237 min ETOPS

[Father Charles Pawnee]

Try this for size, the 777 will soon have 237 min ETOPS certification.I understand, from a source, that the likes of BA would be able to operate West Coast to Oz/NZ and from Africa to US for American. Another story, same source, similar content, suggests that BA are considering 777-300ERs to replace 744 which Boeing will buy back, WHEN, they have approval (certification?) for a freighter conversion. I believe these approvals will both arrive around the same time.
Dont shoot the messenger, I only tell you what I hear

[411A]

Surely most must realise now that the 777 will operate for FAR less than the 747-400...about 30% less is the quoted figure, four engine reliability notwithstanding.
Seems reasonable to me.
Any hiccups however could well change the scenario.

[woodpecker]

Obviously not as economical as a 747-400, but the "Classic" 747 leaving PHL for LHR an hour ahead of our 777 a couple of years ago (with a similar pax/freight load) required a fuel load of 76,000kgs . Our 777 required 49,000kgs.

Good on you BA, if Boeing will buy the 400's back and replace them with 777's it makes sense. More jobs (hopefully) at Rolls Royce.

[Groaner]

I'm not so sure about that last comment (more jobs at Rolls-Royce).

Aren't the BA 744s all RB211-powered? Methinks Rolls relies on the sale of spare parts for the maintenance of these, and usually with a freighter conversion, utilisation drops quite a bit, so maintenance is less frequent, therefore less parts sales...

Of course, selling new Trents on the 777s means (eventually) substantial parts/service sales on those, but it takes quite a few years to build up a reasonable revenue...

I suspect Rolls has quite a few jobs yet to lose.

[Devils Advocate]

But woodpecker is this not perhaps a bitter sweet irony, when one remembers it was a renound farrier from ahbut'Derby who, when asketh'd why he was agin traversing the mighty voids - in which there be dragons - upon nothing less that a beast with four legs, was quoteth as saying "' 'tis a shame that the beasts could not be bred with more than four legs by which to sturdily power it ! "

See also: The Caravan (http://www.pprune.org/go.php?go=/pub/fun/caravan.html) and The Café Scrolls (http://www.pprune.org/go.php?go=/pub/fun/cafescrolls.html) )

[BusyB]

I thought 777-300ER's are tied to GE engines. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[HotDog]

Correction:

Customers have a choice of three engine types which can be installed on all 777 models. These are the General Electric GE90, Pratt & Whitney PW4074/77 and Rolls-Royce Trent 800, rated between 329.17kN (74,000lb) and 423kN (95,050lb). All three are in operation.

[highcirrus]

HotDog

Correction to the correction. The B777-300ER is tied to the GE90 engine.
All BA B777's are GE90 equiped.

[BRISTOLRE]

NOT all BA's B777s are GE powered!!!!
The recent G-YMXX batch are Rolls Royce Trent 895s... A bit different.
The G-ZZ's and G-VI's are GE powered.:p

[HotDog]

HighCirrus, BA is not the b-all of the airlines of the world. Check out the Boeing website; type B777-300ER powerplant. Cheers, HD.

[BusyB]

Hotdog, I might still be mistaken but try here
http://www2.boeing.com/commercial/777family/rollout/news/300_engines.html

Sorry, can't seem to make it a link.

[FL390]

I think the first 16 777s BA ordered were with GE90s - thereafter it was Rolls all the way! That should be 29 777s with Rolls engines by my reckoning, assuming it was just the first 16 with GE90s - 58 engines in total.:)

The ultra long reach 777 jobbies (the one that came out a month or two ago, and the other one next year - competing with A340-500 & -600) are powered solely by GE90s with max thrust rated at 115,000lbs each! General Electric managed to secure the contract with Boing to be exclusive engine supplier for these two variants; I believe at quite a high cost for GE.

Boeing got a bargain but it reamains to be seen whether having only GE engines being offered will affect new orders for the long range variants.:rolleyes:

[A-V-8R]

Please take my following comments with a grain of salt right now....There is some seasoning I need to acquire on this new (to me) airplane.

I'm new on the B777, but I'm starting to learn/understand a few things about ETOPS that didn't crop up in my 767 ETOPS operations.

Over the North Atlantic, where ETOPS alternates are relatively close, the 777 seems to work reasonable well.

But in the Pacific flying, with four or more ETOPS alternates, it seems that the required fuel to make the ETOPS alternates is causing a reduction in payload....and on shorter segments, a decrease in payload because of landing weight restrictions.

Some in my company are quoting a 777 cost as $15 a mile compared to $30 a mile for a 747-400.

If you can't carry the load, then the 777 is not cheaper at all!

Still learning, though...

[flufdriver]

I'm perplexed,

how come nobody has any comments about the prospect of spending nearly 4 hours on one engine, or other, equally debilitating failure, looking for an alternate, god knows where?

[ratarsedagain]

flufdriver,
'cause it'll never happen silly;)

[lomapaseo]

Flufdriver

I don't understand your post.

Isn't it just the same as a 4 holer continuing for 4 hours on autopilot with one out and a much higher risk of something else going wrong?

[pipersg]

It'll take a lot of convincing for the trans pacific travelling public to believe that there's more chance of 2 RB211s failing than there is of 1 Trent failing. Which ever way you cut it, lose an engine on a 777 and you have lost 50% of your power, lose an engine on a 744 and you still have 75% remaining.

BA can afford to get rid of it's 744s as the 777s that replace them will mainly fly in areas with plenty of en-route alternates. Pacific carriers operating the likes of LAX to NZ and Australia may see it differently.

[CI300]

UA have been operating a 777 LAX/AKL/LAX for almost a year. My understanding is (as mentioned) that the ETP build up for the en-route airfields, often mean a restricted payload.