Oh the Irony! B787 fleet stopgap solution!
Mar 30, 2008, 3:03 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: British Airways Executive Club, United Mileage Plus & bmi Diamond Club
Posts: 1,427
Oh the Irony! B787 fleet stopgap solution!
...the Boeing B777!
See the article in The Independant
The news led Virgin Atlantic, one of the biggest European customers for the plane, to open talks with the American aerospace giant. This could lead to Boeing lending 777 aircraft to the carrier to tide it over until the 787s can be delivered, or replacing some of the 787s on order with the older model. This would be in addition to millions in fines for late delivery.
Steve Ridgway, chief executive of Virgin Atlantic, said: "There are provisions around this in the contracts. We are talking to them about what to do to bridge us through until we get the 787. The 777 is the nearest thing to the 787, that's what we're talking about."
He added: "We already know about the six-month delay, but what we don't know is what is going on with these latest delays." Simply waiting for the plane would jeopardise its growth plans.
The twinjet they were against for so long...how ironic
See the article in The Independant
The news led Virgin Atlantic, one of the biggest European customers for the plane, to open talks with the American aerospace giant. This could lead to Boeing lending 777 aircraft to the carrier to tide it over until the 787s can be delivered, or replacing some of the 787s on order with the older model. This would be in addition to millions in fines for late delivery.
Steve Ridgway, chief executive of Virgin Atlantic, said: "There are provisions around this in the contracts. We are talking to them about what to do to bridge us through until we get the 787. The 777 is the nearest thing to the 787, that's what we're talking about."
He added: "We already know about the six-month delay, but what we don't know is what is going on with these latest delays." Simply waiting for the plane would jeopardise its growth plans.
The twinjet they were against for so long...how ironic
Last edited by Jenbel; Mar 31, 2008 at 7:32 am Reason: Edited to correct mis-formatted link
Mar 30, 2008, 3:35 pm
#2
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Programs: Lots of shiny metallic ones.
Posts: 1,049
Well, it's not exactly like it's through choice now, is it? 
Mar 30, 2008, 5:59 pm
#3
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: TLV now - formerly LAS
Programs: King of Rental Cars, BA Gold, Virgin Gold, AA MM Gold, A3 Gold, SK Gold, Hotel SuperElite
Posts: 7,357
Wirelessly posted (probably driving while typing: BlackBerry8130/4.3.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)
A free Boeing aircraft surely beats lease payments on a replacement Airbus.
A free Boeing aircraft surely beats lease payments on a replacement Airbus.
Apr 1, 2008, 9:13 am
#4
Suspended
Join Date: Apr 2008
Programs: VA Gold, BA Gold, Starwood Plat.
Posts: 15
The twinjet they were against for so long...how ironic[/QUOTE]
I have to agree - I specifically remember reading a letter from Richard B in UC on the A340-600 that had an entire paragraph about how passengers feel much more relaxed on a 4 engine aircraft. The slogan '4 engines 4 long haul' must be ditched then? lol. What a shambles.
I have to agree - I specifically remember reading a letter from Richard B in UC on the A340-600 that had an entire paragraph about how passengers feel much more relaxed on a 4 engine aircraft. The slogan '4 engines 4 long haul' must be ditched then? lol. What a shambles.
Apr 1, 2008, 11:19 am
#5
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Programs: Lots of shiny metallic ones.
Posts: 1,049
Apr 1, 2008, 3:41 pm
#6
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: British Airways Executive Club, United Mileage Plus & bmi Diamond Club
Posts: 1,427
They do have a choice. Keep the A340-300s a little longer, delay expansion...
Who said anything about it being free?
I have to agree - I specifically remember reading a letter from Richard B in UC on the A340-600 that had an entire paragraph about how passengers feel much more relaxed on a 4 engine aircraft. The slogan '4 engines 4 long haul' must be ditched then? lol. What a shambles.[/QUOTE]
It was dropped as the media hooked onto the green issue with aviation. Of course, a 4 engine doesn't present itself as green.
I remember RB saying that passengers feel safer on 4 engined aircraft when the -600s were first introduced, hence the slogan.
I have to agree - I specifically remember reading a letter from Richard B in UC on the A340-600 that had an entire paragraph about how passengers feel much more relaxed on a 4 engine aircraft. The slogan '4 engines 4 long haul' must be ditched then? lol. What a shambles.[/QUOTE]
It was dropped as the media hooked onto the green issue with aviation. Of course, a 4 engine doesn't present itself as green.
