ETOPS can add costs due to less-than-favourable routings in order to stay within the approved single-engine time limit to an alternate airport. This can result in slightly longer routings, or routings that cannot take advantage of current wind conditions. Mike Gammon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Laflamme" <dplaflamme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 10:55 AM Subject: Re: An interesting bit of...COLUSION (sic?) > 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 >