Fortunately a lot of the affected aircraft appear to be stored already.
Mhm, most are using the GE90, which are my favorite aviation engine!From what was mentioned on the news, it appears the greatest majority of 777 are not using this engine. Many of the earlier 777 are indeed RR Trent or GE powered, later on it became all GE engines. I believe that AA has a bunch of the 200 variants that are RR. Longer range and newer are all GE.
Utilization and demand remain relatively low, so in the short term I think it's more likely that we see increased frequencies over stored fleet activation. Demand may even dip a bit since this story received more than the usual amount of press due to an abundance of striking visual content.I guess UA will temporarily deploy their GE powered 77Es on the routes where domestic 777As were being used. The intercontinental routes for the time being will continue with 77Ws. So a bunch of domestic passengers might get to enjoy Polaris BC seats.
77Ws are mostly in use, there are some GE 77Es that are in storage the last time I looked.I don't believe any GE 777 are in storage at UA That's why I mentioned other types.
Well they are not in deep storage, but they are not in current use on a regular basis either. They maybe being rotated in and out to keep them current, but a number are parked in various places. They don't have enough operating flights to need most of the GE 77Es at present.I didn't see any, but some of these lists are off a bit... A 747 freighter with P&W blew an engine a few days ago in Europe, and it shows as stored.
Well they are not in deep storage, but they are not in current use on a regular basis either. They maybe being rotated in and out to keep them current, ...
I have no idea since I don't have access to that information.I don't want to hijack this threat but is Amtrak rotating it's passenger cars to keep them current now with cutbacks?
Those getting on a 787 are really lucky...Currently the grounded 772As are being covered by a combination of 773, 789, 788, 753 and 738 depending on individual segment loads.
Those 773s (actually 77Ws) are Polaris too. They are very impressive planes. I fly by them at least a couple of times a year in non-pandemic years to India and back. I guess I am missing that trip only this year, if things proceed as they are.Those getting on a 787 are really lucky...
And almost any avgeek would rather be on a 753 as well.
Some aviation fans have disputed the uncontained nature of the failure, and even claimed that grounding the subfleet was an overreaction, but in my view the photo above puts that debate to rest
YEs they are! The 777-300 is a beauty.Those 773s (actually 77Ws) are Polaris too. They are very impressive planes. I fly by them at least a couple of times a year in non-pandemic years to India and back. I guess I am missing that trip only this year, if things proceed as they are.
Why?Those getting on a 787 are really lucky...And almost any avgeek would rather be on a 753 as well.
Maintaining lift with an engine loss is a requirement of commercial certification. In the case of twin engine jets this means they must be able to maintain sufficient lift with a single engine in operation. Loss of altitude could be due to a number of reasons. Watch the video in post #46 to see what was likely going on inside the aircraft at that time.It stated that the 777 was losing altitude after engine failure. Question is the plane can maintain its' altitude with one engine running, esp of you're over the vast expanse of ocean?
What is the "It" that stated?It stated that the 777 was losing altitude after engine failure. Question is the plane can maintain its' altitude with one engine running, esp of you're over the vast expanse of ocean?
Enter your email address to join: