[markus_zhang]

All 777-200 are less than 30 years old (June 1995 first commercial deployment according to Wikipedia). Considering we are still flying older aircraft such as MD (but as a cargo plane), can United find a buyer for this fleet?

[rob74]

"We" are (currently) not flying the MDs you are referring to, and it's questionable if they will ever fly again. And paradoxically the worst hit are not the airlines flying the MD-11, but the cash-strapped firefighting companies who only relatively recently switched to the (now also grounded) DC-10 from much older planes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c61ALDSN-ws&t=335s).

[markus_zhang]

I agree that we are not currently flying MD-11, but that's just because of the November tragedy. I don't think they are going to retire it if not because of it. That is, they retire it out of scare of more tragedy, not because of older age.

[brigade]

MD-11s aren't in commercial passenger service, so it's unlikely they retire it due to a poor reputation.

The huge question is what changes the FAA requires to unground it; if they decide design changes are needed to reduce the risk that an uncontained failure of engine 1 or 3 directly takes out engine 2, that could likely be economically infeasible.

[ralph84]

There isn't a cargo conversion available for the 777-200 or 777-200ER. But at the right price they could probably find some buyers in the VIP and charter markets.

[cr125rider]

That is such a huge plane for a charter my god. That’s gotta be Saudi level money

[ralph84]

American football teams and the military regularly charter that size aircraft to move personnel. The Arizona Cardinals own five 777s. The New England Patriots own two 767s. In addition to flying cargo, Atlas Air does passenger charter with a fleet of ten 747s and 767s.

https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Arizona-Cardinals

https://www.planespotters.net/airline/New-England-Patriots

https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Atlas-Air

[seanmcdirmid]

And..it is the engine, Boeing doesn't even make those, so I'm confused why this is a fuselage problem? Or is it because the older air frames might not justify engine replacements? (after RTA, it seems that is the case, and the engine it was certified to work with is old also).

[buildsjets]

First, the engine itself is certified under 14 CFR Part 33, but the engine cowling is certified under 14 CFR Part 25, which makes it an airframe part, not an engine part.

Boeing (Spirit division) does make the engine cowling for the 777-200, which is what separated from the aircraft and caused the fire on the ground. Even in the case of a catastrophic failure of the engine, the cowling and all of it's parts are required by regulation to remain attached to the aircraft.

There was a previous incident a few years ago also on a Pratt-powered 777-200 where an engine failure cascaded into a much more serious cowling failure. Here's an article on that previous incident. I'm unable to find a source on whether the design changes discussed were ever implemented.

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-777-engine-cover-change/

The FAA in the past several years has had a particular focus on engine cowling components departing the aircraft and causing secondary damage, the most critical example being the 737 fan cowling that separated from the engine, impacted the fuselage, broke a window, and caused a passenger to be sucked out and killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2023-2234-0001