Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:28 From: email@example.com (Malcolm Weir) Organization: Little to None References: 1 2 3
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.