Address by the Secretary General of ICAO


Address by the Secretary General of ICAO
Mr. Raymond Benjamin,
to the IATA Global Aviation Security Summit

(Geneva, 22 January 2010) Giovanni, thank you for this invitation to join Secretary Napolitano and such an impressive gathering of airline CEOs. I very much enjoyed your presentation and the perspective of the Secretary, and I look forward to a stimulating discussion after my brief remarks.

The attempted sabotage of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on 25 December is a vivid reminder that security threats transcend national boundaries and can only be properly addressed through a global strategy based on effective international cooperation. As the UN agency responsible for promoting the development of civil aviation worldwide, ICAO facilitates cooperation in all areas of civil aviation, including aviation security – one of our highest priorities.

Within hours of the 25 December incident which prompted this meeting, I was in contact with high-level officials of the States involved and initiated a series of actions to coordinate and harmonize responses to the terrorist act. We communicated with security authorities in all of our member States to encourage them to conduct risk assessments and implement appropriate screening measures.

In addition, and at the request of the United States government, a meeting was held on 6 January at ICAO with officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), headed by the Undersecretary for the National Protection Programme Directorate. The meeting focussed particularly on four areas: collecting passenger information; sharing information between States; requirements for travel document security, and training and technical assistance.

ICAO provided briefings on each of these subjects, with particular emphasis on work being undertaken in the fields of Advance Passenger Information Systems, the Machine-Readable Travel Documents (MRTD) Programme, the Universal Security Audit Programme (USAP) and associated assistance activities and mechanisms involved in improving compliance with security Standards.

The US Delegation expressed a strong desire to work with ICAO to address these challenges on a multilateral basis, including through the various initiatives that had been presented to them during the meeting, and by providing assistance to States in coordination with ICAO and other donor States.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the United States and all other States concerned for their quick and decisive action to contain the situation. The emergency measures implemented, which included increased gate screening for U.S-bound flights and passenger profiling, were necessary in light of the heightened level of risk. Although these measures have caused costly delays and inconvenience, the attempt to detonate an explosive device on board Northwest Flight 253 clearly justifies greater vigilance in the form of more stringent processes.

The decision to implement emergency measures is never easy because of the enormous impact on overall operations. But these actions must be taken, to protect the integrity of the system and maintain public confidence in air travel.

In this connection, I was invited to Washington on 14 January for a meeting, which took place within the framework of bilateral negotiations between authorities of the United States and the European Union, devoted to discussions on the consequences of the events of 25 December. At the outset, it was acknowledged that notwithstanding that the incident was aimed at an American aircraft, it represents a threat to the entire aeronautical community. Three main issues related to passenger safety were discussed:

First, how long these measures would stay in force. It was recognized that the emergency measures adopted could not be permanent as resources being dedicated to these new processes were being drawn from other essential safety systems.

Second, the issue of discrimination, whereby some States have difficulty in discriminating between measures applied to one set of passengers and not to another.

The third issue related to the US Transportation Security Administration deciding on the basis of incoming information, the percentage of screening applicable to different passengers. This percentage would vary and be very difficult to establish.

The meeting concluded with the two parties confirming that they would like to see ICAO adopt a leadership role.

As we speak, ICAO remains in close contact with its Member States and industry to facilitate and implement a solid response to this latest threat. But we must not forget that aviation is a global system and it requires global solutions. I emphasize that my staff and I are dedicated to ensuring that security threats are addressed in the most effective and efficient manner possible and this means that responses must be implemented with the highest degree of harmonization worldwide. We have a strong record of doing just that.

The challenge from ICAO’s standpoint is to achieve and maintain an optimum balance between the more stringent security measures required to address emerging threats and the processes intended to facilitate air travel by 2.3 billion passengers per year. This is obviously a tall order. While ICAO’s objective is to ensure air travellers reach their destinations as efficiently as possible, every one of these individuals is subject to screening. The challenge becomes more complicated when you consider that different States may implement different measures. A multilateral approach is more likely to avoid confusing passengers while boosting efforts by States and industry to strengthen the security of the air transport system. This is why collaboration is vital, and concepts such as one-stop security should be encouraged.

Since this latest serious incident, ICAO has been working to promote international cooperation. Terrorism is a transnational issue, and the attempted sabotage of Flight 253 is reflective of a worldwide problem; as such, it calls for a global response under ICAO’s leadership, with the support of its member States.

