Tony Sepanski

FAA proposal could level playing field in long-haul flying
Seattle Times 12/17/02
author: David Bowermaster
(Copyright 2001)


One of the few perceived weaknesses of the Boeing 777 relative to its Airbus competition could be eliminated if the federal government adopts a proposal made yesterday to extend rules governing long-haul operations of twin-engine jets to three-
and four-engine aircraft.

Such a policy shift by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
would force the four-engine Airbus A340 and the Boeing 747 to meet the same safety requirements as the twin-engine 777.

Such a leveling of the regulatory playing field could help Boeing
extend the 777's already considerable sales lead over the A340, particularly in the hotly contested Asian market. Boeing has sold 615 777s since it launched the program in 1990, while Airbus has sold 323 A340s since 1987.

Airbus has long insisted the A340 is more reliable, more
affordable and safer than the 777. FAA rules requiring 777s and other twin-engine jets to remain within 207 minutes of airfields where they could land in the event of an engine failure tacitly
supported Airbus' position, even though independent reliability studies indicated the 777 was less prone to in-flight diversions and engine failures than the A340.

At the Farnborough Air Show outside London last July, Airbus
posted large billboards that read, "4 Engines 4 Long Haul." The ads angered Boeing executives because they hearkened back to a blunter 1999 Airbus campaign that pictured an A340 flying over water with no land in sight.

"It's always reassuring to have the redundancy option of four ngines rather than two. Especially when you're a long, long, long way from home," the ads read.

Airbus may need to change its marketing pitches if the FAA adopts the recommendations of the extended range twin-operations (ETOPS) working group.

"The biggest advantage to Boeing (of the new proposed regulations) is one of perception," said Chet Ekstrand, vice president of regulatory affairs at Boeing. "In making these recommendations, a widespread industry-government team has fundamentally said, 'We've reached the point where twin- and
four-engine airplanes are equal, and we ought to treat them as
such.' "

Besides limiting how far twin-engine jets can stray from airfields
as they fly over the poles or across oceans, ETOPS rules mandate strict maintenance regimes, extra reserve fuel and additional cargo-fire-suppression equipment.

A Boeing spokesman estimated the requirements add $1 million to the price of a 777. The 232-page report released yesterday by the FAA noted that three- and four-engine jets traveling long distances have been exempt from such additional safety rules "since the air carrier jet era began."

After 30 months of work, the group concluded it is in the flying
public's best interest to extend those rules to all long-range
commercial aircraft.

"The (working group) proposal adds requirements that would ensure the continued safety of those flights in functional areas that are not dependent upon the number of engines on the airplane," the report stated.

Richard Aboulafia, an aviation-industry consultant with the Teal
Group, said the exemplary safety record of the 777 has assuaged most airline executives' concerns about using a twin-engine jet on their longest routes.

But a leveling of the regulatory playing field would still give
Boeing a lift.

"We've gone well over a decade with ETOPS generally taken for
granted," Aboulafia said, "but I'm sure there are vestigial doubts in certain airline executives' minds. ... Any lingering doubts you can remove enhance the 777's sales prospects."

Any changes will be a long time coming. The FAA will now do a
cost-benefit assessment of the proposed changes and, if it decides to move forward with the recommendations, issue a notice of proposed rule-making and hold public hearings.

Boeing estimates it would be roughly two years before any new
rules would take effect.

Chansen

I guess the Government doesn't have enought to write into law.
Maybe it is for the better or for worse.