Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[nidnoyham 30]

I don't know where BigD does his cut and pastes from but I am surprised these experts don't know how to spell borescope....

 

It's probably the American version, like tire, humor, Juli.........

[BigDUSA 71]

Well, Boeing have certainly not had a mid air emergency with passengers on board, or international service of any airline disrupted - YET !

 

This may happen when they start to fly.

 

This has to be a time for a 1000Bht sweepstake, to see who can get closest to the month/year of it's maiden commercial flight ?

 

I'd go for Aug-2011.

 

That's because the 787 program is in the test phase. I would imagine that the 787 will undergo teething problems when it enters commercial service..

[nidnoyham 30]

I would imagine that the 787 will undergo teething problems when it enters commercial service..

 

Teething problems infer infancy.

 

By the time this thing gets into commercial service, it will have pubic hair and tits !

[Samsonite 181]

"DATE:03/12/10

SOURCE:Air Transport Intelligence news

Sixteen Qantas Trent-900s require modification or replacement

By Greg Waldron

 

Qantas says 16 Rolls-Royce Trent 900 powerplants for its Airbus A380 fleet require modifications or replacement.

 

Of these 16 engines, five have been replaced, says the carrier. It adds that it has completed one-off oil stub pipe inspections on the first of the two aircraft to have resumed service.

 

"No issues outlined by the ATSB were found, and the aircraft will operate to London via Singapore as schedule this evening. Inspection of the second aircraft has commenced," says Qantas.

 

The announcement follows the Australian Air Transport Safety Bureau's release of a preliminary report about the uncontained Trent 900 engine failure over Indonesia on 4 November, which forced a Qantas A380 to make an emergency landing in Singapore.

 

"With CASA's (Civil Aviation Safety Authority) approval, two A380s have returned to service with Qantas voluntarily applying a range of conditions that include not operating the aircraft across the Pacific until further operational experience has been gathered."

 

The carrier adds that it will receive two new A380s in the coming weeks, with another two due for delivery in early 2011.

 

According to Flightglobal's ACAS database, Qantas operates six A380s, has 14 on order, and options for an additional two. Of the six operational aircraft, the A380 involved in the 4 November incident will "remain in Singapore for sometime," says Qantas, where it will undergo extensive repairs."

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/...eplacement.html

[jacko 8,814]

It is all good news that this engine issue sounds as if it has been resolved....

Although I might feel a twinge of concern if I ws boarding a Quantas A380 at Sydney for the long trip to London....

 

Might prefeer to get on the BA 747.......not!

Edited December 4, 2010 by jacko

[BigDUSA 71]

EARLY estimates of the cost of this month's Qantas A380 engine fiasco exceed $100 million.

The cost to insurers of the damage to the A380 alone is expected to be about $US70m ($72.9m), according to the insurance arm of US-based Aon Group, The Australian reports.

 

This is in addition to costs associated with business losses and disruptions that analysts predict will fall between $26.5m and $60m, after the airline grounded its A380 fleet.

 

The A380 was damaged when a turbine disk on a Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine disintegrated and sent shrapnel tearing through the wing.

 

The debris punched a large hole through its front wing spar, a major structural component of the wing, and slammed into fuel systems, wiring and hydraulics. Qantas says it can be repaired but it is expected to take months to fix and the airline has yet to comment on the cost.

 

Chief executive Alan Joyce told the ABC's Inside Business program that costs were "ongoing'' because four A380s remained on the ground and there were still restrictions on where the aircraft could fly.

 

Read more at The Australian.

QUOTE

Edited December 4, 2010 by BigDUSA

[ozboy 31]

EARLY estimates of the cost of this month's Qantas A380 engine fiasco exceed $100 million.

The cost to insurers of the damage to the A380 alone is expected to be about $US70m ($72.9m), according to the insurance arm of US-based Aon Group, The Australian reports.

 

This is in addition to costs associated with business losses and disruptions that analysts predict will fall between $26.5m and $60m, after the airline grounded its A380 fleet.

 

The A380 was damaged when a turbine disk on a Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine disintegrated and sent shrapnel tearing through the wing.

 

The debris punched a large hole through its front wing spar, a major structural component of the wing, and slammed into fuel systems, wiring and hydraulics. Qantas says it can be repaired but it is expected to take months to fix and the airline has yet to comment on the cost.

 

Chief executive Alan Joyce told the ABC's Inside Business program that costs were "ongoing'' because four A380s remained on the ground and there were still restrictions on where the aircraft could fly.

 

Read more at The Australian.

QUOTE

 

What has your apparent qantas bashing got to do with the original post I.E airbus and boeing behind schedule??

The engine problem is down to Rolls Royce not Airbus or even boeing,and at least qantas is making sure things are right with their planes.

[BigDUSA 71]

What has your apparent qantas bashing got to do with the original post I.E airbus and boeing behind schedule??

