View Single Post
Old 19th May 2008, 04:54
  #22 (permalink)  
mutt
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,433
Not one thing from Garret, RR, or Pratt has come through that has told us that it would save money in real terms.
You obviously dont talk to engine manufacturers very much.

For the B787 engine guarantees, the manufacturer wants us to operate it with an average of 28% reduced thrust to comply with "THEIR" requirements! For the RB211, a 1% EPR reduction results in a 12% increase in blade life, plus in our case brought the engines up to the guarantee levels.

I just wont do it on take off.
Then i suggest that you dont fly for an airline, we have constant ACARS monitoring of the engine conditions, any pilot who constantly refuses to use reduced would get to have "tea and biscuits".

Even our corporate fleet that includes 747-400's use reduced

You seem to have a concept that reduced will always put you right over the fence, this is totally wrong, look at any B777 taking off for a relatively short sector, ie, 6 hours. Look how much runway he used, and i will almost guarantee that he was using reduced!


Mutt
mutt is offline