<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by jiml1126:
Just out of topic here.
If a 767 can fly Trans-Pacific without any problems for more than 20 years, then why does everyone thinks flying the 777 (or any twin engine a/c, but especially the 777) across the Pacific is unsafe?</font>
Who's this "everyone" that you're talking about? I'm certainly not included. Most anyone with any education of transpac operations isnt.
From my experience, I'd say 90% of pax dont care enough/pay enough attention to notice what sort of plane they're riding; and the ones who do wouldnt bother paying extra for a quad (giving credence to Herbie Kelleher's "50cent" theory)... so they sit there and suck it up (both the alcohol and the experience
)
Of course, their are the Airbuses and the Virgin Atlantics of the world; you know, those who would try to make all people believe that riding a twinjet over water is a deathwish.
I do however, find it funny that one of Airbus' hottest selling aircaft is an ETOP180-compliant twinjet with 7653mi range.
I also find it rather interesting that Virgin, who gleefully touted their "4engines4longhaul" nonsense throughout the Farnborough Air Show last year,
flew the 763ER over the Atlantic during the 1990s, and also were one of the airlines most interested in the proposed Sonic Cruiser twinjet!
Will the hypocrisy never cease
------------------
A340s don't fly... they're repelled from Earth by their ugliness!