View Full Version : A380: up, up, and away
Not really true with Northworst. They fly whatever they can get the best deals on - and haven't really shown any preference between Boeing and Airbus.
In the past two or three years, they've been taking deliveries of new A330s and new 757-300s to replace their DC-10 fleet. The busses are replacing the 10 on International routes, the 757s on domestic routes.
not that I"m disagreeing with what you say, but that's just what I've heard from a couple of 'horns who are on the finance side over at NW. then again they could be complete tools in the office so *shrug*
At any rate, its good to see NW and just getting the best deals out there. NW is one of the few majors that isn't in complete meltdown and after my travel with them, I can see why. Very nice
http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw115275_20050503.htm
"May 3, 2005, 7:19 PM
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -- Northwest Airlines Corp. chief financial officer Bernard Han has resigned, the nation's fourth largest airline company said Tuesday. It did not say why Han is leaving, and its shares fell below their low for the year in morning trading...
...Northwest lost $458 million during its first quarter, and has been struggling with high fuel costs, as well as labor costs that it says are too high. Northwest had $2.1 billion in unrestricted cash at the quarter ending March 31, 2005...
...Northwest shares dropped 2 cents to close at $5 in Tuesday trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market, just above their 52-week closing low of $4.97."
yep, sounds like a successful business model for sure, wish I could spend half a bil in 3 months... all the legacy carriers are screwed, all of them, American and Continental are the only ones holding their heads above water at the moment imo but Continental's got its share of troubles none the less, Deltanental might be the thing to save them both
ferrarigod
05-07-05, 07:12 PM
BTW, Narita Airport is the international airport at Tokyo. I've never heard of anyone actually flying from Tokyo Narita to Tokyo Haneda because it's a short bus or train ride. It would take twice that long just to load an A380. Did you mean Taipei?
oc
I cannot remember, I thought that was the route. Let me ask my roomate, and check online.
For people who care, www.Airliners.net has great pictures and a great forum. I am not a member, but my roomate is. Its not just civilian aircraft, but also military jets. But mostly they talk about what we see more, which is airliners.
Anyway, i'll check it out. Sorry if I made a mistake.
ferrarigod
05-07-05, 07:15 PM
http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw115275_20050503.htm
"May 3, 2005, 7:19 PM
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -- Northwest Airlines Corp. chief financial officer Bernard Han has resigned, the nation's fourth largest airline company said Tuesday. It did not say why Han is leaving, and its shares fell below their low for the year in morning trading...
...Northwest lost $458 million during its first quarter, and has been struggling with high fuel costs, as well as labor costs that it says are too high. Northwest had $2.1 billion in unrestricted cash at the quarter ending March 31, 2005...
...Northwest shares dropped 2 cents to close at $5 in Tuesday trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market, just above their 52-week closing low of $4.97."
yep, sounds like a successful business model for sure, wish I could spend half a bil in 3 months... all the legacy carriers are screwed, all of them, American and Continental are the only ones holding their heads above water at the moment imo but Continental's got its share of troubles none the less, Deltanental might be the thing to save them both
Yes, that is true, but it is NOTHING like Delta and American Airlines debt. Northwest is covering its fixed costs, so if they can hedge fuel efficiently and keep on using the planes they have now, they should be fine. They had the DC-10 I flew on since its 3rd year of service, so everyflight is not taking away profits from leasing and such.
They are the best of the majors, which is still in debt, but they are doing better than most. Southwest and JetBlue are in some quarters making profit, but they aren't majors. NW is the one of best of the big
not quite...
"HOUSTON, April 20 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Continental Airlines (NYSE: CAL - News) today reported a first quarter 2005 net loss of $184 million ($2.77 diluted loss per share), including a net special gain of $8 million related to the company's defined benefit pension plan. Excluding the special items, Continental recorded a net loss of $192 million ($2.89 diluted loss per share) for the quarter, which compares favorably to the First Call mean estimate of $3.10 loss per share."
NW partnered with Continental, not the other way around... Bethune knows what he's doing. NW banks on the trans-pacific flights, without that their fux0red, they don't have the domestic market to compete with the others other than their ****ism in MN which JoeBob is apparently victim to
And if the Wright Amendment would be repealed as the fascist piece of legislative **** that it is, southwest would be a major based out of dallas... but b/c of Jim Wright they can only fly to neighboring states out of Love Field here...
regardless, Southwest makes money, none of the majors do, they may be the most ridiculous cattle cars, but they profit, their fuel hedging has the most foresight of everyone, and American is in a far more powerful position than NW.
NW just bought 18 87's and options on 50 more, plus dc-10's are NOT the mainstay of their fleet, so the length of ownership of that load of mcdonnel crap is in no way whatsoever indicitive of their financial solvency, the A320 is their fleet mule... and well, carbon vertical stabilizers aint cheap to replace, for one...
coolhand
05-07-05, 09:36 PM
I cannot remember, I thought that was the route. Let me ask my roomate, and check online.