I remember RB saying that passengers feel safer on 4 engined aircraft when the -600s were first introduced, hence the slogan.
Apr 2, 2008, 1:49 am
#7
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: Enough to travel better
Posts: 2,020
My observation but correct me if I'm wrong. Operating twin-engine aircraft may seem "greener' because of twinjets use less fuel. However, there are ETOPS requirements to consider for long haul twinjets. One of the requirements I believe is that the twinjet flying over water must be within (now) 180 minutes from the nearest airport to land in case of emergency shutdown of engines. Four engine a/c do not operate under these requirements and therefore fly the most direct route overwater/land to the destination. Now, controversy over ETOPS happened when older twinjets with ETOPS were flying at the then 120 minute requirement. These a/c were flying within the ETOPS corridors but some of the airports along those corridors did not have adequate facilities to accommodate twinjet airliners during an emergency. This might have changed the 120 minute ETOPS requirement to the 180 minute requirement for today's twinjets. However, new twinjets like the 787s (777ERs/LRs for that matter) and the A350 have longer ranges to fly to the nearest airport with adequate facilities in case of an emergency.
So to me, the 4 engine plane will fly the most direct route to save fuel and time without ETOPS restrictions. New generation twinjets, OTOH will fly a longer route and not necessarily a direct one to remain within ETOPS and to be within distance of an adequate emergency airport. Now are these new twinjets going to save any more fuel compared to the 4 engine jets based on the above scenario? Again, I stand to be corrected...
So to me, the 4 engine plane will fly the most direct route to save fuel and time without ETOPS restrictions. New generation twinjets, OTOH will fly a longer route and not necessarily a direct one to remain within ETOPS and to be within distance of an adequate emergency airport. Now are these new twinjets going to save any more fuel compared to the 4 engine jets based on the above scenario? Again, I stand to be corrected...
Apr 4, 2008, 3:57 am
#8
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: British Airways Executive Club, United Mileage Plus & bmi Diamond Club
Posts: 1,427
My observation but correct me if I'm wrong. Operating twin-engine aircraft may seem "greener' because of twinjets use less fuel. However, there are ETOPS requirements to consider for long haul twinjets. One of the requirements I believe is that the twinjet flying over water must be within (now) 180 minutes from the nearest airport to land in case of emergency shutdown of engines. Four engine a/c do not operate under these requirements and therefore fly the most direct route overwater/land to the destination. Now, controversy over ETOPS happened when older twinjets with ETOPS were flying at the then 120 minute requirement. These a/c were flying within the ETOPS corridors but some of the airports along those corridors did not have adequate facilities to accommodate twinjet airliners during an emergency. This might have changed the 120 minute ETOPS requirement to the 180 minute requirement for today's twinjets. However, new twinjets like the 787s (777ERs/LRs for that matter) and the A350 have longer ranges to fly to the nearest airport with adequate facilities in case of an emergency.
So to me, the 4 engine plane will fly the most direct route to save fuel and time without ETOPS restrictions. New generation twinjets, OTOH will fly a longer route and not necessarily a direct one to remain within ETOPS and to be within distance of an adequate emergency airport. Now are these new twinjets going to save any more fuel compared to the 4 engine jets based on the above scenario? Again, I stand to be corrected...
So to me, the 4 engine plane will fly the most direct route to save fuel and time without ETOPS restrictions. New generation twinjets, OTOH will fly a longer route and not necessarily a direct one to remain within ETOPS and to be within distance of an adequate emergency airport. Now are these new twinjets going to save any more fuel compared to the 4 engine jets based on the above scenario? Again, I stand to be corrected...
Incidentally, because the ETOPS regulations are so well recognised, Airbus had the A340-500/600 series ETOPS certificated.
Apr 5, 2008, 1:19 am
#9
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: Enough to travel better
Posts: 2,020
flyboy777, thank you for the response. So ETOPS out of the box a/c went to 207 min. That is quite curious. Also curious are the ETOPS certified A340s. I remember that Boeing and Airbus went through studies and wanted clarity to ETOPS guidelines to support their marketing strategies.
