I was reading the thread earlier today about SW 737-800s and which are certified ETOPS etc and people also went on to speculate if they are receiving ETOPS or non ETOPS MAX’s. I understand SW has 737-800’s that they bought used that were already ETOPS certified and their own planes were not.

My question is now that SW has planes that are ETOPS certified and they are an ETOPS certified airline why not order all new planes ETOPS certified straight from Boeing? Maintenance could be the same across the fleet and it would be easier to find a spare aircraft due to MX issues. The question could be the same for any airline I’m just using SW as an example since there was just an open thread about it.

What is the cost difference between an ETOPS aircraft and a non-ETOPS aircraft - is the first question that comes to mind?

Maintaining ETOPS costs you money, heaps of money in fact, with all different operational and maintenance standards required. 99% of WN's route don't require even overwater equipment let alone ETOPS. That's why you see all the US3 maintains a separate ETOPS fleet (and many others in other parts of the world).

Michael

ETOPS is not something that you just buy from the factory- ETOPS is also an ongoing maintenance program that essentially has higher standards than a normal program. IIRC there's even a requirement that the engines can't have been to the same shop within a certain amount of time. Airlines have to work with the FAA to demonstrate that their program meets these standards- which can take quite a bit of time. And IIRC WN's 738s are all new builds- they've only been taking used -700s.

-Jonas

You also must file detailed plans of scenarios should a plane crossing the ocean have an issue, how you get your passengers to their destination and to do this you need international partners all around the world. Its very in depth.

UA735WL wrote:

ETOPS is not something that you just buy from the factory- ETOPS is also an ongoing maintenance program that essentially has higher standards than a normal program. IIRC there's even a requirement that the engines can't have been to the same shop within a certain amount of time. Airlines have to work with the FAA to demonstrate that their program meets these standards- which can take quite a bit of time. And IIRC WN's 738s are all new builds- they've only been taking used -700s.

-Jonas

This is true. Although I understood the OP asking why all aircraft aren't ETOPS capable, even if the airline and program aren't planning to certify or use it. To the latter, my understanding is cost - ETOPS has requirements related to fire suppresion, APU, life rafts (EOW as well) etc. that do not add value for an airline that isn't flying extended routes over water without diversion possibility.

Another issue is that you have to schedule maintenance tasks for each engine at different intervals to avoid dual maintenance issues.

Yeah, if a plane isn't needed for ETOPS missions, no reason to waste money on extra MX and carry around weight of equipment you don't need. When you buy the plane you can choose what comes on it or not...with the assistance of Mr. Boeing of course

A couple of years ago, there was a very good story about Surinam Airways using quads because they are as an airline not Etops certified. It comes with all kinds of qualifications, standards and protocols (which cost money) so they fly the A340 where this is not necessary. A link with this information: https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... t-new-a340. And it has been discussed in this thread: viewtopic.php?t=1357469.

Antarius wrote:

UA735WL wrote:

ETOPS is not something that you just buy from the factory- ETOPS is also an ongoing maintenance program that essentially has higher standards than a normal program. IIRC there's even a requirement that the engines can't have been to the same shop within a certain amount of time. Airlines have to work with the FAA to demonstrate that their program meets these standards- which can take quite a bit of time. And IIRC WN's 738s are all new builds- they've only been taking used -700s.

-Jonas

This is true. Although I understood the OP asking why all aircraft aren't ETOPS capable, even if the airline and program aren't planning to certify or use it. To the latter, my understanding is cost - ETOPS has requirements related to fire suppresion, APU, life rafts (EOW as well) etc. that do not add value for an airline that isn't flying extended routes over water without diversion possibility.

To add to that, I'm sure having life rafts and other over-water safety necessities will add weight to the aircraft and ultimately increase fuel burn. With the trends we've been seeing, airlines clearly don't want to have extra weight on the plane that isn't being used.

Airlines tend to have a small subfleet that is ETOPS certified which are used on these longer flights. I know AA has a certain amount of ETOPS A319s that can be used where ETOPS is necessary, and can also be deployed all throughout the network when there's slack in the fleet.

Basically, nearly every large airline will need ETOPS planes sooner or later, but you just don't want to have too many.

Interesting question.

Is it all about the maintenance program? (!)

Is there some kind of physical or software difference?

Like you can order a car ( say a VW ) and you have two states of tune of the same engine?

How much does an ETOPS 737 cost over a "standard" 737?

Thx...

