Re: A330 vs. B767

Date:         17 Dec 99 01:57:54 
From:         "Robert Wright" <kdol97@home.com>
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
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.