For people who care, www.Airliners.net has great pictures and a great forum. I am not a member, but my roomate is. Its not just civilian aircraft, but also military jets. But mostly they talk about what we see more, which is airliners.
Anyway, i'll check it out. Sorry if I made a mistake.
off topic but check this thread out and watch the video. read the thread to get the story straight
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/military/read.main/31215/
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v614/mapguy/9998.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v614/mapguy/9999.jpg
She looks especially sweet in NWA colors. Industry experts have predicted that the 787 will have sold enough to break even for Boeing before it's first flight. (Approximately 400 airframes). Airbus missed that mark by about 250.... :eek: :D
aw, look at that tapered wing... so so very pretty :)
coolhand
05-08-05, 03:31 PM
so will the 787 replace the 767 fleets or what? where does it fit in?
so will the 787 replace the 767 fleets or what? where does it fit in?
It replaces the 757 and 767.
coolhand
05-08-05, 05:15 PM
It replaces the 757 and 767.
interesting, because the 57/67 series is not as old as somother fleets. And the newer derivatives of the 767-Er are selling well and have great performance.
This new plane must be really good on the efficiency then. Probably be like the 737 is now in terms of numbers but have far greater capacity.
Efficiency is what the 787 is all about.
If you want to read more about it try these sites: http://www.newairplane.com/
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/
Production of the 757 has already ended. The last one was delivered April 27th. The 757 is being replaced by the 787 and 737-900.
The 767 will probably be produced for a while - the military uses it as the basis for all sorts of stuff. (Much as they previously did with the 707.) Whether airlines will keep buying passenger 767s is a whole other ballgame.
ferrarigod
05-08-05, 05:54 PM
BTW, Narita Airport is the international airport at Tokyo. I've never heard of anyone actually flying from Tokyo Narita to Tokyo Haneda because it's a short bus or train ride. It would take twice that long just to load an A380. Did you mean Taipei?
oc
It is the Tokyo to Osaka flight that will love the A380. The intra-Japan flights are huge. Sorry, just wanted to clear that up.
800 seats in single class trim is insane.
ferrarigod
05-08-05, 06:04 PM
regardless, Southwest makes money, none of the majors do, they may be the most ridiculous cattle cars, but they profit, their fuel hedging has the most foresight of everyone, and American is in a far more powerful position than NW.
I agree with you on that. SW and JetBlue are great. I've never flown either, but thats just because they don't serve my airport.
I do however think that NW's cash reserves and use of DC-10's is an example of cost cutting measures. Yes they are fazing out the DC-10's and the DC-9s(at some point) but it really has worked for them. Post 9/11 new planes and such were bought and there was kinda a weirdness in aviation in general.
Here's what I know about the A380, it will be a great hauler, but I doubt it will make large inroads into the US market(Which it needs). It seems airport managers aren't in favor of increasing traffic for a construction project, and that combined with them wanting to protect the 747, and Boeing seems enough for us to shut them out at a large number of airports. If they don't get LAX, MCO, MIA, and JFK on board, then they are doomed. You need LA, Orlando, Miami and NYC. The plane won't survive without them.
just my .02, feel free to argue, i like this topic
coolhand
05-08-05, 06:14 PM
I hate flying Southwest, i fly it about 20 times a year, the lines are long, the planes are cattle cars.
and then the no-seating assignments :shakehead i could write a book on the phycology of how people pick those seats in a non-seniscal manner.
But they do make money and i can get a flight in no-time via their great website.
I can book a flight and print out my Boarding pass on my PC, go to the airport get right in the security line (if i am not checking bags) and then go to the gate.
i showed up 15 minutes before a flight at LAX and they pulled me out of the security line, i went right to the front, ran to the gate and got on. it was sweet.
and they make money. I have not tired Jet Blue yet, they operate out of Long Beach. i will try it out somtime
ferrarigod
05-08-05, 11:34 PM
I have not tired Jet Blue yet, they operate out of Long Beach. i will try it out somtime
My friends at University of Central Florida love JetBlue. I don't know if they fly out of Tampa or Orlando or both, but they brag about it all the time. I really would like to fly them also, if I didn't have to go to Orlando or Tampa to do it.
I agree with you on that. SW and JetBlue are great. I've never flown either, but thats just because they don't serve my airport.
I do however think that NW's cash reserves and use of DC-10's is an example of cost cutting measures. Yes they are fazing out the DC-10's and the DC-9s(at some point) but it really has worked for them. Post 9/11 new planes and such were bought and there was kinda a weirdness in aviation in general.