Apr 12, 2008, 4:54 am
#10
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Miami, Mpls & London
Programs: AA & Marriott Perpetual Platinum; DL & HH Gold
Posts: 48,953
If you have a Wall Street Journal subscription it is worth reading this article published 7 April 2008 Airline Regulators Grapple With Engine-Shutdown Peril
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120753185285993925.html
Relevancy to this discussion is here, suggesting that there is some safety advantage to more than two engines:
The odds of both of a plane's engines shutting down at once were supposed to be about one in a billion. Since 2002, however, internal ice has been blamed for at least 14 instances of dual-engine shutdowns, called "flameouts," and several times that many single-engine outages. Investigators now believe that since the mid-1990s, so-called crystalline icing has prompted dramatic power drops or midair engine stoppages in more than 100 jets. So far, the flameouts haven't been blamed for any crashes, because the engines on big commercial jets have always managed to restart.
...
Although GE and others have made adjustments to their engines, the problem persists. Last November, GE says, three of the four revamped GE engines on a Philippine Airlines Boeing 747 experienced brief stoppages while descending toward Manila.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120753185285993925.html
Relevancy to this discussion is here, suggesting that there is some safety advantage to more than two engines:
The odds of both of a plane's engines shutting down at once were supposed to be about one in a billion. Since 2002, however, internal ice has been blamed for at least 14 instances of dual-engine shutdowns, called "flameouts," and several times that many single-engine outages. Investigators now believe that since the mid-1990s, so-called crystalline icing has prompted dramatic power drops or midair engine stoppages in more than 100 jets. So far, the flameouts haven't been blamed for any crashes, because the engines on big commercial jets have always managed to restart.
...
Although GE and others have made adjustments to their engines, the problem persists. Last November, GE says, three of the four revamped GE engines on a Philippine Airlines Boeing 747 experienced brief stoppages while descending toward Manila.
Apr 19, 2008, 3:56 pm
#11
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: British Airways Executive Club, United Mileage Plus & bmi Diamond Club
Posts: 1,427
If you have a Wall Street Journal subscription it is worth reading this article published 7 April 2008 Airline Regulators Grapple With Engine-Shutdown Peril
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120753185285993925.html
Relevancy to this discussion is here, suggesting that there is some safety advantage to more than two engines:
The odds of both of a plane's engines shutting down at once were supposed to be about one in a billion. Since 2002, however, internal ice has been blamed for at least 14 instances of dual-engine shutdowns, called "flameouts," and several times that many single-engine outages. Investigators now believe that since the mid-1990s, so-called crystalline icing has prompted dramatic power drops or midair engine stoppages in more than 100 jets. So far, the flameouts haven't been blamed for any crashes, because the engines on big commercial jets have always managed to restart.
...
Although GE and others have made adjustments to their engines, the problem persists. Last November, GE says, three of the four revamped GE engines on a Philippine Airlines Boeing 747 experienced brief stoppages while descending toward Manila.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120753185285993925.html
Relevancy to this discussion is here, suggesting that there is some safety advantage to more than two engines:
The odds of both of a plane's engines shutting down at once were supposed to be about one in a billion. Since 2002, however, internal ice has been blamed for at least 14 instances of dual-engine shutdowns, called "flameouts," and several times that many single-engine outages. Investigators now believe that since the mid-1990s, so-called crystalline icing has prompted dramatic power drops or midair engine stoppages in more than 100 jets. So far, the flameouts haven't been blamed for any crashes, because the engines on big commercial jets have always managed to restart.
...
Although GE and others have made adjustments to their engines, the problem persists. Last November, GE says, three of the four revamped GE engines on a Philippine Airlines Boeing 747 experienced brief stoppages while descending toward Manila.
Sep 6, 2018, 10:09 pm
#12
Join Date: Sep 2012
Programs: AA plat, Hertz, gold , Bonvoy gold,IHGplat
Posts: 312
I see BA is having some 787 issues recently. Is there any sense that Virgin Atlantic is having similar problems?
Sep 7, 2018, 12:26 am
#13
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: UK
Programs: VS Gold
Posts: 512
I do wonder sometimes if flyertalk should implement some kind of "if the thread hasn't been posted on for X years it is automatically locked" rule.
Sep 7, 2018, 12:27 am
#14
Join Date: May 2006
Programs: VS Au, Skywards Au, BA Exec Ag, HH Diamond, Taj Au
Posts: 1,389
Both BA and VS have had issues with the RR engines on the 787s, it's been widely reported and is longstanding.
Sep 7, 2018, 1:38 am
#15
Moderator, Virgin Atlantic
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: www.V-Flyer.com
Programs: VS Red, Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium - earned out of our own pocket!.
Posts: 2,390
I will lock this thread.
Nick