How a blown engine won Airbus a $3.5 billion deal

[DERG]

Yeah and before those they had the 707 and 727.

[barit1]

Well before the formal ETOPS designation, one or more Pacific island operators were flying 737-200s well outside the existing twin rules.

And I'll add mine to the chorus of approval for "The Sporty Game". Excellent read!

[DERG]

did those 737s have a crew of three Barit?

[keesje]

avgenie no problem.

DERG had the same discussion before, somewhere I stated the A340 is my fav long haul because it's silent, has wide seats and I prefer 3 engines left above Beering Sea + I never noticed ticket beeing more expensive
maybe they should



TWIN fans all over me with statistics. After I mentioned I worked for an airline & studied aerospace thing became tense..

[DERG]

Totally agree with you Kees..

Four engines means 50% more work for those who need to eat.

Plus the fact those A34s have more really nice ladies on them than the others. Worth the extra in peace of mind as you cruise over Chernobyl.

[barit1]

DERG:

did those 737s have a crew of three Barit?

I really don't know, but considering how few worldwide 737 ops were 3-crew,...

BTW my handle is barit1 --- (1 = one)

[DERG]

barit1

Worse thing they did when they reduced to two operators.
That Schipol accident was caused by the fact that the spare guy was not an engineer..on the 73 that landed shy of the field.

[forget]

Four engines means 50% more work for those who need to eat.

You still haven't got it right. You started off with 25%, thought about it and changed it to 50%. You are talking about 2 engines versus 4. Try again.

[DERG]

Forget I know....really need to get some new meds...noticable lately.
The thing is that we have been focussed on this RR T972 thing so long that I forget exactly what is what...but 2/4 is like 1/2 is 50%
think

[panda-k-bear]

All I wondered was how Wikipedia can say "in 1977, the A300B4 became the first ETOPS compliant aircraft" when ETOPS did not even exist in 1977. The acronym and the rules came in mid-1980s. But obviously your interpretation is different.

How about the following interpretation - that an aircraft built in 1977 was already able to comply with a tough regulation that didn't come until 8 years later. That the design was so "future-proofed" that the designers had the foresight to think about where long range operations might go with twin engined aircraft.

Brand B's version of history has them inventing the widebodied twin concept and running with it, whereas the A300B, A300-600 and A330 show something a bit different. It just so happens that brand B came up with a very, very good design in the 777 that beat the A340. The fuel burn difference between a 777-200ER and an A340-300 actually isn't all that great -> go out there and do some sums!

You may want to check but I think the airlines you mention operate 777s also on long range overwater routes.

Really? When did Qantas and South African buy 777s? I seem to have missed that.

[DERG]

Nah A34 shows the heels to any twin jet...A34 diff class Back in 77 you could smell a jet half a mile away..things self cooled in its own fuel..diff world

[avgenie]

panda-k-bear

You may want to check but I think the airlines you mention operate 777s also on long range overwater routes.

Really? When did Qantas and South African buy 777s? I seem to have missed that.

Thanks for pointing this out. My reply was in response to the following:
Derg

For companies that do the long treks FOUR engines always will be better. Airlines like JAL, Singapore, Qantas and South African.

Actually what I meant was "You may want to check but I think the airlines you mention operate ETOPS Twins also on long range overwater routes"


Derg/Keesje
I think this blog community has the enviable task of making you comfortable with other airplanes besides the A340, two-person crew and ETOPS Twins!!!

[DERG]

You know what they say Avgenie...some knowledge can be a bad thing and if you had all the knowledge you would never get up off your chair. If you enjoy reading about commercial aircraft I would set out learning ALL about the MD-11 and its history. The Tri-Jets really are interesting.

[DERG]

Brain Cell Death

Yeah..I scare myself sometimes too.

[keesje]

The Tri-Jets really are interesting

I tried to convince Airbus to go 3 with the XWB, they haven't responded so far..

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1297884406

[twochai]

The early ETOPS issue was one of wing area.

Boeing designed the 767 with a much greater wing area (and, therefore, tankage volume) than the A300/310. Airbus responded, after the success of the 767 with ETOPS became obvious, with a new larger wing for the A330/340.

I seem to recall Bernard Ziegler being publicly quoted in the early 80's that 'Airbus would never sanction long haul overwater operations on a Twin'!! Two years later they did, of course.

[Torquelink]

How blown engine won Airbus 3.5-billion deal

While the engine failure didn't help, as I understand it was the WAT limits out of JNB on a hot day which put paid to the 777-200ER - had a payload restriction compared to the A340-600. May be wrong though.

[keesje]

In the seventies the A300 was very popular with Asian carriers. Asia did not have restrictions similar to the FAA 60-minutes rule for twin-engine airliners. Those carriers flew it over the Asian seas. Alarmed by the success Boeing launched their twin widebody, the 767.

[DERG]

A370-900

That design of yours Kees, A370-900, looks better balanced than the MD-11.

[avgenie]

twochai

Boeing designed the 767 with a much greater wing area (and, therefore, tankage volume) than the A300/310. Airbus responded, after the success of the 767 with ETOPS became obvious, with a new larger wing for the A330/340.

I don't know if you read the Joe Sutter's book "747". Sutter was the father of the 747, and as VP Engineering oversaw the 757/767 program. According to his book, even though the 767 was aimed for the coast to coast US domestic operations but they gave an additional capability by designing a bigger wing and hanging the two engines that powered the 747s. According to the book "How Boeing Defied the Airbus Challenge," it even prompted Lufthansa to say that Boeing had over-designed the airplane and chose A310 instead. Probably repented ??

Because of 1978 deregulation, US airlines felt they could make a lot of money if they could start point-to-point operations over the Atlantic with the 767. Hence the start of ETOPS.

With ETOPS regulations in place, 767 dominated the north Atlantic market in the 80s.

Twochai, you're right on, this prompted Airbus to launch A330 to compete against the 767.

In the 1980s, Airbus supported ETOPS because it would benefit the A300/310.

But, after Boeing launched the 777, the real ETOPS war began. Airbus saw ETOPS as a double-edged sword. Boeing and Airbus started the ETOPS battle. It was about billions of dollars worth of sales.

Now that Airbus also has launched a long range twin A350, the ETOPS battle is pretty much over. There is peace in the ETOPS land; no more Boeing Airbus ETOPS battles. Looks like Boeing and Airbus have hid their daggers.