To respond effectively to threats over the long term, it is essential to review existing measures and strategy from time to time, and assess how these need to change to remain effective. In this regard, ICAO is fortunate to have a multinational team of security experts at its disposal. The next meeting of the Aviation Security Panel will be held in late March, and is expected to produce concrete recommendations on how to prevent incidents such as the attempted sabotage of 25 December. In responding to this incident, it will be necessary to consider both procedural and technological solutions to this security gap, including the possible use of imaging technology – commonly referred to as body scanners – as one means of screening passengers, taking into account privacy, data protection and health issues.

The point is that every time a new type of incident arises, we face the prospect of introducing yet another layer of security. To do so when necessary, but without overburdening the industry, it is important to evaluate existing measures at the same time, and eliminating and revising provisions as required. In developing countermeasures to new threats, they must be practical as well as appropriate for the level of threat. Adapting to each new threat with minimum adverse impact on the air transport system remains a significant challenge.

I want to assure you that this and other aviation security challenges have ICAO’s full attention, and are being addressed on a proactive basis. Through our panel of security experts, we are striving to identify new ways of anticipating the next threat. In this manner, an increasing risk can be managed by implementing practical countermeasures instead of requiring emergency action.

The air transport system remains a highly attractive target for terrorist organizations precisely because it has been so successful in promoting global economic growth and has become an essential mode of transport. The volume of operations, and our reliance on an efficient air transport system, means we can expect aviation to remain a target. By remaining proactive, our intention is to ensure that civil aviation’s vulnerabilities are not exploited by terrorists.

My message today is quite simple. ICAO is keenly aware of the challenges you face as operators and recognizes that whatever security measures are put into place, now and in the future, must not unduly disrupt operations or increase the cost of doing business. Our objective has always been to strike the right balance between protecting the safety of passengers while assuring they transit through airports as quickly and as efficiently as possible. We recognize that the health of the air transport industry, and its ability to support economic and social development around the world, are at stake.

src=http://www.icao.int/icao/en/osg/2010/20100122_SG_IATA_GASS_en.pdf

To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.

Similar Posts

  • Five Reportable Incidents Added To Notification Requirements

    The NTSB is amending its regulations concerning notification
    and reporting requirements regarding aircraft accidents or
    incidents. In particular, the NTSB is adding regulations to require
    operators to report certain incidents to the NTSB. The NTSB is also
    amending existing regulations to provide clarity and ensure that
    the appropriate means for notifying the NTSB of a reportable
    incident is listed correctly in the regulation.

    On October 7, 2008, the NTSB published an NPRM titled
    “Notification and Reporting of Aircraft Accidents or Incidents and
    Overdue Aircraft, and preservation of Aircraft Wreckage, Mail,
    Cargo, and Records” in the Federal Register. This NPRM proposed,
    and the final rule codifies the addition of five reportable
    incidents, the reporting of which the NTSB believes will improve
    aviation safety.

    The operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not
    operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the
    United States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by
    the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National
    Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) office when an aircraft accident
    or any of the following listed serious incidents occur:

    • Failure of any internal turbine engine component that results
      in the escape of debris other than out the exhaust path.
    • In-flight fire.
    • Aircraft collision in flight.
    • Release of all or a portion of a propeller blade from an
      aircraft, excluding release caused solely by ground contact.
    • A complete loss of information, excluding flickering, from more
      than 50 percent of an aircraft’s cockpit displays known as
      Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) displays, Engine
      Indication and Crew Alerting system (EICAS) displays, Electronic
      Centralized Aircraft Monitor (ECAM) displays, or other displays of
      this type, which generally include a primary flight display (PFD),
      primary navigation display (PND), and other integrated
      displays.
    • Airborne Collision and Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution
      advisories issued either when an aircraft is being operated on an
      instrument flight rules flight plan and compliance with the
      advisory is necessary to avert a substantial risk of collision
      between two or more aircraft, or to an aircraft operating in class
      A airspace.
    • Damage to helicopter tail or main rotor blades, including
      ground damage, that requires major repair or replacement of the
      blade(s).
    • Any event in which an aircraft operated by an air carrier lands
      or departs on a taxiway, incorrect runway, or other area not
      designed as a runway, or experiences a runway incursion that
      requires the operator or the crew of another aircraft or vehicle to
      take immediate corrective
    • action to avoid a collision.

