Re: UA 777

Date:         07 Dec 98 23:19:27 
From:         john@nospam.demon.co.uk (John Wright)
Organization: Janet, me and our cats in our little cottage
References:   1
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

On 30 Nov 98 03:07:45 , in <airliners.1998.1805@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
Niraj Agarwalla 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.

There's also the point that while the GE engine is more fuel efficient
than the RR (or the P&W), it is so much heavier you need a 10 hour stage
to make the costs balance - did I read that in this group? I might have
done. BA will thus probably find the RR engined 777 quite a bit cheaper
to operate particularly if it keeps its long stages for the 747-400
--
John Wright

"There's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got _much_ spam in it."
"I don't want *any* spam..."