Perhaps if Bastian had not been doing stock buybacks for the last 3 years ( 12 billion dollars worth) they would be in good shape economically. But as long as they want to line their own pockets with more millions they will keep doing stock buybacks. Same stupid stuff that Mullin did before 9/11

B777-300ER
 

Presently the entire BA 777-300ER fleet are operating continuously as freighters whilst the majority of the other fleets are in storage. I believe the seats are being removed from one or two to increase the capacity.

I thought the 200LR is basically the same airframe as the 200F. Converting a 200 should not be an issue, if you can convert a -300, as long as you can find airframes that are worth it (not too many hours and cycles) and there is enough demand.

Big Motors
 

It's always fun when the new type you're training on has a bigger engine than the fuselage of your previous type

It's still far easier said than done - note that the 777-300ERSF program is ~30 months from launch to first deliveries. There is a lot of engineering and cert work that goes into turning a passenger aircraft into a dedicated freighter. I'm guessing they'd need to get commitments for around 10-12 conversions just to make the nonrecurring costs worthwhile.

I used to have a photo at my desk of a PW4084 on a cradle sitting next to a 737 (both from the front) - and there was no observable difference in diameter.
The GE9X fan is something like 18 inches bigger than the PW4084 :E

The last flight in my log book before my 737-200 course was a glider, so yeah, I know what you mean.

For starters, the floor on the F is significantly stronger than the LR, then there’s issues like where is all the wiring, ducting, cables etc in the fuselage and will they have to be moved to cut the cargo door? P2F development programmes are not cheap. Before everything went to hell, it was looking like plenty of 77Ws would be exiting passenger service in the coming years as they were replaced by newer models. Freighters tend to max out on volume before weight, so the 77W is a more attractive candidate than the 200 models.

Pretty sure you are correct. Outdated propaganda for sure.

DAL X-qualification
 

Not really related to the 777, but...
Can a DAL pilot be dual-qualified to fly a 737 one week then a 757 the next? What about Relief Pilots? THX.

I don't know about Delta specifically but I think in general the answer is no. In the past some airlines allowed management pilots to be qualified on more than one aircraft type but as far as I know this practice has been abandoned in the U.S. for the last couple of decades or so.

Similarly, relief pilots will normally be qualified on only one major aircraft type in my experience.

But I may be wrong, after all the mergers over the years some interesting legacy procedures and practices still exist.

Some type ratings normally cover different variations of an aircraft with a similar cockpit e.g. B-757 and B-767, A310 and A300-600 and B-747-400 and B-747-8.

1000tolevel,

Airbubba is correct. That'd be a BIG no-no at Widget Wonderland. Same for relief pilots

Delta actually does not even have relief pilots like some international airlines. All pilots are fully type rated in the aircraft and landings are rotated amongst all pilots.

Thanks
 

That’s what I thought. Just stumbled upon this guy commenting on aviation news website saying he flies a 37 one day and a 57 the next. I knew it was very unlikely but had to check before calling him out.

Are you sure he said "37" (or perhaps was misquoted)? Delta has taken full advantage of the 757/767 common type rating - regularly swapping pilots between the two.
It's been a several years now, but I was once seated next to an 'in transit' Delta pilot who flew 757s and 767s. He mentioned that he often didn't know if he was going to be flying a 57 or a 67 until after he arrived at the airport.

I think just about every carrier that has both swaps pilots on either plane. However some pilots may not maintain overwater quals in a domestic domicile. Perhaps a moot point by now but is the B-764 a separate fleet at Delta?

And as I've commented elsewhere here, I've seen augmented crews done every which way over the years.

I ran into one of these larger than life guys a while back as I posted on another thread and I did some checking:

As far as I know, no US airline allows this. 757/767, yes. Some management, or maintenance pilots, yes. But the average line pilot will only fly one type. The 767-400 is a different category as well.

Likewise for relief pilots. US airlines train you as either CA or FO. You'll be assigned the position on some flights (CA or FO, as appropriate) depending on what your bid preferences are.

Coming back to topic, Air New Zealand already announced their 5 772's are being retired and the 773's were going to be parked up, possibly to return. If they don't they'll be replaced with 787's. Seems to be a bit of a theme.

Meanwhile, over at Emirates:

https://www.arabianbusiness.com/trav...er-a380-future

well that’s sort of part of the reduce costs at all costs Walmart/standard business practice 21st century model. There’s a few problems with that plan a/ they’ve made approaches with lease firms and desert storage outfits about disposal of the 200s and they can’t get rid of them. Some have been bubble wrapped for long term storage at NZ airports now..parking fees have necessitated the 300s find work..it’s cheaper to run them at break even than pay parking fees. and..b/ the trouble with the 787 is that the issues with the rollers haven’t gone away and cargo is the white horse at the moment and the 78 can’t carry any

I believe UAL pilots include the 767-400 in their 767 category bid?

