Qantas has problem in Bangkok

[richardm 1]

http://www.travelmole.com/stories/1141676.php?mpnlog=1

 

SYDNEY - Another day and another incident involving Qantas.

 

A Boeing 747 operating Qantas Flight 1 from Bangkok to London Heathrow this morning experienced a surge in one of its four engines shortly after take-off at 0100 local time.

 

The captain of the aircraft shut down that engine and returned to Bangkok Suvarnabhumi Airport, landing at approximately 0230 local time.

 

In a statement, Qantas said there was no safety issue at any stage – “Boeing 747 aircraft can fly normally on three engines. Engine surges do not occur regularly, but are not an unknown event on jet aircraft.”

 

A replacement aircraft was being flown to Bangkok from Sydney while engineers examined the aircraft. The 335 passengers on board were transferred to hotel accommodation.

[BigDUSA 71]

Tough break for the passengers. An extra day or two stuck in BKK with Qantas picking up the cost of hotel, meals. I had this happen a few years ago with United and they paid for my hotel, meals, etc.

[Fondles 94]

Qantas is having a shit run over the last few weeks, An engine spitting flames, blown tyres on landing, a cracked windscreen and now this

[Chivas 0]

Landed apparently at 0230 uk on the 07/04 instead of scheduled arrival 0700 on 06/04

[Big Yuley 0]

http://www.travelmole.com/stories/1141676.php?mpnlog=1

 

SYDNEY - Another day and another incident involving Qantas.

 

A Boeing 747 operating Qantas Flight 1 from Bangkok to London Heathrow this morning experienced a surge in one of its four engines shortly after take-off at 0100 local time.

 

The captain of the aircraft shut down that engine and returned to Bangkok Suvarnabhumi Airport, landing at approximately 0230 local time.

 

In a statement, Qantas said there was no safety issue at any stage – “Boeing 747 aircraft can fly normally on three engines. Engine surges do not occur regularly, but are not an unknown event on jet aircraft.”

 

A replacement aircraft was being flown to Bangkok from Sydney while engineers examined the aircraft. The 335 passengers on board were transferred to hotel accommodation.

 

 

Never had an accident.

 

Hate to say it, but its only a matter of time before a Qantas plane drops from the Sky

[wacmedia 277]

Hi,

 

Get a nice new Airbus A380 on this route guys.

[The_Fat_Controller 25]

What about the over-run on landing at Bangkok Don Muang a few years ago that ended up on the golf course ?

 

That was a BIG accident but luckily very few injuries.

 

Cost them a fortune to get it fixed, some commentators said the only reason it was not written off was so they could say they had never "lost" an aircraft in an accident.

 

Summary and link to report

 

http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2001/release/2001_11.aspx

 

ATSB Executive Director Kym Bills said: "The Qantas Bangkok runway overrun was a serious accident that fortunately did not result in fatalities and serious injuries. It was a wake-up call to Qantas who may have been lulled into a false sense of security by their very good safety record. Qantas provided excellent cooperation throughout the investigation and ATSB is pleased that Qantas has actively responded to the deficiencies found during our investigation."

Edited April 7, 2010 by The_Fat_Controller

[Chivas 0]

Wasnt there another incident on Qantas in 2008 between Perth and Singapore wherby the plane suffered decompression and loads of pax had to be transferred to hospital by air ambulance ??

[The_Fat_Controller 25]

Here it is,

 

http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2009/release/2009_16.aspx

[Samsonite 181]

Get a nice new Airbus A380 on this route guys.

And the flight will be delayed on a regular basis.

[jacko 8,815]

And the flight will be delayed on a regular basis.

Well, it would fill the gap until the dreamliner is on-line.

[Samsonite 181]

Well, it would fill the gap until the dreamliner is on-line.

Nonsensical. Two different aircraft for two different markets.

But, btw, when it does go into service, Boeing will deliver more 787s in the first few months than airbust has delivered a380s in the 2 1/2 years (to date) since it first went into service.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Samsonite

[jacko 8,815]

Nonsensical. Two different aircraft for two different markets.

No more so than your A380 delays comment.... particularly since the A380 is a faster aircraft than the 747!

[Samsonite 181]

No more so than your A380 delays comment.... particularly since the A380 is a faster aircraft than the 747!

Again, nonsensical. When did speed become more important than reliability?

But, since you brought it up, the a380's speed is the same as the Boeing 747; approximately .855 of Mach.

 

Here, from the guy whose airline holds 25% of the a380 order book:

 

"Friday March 12, 2010

 

Emirates President Tim Clark told ATWOnline yesterday in Berlin that the airline's A380s have been a success with passengers and on the balance sheet but that "there are still problems with the reliability of the aircraft. And when we fix snags, we find new ones. I am trying to be kind to Airbus, but they have to solve the problems." The operational reliability of EK's seven in-service A380s is 90%-95%, which he said is not good enough, although he added that the manufacturer "gives us good support."....."

