Virgin Scaremongering
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sherborne
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember taking a chap from Boeing to the USA about 4 years ago, he had been trying to sell the B777 to Virgin. He said they were not interested as they could buy several classics for the same price. It was cost and not the number of engines that were the issue. He pointed out that the B777 direct operating costs were $5,000 per hour less then a classic and that VS had an average use time of 15 hours per day, saving of $75,000 per day, $2.25 million per month. Subtract lease cost of $0.8 million = $1.45 million X 10 aircraft = $14.5 per month = $174 million per year. This cost assumes the clasics he bought cost him zero and he spent zero money on them. Every other airline was busy chopping their 747s in for 777s, now you know why. I wonder if flying with 4 pods has been worth the 0.5 billion extra cost over the past 3 years. Add to this increased passenger comfort, better reliability, less down time, CAT3b etc, etc, etc
Paxing All Over The World
Another reason for not liking twins is also hard to prove ... the ratio of Toilets:Seats appears to be less favourable than on quads.
The difficulty is to travel the majors, count their seats and toilets and make up a table. I do not have the time and money to do so and Which? do not run reports on this sort of thing, only on overall punctuality.
However, when travelling on twins, the toilet queues SEEM longer.
[ 20 November 2001: Message edited by: PAXboy ]
The difficulty is to travel the majors, count their seats and toilets and make up a table. I do not have the time and money to do so and Which? do not run reports on this sort of thing, only on overall punctuality.
However, when travelling on twins, the toilet queues SEEM longer.
[ 20 November 2001: Message edited by: PAXboy ]
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My last flight across the pond on a twin was with Virgin (OK, a Continental code share).
Shurely shome mishtake???
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Albert Einstein
Shurely shome mishtake???
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Albert Einstein
Guest
Posts: n/a
Big Ears : You spoilt my reply to SLF3.
SLF3 :
30% Crash Rate, Bloody Hell !!!
Theo Racle : Spot on.
PAXBoy : Spot on.
In fact all pax really want is more leg room. It may take the airlines a long time to realise it but 10 - 20 quid extra per ticket on a long haul flight is more than worth the extra dosh if you are more comfortable.
Guvnor : May I suggest that the odds in winning the Jackpot on the lottery INCREASE the more tickts you buy rather than in your example where the odds of winning Decrease the more tickets you buy. (Just Joshing with 'ya there !! )
.
Personally I am going to buy 1/14,000,000th of a ticket for wednesdays draw. Cheap at 0.0000001p I'd say - and a guaranteed winner !!!
SLF3 :
From memory, BA average 0.3 million crashes per million flights. The risk in taking a flight is thus infinitesimally small. I subjectively prefer 4 engines, but 2 is safe enough for me.
Theo Racle : Spot on.
PAXBoy : Spot on.
In fact all pax really want is more leg room. It may take the airlines a long time to realise it but 10 - 20 quid extra per ticket on a long haul flight is more than worth the extra dosh if you are more comfortable.
Guvnor : May I suggest that the odds in winning the Jackpot on the lottery INCREASE the more tickts you buy rather than in your example where the odds of winning Decrease the more tickets you buy. (Just Joshing with 'ya there !! )
.Personally I am going to buy 1/14,000,000th of a ticket for wednesdays draw. Cheap at 0.0000001p I'd say - and a guaranteed winner !!!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somehow I thought this thread might end up in the toilet, but...
Continental, deciding that toilet placement on its larger 737's was not favorable, opted to have all the cabins on its -800 and -900 jets modified to add a toilet in the center, at a cost of 5 seats in coach.
Continental, deciding that toilet placement on its larger 737's was not favorable, opted to have all the cabins on its -800 and -900 jets modified to add a toilet in the center, at a cost of 5 seats in coach.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thread says that pilots aren't commercially aware. This thread proves it.
Come on every one, you make decisions every day balancing safety against cost. Why not fly all aircraft with full tanks, half payload and 5 pilots on the flight deck. That would be very safe (who's Captain today?)!
So I'll trust the regulators that allow ETOPS to be cleverer than me at deciding if it's safe.
And having spent many years flying 747s around I recently changed to 767s and, yes, I have a gut feeling that I'd like more engines, but that's all it is, a subjective feeling.
