Всё
← Back to Squawk list
Is a 737 too small to fly over an ocean?
You don't have to worry about swimming home. A captain answers the question. (www.usatoday.com) Ещё...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Personally speaking, it's called economics. Boeing's chief competetitor halted production on the A340, which was a fine 4 engine plane but nobody would buy it anymore because of the extra cost associated with those other 2 engines and not enough pax would pay the price it would take to keep it flying. As I alluded to in another comment, you are probably not alone in your feelings, but economics/high fuel prices/deregulation started driving the move to 2 engines, not pax feelings.
Noted but plaese keep in mind my logic, 4 engines over the Pacific or Atlantic where sectors are long enough to generate doubt if twin jets are deployed......just one possible example is AF447.....if it was A340 and not A330?
As for operational costs....exactly what costs are we speaking of? Safety or fuel?
As for operational costs....exactly what costs are we speaking of? Safety or fuel?
From all that has been said about 447, I doubt 4 engines would have made any difference as the cockpits were similar. I don't believe there was an engine problem on that flight.
As for operational cost, while safety figures in there, hence ETOPS planning and a diversion airport, fuel and that 3rd man in the cockpit make a big difference.
FAA says you can do it ths way with 2(ETOPS), Boeing, Airbus, GE & Rolls Royce says we can build the AC's and engines to do it; Airlines say look at all that money I'll save, and here we went. Like I said earlier, the 747, 380, or remaining 340's are your choices. You'll notice that pax desires aren't in that equation anywhere.
As for operational cost, while safety figures in there, hence ETOPS planning and a diversion airport, fuel and that 3rd man in the cockpit make a big difference.
FAA says you can do it ths way with 2(ETOPS), Boeing, Airbus, GE & Rolls Royce says we can build the AC's and engines to do it; Airlines say look at all that money I'll save, and here we went. Like I said earlier, the 747, 380, or remaining 340's are your choices. You'll notice that pax desires aren't in that equation anywhere.
Perhaps the wrong example re:447 but my thoughts are with the possible, if not probable extra back-up that a 4 jet ship offers above the big twins. Is fuel more valuable above that 1% safety margin that gets a plane to destination? To me it is simple, more is better than less when flying long sectors over water and theB747's and the Airbuses 340/380 seems preferable to me.
I don't disagree with you but that fuel makes a big difference to the bean counters that buy the planes and per the previous equation, that's what the Airlines said they wanted and the companies and FAA gave it to them.
I do not wish to insult any of you US citizens when relating the old western pioneer days when we only had Wells & Fargo coming together amongst other to provide a sevice to enable communications from East to West etc. with all the troubles inbetween considered and acknowledged etc....the Stage coaches chose a team of 4 horses if not more to do a job, I guess because two or three was not good enough for the job in hand and it worked for them.
Boeing chose four engines to do the work because it was the best solution at that time to solve a problem and I believe that it was possibly the finest decision in aviation design given the tasks and demands of the airlines with the technoogies of the time.
Moving to the 21st century and flight demands, I am sure that Boeing are correct in their pride in the B777 but may I ask why their biggest competitor does not follow other than with the A350?
Personally speaking. I trust 4 over 2 when it comes to trans ocean transport if not on a boat!