 

http://www.atwonline.com/news/other.html?i...e=3%2F12%2F2010

Edited April 8, 2010 by Samsonite

[jacko 8,815]

But, since you brought it up, the a380's speed is the same as the Boeing 747; approximately .855 of Mach.

What, the A380 has a better reliability record, no crashes.

You don't talk approximately when comparing speeds...the A380 is stated at 0.89 mach.

[Samsonite 181]

What, the A380 has a better reliability record, no crashes.

You don't talk approximately when comparing speeds...the A380 is stated at 0.89 mach.

Well, with only 26 delivered in 2 1/2 years I would hope they haven't had any accidents.

The "typical cruising speed" of the a380 is Mach .85 vs the 747 at Mach .855, and, yes,

it is very approximate due to weather conditions, altitude, air density (moisture), headwinds, tailwinds,

etc., etc., etc.

 

http://airbusa380.tripod.com/id4.html

This site is obviously bias in favor of airbust, BTW.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Samsonite

[The_Fat_Controller 25]

A388 and B744, almost exactly the same NORMAL cruise speed, around M 0.85

 

I am The Fat AIR TRAFFIC Controller, it is my job to know, but if you doubt me, look at Wikipedia.

 

Airbus about 20% more economical per passenger than the 747-400.

 

Looking forward to seeing the B787, but still slightly concerned about an aircraft that needed reinforcement in the wing/body join area !

[Samsonite 181]

Looking forward to seeing the B787, but still slightly concerned about an aircraft that needed reinforcement in the wing/body join area !

You might want to look up the results of the a380 wing test.

[jacko 8,815]

I am The Fat AIR TRAFFIC Controller, it is my job to know, but if you doubt me, look at Wikipedia.

Well I did and that is where I got the differing speed numbers from. You would expect the geriatric 747 to be slower though wouldn't you?

[The_Fat_Controller 25]

The 747-400, the latest version in service, is among the fastest airliners in service with a high-subsonic cruise speed of Mach 0.85

 

The A380-800 has a design range of 15,200 km (8,200 nmi), sufficient to fly from New York to Hong Kong for example, and a cruising speed of Mach 0.85 (about 900 km/h or 560 mph at cruising altitude).

 

Jacko ,both lines direct copies from Wikipedia, maximum possible speeds may be different but normal cruising speeds for both is exactly the same.

[jacko 8,815]

The 747-400, the latest version in service, is among the fastest airliners in service with a high-subsonic cruise speed of Mach 0.85

 

The A380-800 has a design range of 15,200 km (8,200 nmi), sufficient to fly from New York to Hong Kong for example, and a cruising speed of Mach 0.85 (about 900 km/h or 560 mph at cruising altitude).

 

Jacko ,both lines direct copies from Wikipedia, maximum possible speeds may be different but normal cruising speeds for both is exactly the same.

The phrase Is among the fastest airliners in service has no quantitative meaning whatsoever....

Is it the fastest, the second fastest or third.....?

The A380 is quoted in Wikipedia as having a maximum operating speed of Mach 0.89 (945 km/h, 587 mph, 510 knots)

also a maximum speed of Mach 0.96 (at cruise altitude: 1020 km/h, 634 mph, 551 knots)

 

Apparently the 747-400, is stated as cruising speed

Mach 0.85 (567 mph, 493 knots, 912 km/h)

Mach 0.855 (570 mph, 495 kn, 917 km/h) --400ER

Mach 0.845 (564 mph, 490 kn, 908 km/h) --400F and 400ERF

 

All 747-400 models have a quoted maximum speed of Mach 0.92 (614 mph, 533 kn, 988 km/h)

 

That data can be found further down in Wikipedias page in the specifications details.

 

 

In a race you don't cruise...

I stated that the A380 was a faster aircraft, the data backs that up....

Edited April 10, 2010 by jacko

[The_Fat_Controller 25]

However, Jacko, in the REAL world, which is what Samonsite and I were talking about, you WILL find that both aircraft are flown within a gnat's cock of M 0.85 !

 

Cost Index is what airlines worry about these days, not ultimate speed.

Edited April 9, 2010 by The_Fat_Controller

[jacko 8,815]

However, Jacko, in the REAL world, which is what Samonsite and I were talking about, you WILL find that both aircraft are flown within a gnat's cock of M 0.85 !

 

Cost Index is what airlines worry about these days, not ultimate speed.

You and Samsonite go ahead and have a conversation then.

A bloody Porche and a transit van drive within a gnat's cock of 10 mph in the real world of the M25.

The cruise speed of an aircraft has more to do with the head wind anyhow than what Wikipedia and you guys think.

[Samsonite 181]

Once when returning from the land of smiles and guile aboard a Boeing 747-400, our relative ground speed was a little over 700 mph. IIRC about 718 or so. Must have been one hell of a tailwind. :)

Edited April 10, 2010 by Samsonite

[jacko 8,815]

Once when returning from the land of smiles and guile aboard a Boeing 747-400, our relative ground speed was a little over 700 mph. IIRC about 718 or so. Must have been one hell of a tailwind. :)

Well the jetstream across the Atlantic runs at 150-300 mph so quite possible.