Here's what I know about the A380, it will be a great hauler, but I doubt it will make large inroads into the US market(Which it needs). It seems airport managers aren't in favor of increasing traffic for a construction project, and that combined with them wanting to protect the 747, and Boeing seems enough for us to shut them out at a large number of airports. If they don't get LAX, MCO, MIA, and JFK on board, then they are doomed. You need LA, Orlando, Miami and NYC. The plane won't survive without them.
just my .02, feel free to argue, i like this topic
the A380 may be a crock of **** but it's financial success was never going to be determined by its success in the american market... it was always about getting the maximum # of passengers/flight from China
Airbus confirms A380 delays of up to 6 months: http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/01/news/international/airbus.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
Paris Airshow is going to be fun this year.
between all the Boeing vs. EADS/Airbus business and the WTO fight, Boeing just rolled out their first KC-767 aerial tanker for the Italian airforce and are going to have it on hand at the show, this while Congress gets the Pentagon to re-bid our aerial tanker deal and while EADS is stalling the bid so they can finish development of their own boom system with which to better their eventual bid, which is currently testing on a 5 story tower in Madrid
And forget the trade battle that is brewing over Airbus:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050531/D8AE14LO0.html
After the EU defeat, France Surrenders! :gomer:
-Kevin
chop456
02-21-06, 02:21 PM
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=4&no=274990&rel_no=1
oddlycalm
02-21-06, 03:07 PM
This lead sled is looking more and more like a company killer. Questionable how big the market for it is and a lot of early indicators that it's not going to be a very successful airframe. Meanwhile Boeing's business has taken off with orders for it's new airframe...
oc
The spokeswoman for the company stated further that the test results meant the wings would "absolutely operate within the target corridor," and that the project had met its objectives so far.
:laugh:
meeting spec requirements is for chumps. :gomer:
*edit document*
*WAS: 150% target*
*IS: 100% target*
*WHY: the metric system*
Don Quixote
02-21-06, 03:42 PM
Up to failure, the wings had experienced a tip deflection of 7.4 meters. :eek:
Another problem with the A380 is wake turbulence. It requires a 15 nautical mile spacing between it and any other aircraft. The 747 requires 10. That is going to create a big bottleneck at any airport it flies into. So much for premise of it freeing up space at the airport....
indyfan31
02-21-06, 04:40 PM
We ramped up the test to show that our airplane was better than average, it failed. So, we won't be doing that test anymore, we're happy with average. :rofl:
Classic Apex
02-21-06, 04:54 PM
Airbus does not intend to repeat the test after these latest test results.
:saywhat:
cameraman
02-21-06, 05:06 PM
I'm not getting on any plane with 873 people on it. Don't care who builds it.
I'm not a damn sheep and I'm not going to travel like one. :shakehead
Clearly a freak occurance. No need to pursue that any further...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1436374,00.html
oddlycalm
02-21-06, 09:16 PM
Clearly a freak occurance. No need to pursue that any further...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1436374,00.html Yeah, it doesn't look good. I'm no expert but I've seen how this stuff gets made first hand and understand the machines and process. I don't know is what kind of carbon pre-preg tape layers and channel laminators Airbus is using but I do know they are not the same as Boeing uses as they essentially absorbed Cincinnati Milacron's entire production capacity for most of the 1980's and 90's. That's significant for two reasons. One is that accident history does suggest delamination voids in the lamination become a real issue. Second, I can't recall any failures of composite control surfaces (rudders included) on 757/767/777 over a very long period of time and a very large number of airframes.
There is an "old tech" analogue for this as well. Historically airframe builders used hydroform presses to curve the nominally 1/2" thick aluminum skin plates while Boeing used the arcane process of shot peening. The shot peening compressed the metal slightly on the back side of the skin (the machined surface) and in doing so formed it into a curve. It was also very expensive, slow, and required an experienced hand.
As most here know shot peening (spraying with steel shot under high pressure) is the same process that is used to finish the best quality parts for racing engines in order to prolong their life. Shot peening had the very important side effect of stress relieving the skins and removing the surface irregularities where inclusions (stress cracks) might form. As a consequence, the service life of the airframe on Boeing planes and the incidence of failure have been the envy of the industry since the industry came into existance.
oc
Steve99
02-22-06, 01:16 PM
We ramped up the test to show that our airplane was better than average, it failed. So, we won't be doing that test anymore, we're happy with average. :rofl:
I thought it was required to pass that test in order to be certified.
Before certifying an airliner for commercial service, aviation authorities set its "limit loads" -- the maximum strain each part is likely to be placed under during extreme turbulence or hard landings. New planes are required to resist loads of 1.5 times the limit.
The A380 wing had been bent upward by 24.3 feet at the tip, reaching 1.45 times its limit load -- or 3.3 percent short of target -- when the rupture appeared in a section between the two engines, Kracht said.
Airbus engineers and officials from the European Aviation Safety Agency and U.S. Federal Aviation Administration will decide what if any modifications are required, she said. "We will need to find out from the data what is really needed, but it's certainly not a redesign of the wing."
link (http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/business/13898778.htm)
But I guess close counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and building aircraft that will have 555 passengers. :saywhat:
Andrew Longman
02-22-06, 03:30 PM
Nothing much to add except I really enjoy the great number of really technically smart and business savvy people here. Great discussion involving the technical, geo political, business and psychological aspects of the issue.
