Thread: Qantas grounds A380s after Singapore emergency landing

Originally Posted by Ripley

Appreciate the edit, HB ^.
Let's see if Mods will edit Loy Toy, please. The personal attacks are all over the board.

"Miss! Miss! Loy Toy's pulling my pigtails!".

The Rolls-Royce statement cited "progress in understanding the cause of the engine failure" and said this "Trent 900 incident is the first of its kind to occur on a large civil Rolls-Royce engine since 1994."

I would argue that blowing up in mid air is not behaviour I would call "civil". In fact, I think it's decidedly rude.

Originally Posted by Ripley

Below is your false statement and here is someone else correcting you.

You really live in a fanatsy world don't you..............

Planes ordered and not delievered = not having the money in the bank........

Do you really believe any of these customers will now finalize the orders until Airbus can get to the botton to the mechanical problems that are clear for all to see.

Engines blowing up on take-off and during the most extreme load cycle, explosions and flames being seen and heard at ground level with bits of the fuselage and motor shrouding falling to the ground..............Whats you point again Crusty?

Do you really believe any of these customers will now finalize the orders until Airbus can get to the botton to the mechanical problems that are clear for all to see.

Loy Toy, once again: There are TWO Engine options for the A380, so I'm sure they will, they just might try and switch engines if they haven't already selected Engine Alliance's version. Stop talking out of your hat.

Marmite has gone rather quiet

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Loy Toy, once again: There are TWO Engine options for the A380, so I'm sure they will, they just might try and switch engines if they haven't already selected Engine Alliance's version. Stop talking out of your hat.

Yes they might. But I do hope RR will get their act together. Two suppliers are better than one. That is if RR finally acknowledges they are having a problem. Presently they seem to be in a state of denial. That won't help building trust.

Originally Posted by Loy Toy

What confirms my suspicions even more is the fact that only 4 airlines have purchased these new aircraft with I expect the others holding off until they can see their long term performance.

Originally Posted by Loy Toy

Originally Posted by Ripley

Below is your false statement and here is someone else correcting you.

You really live in a fanatsy world don't you.............. Planes ordered and not delievered = not having the money in the bank........

Your statement was airlines holding back. They are not as the orders clearly indicate. I have also not heard of Airlines pulling back orders because of the incidents.

If any of the above was true, the three incidents I described would have killed the 747 and 767.

But they didn't. They fixed the problems (well, two of them, and worked a procedure around the other) and people carried on buying and flying them.

Of course any waiting or potential customers will take a keen interest in what is going on with the Trent 900, but to say they will cancel orders over a minor maintenance problem is bonkers.

Whatever this is has probably already been identified and will be mitigated, either by a newly designed part or a modified routine maintenance procedure (I should add that this is my humble opinion, it could be something else, or perhaps both).

Remember the DC-10 and all the people those things killed on the 1970's? Airbus would have to screw up quite badly to match that record.

Originally Posted by BobR

Remember the DC-10 and all the people those things killed on the 1970's? Airbus would have to screw up quite badly to match that record.

I don't think the DC-10's record was as bad as you might think, although their early record resembled a Microsoft "beta" program ("oh look, it crashed again!"). Overall it's been a very successful aircraft once the bugs were ironed out.

Surely the Comet has to be the biggest disaster ever. Britain could have led the jet aircraft industry but made such a monumental balls up of it that they never recovered.

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Your statement was airlines holding back. They are not as the orders clearly indicate. I have also not heard of Airlines pulling back orders because of the incidents.

Yes, and these orders were placed before the latest incidents and real questions about the RR product. If I was the Chairman of an airline that had paid a deposit for an A380 plane I would not take delivery until every problem has been sorted 100% and within a given time-frame and I am sure there have been late delivery penalty clauses to consider.

Airlines have sat back and waited for the 3 years the A380 has been in service and to see what, and if any problems that this relatively new plane would experience.

There have been minor problems, which have been largely kept secret for commercial reasons up until these major setbacks which could of killed hundreds of paying passengers.

I once again just hope that they can sort the problems out, produce a safe passenger airliner and we don't experience another Concorde incident.

I once again just hope that they can sort the problems out, produce a safe airliner and we don't experience another Concorde incident.

It's amusing that you pick one single hull loss from Concorde's entire service career as the yardstick.

There have been 152 hull losses of the Boeing 70x/72x range.

There has been precisely one in Concorde's 30 years of service, primarily caused by an avoidable external factor.

Try again.

If most of us knew the financial realities of safety / costs, and how that, too is degrading ...

