Re: An interesting bit of...COLUSION (sic?)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 10:25 AM 5/7/2003 -0400, Gerry Foley wrote:
>I hope ETOPS does not mean higher costs.  I thought it merely said that
>you had proved that you were doing right what you ought to do anyway.

The bookkeeping to prove that you're still doing things right might be more
expensive. Some of the procedures, such as not using the same mechanics to
do the same repair to both engines on a particular plane, might be more
expensive, but they add safety margins that any flight would benefit from.
(ETOPS or not, I'd hate to have the same mechanic leave out the o-rings
from all the engines, whether it's a UA 772, a LH 744, or an EA 1011 out of
MIA.)

I doubt that ETOPS adds enough cost to make an ETOPS 772 inherently more
expensive than a 744. If it was, why, Boeing would be delivering a lot more
744s than 772s, right?

>Gerry

Nick

[Index of Archives]         [NTSB]     [NASA KSC]     [Yosemite]     [Steve's Art]     [Deep Creek Hot Springs]     [NTSB]     [STB]     [Share Photos]     [Yosemite Campsites]