Irrational: I avoid 2-engine 777 transpacific
Nov 1, 2006 | 4:57 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Europe
Programs: UA:1K MM, AF:FB-Platinum; QR: PC Platinum, FI: Saga Gold
Posts: 3,181
Irrational: I avoid 2-engine 777 transpacific
Is anyone like me who avoids flying the 2-engine 777 transpacific. I always book myself on the 744, even if it involves an extra stop in NRT.
I have no problems with the 777 transatlantic - I figure they can alsways land in Canada, Greenland, Iceland if something comes up. But I don't see that possibility on transpacific flights.
Yes, its irrational. But I have a policy of never flying Continental --- but I did once and they had to declare an "inflight" emergency because they lost the primary hydraulic system (the bit that steers the plane!) and had to return to EWR (entroute to DCA) --- so I'm afraid of breaking my irrational policies.
I have no problems with the 777 transatlantic - I figure they can alsways land in Canada, Greenland, Iceland if something comes up. But I don't see that possibility on transpacific flights.
Yes, its irrational. But I have a policy of never flying Continental --- but I did once and they had to declare an "inflight" emergency because they lost the primary hydraulic system (the bit that steers the plane!) and had to return to EWR (entroute to DCA) --- so I'm afraid of breaking my irrational policies.
Nov 1, 2006 | 5:00 pm
#2
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SEA, WAS, PEK
Programs: UA 3K UGS 3MM
Posts: 2,176
Most west coast west bound transpac flights are not too far from land except when between AK and Russia. If I remember correctly, the polar route is fairly 'land based' as well.
Also - note that a 777 has NEVER crashed...
Also - note that a 777 has NEVER crashed...
Nov 1, 2006 | 5:05 pm
#4
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,767
Virgin Atlantic supports your irrationality!
I guess a lot of people are thinking four engines are better than two! Why else will Virgin Atlantic paint all their planes with "four engines for the altantic" or something similar to that ( I don't remember the exact phrase)
So you are certainely not alone with your thoughts. Incidently, the LONGEST non-land segment is between the western USA (LAX, SFO, SEA etc.) to the Hawaiian islands. That is the longest segment over water and practically no land over the 2500 mile journey..
So you are certainely not alone with your thoughts. Incidently, the LONGEST non-land segment is between the western USA (LAX, SFO, SEA etc.) to the Hawaiian islands. That is the longest segment over water and practically no land over the 2500 mile journey..
Nov 1, 2006 | 5:10 pm
#5
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: D.R.E.A.D. Gold card holder
Posts: 53,193
Originally Posted by kevanyalowitz
Most west coast west bound transpac flights are not too far from land except when between AK and Russia.
Nov 1, 2006 | 5:18 pm
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 45 North
Programs: AS Gold 75K, DL GM/MM
Posts: 10,205
Originally Posted by zoonil
Incidently, the LONGEST non-land segment is between the western USA (LAX, SFO, SEA etc.) to the Hawaiian islands. That is the longest segment over water and practically no land over the 2500 mile journey..
Just remember, that 2 engine aircraft are built to fly on one engine for quite a while.
Last edited by TTT; Nov 1, 2006 at 5:19 pm Reason: Spelling
Nov 1, 2006 | 5:19 pm
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 23,999
Originally Posted by TTT
And this is almost exclusively flown by 2 engine aircraft (737/757/757/777).
Just remember, that 2 engine aircraft are built to fly on one engine for quite a while.
Just remember, that 2 engine aircraft are built to fly on one engine for quite a while.
Nov 1, 2006 | 5:22 pm
#8
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Europe
Programs: UA:1K MM, AF:FB-Platinum; QR: PC Platinum, FI: Saga Gold
Posts: 3,181
Originally Posted by zoonil
So you are certainely not alone with your thoughts. Incidently, the LONGEST non-land segment is between the western USA (LAX, SFO, SEA etc.) to the Hawaiian islands. That is the longest segment over water and practically no land over the 2500 mile journey..
Nov 1, 2006 | 5:27 pm
#10
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Europe
Programs: UA:1K MM, AF:FB-Platinum; QR: PC Platinum, FI: Saga Gold
Posts: 3,181
Originally Posted by lucky9876coins
Never a 737, but I see your point.
Aloha certainly does --- albeit not a -200, which is a good thing !
Nov 1, 2006 | 5:27 pm
#11
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: D.R.E.A.D. Gold card holder
Posts: 53,193
Originally Posted by TTT
Just remember, that 2 engine aircraft are built to fly on one engine for quite a while.
A single-engine pilot always knows what to do if an engine fails. A twin pilot is never sure...
Nov 1, 2006 | 5:32 pm
#12
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Europe
Programs: UA:1K MM, AF:FB-Platinum; QR: PC Platinum, FI: Saga Gold
Posts: 3,181
Originally Posted by kevanyalowitz
Most west coast west bound transpac flights are not too far from land except when between AK and Russia. If I remember correctly, the polar route is fairly 'land based' as well.
Do you know if there have been any emergency landings in the Russian territory for flights like this...
Originally Posted by kevanyalowitz
Also - note that a 777 has NEVER crashed...
Nov 1, 2006 | 5:34 pm
#13
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: D.R.E.A.D. Gold card holder
Posts: 53,193
Originally Posted by Braniff
Statistically, that would make it dangerous to fly one now.
Nov 1, 2006 | 5:37 pm
#14
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Shared Troll
Programs: The Marina. Comic Relief. UA 1K and 1MM. MacBook Pro.
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by mahasamatman
That's actually a very short distance. However, the distance to civilization, let alone an airport, is a different story.
Nov 1, 2006 | 5:37 pm
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 45 North
Programs: AS Gold 75K, DL GM/MM
Posts: 10,205
Originally Posted by lucky9876coins
Never a 737, but I see your point.
Originally Posted by mahasamatman
Yes. All the way to the point of impact.
A single-engine pilot always knows what to do if an engine fails. A twin pilot is never sure...
A single-engine pilot always knows what to do if an engine fails. A twin pilot is never sure...