Regards

B8887

Deltabravo1123 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

UA735WL wrote:

ETOPS is not something that you just buy from the factory- ETOPS is also an ongoing maintenance program that essentially has higher standards than a normal program. IIRC there's even a requirement that the engines can't have been to the same shop within a certain amount of time. Airlines have to work with the FAA to demonstrate that their program meets these standards- which can take quite a bit of time. And IIRC WN's 738s are all new builds- they've only been taking used -700s.

-Jonas

This is true. Although I understood the OP asking why all aircraft aren't ETOPS capable, even if the airline and program aren't planning to certify or use it. To the latter, my understanding is cost - ETOPS has requirements related to fire suppresion, APU, life rafts (EOW as well) etc. that do not add value for an airline that isn't flying extended routes over water without diversion possibility.

To add to that, I'm sure having life rafts and other over-water safety necessities will add weight to the aircraft and ultimately increase fuel burn. With the trends we've been seeing, airlines clearly don't want to have extra weight on the plane that isn't being used.

Airlines tend to have a small subfleet that is ETOPS certified which are used on these longer flights. I know AA has a certain amount of ETOPS A319s that can be used where ETOPS is necessary, and can also be deployed all throughout the network when there's slack in the fleet.

Basically, nearly every large airline will need ETOPS planes sooner or later, but you just don't want to have too many.

I actually am not sure if the AA 319s are ETOPS. They are EOW, which requires special radios, life rafts, life jackets etc. however they do not need to meet the MX and process requirements nor additional criteria for ETOPS.

That said, I may be incorrect and AA could have both EOW and ETOPS a319s

Antarius wrote:

Deltabravo1123 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

This is true. Although I understood the OP asking why all aircraft aren't ETOPS capable, even if the airline and program aren't planning to certify or use it. To the latter, my understanding is cost - ETOPS has requirements related to fire suppresion, APU, life rafts (EOW as well) etc. that do not add value for an airline that isn't flying extended routes over water without diversion possibility.

To add to that, I'm sure having life rafts and other over-water safety necessities will add weight to the aircraft and ultimately increase fuel burn. With the trends we've been seeing, airlines clearly don't want to have extra weight on the plane that isn't being used.

Airlines tend to have a small subfleet that is ETOPS certified which are used on these longer flights. I know AA has a certain amount of ETOPS A319s that can be used where ETOPS is necessary, and can also be deployed all throughout the network when there's slack in the fleet.

Basically, nearly every large airline will need ETOPS planes sooner or later, but you just don't want to have too many.

I actually am not sure if the AA 319s are ETOPS. They are EOW, which requires special radios, life rafts, life jackets etc. however they do not need to meet the MX and process requirements nor additional criteria for ETOPS.

That said, I may be incorrect and AA could have both EOW and ETOPS a319s

Well to be honest, I'm not entirely sure of that either. I'm just regurgitating what I've read and learned from others on here lol EOW definitely sounds more fitting than ETOPS in regards to AA's A319s because they don't fly transatlantic, to Hawaii, etc. I forgot there was a difference between EOW and ETOPS. Does anybody know exactly what differentiates the two?

Deltabravo1123 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Deltabravo1123 wrote:

To add to that, I'm sure having life rafts and other over-water safety necessities will add weight to the aircraft and ultimately increase fuel burn. With the trends we've been seeing, airlines clearly don't want to have extra weight on the plane that isn't being used.

Airlines tend to have a small subfleet that is ETOPS certified which are used on these longer flights. I know AA has a certain amount of ETOPS A319s that can be used where ETOPS is necessary, and can also be deployed all throughout the network when there's slack in the fleet.

Basically, nearly every large airline will need ETOPS planes sooner or later, but you just don't want to have too many.

I actually am not sure if the AA 319s are ETOPS. They are EOW, which requires special radios, life rafts, life jackets etc. however they do not need to meet the MX and process requirements nor additional criteria for ETOPS.

That said, I may be incorrect and AA could have both EOW and ETOPS a319s

Well to be honest, I'm not entirely sure of that either. I'm just regurgitating what I've read and learned from others on here lol EOW definitely sounds more fitting than ETOPS in regards to AA's A319s because they don't fly transatlantic, to Hawaii, etc. I forgot there was a difference between EOW and ETOPS. Does anybody know exactly what differentiates the two?

Several things are covered above.. but EOW is equipment to go over water for a longer time while ETOPS is a combination of equipment and processes.

Processes include maintenance , such as each engine being serviced by different crews to avoid a mistake or oversight being repeated etc.

B8887 wrote:

Interesting question.

Is it all about the maintenance program? (!)

Is there some kind of physical or software difference?

Like you can order a car ( say a VW ) and you have two states of tune of the same engine?