Thanks :)
oddlycalm
02-22-06, 04:46 PM
But I guess close counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and building aircraft that will have 555 passengers. Yeah, the article glosses over the fact that they have to fix it if they want to get the airframe certificated. If they are saying they don't have to redesign it then I would guess that they already know the failure mode was the layup of the CF tape which was my first guess. IMO the wing engineering by the ex-Boeing folks in Witchita is unlikely simply because it's such a well trod path and they have no history of past design failures.
The link Richard provided illustrates there are reasons to doubt the Airbus composite construction techniques and this latest test failure just adds fuel to that fire.
oc
Gangrel
11-04-10, 10:40 AM
Whoops....
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/04/indonesia.plane.emergency/index.html?hpt=T1
Quantas grounds their entire fleet of A380s after cowling blows off of engine, engine shuts down, and perhaps the whole thing is caused by an engine blow-up...
Singapore halts flights for its own A380 fleet as well, though Lufthansa continues its flights. :rolleyes:
cameraman
11-04-10, 10:55 AM
Looks like the turbine done blowed up, Sir.
That sure builds confidence, an uncontained turbine failure:eek:
Methanolandbrats
11-04-10, 10:55 AM
Whoops....
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/04/indonesia.plane.emergency/index.html?hpt=T1
Quantas grounds their entire fleet of A380s after cowling blows off of engine, engine shuts down, and perhaps the whole thing is caused by an engine blow-up...
Singapore halts flights for its own A380 fleet as well, though Lufthansa continues its flights. :rolleyes:
Photo #4 :eek: Could have been a wingectomy.
cameraman
11-04-10, 11:02 AM
Uncontrollable fuel system damage, the plane was dumping fuel on the runway after it stopped. They are lucky there was no fire. An emergency evacuation of one of those things would be an experience:saywhat:
opinionated ow
11-04-10, 11:07 AM
Whoops....
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/04/indonesia.plane.emergency/index.html?hpt=T1
Quantas grounds their entire fleet of A380s after cowling blows off of engine, engine shuts down, and perhaps the whole thing is caused by an engine blow-up...
Singapore halts flights for its own A380 fleet as well, though Lufthansa continues its flights. :rolleyes:
No u in qantas :p
I must admit, I'm surprised Lufthansa hasn't grounded their fleet given they're using Rolls Royce Trents too. It will be interesting to see if Emirates and Air France take any action too-they're both running the GE/Pratt & Whitney joint venture.
indyfan31
11-04-10, 11:12 AM
Seriously???? They "evacuated" 440 passengers through ONE DOOR?
Gangrel
11-04-10, 11:31 AM
No u in qantas :p
*facepalms*
Gangrel
11-04-10, 11:33 AM
Seriously???? They "evacuated" 440 passengers through ONE DOOR?
At least they had everyone leave via a door on the OTHER side of the plane from the blowed up engine... :rolleyes:
At least they had everyone leave via a door on the OTHER side of the plane from the blowed up engine... :rolleyes:
Which might be why thy only used one door.... :gomer:
-Kevin
Gangrel
11-04-10, 12:00 PM
Which might be why thy only used one door.... :gomer:
-Kevin
I will be the first to admit I am not intimately familiar with the design of this beast, but based on the pics I am looking at, the side of the plane with two intact engines, from which the passengers were exiting, has no fewer than 6 doors in addition to the one they were using for said exit. 3 of those are on the upper level, and perhaps they don't have a stairway that can reach those, but that still leaves 3 additional exits which were not in use, just on that one side of the plane...
Just sayin'...
TravelGal
11-04-10, 12:12 PM
Geez, and last night I was at a huge Australia event hosted by QANTAS.
Irony hangs heavy.
The only thing I can add is that they are using the AB's so much partly because the 50, yes Danno, fifty, 787's they ordered are just a weeeeeeeeeeee bit behind sched.
TravelGal
11-04-10, 02:17 PM
Seriously???? They "evacuated" 440 passengers through ONE DOOR?
There was no emergency at that point so they evacuated in an orderly (and controllable) manner.
I've just now had a chance to read my daily briefing (had an early morning meeting so just getting to work emails). This indicates why other airlines are not quite as concerned. I would love to know from our aviation buffs if this is correct because it does not give any attribution for engine info.
"Emirates, Air France and Lufthansa A380s use a competing Engine Alliance design rather than the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 series engine used by Qantas. There was an airworthiness directive for Trent 900 engines issued by the European aviation regulator early in the year, which was implemented by the US Federal Aviation Administration in August as a matter of record keeping,
since no American airlines use A380s with Trent 900 engines.
Hundreds of passengers will be affected by the cancellations. Qantas flies
the A380 between Sydney and Los Angeles."