Come on every one, you make decisions every day balancing safety against cost. Why not fly all aircraft with full tanks, half payload and 5 pilots on the flight deck. That would be very safe (who's Captain today?)!
So I'll trust the regulators that allow ETOPS to be cleverer than me at deciding if it's safe.
And having spent many years flying 747s around I recently changed to 767s and, yes, I have a gut feeling that I'd like more engines, but that's all it is, a subjective feeling.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: At home
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting a concensus on the precise quantum of risk faced by airlines and their passengers due to events such as engine failure, terrorist attack etc. is probably impossible. Individual perception about risk is inherently unreliable - many people perceive air travel to be far more risky than road travel even though the available evidence points to the opposite being the case. So-called experts can also be wildly inaccurate when it comes to evaluating risk. However, being cynical to the point of absurdity, what really matters in our business is the public's perception of risk and not reality. The majority of the travelling public do not have sufficient information to make an informed decision about the level of risk they face when travelling with a particular airline or in a particular type of aircraft. However if they believe that a particular airline is safer or more secure than another this will certainly influence their decision about where to spend their money. Clearly seat price is also a big factor but there may now be a sea-change taking place in the air travel sector similar to that which took place in the car market. Twenty years ago none of the major car makers was selling cars on the basis of how safe they were - as this was not sexy. They were sold on price, image, performance, handling, style, level of equipment etc. Volvo, which looked like it was going to go the way of the British car industry, took a different view and marketed all of their range primarily on their in-built safety and reliability. Volvo thrived and made lots of money. Will Virgin be the next Volvo?
yea
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Out of the blue
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many years ago, my grandfather gave me one of his civil engineers reference books from 1920. In it, they speculated that aero-engines would probably never be reliable enough to allow a robust and safe trans-Atlantic scheduled passenger service to be flown.
If you look at the serious incidents across the Pond during the last five years, few if any have been causally linked to the number of or failure of engines.
If you look at the serious incidents across the Pond during the last five years, few if any have been causally linked to the number of or failure of engines.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF3
Blimey, that's a crash every 3 flights!!!
Statistics are a wonderful thing!
From memory, BA average 0.3 million crashes per million flights. The risk in taking a flight is thus infinitesimally small. I subjectively prefer 4 engines, but 2 is safe enough for me.
Statistics are a wonderful thing!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Northampton, UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right, statistics lesson follows... those of you who really don't give a d*mn, skip to the next post!!
Guvnor, your rubbish about firing squads is just that - rubbish.
Theo Racle, a brave attempt, but not quite right. I'll also assume a 10% (0.1) chance of any one engine failing.. but by your maths, a 10-engine aircraft would then be guaranteed to lose an engine. Clearly not correct.
So, assuming each engine has a 0.1 chance of failing per flight, and hence a 0.9 chance of not failing:
The probability of an aircraft completing a flight with all engines intact = (prob. engine one does not fail) x (prob. engine 2 does not fail) x ... (continue for number of engines).
So for a twin, the probability is (0.9x0.9) or 81%, for a quad (0.9x0.9x0.9x0.9) or 66%.
In other words, the probability of one or more engines failing on a twin is (1-0.81) = 19%, on a quad 34%.
So a quad is significantly more likely to have a failure in one or more engines than a twin. (To find the chance of *exactly* one engine failing, as Theo Racle tried, is a little more complicated. For completeness, on a twin the chance of exactly one engine failing is 18%, on a quad 29%.)
As for the chances of all engines failing.. for a twin, this is (0.1x0.1) = 1%, on a quad (0.1^4) = 0.01%.
So there are the relative probabilities.. of course, in the real world, the chances of engine failures are far, far lower. Draw your own conclusions.
Sorry to bore everyone!
Cobbler (I knew that Maths degree would come in useful one day)
Guvnor, your rubbish about firing squads is just that - rubbish.
Theo Racle, a brave attempt, but not quite right. I'll also assume a 10% (0.1) chance of any one engine failing.. but by your maths, a 10-engine aircraft would then be guaranteed to lose an engine. Clearly not correct.
So, assuming each engine has a 0.1 chance of failing per flight, and hence a 0.9 chance of not failing:
The probability of an aircraft completing a flight with all engines intact = (prob. engine one does not fail) x (prob. engine 2 does not fail) x ... (continue for number of engines).