It's not "all" maintenance - there are very detailed and very stringent requirements for the design and manufacture of ETOPS airplanes. You can read the basics here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14 ... to_part_25

That's not everything, there's a lot more that gets into the specifics of various subsystems, for example: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/33.201

Now, it is entirely possible for a manufacturer to design an airplane that's intended to be ETOPS compliant (meaning ready for certification) from the start, and I'm 100% sure that all long range two engine airplanes were designed that way. I don't know if you can even buy something like an A350 that isn't ETOPS compliant. But there are also airplane designs that could never be made ETOPS compliant at all, and others that could be compliant if ordered in one configuration but not in another configuration. (And by that I mean they could be ordered not just non-compliant, but theoretically in a configuration that would be difficult to ever make compliant.) I don't know enough specifics about the 737 to know if it's in that last category but I'll bet it is, since some models are intended as short range domestic aircraft. I'm just guessing that some of these non-ETOPS 737's wouldn't be economical to upgrade to ETOPS after the fact. I could be wrong with models in the current generation, but I'm mostly giving you theoreticals here anyway.

That said, I'd be surprised if an airline that has any ETOPS operations, or even thinks they might in the future, would buy a 737 that couldn't be relatively easily upgraded/certified for ETOPS. So even if an airline that's ordering new planes gets some certified for ETOPS and others not, those latter planes could most likely be certified pretty quickly. But that doesn't necessarily mean *all* airplanes of that same type could be, depending on the specific options and configuration.

Regarding the US3, how many of United's 737 NGs/MAXs are NOT ETOPS certified? Obviously all of the pmCO 757s are ETOPS frames as they were originally deployed TATL. I wonder the same for DL---the 739s, IINM, are all ETOPS certified. I don't believe any AA B738s are.

All of the etops 800s we have, the 83xx planes, came factory new. Southwest did not buy any used 800s yet. Some but not all of the max are etops presently.

I have a recollection that Airtours had flights from the UK to the western Caribbean which took much longer than expected due to the aircraft hugging the eastern coast of the US. Although the aircraft and Airtours were both ETOPS certified the maintenance shop was not, so Airtours had to adhere to the 60-minute rule.

What bout the reverse? If an airline gets a great deal on used ETOPS birds, but does not fly ETOPS routes...Can they just remove the ETOPS gear? Or is it "once ETOPS always ETOPS?" And they have to jump through the ETOPS certs?

There is a lot of miss information here. I do not consider myself master of this subject so take it for what its worth from this Boeing Abstract.

On January 16, 2007, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued revised regulatory
material relating to the operation of all aircraft on flights with the potential for extended time
diversions. As a result, the term ETOPS has been redefined as “Extended Operations” and now
includes the operation of all transport aircraft, regardless of the number of engines (except AllCargo
operations of airplanes with more than 2-engines), further than specific threshold times
from available enroute diversion airports.

The new FAA rules, while still limiting two-engine airplanes to routes that remain within 60
minutes from an Adequate Airport, unless the operator is approved for ETOPS, will now allow
two-engine airplanes to be flown on ETOPS routes with diversion times greater than 240 minutes
flying time in certain geographic regions. Passenger airplanes with more than two engines will
also be required to meet ETOPS requirements under the new rules, whenever they are operated
more than 180 minutes from an Adequate Airport. ETOPS Operational Approvals may be
granted to operators if the airframe/engine combination being used has been approved for such
flights and the operator has established acceptable operations and maintenance programs. FAA
Advisory Circulars, AC 120-42B and AC 135-42, provide guidelines for the additional
operations, maintenance, reliability and training programs that are required of an FAA ETOPS
operator.

Type Design Approval of ETOPS aircraft is now the subject of FAR Parts 21, 25, and 33,
including the requirements for ETOPS Type Design Approval at the time of initial Type
Certification, or “Early ETOPS”. Aircraft used in ETOPS service must be configured and
maintained in accordance with a Configuration, Maintenance and Procedures (CMP) document
approved by the regulatory authorities.

The operator's maintenance, operations, training and reliability programs must be supplemented
to include special ETOPS requirements. Guidance material is also provided for airlines that are v
seeking approval to operate on ETOPS routes, including ETOPS at entry into service with an airframe/engine
combination that is new to their fleet. This type of Operational Approval is referred to as "Accelerated ETOPS".
Flight Operations on routes that transit North of 78 Degrees North Latitude, or South of 60
Degrees South Latitude are now subject to FAA Part 121 and Part 135 regulations. Operators
wishing to operate in these Polar Areas must obtain a Polar Operational Approval prior to
conducting such operations. Additional MMEL limitations are applied to Polar operations and
operators must establish Passenger Recovery Plans specific to each possible diversion airport
that would be used to support these operations. A Fuel Temperature Monitoring Program must
also be established by the operator.