    The final rule was published in the Federal Register January
    7th, and the revisions and additions published in this final rule
    become effective March 8, 2010.

    www.ntsb.gov
    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | | |

    FAA: Testimony – Statement of Peggy Gilligan

    September 16, 2010
    Statement of Peggy Gilligan, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety Before the House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation on Pilot Fatigue

    Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, Members of the Subcommittee:

    Thank you for inviting me to appear before you this morning to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) efforts to mitigate the impacts of pilot fatigue to enhance aviation safety. Updating FAA’s regulatory requirements on pilot fatigue has been a high priority for Secretary LaHood and Administrator Babbitt. As you know, Administrator Babbitt was formerly a commercial pilot, so his interest in and insights about pilot fatigue have been longstanding, and were helpful in making rulemaking on this matter an Administration priority. Their assistance and guidance on this matter have been invaluable. I am pleased that their focus has enabled the FAA to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on September 14, 2010, that proposes changes to the current flight duty and rest regulations. The NPRM represents a comprehensive proposal that is the result of extensive outreach to the aviation industry, labor and the scientific community. Unlike the existing requirements, the proposal would establish a single, scientifically-based regulatory approach for all Part 121 operators, including domestic and international passenger and cargo operations, as well as supplemental carriers.

    While the publication of this NPRM is a huge step forward, I want to stress that it is the latest step in a long history of FAA efforts to mitigate fatigue. We held symposia on fatigue and worked with aviation industry and the scientific community to gather data to meet the scheduling demands of the industry (including ultra long-range flights), without compromising safety. As the science of fatigue matured, we worked to educate the industry to mitigate risks as they were identified. The new proposal reflects our drive to reach consensus across different facets of the aviation industry.

    In the past, I have said something that is worth repeating now: regardless of what regulatory framework is in place, mitigating the effects of fatigue is a shared responsibility. The FAA has the responsibility to put the framework in place. The air carrier has the responsibility to schedule its flight crews responsibly and in accordance with that framework. The pilot has the ultimate responsibility to use the hours set aside for rest to actually rest, to report for duty in a fit condition, and to notify the airline when he or she is too fatigued or otherwise not fit for duty. Nothing about the latest proposal changes those basic responsibilities.

    In the aftermath of the Colgan Air Flight 3407 accident in February 2009, the FAA placed great emphasis on all safety factors that either were, or could have been, a contributing cause to the accident. Secretary LaHood and Administrator Babbitt issued an Airline Safety Call to Action for the foremost aviation safety experts to discuss the best ways to make an already safe industry even safer. Fatigue was clearly a factor of some concern, given that one member of the Colgan flight crew commuted from the West Coast prior to reporting for duty and the evidence suggested that she may not have had sufficient rest.

    In addition to the Call to Action, Administrator Babbitt convened an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) comprised of representatives from airline management and pilot labor unions to review fatigue-related issues and to make specific scientifically-based recommendations that could be the basis of rulemaking. The ARC delivered its report and recommendations in September 2009. The report and recommendations reflected consensus on many issues, but there were a handful of issues where the ARC did not reach consensus. In addition, the ARC was not charged with performing any type of economic analysis, which the FAA must provide in any rulemaking initiative.

    The NPRM utilizes accepted assumptions as to what causes fatigue and creates a framework that addresses those risks. For example, it is generally accepted that higher levels of activity cause more fatigue and that most people need eight hours of sleep in a 24 hour period in order to perform effectively and remain alert. It is also acknowledged that an average person needs in excess of nine hours of sleep in order to recover from accumulated sleep deprivation and the quality of the sleep an individual gets is usually affected by the time of day in which it occurs, with nighttime sleeping being more restorative.

    Using these assumptions as a basis, the NPRM focuses on the nature of the operation. During a duty period, how many take-offs and landings does the pilot fly? Do the operations involved cross time zones and, if so, how many? Are the operations during the day or at night? The proposal recognizes that basing hourly restrictions solely on the total number of hours of duty time or flight time does not have as much meaning as factoring in what kind of operations were being flown during that period. Different operations result in different fatigue levels and that reality must be recognized in any new regulatory framework.

