Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2691 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 13336 times:
This no way for a brand new airliner in the fleet to start its career off. What is its registration? You do know that this has to be an A332. And when somebody knows, is the aircraft going to be flyable again?
Korg747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 549 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 13121 times:
You have to look at things in a fair way. I'm sure the DC-10 gave NWA some nice issues when it went into service the first times so that's not a boeing/airbus issue. What's interesting though is that all the 777s that had engine trouble lately had PW engines if I Remember correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong). This A330 has PWs too...so what's up with the reliability of the PWs? especially the PW-40XX versions.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6174 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12462 times:
Someone above posted something interesting, which raises a few questions in my mind...
"Remember those great 777 videos of the rejected takeoffs and the white-hot brake discs?"
Yes, I DO remember them, and that's just the point. In the triple seven tests, the brakes did not catch fire. In the Airbus widebody tests, they DID catch fire- remember the pics on this site of the A346??? Go check them out...
Talk about egg on face.
The issue here to me, folks, is not engine trouble, as that happens. All three suppliers to the 777 have had troubles, and the A330 as well. Certain gliders come to mind, thanks Rolls Royce.
Whitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12296 times:
So you definitely know the brakes caught fire? Can you provide a link? Or was it just smoke from overheated components and tyres? I presume having four axles and eight main wheels to spread the braking force over against the 777's six/twelve is irrelevant too?
As for your Rolls Royce comment, that was a fuel line/maintenance issue and not an engine malfunction.
AirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4525 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12190 times:
Certain gliders come to mind, thanks Rolls Royce.
Just noticed this. The Air Transat incident was a maintenance error and had not nothing to do with an error. The TS maintenance team had put a fuel line from another model which did not fit the Trent 772B-60 on C-GITS correctly.
As a result, the line scrapped and rubbing against other parts and eventually severed over the atlantic, causing the aircraft to dump 37,000 gallons of fuel into the atlantic.
Dtwintlflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11964 times:
Hot brakes....let's all get up in arms about the A330! Yes, it is a big deal, but not this big. It isn't like it hasn't happened to similar a/c in the past (and I think the topic headline is a bit of a stretch)
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1080 posts, RR: 50
Reply 20, posted (11 years 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11877 times:
Eh get over the stupid anti-Airbus pro-whatever crap, I think they'res more important things to discuss. Will this seriously effect NW's ETOPS ability, and if so, will that effect their near-term route planning with the A330?
Afay1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1293 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (11 years 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10589 times:
Yes, it is another reason to buy Ilyushin. Anyway, sh*t happens, engines have trouble, tires catch on fire. OK, so the 777's usually don't, doesn't mean the A330 sucks or is unsafe, just costs the airlines some $$$. Anyway, the DC-10 had the whole "engine falling off inflight" problem at the beginning not to mention others....