Basically, all current Boeing airliners (and I assume Airbus as well) are candidates for ETOPS if the operator is compliant and has been issued the proper OpSpecs.

ETOPS requires the airplanes to be over water equipped which is extra weight for rafts. It also requires additional fire protection and fire bottles which also add weight and cost. ETOPS configuration also has impacts on the MEL which restricts what equipment can be deferred. There is also APU on demand requirements.

ETOPS configurations cost money.

On example I can think of was when I was delivering new 737NG's many years ago, was the ETOPS airplanes had 2 batteries and the non ETOPS airplanes had one battery. I'm pretty sure there are other equipment differences but I can assume from reading BraveOnes post that most likely after January 16, 2007 all 737's had ETOPS in their TC and the confiq at delivery determined if they were operated early ETOPS or not.

It seems reasonable that if a non ETOPS plane was reconfigured by the airlines to the ETOPS requirements in the TC, then the customer could operate it ETOPS if it met the maintenance and operating requirements. Would it be economically practical? I have no clue.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

...Obviously all of the pmCO 757s are ETOPS frames as they were originally deployed TATL..

Not trying to be overly pedantic here, but you're referring to the sCO 757-200s. The CO-spec 757-300s were not originally ETOPS equipped as I recall, but the ex-ATA 753s were. About 6 years ago, the CO 753s were modified to the ETOPS standard.

As others have said the real big cost is the MX Program requirements. A good example is AA 100 A321NEO order will have 35 ETOPS, the rest not.

Newbiepilot wrote:

ETOPS requires the airplanes to be over water equipped which is extra weight for rafts. It also requires additional fire protection and fire bottles which also add weight and cost. ETOPS configuration also has impacts on the MEL which restricts what equipment can be deferred. There is also APU on demand requirements.

ETOPS configurations cost money.

You are pretty much spot on regarding the additional weight and costs. The standard ETOPS configuration is for 180/207 minutes. With additional $$ fire suppression it can be increased to 240 or 330 minutes. Obviously most operators would not require anything in excess of the basic 180 minute configuration. Fire suppression is the most limiting factor in ETOPS certifications. The 737 is not eligible for 180+ ETOPS.

Very interesting thread. I didn't know that the ETOPS requirements were so extensive (and expensive). But then, I can't help but wonder how can it be more advantageous than just having 3 or 4 engines instead?

Are the A330 Regional's and/or the 757s used for Transcontinental services in the US approved for ETOPS ops?...

@BravoOne

Quite interesting. Can interior furnishings have other influences over ETOPS, such as the kind of fabric in the seats and/or modules for meals or meal preparation for example?..

Thanks..

Regards..

B8887

Nothing to keep an airline from operating a ETOPS certified airplane on a domestic route. I suspect that DL, AA and UA do it all the time.

BravoOne wrote:

Nothing to keep an airline from operating a ETOPS certified airplane on a domestic route. I suspect that DL, AA and UA do it all the time.

But why would they if they didn't have to? I'm sure they have had to due to scheduling issues such as a plane going tech at the wrong place and time, but they do order non ETOPS planes for a reason which would be that for any given aircraft size, ETOPS planes have less useful load and usually lower density seating than an otherwise identical non ETOPS plane.

My airline’s 767-300s are all ETOPS, one -200 is ETOPS and four of eight 757s are ETOPS. The four 757s fly ETOPS routes all the time but our 767s very rarely fly ETOPS routes. We maintain them so we CAN fly ETOPS with them but most of the time we don’t.

As for the program itself, it’s one of if not the most difficult programs for an airline to obtain. There proving runs and tabletop exercises involving the company and FAA. If there are issues of reliability with ETOPS airplanes (too many diversions involving ETOPS equipment, etc) the governing body can suspend/revoke your ETOPS certification. There are also separate parts inventories for ETOPS vs non-ETOPS aircraft. So for our 767-200s that aren’t ETOPS, the company can’t interchange certain parts with the lone ETOPS -200. We actually ran into an issue a while back that the aircraft needed an engine change but we had to scour the country for an ETOPS engine. There were plenty of engines available, but very few ETOPS engines.

As you can see, it gets very complicated and I only scratched the surface.

BravoOne wrote:

Nothing to keep an airline from operating a ETOPS certified airplane on a domestic route. I suspect that DL, AA and UA do it all the time.

But when it is the other way around the soft stuff hits the fan:

"American Airlines accidentally used the wrong plane to fly to Hawaii"

https://www.theverge.com/2015/9/13/9320 ... -to-hawaii

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/nati ... wqJ5932TP/