Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:54 From: "Robert Wright" <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: 1 2 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
>Under normal circumstances, I think BA would sell them and take them out of >the fleet, however RR powered 767's are kind of rarity, so the resale value >is likely to low unless you can sell them to an RR powered 747-400 operator >who is already looking after a fleet of RB211-525G/H's, even then, >enthusiasm is likely to be low. The engines don't make fuel guarantees, and >hot section life has become a very real problem. I haven't seen anyone opt >for the G/H-T upgrade for the 767 either, on the other hand, BA operates >almost all of the RR powered 767's in the world anyway! I think there was a problem with the strut on the 76RR. Initially someone missed a load path, and it was then corrected late in a very expensive manner, in terms of cost and weight. So the engines burn a little too much fuel, and the airplane's empty weight is kind of high. When I was at Boeing there was talk of designing a new strut, but probably only if RR built the Trent 600, which would probably mean a new strut anyway. >A300 B2/B4 replacement has become a sore subject as well. There really >isn't one. The A300 was well designed for service within Europe, and to be >honest, it really isn't good for much else. As the borders have come down, >and ATC delays have climbed, the usefulness of a wide body short haul >aircraft in Europe becomes increasingly suspect. The train gets more >attractive by the day! I think the bigger wing on the 767 also gives it better climb performance. I have heard, but never confirmed, that it can frequently be difficult to get clearances to higher altitude in some areas of Europe, so I suppose if you can take off and get very rapidly to altitude in a small space you eliminate a hassle and don't have to cruise along at 18,000 feet for 500 miles.