There was an airworthiness directive for Trent 900 engines issued by the European aviation regulator early in the year
From 2008?
First A380-related airworthiness directive orders Trent vane check (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/18/319027/first-a380-related-airworthiness-directive-orders-trent-vane-check.html)
Excessive cracking on the vanes' convex surface could, it says, lead to possible fracture of high-pressure turbine blades - and subsequent engine damage - if vane material is released. Turbine gas flow could also be blocked, it adds.
Hmmmmm :saywhat:
Could it have been a bird strike?
opinionated ow
11-04-10, 06:27 PM
Could it have been a bird strike?
Unless the bird was the size of a cessna, I doubt it
indyfan31
11-04-10, 07:47 PM
There was no emergency at that point so they evacuated in an orderly (and controllable) manner.
I've just now had a chance to read my daily briefing (had an early morning meeting so just getting to work emails). This indicates why other airlines are not quite as concerned. I would love to know from our aviation buffs if this is correct because it does not give any attribution for engine info.
"Emirates, Air France and Lufthansa A380s use a competing Engine Alliance design rather than the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 series engine used by Qantas. There was an airworthiness directive for Trent 900 engines issued by the European aviation regulator early in the year, which was implemented by the US Federal Aviation Administration in August as a matter of record keeping,
since no American airlines use A380s with Trent 900 engines.
Hundreds of passengers will be affected by the cancellations. Qantas flies
the A380 between Sydney and Los Angeles."
I would just think that evacuating that many people in an orderly and controlled manner twice as fast if they used another exit. It's not like they don't have enough staff on board.
Didn't one passenger report that he/she saw fuel leaking after the plane had stopped? Or was that a rumor?
chop456
11-05-10, 06:40 AM
"Emirates, Air France and Lufthansa A380s use a competing Engine Alliance design rather than the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 series engine used by Qantas.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11700401
British jet engine maker Rolls-Royce said it was checking all the A380s in service - with Qantas, Singapore and Lufthansa - that use its Trent 900 engines.
The other A380 aircraft - with Air France and Emirates - use a different engine.
I still don't know which is right. :gomer:
opinionated ow
11-05-10, 07:29 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11700401
I still don't know which is right. :gomer:
LH website says Rolls
Methanolandbrats
11-05-10, 08:01 AM
They should use Honda engines and Dallara wings to avoid confusion and problems flying.
TravelGal
11-08-10, 07:08 PM
Thanks for the comments on the engines and who is using what. Here's today's briefing article:
Its going to be a few more days until Qantas' A380 fleet returns to the skies. The airline has found problems with another three Rolls-Royce engines. Two engines - on aircraft in Sydney and Los Angeles - have been taken off for closer inspection as a result of the eight-hour tests Rolls-Royce recommended. About 1300 passengers were immediately stranded by the fleet disruption, most of whom are stuck in Los Angeles. The airline has one A380 in Singapore under investigation, one in Germany for servicing, one in Sydney and three in Los Angeles undergoing checks after the engine explosion on QF32 from Singapore to Sydney on Thursday. That plus the overheated engine on QF6 on Friday from Singapore and the cockpit warning of a hydraulic problem on QF29 from Hong Kong to London on the same day has overshadowed what should have been a weekend of celebration for Qantas's 90th anniversary. At present, 20 of the 37 A380s in airline fleets have the Rolls-Royce RB211 Trent 900 engines - Qantas, Singapore Airlines and Lufthansa A380s use them. Qantas will change out at least three Rolls-Royce Trent 900s on two Airbus A380s, while Lufthansa and Singapore will change two engines as a result of inspections. Qantas has chartered aircraft from British Airways and is booking some passengers on other airlines.
cameraman
11-08-10, 09:30 PM
Someone had the presence of mind to take a picture.
http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii35/Cynops/Airbus380.jpg
indyfan31
11-09-10, 11:24 AM
There is an alternate explanation for the engine failure ...
http://chud.com/articles/content_images/5/gremlintwilightzone2.jpg
TravelGal
11-10-10, 01:47 PM
Singapore To Replace Three Engines On Its A380s.
The airline will replace engines on three of its Airbus A380s after finding oil stains on them. This comes almost a week after Qantas grounded its A380 fleet due to an engine failure. Investigations into that incident have focused on oil leaks inside the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine, the same model used to power Singapore Airlines' A380 fleet and Lufthansa's A380s. Other airlines flying the A380 use a different engine. Singapore said replacing the engines was a precautionary move on the advice from Rolls-Royce and that the oil stains were unrelated to the Qantas problem. The Qantas fleet remains grounded at this time but an update is expected tomorrow. The new engines will be the same model with minor variations.
I have clients expecting to travel on QF Friday from Melbourne to LAX. I'll let you know how that works out.
TrueBrit
11-10-10, 03:23 PM
I was supposed to fly home last night to attend my grandmother's funeral on a 777 and the flight was cancelled after 4 hours due to engine issues as well.
