Re: pre-Farnborough comments [long]

Date:         19 Aug 98 16:01:28 
From:         malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir)
Organization: Little to None
References:   1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

On 19 Aug 98 00:57:33 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) caused to appear
as if it was written:

>>BA (replace 10s and 763s)
>
>Why would you expect BA to replace their 767-300(ER)s?  The newest was
>delivered just 18 months ago, and the oldest is less than nine years
>old.  With their oddball Rolls-Royce engines (China Yunnan's three
>examples are the only other 767s with RB.211s), BA's 767s probably have
>a very low second-hand value.

Surely any operator of RB.211-powered B747s would be happy with BA's
767-300ERs (for the same reason that BA chose them!).

But I agree that the probability of BA replacing 767-300s is remote,
particularly since BA rosters from the same pool as their B757s.

But *those* may be looking forward to retirement... BA has some of the
oldest 757s around.  But not likely, I think, that they will announce
replacements any time soon...

>Anybody have a conjecture on whether BA will pick the Trent or the
>PW4000 -- or decide to stick with the GE90 after all?

My personal theory leans towards the Trent, both from the internal UK
political aspect, but also from one other persepctive:

BA has discussed using their crews on QF aircraft, and vice versa, since
their B747-400s are more-or-less identical.  On a similar note, AA has a
bunch of Trent-powered 777s on order, and AA pilots are upset about some
rumors they've heard about BA pilots flying their aircraft...

Malc.