RE: A330 vs B777

Difficult choice, I like them both. If I had to choose though, I think the A330 would win. The -200 srs looks excellent, but the -300 looks too long. The same can be said for -300 variant of the 777.

RE: low cost airlines

If the way the aircraft were maintained and the general safety levels involved were that much of a concern with low cost carriers, I imagine the powers that be (ie CAA/FAA) would not allow the aircraft to fly in the first place. The CAA has been known to ban airlines flying into UK airspace if there was a major safety issue, witness the banning of Nigeria Airways in 1997.

RE: 747 Classic vs new planes

I assume Virgin have acquired the 747-200’s because they are cheaper to purchase than an A340 or 747-400. The airline is expanding rapidly and probably hasn’t got time to wait for factory fresh aircraft to be delivered, the 747 classics are a good alternative, and passengers still like them. As long as the aircraft have been refurbished with a modern interior and all the usual Virgin refinements, they should be every bit as comfortable as their younger brother, the 747-400.

RE: AIRBUS 3XX???

I doubt the A3XX will be a success. Reasons why?

1. Many of the world’s major airlines already see the erstwhile 747 as being too large for many of their existing routes.

2. Due to the reason above, 747 sales have died off in recent years, and this is a smaller aircraft than the A3XX.

3. Twin jets are the future. Just look at how well the A330, 767 and 777 have done in long haul markets in recent years. Many airlines view four engined airliners as more expensive to maintain. Airlines with 747’s as their long haul workhorse have twice the number of engines to maintain than say an airline which operated a fleet of 777’s. Which do you think would be the more expensive fleet to maintain?

4. Expansion is needed at many airports to cope with the sheer size of the A3XX. Trouble is, expansion is a dirty word at many major airports these days. Just look at Heathrow. Terminal 5? Yeah, right.

I wish Airbus all the luck in the world, I really do. They have produced some fine aircraft in the past, but I just don’t think they have thought this one through enough.

RE: 757-200ER

I have often wondered the same about the 757 myself. I flew on a transatlantic flight onboard a 752 back in 1989 from Birmingham (UK) to Orlando via Bangor, Maine. The aircraft I flew on was an Air Europe example powered by Rolls Royce RB211-535E4’s, I think the 757 needs these powerplants (or the equivalent P&W examples) to gain ETOPS approval. When the 757 was introduced in the early eighties, the standard powerplant was the less powerful Rolls-Royce RB211-535C, though the E4 variant quickly replaced these in the mid eighties. Note that many of the British Airways fleet still have these older powerplants fitted, though I understand BA have now sold these old 757’s to DHL for freighter conversion. I’m not sure if the 757 does have a variant with bigger fuel tanks, although I know the ER variants of the 767 do. One final note, Airtours Intenational used to fly 757’s to Orlando from various UK airports, at least two of the machines they operate used to be with Eastern Airlines and are very early production machines. They were not classed as ER’s when built, but their engines were swapped from RR 535C class to RR 535E4 class, I think this then enabled the machines to fly ETOPS routes accross the north Atlantic. Thinking about it, Boeing quote the standard range of the 757-200 in the region of 4,000nm, this would be enough to get from Europe to the US east coast. If anyone knows anymore about this, please let me know.