I must admit to having been a bit leery about flying with all of the aircraft problems in the news recently, but after being groped in security and making my way to the gate with what remained of my dignity intact, I got to watch a crew of between 3 - 12 men try and get the port-side engine to go vroom. After 3 1/2 hours on the stand with much gesticulating and finger-pointing they figured that the plane wasn't going to be going anywhere under its own power...they then fessed up that there was also a problem with the emergency lights oh, and something was wrong with the cargo hold doors...
Other than that she was ready to fly...:saywhat:
So, on the downside I don't get to toast my grandma's passing with decent beer surrounded by friends and family, on the upside I'm not walking home from Nova Scotia...
TravelGal
11-15-10, 01:12 PM
TB, I'm so sorry to read about your grandmother's passing. Condolences. :(
On the airline side, my client got back from Oz on schedule and on a 747.
As for Qantas, the truth is beginning to "leak out." This is the travel agent version. Anyone with more specific technical details, please chime in.
Uncontained Engine Failure Caused Major Damage To Qantas Plane
The Qantas crew whose A380 suffered an uncontained engine failure earlier this month had their hands full in getting the super jumbo back to Singapore. Shrapnel from the engine disabled one of two main hydraulic systems, hampered the fuel transfer system, punched a hole in the forward wing spar and caused a major fuel leak. The cascading nature of such failures meant the pilots couldn't dump enough fuel to bring the aircraft down to its maximum landing weight and the fuel left in the airplane was unbalanced. Flaps, slats and spoilers couldn't be fully deployed and the gear had to be dropped manually. Once it was on the ground, the anti-lock brakes didn't work and, since the damaged engine was an inboard one, there was only one left for reverse thrust (the outboard engines of A380s don't have reversers because they often overhang the grass and might be FOD damaged). The heavy, significantly disabled aircraft needed virtually all of the 13,123 feet of available runway. The whole wing might have to be replaced and the aircraft is expected to be out of commission for months. Meanwhile, the cause of the engine problem has been determined and it's just adding to the PR problems facing manufacturer Rolls-Royce. Rolls-Royce announced today it will temporarily replace entire engines suffering from oil leaks on the world's largest jetliner the A380. An official said the British engine-maker would take off faulty engines and replace them with new ones. It will then fix the leaking part and swap the engine back again.
stroker
11-15-10, 01:32 PM
YOW. That problem won't buff right out.
Anyone with more specific technical details, please chime in.
http://gnumoon.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/gremlin.jpg
:gomer:
-Kevin
YOW. That problem won't buff right out.
Relax, all right? My old man is a television repairman, he's got this ultimate set of tools. I can fix it.
;)
-Kevin
Dang. If even half of that is true...:eek:
oddlycalm
11-15-10, 04:29 PM
The cascading nature of such failures...
The very fact that cascading failures can happen point to seriously compromised design assumptions. A big :thumbup: for cockpit crew who obviously saved the day.
oc
TravelGal
11-15-10, 08:59 PM
http://gnumoon.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/gremlin.jpg
-Kevin
Anyone reply except YOU, Kevin. :p :D
The very fact that cascading failures can happen point to seriously compromised design assumptions. A big :thumbup: for cockpit crew who obviously saved the day.
oc
True dat. On both counts.
Speaking of cascading failures, shall we turn our attention to the Carnival Splendor, that was not quite so splendiferous last week? :eek:
Methanolandbrats
11-15-10, 09:02 PM
Anyone reply except YOU, Kevin. :p :D
True dat. On both counts.
Speaking of cascading failures, shall we turn our attention to the Carnival Splendor, that was not quite so splendiferous last week? :eek:
Planes are one thing (screwup = dead) and planes serve a purpose, but I have no sympathy for people who spend big money to float around in one of those huge petri dishes :yuck:
Anyone reply except YOU, Kevin. :p :D
Hey, I could have said it done blowed up. ;)
All joking aside, that crew did something akin to what Sully pulled off. :thumbup: :thumbup:
-Kevin
Planes are one thing (screwup = dead) and planes serve a purpose, but I have no sympathy for people who spend big money to float around in one of those huge petri dishes :yuck:
I am with you on that one. :shudders:
Methanolandbrats
11-15-10, 10:56 PM
I am with you on that one. :shudders:
Good to see you are seeing the light ;)
Hey, I could have said it done blowed up. ;)
All joking aside, that crew did something akin to what Sully pulled off. :thumbup: :thumbup:
-Kevin
Nah, deadstick into a river is still an order of magnitude more challenging than a partial hydraulic failure.
I almost pointed out on the initial news that it was a similar engine explosion that lead to the crash of United 232 in Souix Falls after total hydraulic failure. I thought it seemed a bit over-dramatic since I assumed that something like an A380 would have several more levels of redundancy. :eek:
cameraman
11-16-10, 02:23 AM
Speaking of cascading failures, shall we turn our attention to the Carnival Splendor, that was not quite so splendiferous last week? :eek:
Spending time with 3000 of my closest friends:saywhat: That isn't a cruise that is one of the circles of hell.