    The NPRM would impose requirements for rest, flight time, and duty time. There is a proposed nine hour rest requirement prior to flying related duty. In addition, flight time restrictions include limits for every 28-day period, as well as annual limits. The flight time restrictions also reflect all operations flown for the carrier by the pilot, even if some of those flights are ferrying operations or other flights not flown under Part 121. Finally, both the flight time and duty time restrictions proposed would reflect differences in the types of operations flown as well as when they are flown, and require shorter duty periods for certain times of day and quantities of takeoffs and landings.

    The proposal would also gives carriers the option of integrating a Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) into their scheduling systems. FRMS is a carrier-specific method of evaluating how best to mitigate fatigue, based on active monitoring and evaluation by the carrier and flightcrew members. In this case, the carrier would model its schedules to determine where there may be risk from fatigue. The carrier would develop mitigation strategies to eliminate or mitigate that risk. The FAA will determine that the FRMS provides an equivalent level of protection as afforded by the rule and approve the carrier’s system. FRMS were strongly supported by both labor and management in the ARC, because it ensures that each schedule is analyzed and proper mitigation is implemented.

    This approach has the potential to provide a cooperative and flexible means of monitoring and mitigating fatigue during operations when the prescriptive approach is not optimal. We are seeking public comments about how best to realize that potential. An FRMS requires a carrier to develop numerous processes and structures within an operation. These measures lead to effective management and mitigation of fatigue on the part of both the carrier and its employees that might affect the operation.

    One area that I know is of great interest to this Committee is pilot commuting, which our NPRM discusses in the preamble. The ARC made no recommendation on commuting. However, the ARC did point out that pilots are required to report to work fit for duty; and that means rested. Although our proposal does not include specific restrictions on commuting, it does make some modifications to ensure that all pilots, including those who commute, are meeting the existing requirements to report fit for duty.

    As I noted at the beginning of this statement, pilot personal responsibility is critical to whatever fatigue rule is ultimately adopted, whether or not commuting restrictions are imposed. Pilots must commute responsibly, but this proposal broadens that responsibility to include the air carrier, who must be aware of how pilots are commuting to work and must make a determination that each pilot is fit for duty. It is unreasonable to assume that a pilot is resting while commuting, either locally or long distance, and our proposal requires air carriers to consider the commuting times pilots needs to reach their home base while still receiving the required opportunity for rest. It also calls on co-workers – other crew members, dispatchers, etc. – to determine that pilots they’re working with are fit for duty. We believe mandating this shared responsibility will address the risks posed by a pilot failing to identify that he or she is not sufficiently rested – and therefore not fit for duty.

    Finally, one of the most challenging issues we have had to resolve in order to move forward with a new fatigue regulatory proposal is that of the costs associated with a new rule compared with the benefits that are expected to accrue from a new requirement. All of us in government and industry associated with aviation are dedicated to enhancing aviation safety. This is what we work for day in and day out. At the same time, we seek to ensure that rules do not impose excessive, unjustified, or unnecessary costs on airlines, airline employees, and consumers. We are required to provide the public with information about the projected costs and benefits associated with any regulatory proposal. Reducing fatigue, through whatever means, may result in the carriers having to add more pilots to comply with new standards, thus adding costs. We believe, however, that carriers will optimize their crew schedules within any new regulatory requirements to continue to be as efficient as possible.

    While we prefer and seek out regulatory options that result in net benefits, there is no absolute requirement that monetary benefits of regulatory proposals outweigh monetary costs. But the benefits, both quantifiable and nonquantifiable, must justify the associated costs. While we have explicitly sought public comments about possible improvements in the proposed rule, we believe it meets that standard. It is important to understand that increasing airline safety creates a number of important social benefits, some of which are hard to quantify.

    Though producing this NPRM did take longer than we expected, we believe we have a solid starting point for a new and better way forward in this area. While this is not the last step in this process, I am extremely proud of the FAA team for this achievement. I would like to thank the many, many members of the Administration, the aviation and labor community, and the scientific community for their tireless efforts to assist Secretary LaHood and Administrator Babbitt in moving forward with the proposed fatigue NRPM. I would also like to acknowledge the support of Congress and the families of victims of the Colgan accident and other family groups in this area.