What exactly are the issue with the rollers on the 787?
Seems that Avianca are able to do cargo only flights in the passenger version, and have been for a month:
https://theloadstar.com/avianca-ramp...oost-capacity/ (text not picture)
https://www.aircargonews.net/airline...nger-aircraft/

The 767-400 is included in the 757/767 common type rating. Yes, the flight deck is unique to the 767-400 (it's based on a 777 flight deck), but the layout is pretty much common (with bigger displays) and the procedures are common.
At one time, the plan was to extend the 767-400 flight deck to all new production 757/767, so keeping the type rating common was a high priority.

The 78s don’t have good volume so can’t take larger sized pallets, and the problems with the rollers are the Rolls Royce (Trent) materials issues and also something to do with the bleed air system (or lack of) adds up to an engine that’s highly stressed and every issue they solve puts another part of the engine under stress. Also there’s an issue with resonance at some power settings. There’s a bunch in our company with EDTO limitations. The engine is fairly similar on the A350 and they’ve had the odd one go boof too.

That's not what I meant TD. I was commenting on the fact that Delta, unlike UAL has a stand alone 767-400 category for pilots. They don't fly the 767-300 at all, just the -400. Where as I believe UAL comemingles the -300 and -400 flying and 757 as well. Agree the one type rating covers all the 767 models. There was abrief period where Delta expiermented with flying the 777 and 77-400 as a single category but for a host of reasons, that never got off the ground. I have never flown the -400 but have considerable experience in the 777 and 767 aircraft.

I thought it was based on the 744...

And under some of the overseas licenses, the type rating is specific to the engine type as well. Some U.S. airline fleets have both Pratt and Rolls engines on their 757's for example. That would require two type ratings with some non-FAA ATPL's I believe. Or, is it a type rating with two engine endorsements?

Anyway, as I commented earlier, the separate Delta B-764 bid (and pay) category may be a thing of the past as moves are made to 'right-size' the airline in the downturn.

I have never heard of that engine specific issue on any non FAA rating and where I worked and we were 98% non FAA training. If you can identify an authority that mandated this I would be grateful. I know that Canada for instance, has a separate type for 737 Classic and NG, if that's what you mean?

One example, in the past at least, was the United Arab Emirates GCAA (was it maybe the DGCA at one time?). I've got a UAE ATPL from years ago with an A300-600 type rating. It specifies the GE engines. I was told that I couldn't fly an A6 registered A306 with Pratts (if there was such a plane) without an additional type rating. It was apparently a legacy of the old UK CAA licensing scheme. The technical test had useful questions like 'What colour is the light in the laser gyros?' and 'How many notches on the speedbrake quadrant?'

Almost!


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....325bb93187.jpg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....6a877dc3c.jpeg

Nope. Large parts of the 777 flight deck were transplanted directly into the 767-400. The aisle stand/thrust levers are largely common, displays are largely common, etc.
Which, BTW, was easy to do because the 757, 767, and 777 all use the same flight deck structure (aka "Section 41"). That's why the nose profile of the 757 and 777 look a little odd (and why you step down into the 757 flight deck).

I never thought the 757 nose looked odd. It has the same flat-ish underside as the 320. It is odd that you step down into the 757 and up into the 767 though.

What exactly is this section 41 that you speak of?

It's the cockpit area of Boeings since at least the 707. The equipment bay below has been called the 'lower 41' for over half a century.

One story of origin is that the compartment was numbered 41 on the original 707 drawings.

I was told years ago by a guy in a white hat that it started 41 inches behind the nose datum but that doesn't seem to be true for the other section numbers.

I don't know the origin, but I'm reasonably sure that's not it - Boeing calls all the fuselage bits "Section 4x" - e.g. the tail is Section 47/48.

Thanks, I've already changed my story after thinking about the other section numbers. :ok:

Ed, check your 6
 

Ed Bastian needs to lookout for his 6 as a hot-shot startup will buy and use those 777's and flame him.

Ah so the entire nose area (forward of the L1 entry door maybe?) would be referred to as section 41 on the assembly line?

Maybe they knew something the rest of us didn't. US Airlines are parking 767's and 777's now.

https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/east...-3-comes-back/

Boeing conventional fuselage section numbers (787 shown):

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f140840f60.jpg

Much appreciated. Thanks DaveReidUK

FWIW, I Checked with a former associate who works Regulatory STandards at Boeing. He is not aware of any such present day requirements.