Now if you would like to talk about one of these...
http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii35/Cynops/Defiant.jpg
More details on the Qantas A380 problem. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101118/ap_on_bi_ge/superjumbo_woes_22)
:eek:
More details on the Qantas A380 problem. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101118/ap_on_bi_ge/superjumbo_woes_22)
:eek:
54 alarms! Yikes. Lucky the flight had so many experienced captains on board.
Napoleon
12-02-10, 09:46 AM
Qantas takes legal action against Rolls-Royce. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/business/global/03qantas.html)
Gangrel
12-02-10, 10:16 AM
Nah, deadstick into a river is still an order of magnitude more challenging than a partial hydraulic failure.
I almost pointed out on the initial news that it was a similar engine explosion that lead to the crash of United 232 in Souix Falls after total hydraulic failure. I thought it seemed a bit over-dramatic since I assumed that something like an A380 would have several more levels of redundancy. :eek:
Actually, it reminds me a bit of AA 191 out of Chicago in 1979. Thankfully, the ending wasn't quite the same...
The news is not getting any better for Qantas.
QANTAS is alleging in a multi-million-dollar damages claim against Rolls-Royce that it could now carry only 80 passengers across the Pacific in its Airbus 380s, under new operating rules for their troubled engines.
Story. (http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/qantas-court-blast-over-rolls-royce-engine-rules/story-e6frfq80-1225965489803)
chop456
12-04-10, 09:22 AM
The news is not getting any better for Qantas.
Story. (http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/qantas-court-blast-over-rolls-royce-engine-rules/story-e6frfq80-1225965489803)
^ Big deal. Just charge them $15,000 each. I don't see the problem.
Methanolandbrats
12-04-10, 10:08 AM
Killing 80 people is better than killing 450 :saywhat: How about parking the junk and using different planes.
oddlycalm
12-05-10, 04:26 PM
Mismatched bores? That's the kind of thing I used to see on my old Triumphs and MG's. Not something I'd expect to see on a high profile turbine engine program :shakehead
oc
Killing 80 people is better than killing 450 :saywhat: How about parking the junk and using different planes.
In the comments section of the story emjaya linked somebody explained the 80 person limit as a result of lower thrust at takeoff. Rolls Royce reset the maximum takeoff thrust from 72,000 lbs to 70,000 lbs in an effort to reduce stress on the engines. This lower thrust limit means the plane has to weigh less at takeoff, which means fewer passengers.
Austraila's Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) recommends more inspections:
http://www.examiner.com/airlines-airport-in-national/atsb-plan-to-prevent-exploding-airbus-a380-engines
Also some good photos of the aftermath of the failure, including the counterbore problem:
http://www.examiner.com/airlines-airport-in-national/atsb-plan-to-prevent-exploding-airbus-a380-engines-picture
Methanolandbrats
12-05-10, 05:22 PM
In the comments section of the story emjaya linked somebody explained the 80 person limit as a result of lower thrust at takeoff. Rolls Royce reset the maximum takeoff thrust from 72,000 lbs to 70,000 lbs in an effort to reduce stress on the engines. This lower thrust limit means the plane has to weigh less at takeoff, which means fewer passengers.
Austraila's Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) recommends more inspections:
http://www.examiner.com/airlines-airport-in-national/atsb-plan-to-prevent-exploding-airbus-a380-engines
Also some good photos of the aftermath of the failure, including the counterbore problem:
http://www.examiner.com/airlines-airport-in-national/atsb-plan-to-prevent-exploding-airbus-a380-engines-picture
Ya, I kinda figured the lump was marginal so it could not push the load, but I still think parking the junk is the best idea. Why fly a giant plane with no people in it? The bolded part is not encouraging :saywhat:
Napoleon
12-06-10, 07:13 AM
Mismatched bores? That's the kind of thing I used to see on my old Triumphs and MG's. Not something I'd expect to see on a high profile turbine engine program :shakehead
oc
I had a TR-6 blow an engine when a rod broke loose and punched a hole in the side of the block (and it actually kept running with the hole). When I disassembled it I found among the wreckage a con rod bolt that had backed out and dropped into the pan with no visible damage, which means it had never been properly tightened in the first place.
How is it possible Roles Royce (I assume that is who you are talking about) have their production line set up for that to even happen in theory?
I've been lurking on a few pilot's forums and found these images which shows the location of the feeder pipe. Or not.
http://i53.tinypic.com/28khnab.jpg
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Trent900stuboilpipe.jpg
Mismatched bores? That's the kind of thing I used to see on my old Triumphs and MG's. Not something I'd expect to see on a high profile turbine engine program :shakehead
oc
Well, Rolls Royce was originally a British car manufacturer.
