ETOPS vs. LROPS

gurisudenko

gurisudenko

New Member
I have a presentation on Thursday for my Air Transportation class and decided to present on the Airbus A340. Part of the presentation is a light market analysis and comparison to similar aircraft competing for the same market the A340 is trying to claim.

Airbus argues that ICAO at the time was developing new LROPS rules that will ban twin-engine aircraft from flying over certain "extreme" areas. They even went on to talk about an oxygen-generating system that could allow their aircraft to fly at 10,000ft should cabin depressurization occur (then, they say, they could safely fly over the Himalayas...) In effect, it seems Airbus found a niche in the market to hold all its own. But how much of a niche do they have if what they're saying about LROPS is true (the information I read, on their own site, was written in 2002.)? What about ETOPS? How much does it matter?

The 777-200LR, with its optional third fuel tank, can fly 420 more nautical miles than the A340-500. Plus it's faster. A lot of what Boeing says about the 772LR seemed to put Airbus in its place. Hmm.

This is too much fun! ...My question is, what are the fundamental differences between LROPS and ETOPS? ...And, does anyone know if ICAO has developed any of these "new rules" for LROPS? What's usually a more important consideration when an airline wants to buy a new plane?


bandit.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I have a presentation on Thursday for my Air Transportation class and decided to present on the Airbus A340. Part of the presentation is a light market analysis and comparison to similar aircraft competing for the same market the A340 is trying to claim.

Airbus argues that ICAO at the time was developing new LROPS rules that will ban twin-engine aircraft from flying over certain "extreme" areas. They even went on to talk about an oxygen-generating system that could allow their aircraft to fly at 10,000ft should cabin depressurization occur (then, they say, they could safely fly over the Himalayas...) In effect, it seems Airbus found a niche in the market to hold all its own. But how much of a niche do they have if what they're saying about LROPS is true (the information I read, on their own site, was written in 2002.)? What about ETOPS? How much does it matter?

The 777-200LR, with its optional third fuel tank, can fly 420 more nautical miles than the A340-500. Plus it's faster. A lot of what Boeing says about the 772LR seemed to put Airbus in its place. Hmm.

This is too much fun! ...My question is, what are the fundamental differences between LROPS and ETOPS? ...And, does anyone know if ICAO has developed any of these "new rules" for LROPS? What's usually a more important consideration when an airline wants to buy a new plane?


bandit.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure, but that little set of wheels they got under the belly of the A340 Gets my vote.
 
Meetings are still ongoing on the ultra long range stuff, but based on what I know of the transpirings of them (which is a fair bit, actually), the Airbus stuff is pretty much on target.
 
It looks like LROPS was a proposal by Airbus. I would guess it hasn't been adopted yet, if so it's not a widely used term.

They propose an oxygen system that allows them to fly above 10,000' for extended periods with a depressurized cabin. This allows for less reserve fuel, but it would seem like quite a lot to ask of passengers to suck oxygen for hours at a time, so I'm skeptical of that plan.

Sounds like they are just trying to push the outside of that old envelope so they can sell more airplanes. Could work.
 
ETOPS = 120 or 180 minute to a diversionary airport, I believe that LROPS is supposed to extend that range.

I have two pamphlets on ETOPS put out by Boeing that I can send to you if you want?
 
Those were some interesting articles you came up with. It kind of shows what a contest this is between Boeing and Airbus. With Boeing committed to 2 engine jets and Airbus marketing 4 engine, not surprising where they come down.

Also interesting about ALPA. Another case where economics sometimes can trump a strict focus on safety?

Having said that it's OK with me if ETOPs get pushed further out as I do think economics are a vital issue and need to be taken into account. But I also believe that one of these big babies is going to spash down someday when the wrong combination of things happens at the wrong time. If it happens 160 minutes into a 207 minute diversion the second-guessing will be quite severe.
 
I'm sure this has to do with money, but why don't we see any Tri-Jets being built anymore? I think Falcon makes one, but why aren't transport category aircraft manufacturers making them?
 
Take a piece of paper, on one side list all of the aircraft that have one or two engines, on the other side of the paper, list the ones that have 3 or 4 engines. See which side of the paper has more aircraft on it, if you want, add military aircraft.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure this has to do with money, but why don't we see any Tri-Jets being built anymore? I think Falcon makes one, but why aren't transport category aircraft manufacturers making them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, one sure is. Airbus decided to go 4 engine with the 340 while Boeing went for 2 with the 777. The way orders have been going lately the 777 may have won that contest. And the reason is economics. 2 is cheaper than 4.

[ QUOTE ]
Take a piece of paper, on one side list all of the aircraft that have one or two engines, on the other side of the paper, list the ones that have 3 or 4 engines. See which side of the paper has more aircraft on it, if you want, add military aircraft.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?
 
[ QUOTE ]
But I also believe that one of these big babies is going to spash down someday when the wrong combination of things happens at the wrong time.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like crossfeeding one tank into another that has sprung a leak and not being lucky enough to be close enough to the Azores?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top