https://tuoitrenews.vn/news/business/20 ... 67776.html

The Civil Aviation Authority of Vietnam (CAAV) has licensed Vietnam Airlines to operate Extended Diversion Time Operations (EDTOs) aircraft with two engines, reaching 207 minutes for Boeing 787-9 aircraft and 240 minutes for Airbus A350 aircraft.

Vietnam Airlines is now licensed to exploit EDTO for 207 minutes for eight [out of 11] Boeing 787-9 planes and 240 minutes for [all of the] 14 Airbus A350 aircraft, becoming the first carrier in Vietnam to achieve this milestone.

The Airbus A350 and Boeing 787-9 have been put into operation by Vietnam Airlines since July and August 2015 and were authorized by the CAAV to exploit 120-minute and 180-minute EDTO, respectively.

In August 2021, the carrier gained authorization for 180-minute EDTO for A350 aircraft.

I expect that this development will help ease VN's plans to launch more Vietnam-California (SGN-SFO and/or LAX) scheduled services as well as somehow lowering this carrier's demand to acquire a new LH-aircraft type (A35K and B778 were mentioned; I don't know how far VN would like to go with this acquisition plan).
Meanwhile, VN's main rival Bamboo is just getting EDTO-180 on its fleet of B789, and it is also eyeing TPAC services in the future. Being the earlier widebody operator has become one of VN's advantages in this case.

In a piece of not-so-related news, VN has switched to A359 to operate SGN-SFO nonstop even though it had initially chosen the B787. I don't know if it is a result of the recent 5G-related issues to the 787 or it is just an internal move (profitability, demand, payload issues...). How do you think about all of this?

Is there a reason why three of the 787s wouldn't be approved for 207 minutes. Are they configured differently for some reason.

AirKevin wrote:

Is there a reason why three of the 787s wouldn't be approved for 207 minutes. Are they configured differently for some reason.

Yes, those three non-EDTO airframes are configured in C28Y283 (311) for regional routes and not so practical for long-haul operations in anyway. Meanwhile, the 8 airframes with EDTO-207 are configured in C28W35Y211 (274) and being the main workhorses on VN's EU & Aussie routes.

Antaras wrote:

AirKevin wrote:

Is there a reason why three of the 787s wouldn't be approved for 207 minutes. Are they configured differently for some reason.

Yes, those three non-EDTO airframes are configured in C28Y283 (311) for regional routes and not so practical for long-haul operations in anyway. Meanwhile, the 8 airframes with EDTO-207 are configured in C28W35Y211 (274) and being the main workhorses on VN's EU & Aussie routes.

Makes sense. Thanks.

How is SGN-SFO doing? Extended ETOPS is no doubt welcomed on such a long haul route though. But for Vietnam and the United States to have nonstop flights is quite amazing to see. SGN-LAX will be interesting to see as well.

207 minutes comes under EDTO 180, it is not classified as beyond 180.

Beyond 180 has a different set of requirements

The thread title is incorrect, EDTO is an AOC approval not a certification. These AOC approvals are similar to LVO, RNP (AR) etc, the regulator approves the operator to conduct these operations on their AOC.

Pretty sure all of the 787 questions with 5G have been resolved.

What is EDTO?

Extended diversion time operations

Lpbri wrote:

What is EDTO?

New name for ETOPS.

zeke wrote:

207 minutes comes under EDTO 180, it is not classified as beyond 180.

Beyond 180 has a different set of requirements

The thread title is incorrect, EDTO is an AOC approval not a certification. These AOC approvals are similar to LVO, RNP (AR) etc, the regulator approves the operator to conduct these operations on their AOC.

Thank you for this meaningful clarification. The linked article also used wrong words which made me pretty confused too.

3D101CA wrote:

How is SGN-SFO doing?

It's really hard to say as this route is still being operated as scheduled, and VN has zero mentions about its profitability or anything else.
The only thing worth mentioning is that the A359 has replaced the B787 in this route, also for an unmentioned reason.

Antaras wrote:

3D101CA wrote:

How is SGN-SFO doing?

It's really hard to say as this route is still being operated as scheduled, and VN has zero mentions about its profitability or anything else.
The only thing worth mentioning is that the A359 has replaced the B787 in this route, also for an unmentioned reason.

I'm pretty other than the first like 1 or 2 days of the flight the A359 has been operating the flight. I'm pretty sure the 789 operated the first few for politics and IIRC VN B789s aren't operated at their full 254t MTOW.