It's just keeping up the best traditions of the British motor car industry. :gomer:
racermike
02-22-11, 07:03 AM
Cool link
http://www.a380delivery.com/qantas/panos/tour/tour/
It's just keeping up the best traditions of the British motor car industry. :gomer:
I wonder if the RR turbfan uses electronics supplied by Lucas, the Prince of Darknes? :p
Than plane is supposed to ba a long range people carrier, so why reduce passenger count to make up for less thrust? They should carry less commercial stuff in the cargo bay.
I wonder if the RR turbfan uses electronics supplied by Lucas, the Prince of Darknes? :p
Why do the British drink warm beer?
They have Lucas refrigerators.....
Why do the British drink warm beer?
They have Lucas refrigerators.....
Why did Lucas supply 6 volt electrical systems?
Because of Clement Atlee's post war efforts to conserve vital
resources for export products. So both the Yanks and the Brits
got headlights that dimmed to nothing at low speeds. :D
Whoops...
2StZVDUck9M
Air France A380 Spins Commuter Jet in New York JFK Collision (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-04-12/air-france-a380-spins-commuter-jet-in-new-york-jfk-collision.html)
Air France A380 Spins Commuter Jet in New York JFK Collision (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-04-12/air-france-a380-spins-commuter-jet-in-new-york-jfk-collision.html)
Relax, all right? My old man is a television repairman, he's got this ultimate set of tools. I can fix it.
:gomer:
-Kevin
Andrew Longman
04-12-11, 02:01 PM
Whoops...That will learn ya to keep your seat belts fastened until the plane has reached the gate and the captain has turned off the fasten seat belt sign. That would have been a bit of a ride for anyone in the Comair. :)
TravelGal
04-12-11, 04:47 PM
Ya got that right AL. Here's the description from today's briefing. Note that the author agreed with you.
A David And Goliath Accident
The accident took place at JFK last night as an Air France A380 Airbus was
taxiing in a line for takeoff as a Comair Bombardiar commuter jet was taxiing
towards a gate.The wing of the Airbus clipped the tail of the small jet and spun it around through 90 degrees. Luckily no one was hurt on either plane (520 on the A380 and 62 on the small jet). The wingspan on the A380 is 262 feet from tip to tip. The Air France jet was unable to make its return trip to Paris and has been immobilized. Passengers are being rerouted with partner airlines. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the incident. The CRJ700 was operating as flight 6293 and had just arrived from Boston. The A380, which was operating as Air France flight AF7, is one of four belonging to Air France. It is not known how long the aircraft will be out of service. It is the second incident involving an Air France A380. Last October one of the A380s brushed the wing of an A330 and was out of service for two weeks. Here is a video [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=co6arfcab&et=1105144772975&s=285&e=001X7KzvA4W2xXKL9eoJo9Esm2kIx10rycIWyDSO2A-ymRW44w5b98NG8gAt0YCUEPxNAMnQesDB1KNnt4HGIxIfkCtz8 LqTN6E3cl24Cv7EWSxQOxz06B0dttU7dnSbwDifFy3d4nVn_2V X6-_KL4yIn777_ND86q8ZgLyUtpZOIdp4evZuoM16Q==]
of the incident. I wouldn't have wanted to be aboard the small jet.
wow. :eek:
It pushed that commuter jet out of the way like it was a toy.
wow. :eek:
It pushed that commuter jet out of the way like it was a toy.
http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/images/conservation_of_momentum_7.png
:D
A380 Tags a building this time. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/a380-grounding-embarrasses-airbus-korean-air-lines-to-the-rescue/2011/06/20/AGIjwrcH_blog.html) :laugh:
stroker
06-20-11, 05:42 PM
A380 Tags a building this time. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/a380-grounding-embarrasses-airbus-korean-air-lines-to-the-rescue/2011/06/20/AGIjwrcH_blog.html) :laugh:
so when are they going to require the things to have "WIDE LOAD" painted all over them?
And Boeing announces 5.4 billion $$ in orders for the new 747-8. I clearly recall when asked how they would compete with the new A-380, Boeing said they'd just build a bigger 747! Seems to have been a good plan.
cameraman
06-20-11, 11:40 PM
They need to put a boosted version of the anti-collision systems they have on cars on each wingtip. This is nuts.:shakehead
I'm wondering how can we make travel plans avoiding airports where these things are on the ground?:\
indyfan31
06-21-11, 09:52 AM
And Boeing announces 5.4 billion $$ in orders for the new 747-8. I clearly recall when asked how they would compete with the new A-380, Boeing said they'd just build a bigger 747! Seems to have been a good plan.
and it'll still be ready before the 787. :shakehead
I know:D...I totally forgot to add above..." BTW, Has anyone seen a 787 recently?:p"
How 'bout a couple of little Frenchmen sitting way out on the wingtips giving had signals? Didn't crewmen have to do something like that in WWII? P-47s?:)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.