Originally Posted by
lincolnjkc
Seems the document I was looking at was an earlier draft and that Boeing had the engineering data to up the flight hour count (interestingly the cycle count didn't change)
Those limits are somewhat living/breathing. I wouldn't be shocked to see another extension as time marches on. It's quite a testament to the 767 to see numbers like that. And United's usage pattern is pretty incredible too --- average of 6 1/2 hour stage length over the history of the frame. For the "baby" wide body, that once served pretty hefty domestic duty, that's pretty amazing. Born in an era surrounded by DC-10s and 747s and L-1011s, into the 777 and 787 era -- that's quite a long stage length.... and some staying power.
Originally Posted by
lincolnjkc
Indeed. It will be interesting to see (I suspect that it will probably be called DBER but given the current fleet constraints I wonder if that will change the trajectory at all -- or if we'll just see a bit of [further] belt tightening pending deliveries of new frames.
Sadly, I agree - this may be DBER. But given the wide body squeeze right now, someone may decide to spend a few million to fix 'er up just to get "over the hump" so to speak. Very hard frame to replace right now - nothing in the desert fits the bill, not manufactured anymore and a sister fleet that's aged but not quite ready for the boneyard.
How quick you think they can get a couple more 777-300ER's out of Boeing?