So for a twin, the probability is (0.9x0.9) or 81%, for a quad (0.9x0.9x0.9x0.9) or 66%.
In other words, the probability of one or more engines failing on a twin is (1-0.81) = 19%, on a quad 34%.
So a quad is significantly more likely to have a failure in one or more engines than a twin. (To find the chance of *exactly* one engine failing, as Theo Racle tried, is a little more complicated. For completeness, on a twin the chance of exactly one engine failing is 18%, on a quad 29%.)
As for the chances of all engines failing.. for a twin, this is (0.1x0.1) = 1%, on a quad (0.1^4) = 0.01%.
So there are the relative probabilities.. of course, in the real world, the chances of engine failures are far, far lower. Draw your own conclusions.
Sorry to bore everyone!
Cobbler (I knew that Maths degree would come in useful one day)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cobbler
Thanks for posting some reason to these arguments.
Points so far that are worth considering.
Catastrophic failure causing collateral damage to the aircraft, including to other engines, increases with the number of engines.
Common cause problems (fuel starvation, ingestion hazards from birds, ice and volcanic ash are a wash)
PSM + ICR (Propulsion system malfunction coupled with inappropriate crew response) increases with more engines and is responsible for 60-70 % of the major engine caused incidents.
More engines may feel good when you have only shut down one, but when you get the second one you better do it right, including missed approaches.
Thanks for posting some reason to these arguments.
Points so far that are worth considering.
Catastrophic failure causing collateral damage to the aircraft, including to other engines, increases with the number of engines.
Common cause problems (fuel starvation, ingestion hazards from birds, ice and volcanic ash are a wash)
PSM + ICR (Propulsion system malfunction coupled with inappropriate crew response) increases with more engines and is responsible for 60-70 % of the major engine caused incidents.
More engines may feel good when you have only shut down one, but when you get the second one you better do it right, including missed approaches.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 35K
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now rightly or wrongly RB made the comment. Most people who fly wont even be aware of this site. However as a passenger who has to commute every week from LHR to JFK and back I can assure you I am many of my colleages preffer 4 engines to 2. I would rather fly in a 744 or 340 any day, rather than a 777 or 330. Whether my thoughts are rational or correct are not important. The fact is I have a choice. I chose VS for 2 reasons. They are more fun to fly with than BA and the girls are sexier. In light of recent events however saftey has played a part in my mind. I am flying a lot less than i was for financial reasons, but I have continued to fly with VS for two further reasons.
I was in NYC on 911, I subsequently spent 3 weeks in the states. I departed from IAD, and was very happy to frisked by additional security provided by VS as opposed to the meatheads who made such a pigs ear of my xray and jacket check. I was also hapy to be getting on Jersey Girl. After all the flights on her and it was a further sign of reassurance.
But what do I know, i am just another piece of SLF, chatting with the FA's, eating the food and collecting the miles.
First rule of customer service - The customer is always right. In case customer is a moron see rule 1
V50
I was in NYC on 911, I subsequently spent 3 weeks in the states. I departed from IAD, and was very happy to frisked by additional security provided by VS as opposed to the meatheads who made such a pigs ear of my xray and jacket check. I was also hapy to be getting on Jersey Girl. After all the flights on her and it was a further sign of reassurance.
But what do I know, i am just another piece of SLF, chatting with the FA's, eating the food and collecting the miles.
First rule of customer service - The customer is always right. In case customer is a moron see rule 1
V50
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: England
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Guvnor but you're making it up as you're going along. Net result is you've had a four engine flame out in the reasoning department and ploughed headlong into the undershoot.
If an engine has, say, a 1 in 1000 chance of failing then it matters not a jot whether you have two, three or four engines from the point of view of the individual engines. Just because one fails it does not reduce the risk of failure of the remaining units.
Suggest you perform a restart on your grey matter and attempt to climb up to Victor Mike Charlie on top.
You seem a little disorientated at you present flight level.
If an engine has, say, a 1 in 1000 chance of failing then it matters not a jot whether you have two, three or four engines from the point of view of the individual engines. Just because one fails it does not reduce the risk of failure of the remaining units.
Suggest you perform a restart on your grey matter and attempt to climb up to Victor Mike Charlie on top.
You seem a little disorientated at you present flight level.