The engine problem is down to Rolls Royce not Airbus or even boeing,and at least qantas is making sure things are right with their planes.

 

I'm not bashing Qantas. The pilot and crew did a tremendous job in saving the lives of all the passengers and crew aboard the crippled Airbus A380. Unfortunately for Qantas the engine explosion happened on one of their planes. I'm bashing Rolls Royce for selling engines built with piss poor quality control.

[TheFiend 1,181]

I'm not bashing Qantas. The pilot and crew did a tremendous job in saving the lives of all the passengers and crew aboard the crippled Airbus A380. Unfortunately for Qantas the engine explosion happened on one of their planes. I'm bashing Rolls Royce for selling engines built with piss poor quality control.

 

So why aren't you bashing Boeing for their piss poor quality control on the 7LATE7....

[MrMango 670]

So why aren't you bashing Boeing for their piss poor quality control on the 7LATE7....

Maybe, just maybe the reason he did not bash Boeing is none of their engines exploded with paying passengers aboard.

[BigDUSA 71]

So why aren't you bashing Boeing for their piss poor quality control on the 7LATE7....

 

When the 787 enters commercial service, I'll be more then glad to critique Boeing for any flaws that endanger passenger lives.

[sabaidii2 171]

92 pages - 2286 posts

 

Quite impressive. I have not followed this topic at all, but could someone summarize just what could possibly be causing such interest? Or has it just been 99% personal insults (never under estimate the power of BigD's persona)?

Edited December 5, 2010 by sabaidii2

[jacko 8,814]

The A380 was damaged when a turbine disk on a Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine disintegrated and sent shrapnel tearing through the wing.

 

The debris punched a large hole through its front wing spar, a major structural component of the wing, and slammed into fuel systems, wiring and hydraulics. Qantas says it can be repaired but it is expected to take months to fix and the airline has yet to comment on the cost.

That is one hell of an aircraft to just turn round and land as if there wasn't the slightest problem after all that slamming and tearing and punching.

Oh and apparently it was 'crippled' too!

Edited December 5, 2010 by jacko

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Maybe, just maybe the reason he did not bash Boeing is none of their engines exploded with paying passengers aboard.

 

Since when was the presence of fare-paying passengers one of the criteria used to determine anything? He started two threads long before the A380 entered commercial service for no other reason than to feed his xenophobic rants.

Edited December 5, 2010 by CheshireTom

[BigDUSA 71]

SYDNEY (AFP) – Australia's Qantas said new rules imposed after an A380 engine blast meant the 470-seat superjumbo could carry just 80 passengers to Los Angeles and was "uncommercial" on the key route.

 

The regulations, which direct lower engine thrust, made the A380 commercially unsuitable for the trans-Pacific trip, according to legal documents filed in the carrier's case against engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce.

 

"If Qantas is to avoid using the maximum takeoff thrust of 72,000 pounds, in accordance with a Rolls-Royce directive, on departure from Los Angeles, Qantas must ensure that any Trent 900-powered A380 aircraft carries no more than a payload of approx 30,000 kilograms on one runway or 20,000 kilograms on the other runway at Los Angeles," a Qantas spokesman told AFP on Saturday, reading from the airline's statement of claim.

 

"The operation of the Los Angeles routes at the reduced payloads makes it uncommercial for Qantas to use a Trent 900-powered A380 on the LAX routes at all, since operation at that reduced level involves a reduction in carrying capacity so that typically only 80 passengers will be able to be transported."

 

The statement was filed in the Federal Court on Friday in Qantas's case against Rolls-Royce, following last month's explosion of a Trent 900 engine over Indonesia which forced an A380 carrying 469 people back to Singapore.

 

Preliminary investigations have identified a potentially "catastrophic" manufacturing defect which caused oil leakage and a fire in the engine as the likely cause of the blast.

 

Qantas grounded all six of its A380s after the November 4 explosion and are yet to resume flying the world's largest passenger jet between Australia and Los Angeles due to the extra engine thrust required.

 

The spokesman said the lawsuit was "just part of a legal process" to ensure Qantas was able to claim damages if negotiations with Rolls-Royce failed, and stressed that it may never end up in court.

 

"The hope will be that compensation will be mutually agreed and negotiated," he said. A "dollar figure" was yet to be hammered out, he added.

 

Britain's Rolls-Royce, also facing compensation demands from Airbus, has offered no comment on the Qantas legal action.

QUOTE

 

My my such a BIG airplane and it can only carry 80 passengers from LAX to SYD.

[MrMango 670]

Since when was the presence of fare-paying passengers one of the criteria used to determine anything?

Are you crazy???

 

of course when a aircraft is designed and built the government gives them a test certificate that is good only for testing the airworthiness of the ship. When it passes all of the tests and hoops that the government puts up, they then give it a airworthiness certificate to carry passengers.

