity aircraft. The GEnx engines would already be in the fleet on the B787s and there would be flight deck commonality advantages as well. If the B777 gets too small for some routes AC would be forced to look for 4 engine aircrafts.


What ETOPS ratings are AC B777s? Is ETOPS 330 official?

KrisYYZ

Quoting BillReid (Reply 29): Again riff-raff speaking. I fly over 150,000 miles a yuear and sit tin the FF lounges. I don not knoe a single paying customer that prefers the B767 over the B777. Additionally, the larger tube on the B777 gives a more roomy feel especially in Business class. I think many A-netters simply aren't paying customers. Dollar value the B777 exceeds the A-340 ten to one if you survey the customers. The A430 simply is not a better plane for those paying the bill.

     

I fly around 100,000+ miles a year too and I totally agree. . . I'll take a 777 over an A330 / A340 any day of the week -- in fact, I purposely avoid airlines that fly 330's / 340's on the routes I fly. . . for me the 777 is more comfortable, quieter and an all around better product than the 330's / 340's. . . Like my signature says, "If it's not a Boeing, I ain't going!"

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 99): but that does not in any way disprove what I am saying, which is that gut feelings do not work better that statistics when it comes to designing a safety regime for mechanical systems.

I agree on "gut feelings" (though sometimes they can indicate something is not quite complete about the data one has available, so it urges one to open one's eyes further, re-look / seek further data). It is also a vague term which can mean everything from what is seems to mean, to uses of the rational intellect and imagination, which are a long way from the gut, and are the basis of all knowledge (and discussion). If "feeling' is the idea of blind passionate lack of knowledge, then I completely agree. There is no help there - it is a human physical response, not an act of vision (open-eyed clear reason).

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 83): years of data show that engine failures are nearly half as likely on twins than quads which falls right along what the theoretical ratio should be

The above is the sort of use of "hard facts" / statistics or whatever that is a problem. To argue that statistics shows (and so does logic) that having half as many engines halves the likelihood of engine failure is fraught with problems. The logic also means that a single is twice as unlikely to have engine failure as a twin. But the implication that having statistically half the chance of engine failure somehow makes a twin more than a match for a quad, in the safety stakes over areas far from land, is problematic. Though a single may be 4X as unlikely to have engine failure as a quad; if that were to happen, it is the end game for the single (now zero) there and then. Similarly, though a twin is statistically only half as likely to lose an engine as a quad, it then finds itself in the position of a single - with no redundancy left.

I suppose the happy feeling that results from one knowing that statistically, once the twin is a single, the chances of failure of the last engine are twice as unlikely as the previous engine failure, might be encouraging (!). On the other hand, if it were to happen, that is the beginning of the end-game also. Using the same logic, a quad has three steps to the end-game, each statistically much less likely to happen: from a quad to a tri to a twin and finally to a single (though how able a quad on a single? -nowhere near the ability of a twin on a single, itself far inferior to a single on a single), then nothing. But the quad has two more levels of redundancy before it reaches the point of having the statistical advantage of a twin and, finally, a single.