    There is work to be done in order to make the NPRM ultimately into a final rule, but I am confident that this comprehensive proposal is a step forward and I look forward to receiving public comments and to working with all interested parties, including this Committee, to finalize improved flight duty and rest standards that will enhance safety because that is our shared ultimate goal.

    Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • |

    Press Release – FAA Proposes Civil Penalty Against American Airlines

    For Immediate Release
    August 26, 2010

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a $24.2 million civil penalty against American Airlines Inc. for failing to correctly follow an Airworthiness Directive involving the maintenance of its McDonnell Douglas MD-80 aircraft. This civil penalty is the largest ever proposed by the FAA.

    “We put rules and regulations in place to keep the flying public safe,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We expect operators to perform inspections and conduct regular and required maintenance in order to prevent safety issues. There can be no compromises when it comes to safety.”

    The FAA alleges American did not follow steps outlined in a 2006 Airworthiness Directive requiring operators to inspect wire bundles located in the wheel wells of MD-80 aircraft. The Airworthiness Directive, AD 2006-15-15, required a one-time general visual inspection by March 5, 2008 for chafing or signs of arcing of the wire bundle for the auxiliary hydraulic pump. It also required operators to perform corrective actions in accordance with the instructions of the applicable manufacturer’s Service Bulletin.

    The purpose of the Airworthiness Directive was to prevent the shorting of wires or arcing at the auxiliary hydraulic pump, which could result in loss of auxiliary hydraulic power or a fire in the wheel well of the aircraft. The Airworthiness Directive also sought to reduce the potential of an ignition source adjacent to the fuel tanks, which, in combination with the flammable vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion.

    The FAA first detected the violations on March 25, 2008, during an inspection of two aircraft. The FAA informed American’s management that the aircraft did not comply with the AD, prompting a series of re-inspections and additional maintenance work that occurred during the following two weeks. On March 26, after American performed additional maintenance on its MD-80 fleet, the FAA inspected eight aircraft at American’s Tulsa maintenance base and found that seven did not comply with the Airworthiness Directive. On April 7, the FAA inspected another nine MD-80 aircraft at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport and found that eight of them still did not comply with the AD. A tenth aircraft inspected by American mechanics also did not comply. On April 8, American began grounding its MD-80 fleet to conduct new inspections and redo work as necessary.

    The FAA subsequently determined that 286 of the airline’s MD-80s were operated on a combined 14,278 passenger flights while the aircraft were not in compliance with Federal Regulations. American ultimately completed the work required by the 2006 Airworthiness Directive.

    Over the last year and a half, FAA safety officials have reported progress in working with American Airlines to help improve the airline’s maintenance culture. The FAA is committed to continuing that work.

    American has 30 days from the receipt of the FAA’s civil penalty letter to respond to the agency.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • |

    DOT Confirmation

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUBSTANTIATES WHISTLEBLOWER’S SAFETY CONCERNS ABOUT UNITED AIRLINES5 EMERGENCY DOOR BATTERIES AND OVERHEAD BINS

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Press Release: The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC)transmitted to the President and Congress the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) response towhistleblower allegations that Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees compromised thesafety of the flying public by failing in their oversight and regulatory responsibilities.

    The whistleblower, Cheryl Henderson, Aviation Safety Inspector, DOT, FAA, United AirlinesCertificate Management Office, Daly City, California, specifically disclosed concerns about the lackof proper FAA oversight of United Airlines’ compliance with an Airworthiness Directive (AD)concerning emergency door batteries on United’s Boeing 777s and the improper self-disclosure ofdefective overhead bins on its Boeing 767s.

    The August 2009 report from Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood to OSC found that two FAAsenior supervisory inspectors had improperly permitted United Airlines to self-disclosenoncompliance with an AD about the installation of overhead bins in violation of FAA’s VoluntaryDisclosure Reporting Program (VDRP). The AD had been issued to prevent the failure of tie rods tothe center overhead stowage bin modules, which could result in a collapse of the bins and,consequently, injuries to passengers and crew.

    The investigation also found that the then-FAA Principal Avionics Inspector for United Airlines inDaly City, California, failed to adequately address the expiration of emergency door batteries andthe reliability of battery restoration equipment. DOT substantiated that the battery restorationequipment was not properly calibrated and, therefore, inadequate for measuring accurately thequality of the batteries. The investigation found that while United Airlines eventually replaced allthe emergency door batteries in question, FAA improperly delayed by 18 months a decision aboutUnited Airlines’ use of non-calibrated equipment. In addition to addressing the safety concernsidentified in the investigation, FAA also proposed suspensions for the senior managers for theirmismanagement and failure of oversight.