 

Boeing has not received one, Airbus has.

 

The Government says that the airbus is safe to operate, and it clearly has a question mark now.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Are you crazy???

 

of course when a aircraft is designed and built the government gives them a test certificate that is good only for testing the airworthiness of the ship. When it passes all of the tests and hoops that the government puts up, they then give it a airworthiness certificate to carry passengers.

 

It's an airplane, not a ship. Why did BigD start his threads to bash the Airbus A380 before it entered commercial service? If you're going to establish criteria, at least be consistent.

 

Boeing has not received one, Airbus has.

 

Why?

 

The Government says that the airbus is safe to operate, and it clearly has a question mark now.

 

There's no question mark against the aircraft whatsoever. However, when your aircraft bursts into flames for no apparent reason ... then it's time to worry.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2010 by CheshireTom

[CheshireTom 1,377]

My my such a BIG airplane and it can only carry 80 passengers from LAX to SYD.

 

I knew you were a bunch of fart bastards, but ....

 

Meanwhile, the game-changing, revolutionary 787 can't carry any passengers. Why's that?

[TheFiend 1,181]

I knew you were a bunch of fart bastards, but ....

 

Meanwhile, the game-changing, revolutionary 787 can't carry any passengers. Why's that?

 

Maybe it's because it's burst into flames.....

 

The fire started in the P100 power distribution panel in the aircraft's aft electronic equipment bay, destroying the panel, igniting nearby insulation blankets and causing damage to the aircraft's composite primary structure.

 

Oh dear..... the aircrafts primary stucture suffered damage.

 

They still have found out what caused the fire, they claim it was a "foreign object".

 

As it stands the EIS has an indeterminate delay. All the 7LATE7 customers should start hitting Boeing with compensation demands.

[MrMango 670]

It's an airplane, not a ship.

OK I stand corrected. It is a airship.

 

Why do we call them airports?

 

Why do we measure airspeed in nautical miles per hour?

 

the list could go on, but if you don't get if from the above, you never will.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

They still have found out what caused the fire, they claim it was a "foreign object".

 

They would blame the foreigners, wouldn't they.

[Samsonite 181]

That is one hell of an aircraft to just turn round and land as if there wasn't the slightest problem after all that slamming and tearing and punching. Oh and apparently it was 'crippled' too!

Not as easy as it would appear. It was mentioned in the early press releases about the accident that there were extra pilots onboard and without them there was doubt the plane would have survived.

Here is what appeared into today's aviation press on the subject.

 

"ATSB credits Qantas pilots in A380 engine incident

By Geoffrey Thomas | December 6, 2010

 

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau Chief Commissioner Martin Dolan credited Qantas pilots with saving the Airbus A380 that suffered an uncontained engine failure after take-off from Singapore Nov.4 (ATW Daily News, Dec. 3).

 

Addressing media on Friday in Canberra at the release of the ATSB's interim report on the incident, Dolan said that "the aircraft would not have arrived safely in Singapore without the focused and effective action of the flight crew.''

 

The ATSB report also showed that the A380 lost 17 critical control systems and the five pilots onboard, with a combined experience of 72,000 hours, took just under an hour to deal with 54 error messages after debris from the Rolls-Royce Trent 972 engine ripped through the wing.

 

The crew—a captain, co-pilot and second officer—was bolstered by a check captain and training check captain on QF32.

 

On Friday, VP-Australian and International Pilots Assn. Richard Woodward said the pilots were forced to deal with an "unprecedented" number of issues during the two-hour ordeal. Dolan said that, while it was impossible to say how close QF32 came to disaster, the consequences of this type of uncontained failure "were very serious."

 

"The most serious damage in terms of scale was the result of one significant part of the turbine disc going directly through the wing of the aircraft," Dolan said. While the 54 error messages were demanding, the landing was extremely difficult and passengers were briefed for an overrun."

 

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-comp...e-incident-1203

 

"54 error messages" ?! They are not flying an airplane, but operating a flying computer.

Edited December 6, 2010 by Samsonite

[BigDUSA 71]

I knew you were a bunch of fart bastards, but ....

 

Meanwhile, the game-changing, revolutionary 787 can't carry any passengers. Why's that?

 

Boeing 787 is still in the test phase. Soon it will be certified for commercial service.

[TheFiend 1,181]

Boeing 787 is still in the test phase. Soon it will be certified for commercial service.

 

Soon be certified......... the flight testing is still being delayed

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Boeing 787 is still in the test phase. Soon it will be certified for commercial service.

 

Still being the operative word. You've been saying that for the last 3 years, FFS. It's worse than your "when I make the big move" nonsense.

 

Well, maybe not quite that bad.

 

Anyway, how many more times are you going to try and shift the goalposts ... it's either a big deal, or it's not.

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2010 by CheshireTom