IflyonAA

The FAA has extended the ETOPS for 777-300ER (extended range), 777-200LR (longer range), 777 Freighter and 777-200ER models equipped with General Electric engines to fly up to 330 minutes from an alternate airport.

The ETOPS for 777-200ER powered by Rolls Royce (AA's) and P&W are expected to be increased over the next few months.

What will the implications be for the flight times for AA's over water flights? This essentially opens up the Atlantic and Pacific for direct routing and gives the 777 another lease of life.

This should have also a positive impact on AA's bottom line for 777 operations as they will be able to take a more efficient direct route.

Good news all around really - for a change.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2070

nitrobass24

Im all for shorter flight times

pcbrew

Are any AA routes currently ETOPS limited?

GRALISTAIR

Perhaps I dont thoroughly understand ETOPS. Surely over the North Atlantic there are so many emergency divert points you dont need ETOPS planes. After St Johns and Gander there is Thule AF base, Keflavic, SNN, NOC and others? Or I am missing something and dont truly understand the concept. Over the Pacific, South Pacific, North Pole, and Indian and South Atlantic I understand. I read the Wikipedia article. Can someone explain in very simple terms.

mingw

I really doubt any AA 777 flight routes are ETOPS limited. previous limit is 300 minutes? almost enough to fly half way ORD-PEK (and there's ANC in the middle).

and there's at least HEL in midway to DEL.

phazedowt

It shouldn't. I think this only really impacts South Pacific routes and maybe Indian Ocean crossings like Australia-South Africa.

JDiver

You can input any route you wish to Great Circle Mapper and adjust ETOPS limits, etc.

Other ETOPS-related issues include whether AA will ultimately choose to operate an ETOPS-rated subfleet of 737-800s, as Alaska does for example, for routes like mainland-Hawai'i.

(Weirdest ETOPS-rated aircraft I ever flew on - Aloha had two ETOPS-rated 737-200s!)

IflyonAA

The great news I suppose is that it opens up the world for AA's 773s. I believe that the only route that they would not be able to fly would be MLB-JNB.

itchief

Previous limit was 207 minutes.

This link gives good info on the subject.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...l&channel=comm

C17PSGR

I believe the aircraft is ETOPS 330 qualified but that doesn't mean AA's 777's are ETOPS 330.

Now that the aircraft is qualified, AA needs to get approval to operate them as ETOPS 330. They may not want to make the investment which requires a fair amount of work.

87155

What kind of work to the AC wou be needed?

WRCSolberg

I don't know that this is going to have much of an impact on AA as I don't think they'll need to utilize this type of capability. Every longhaul AA route that I've examined using Great Circle Mapper seems to be well within current ETOPS rules. Even potential AA routes with the 773ER such as LAX-SYD and MIA-JNB weren't anywhere near needing that type of ETOPS range.

I agree that the only region of the world where this new standard might be applicable are routes to/from Oceania to South America, and routes from Oceania to/from South Africa.

The physical aircraft themselves likely don't need anything that they haven't already been equipped with as long as they're previously ETOPS certified. It's more so a certification program that sets certain standards that must be adhered to in terms of maintenance procedures and in flight rules that must be followed. I believe there are also certain statistical standards that must be met, e.g x number of engine failures in xxx,xxx flight hours flown.

Wayside

The weather is a consideration too. You can have all the airports in the world within 180 or 207 minutes but if they have marginal weather then they can't be considered for ETOPS purposes. Keep in mind also that for ultra-long-haul flights, you may not need a potential alternate until more-than 12 hours after departure.

Increased ETOPS time limits dramatically increase flexibility.

labeach

I agree with previous posts.

Very few city combo's will be truly changed by such ETOPS increases. at ETOPS 220, thats almost 4 hrs of divert time from an acceptable airport. That means that the total distance between any two airports that are used for ETOPS planning could by up to 440 min of flight time which is 7hrs. MEL-JNB, South America - JNB might get a bump. Not too many I can think of.

If you consider that LAX - SYD/MEL is within current ETOPS, and that route is a fairly direct route over the south Pacific, this increase will only have marginal changes.