    OSC determined that the agency’s report contains all the information required by statute and thefindings appear reasonable.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • |

    Boeing and United Airlines Finalize

    United to expand international service with fuel-efficient Dreamliner
    Boeing (NYSE: BA) and United Airlines (Nasdaq: UAUA) have finalized an order for 25 787-8 jetliners. The agreement includes the opportunity to purchase another 50 Dreamliners.

    “Boeing and United Airlines share an 80-year partnership,” said Jim Albaugh, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes. “United, which launched the Boeing 777, now begins a new chapter with the 787 Dreamliner, the most technologically advanced commercial jetliner ever built.”

    The order is valued at $4.2 billion at average list prices.

    “United’s Boeing 787 order represents a substantial investment in our future and will enhance the significant progress we are making in improving the global competitiveness of our company while providing the opportunity to open new profitable markets and serve a broader range of international destinations,” said John Tague, president of United Airlines.

    United expects to take delivery of the 787s at the same time it will begin to retire its Boeing 747s and 767s operating on international routes.

    The 787 Dreamliner, currently in flight test, will provide greater fuel efficiency, allowing airlines to add new, nonstop city pairs and the additional frequencies that passengers prefer.

    The 787 also promises a more comfortable flying experience for passengers. Its innovations include a new interior environment with improvements in air filtration, higher cabin pressurization resulting in reduced physical fatigue, larger windows, more stowage space, improved lighting and other passenger-preferred conveniences.

    The technologically advanced 787 will also provide airlines with up to 45 percent more cargo revenue capacity

    Including United Airlines, 57 customers around the world have ordered 876 Dreamliners, making the 787 the fastest-selling new commercial jetliner in history.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | |

    Boeing, Cathay Pacific Airways Finalize Contract for Six 777-300ERs

    SEATTLE, Sept. 22 — Boeing and Cathay Pacific Airways today announced the Hong Kong-based carrier has exercised existing purchase rights for six additional Boeing 777-300ERs (extended range).

    The six new airplanes, with an estimated value of US$1.6 billion at Boeing list prices, will increase Cathay Pacific’s 777-300ER future fleet from 30 to 36.
    Cathay Pacific, one of the world’s largest operators of the popular jetliner, also operates 12 Boeing 777-300s and five 777-200s.

    “Cathay Pacific is a valued long-time Boeing customer. The global reach of Cathay Pacific’s 777 fleet showcases the airplane’s exceptional performance features and its passenger appeal around the world,” said Marlin Dailey, vice president of Sales for Boeing Commercial Airplanes. “This additional commitment from a world-class operator like Cathay Pacific is a testament to the greater efficiency, economics and reliability of the 777-300ER.”

    Cathay Pacific first announced its selection of the 777-300ER in 2005. This announcement is Cathay Pacific’s fourth increase in its acquisition plans for the long-range jetliner.

    “We are very pleased to confirm this purchase of six more Boeing 777-300ERs – a superb aircraft that already has significantly enhanced our operations on key long-haul routes,” said Cathay Pacific Chief Executive Tony Tyler. “We have been very impressed by the operating economics of these aircraft, while their high efficiency has resulted in a reduced environmental impact. As we continue to enhance our fleet, the 777-300ER will play a crucial role in our operations in the years to come.”
    The Boeing 777 is the world’s most successful twin-engine, long-haul airplane. The 777-300ER extends the 777 family’s span of capabilities, bringing twin-engine efficiency and reliability to the long-range market.

    Boeing incorporated several performance enhancements for the 777-300ER, extending its range and payload capabilities. Excellent performance during flight testing, combined with engine efficiency improvements and design changes that reduce drag and airplane weight, contributed to the increased capability.

    In addition to Boeing 777s, Cathay Pacific operates 47 747-400s in both passenger and cargo versions. The airline also has ordered 10 Boeing 747-8 Freighters. The highly efficient new cargo airplane will augment the airline’s fleet of 25 747 Freighters used to connect Hong Kong to a wide range of international markets.
    Sixty-one customers around the world have ordered more than 1,100 777s.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.