Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:24 From: email@example.com (James Matthew Weber) References: 1 Followups: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
On 30 Nov 98 03:07:45 , Niraj Agarwalla <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >On 20 Nov 1998, MAC wrote: >> Am I right in thinking that UA is suffering high costs because of 777 >> engine problems? >> >> Out of 8 flights in the last year I have had 4 delays or cancellations >> because of engine related problems...am I unlucky or typical? > > Every new aircraft types gets a few teething problems. BA had big >problems with their GE90-equipped 777s. It got to the point that >BA decided on the RR engines to equip their next batch of 777s. I find this very interesting. GE now advertises the highest reliabliity of any 777 engine with the GE90, and frankly, I have never heard any complaint about the GE90 from anyone other than BA. BA is certainly not the only operator. I have to wonder if the comlaints weren't a smoke screen. If you remember UA claimed to be disappointed with the 777's reliablity, yet it turned out to be a good deal higher 'out of the box' than the 747-400. Does anyone have any actual statistics on the reliablity of the GE90 versus the RR Trent 800 and PW4000 equipped 777's? I suspect the reason for BA's return to RR was political rather than technical, just as the original decision wasn't technical. BA doesn't fly their 777's on long enough legs (nor did they buy enough MGTOW) for the GE90 to be especially attractive. Unless you are going to be routinely flying sectors longer than about 10 hours, the RR engine is the most attractive because it weighs the least (by about 6000 pounds per ship set over a pair of GE90's).