Are there cruises to EU and US? Maybe from Hong Kong

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I once again just hope that they can sort the problems out, produce a safe airliner and we don't experience another Concorde incident.

It's amusing that you pick one single hull loss from Concorde's entire service career as the yardstick.

There have been 152 hull losses of the Boeing 70x/72x range.

There has been precisely one in Concorde's 30 years of service, primarily caused by an avoidable external factor.

Try again.

I still cry over that plane's demise. Yes, one lousy incident

Maybe Virgin will continue it one day. How man perfectly serviceable birds parked?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Try again.

On 10 April 2003, Air France and British Airways simultaneously announced that they would retire Concorde later that year.[127][128] They cited low passenger numbers following 25 July 2000 crash, economic effects and the slump in air travel following 11 September 2001, and rising maintenance costs.

The A380 has be heralded much the same as the Concorde was and as a marvel of modern technology breaking all barriers regarding passenger and freight loading.

What's your point again Harry?

If you are going to use Wikipedia as your sole source of info, please try and read the links. Notice the bit underlined in your own post that says ECONOMIC EFFECTS. Concorde was a hideously over-priced monster to build and run, but when it was working in tandem with the rest of BA's fleet it made them good money.

Lord Marshall had his premium cabins full because the carrot of upgrades to Concorde was offered to frequent business flyers at a time when longhaul flights were heaving with business travellers.

But as the 80s boom receded, so did the business travel, and thus Concorde started to stand out on the balance sheet as a bit of a lame duck. The crash was the final nail in the coffin.

The A380 is designed to be EXTREMELY cost effective, being able to lug up to 600 passengers using the fuel that used to carry a couple of hundred. So I don't think it's going to go the way of Concorde for economic reasons, is it?

And there are plenty of 707's still in operation, so that horrific hull loss count hasn't put people off, has it? In fact, there are still over 100 72x's flying I think.

Try again.

Originally Posted by Ripley

The French are not engineers, look at the cars. If it ain't a BOEING...

A couple of points for the ignorant kunt to dwell upon.

1. Airbus isn't French, but European.

2. Where do you think most of your top 'brains' in the US come from? Certainly not the US.

Originally Posted by Mid

Marmite has gone rather quiet

Sorry - been working all day.

right then , well now that your here , RR ??

I forgot about the cars comment. What's left of the American car industry makes chunky, ugly, fuel inefficent bricks.

Europe manages to make most of the world's supercars, still manages to make fuel efficient cars and and basically beats the crap out of America in styling and comfort.

Mind you, Europe's been smacking the shit out of American motors since the Vincent Black Shadow wiped the floor with Harley Davidson.

No, that is not me in my budgie smugglers, but Rollie Free.

AP: Lufthansa says Rolls-Royce engine on A380 Airbus replaced after minor problem

Originally Posted by Larn

AP: Lufthansa says Rolls-Royce engine on A380 Airbus replaced after minor problem

No it doesn't, according to its spokesman.

German flag-carrier Lufthansa has become the latest carrier to undertake an engine change on its Airbus A380 fleet, switching a single powerplant on its first airframe.
The airline is one of three carriers to use the Rolls-Royce Trent 900, currently under scrutiny following the uncontained failure on a Qantas A380.
Lufthansa changed a single engine on the airframe registered D-AIMA, the first A380 delivered to the airline. The jet is just six months old having arrived in mid-May.
A spokesman for the carrier points out that the decision is "precautionary", adding that the airline has discovered "no findings" relating to the Qantas mishap.
Lufthansa says it has been carrying out checks recommended by Rolls-Royce following the uncontained failure on flight QF32 on 4 November.
Rolls-Royce has yet to determine the nature of the failure and has advised Trent 900 operators to conduct checks relating to oil leakage.
Singapore Airlines and Qantas, the other two operators of Trent 900s on their A380 fleets, have each carried out engine changes, and Qantas' A380 fleet remains grounded.

And then it does again:

BRUSSELS (AP) - Lufthansa says it has replaced a Rolls-Royce engine on one of its Airbus A380 superjumbos after maintenance checks detected a problem.

Spokesman Thomas Jachnow said Wednesday the plane is back in service and that scheduled A380 flights have not been affected by the engine change.

Jachnow declined to specify the problem, but said it was minor and not connected with the oil leaks that have grounded Qantas and Singapore Airlines superjumbos using the same type of engine.

Jachnow said the decision to replace the powerplant had been taken as a precautionary measure after consultations with Rolls-Royce.

That's some inventory to carry, each one of these engines is millions of pounds, ennit?