Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus: No More A380 Delays, No RR Engine Problems  
User currently offlineJetMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7903 times:

Article in International Herald Tribune:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/11/business/airbus.php


SINGAPORE As the double-decker Airbus A380 made its first landing in Asia on Friday, Airbus assured Asian airlines that there would be no further delays in the delivery of the superjumbo and promised compensation for losses.

The chief operating officer of Airbus, Charles Champion, who is also head of the A380 program, said there had been no problem with the Rolls-Royce engines and that the replacement had been just a precautionary measure.


Regards,
JM

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7849 times:

Quoting JetMaster (Thread starter):
The chief operating officer of Airbus, Charles Champion, who is also head of the A380 program, said there had been no problem with the Rolls-Royce engines and that the replacement had been just a precautionary measure.

Good to hear, though it still likely didn't sit well that A blamed RR for the Singapore delay if there was nothing wrong with the engines. Sounds more like poor scheduling of maintenance to me.

Can't wait to see the pics in Australia for the celebration. Should be cool.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSpruit From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 375 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7836 times:

Quoting JetMaster (Thread starter):
no further delays in the delivery of the superjumbo and promised compensation for losses

What is the first delivery date for an aircraft to SQ? And it would be interesting to find out what the compensation turns out to be!!



E=Mc2
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7822 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
Good to hear, though it still likely didn't sit well that A blamed RR for the Singapore delay if there was nothing wrong with the engines. Sounds more like poor scheduling of maintenance to me.

Can't wait to see the pics in Australia for the celebration. Should be cool.

Better to be safe than sorry and change those engines if there is even the slightest doubt. An in-flight shutdown or emergency landing would be worse press!
As it seems though, the problem is only limited to MSN001 as that has got pre-production engines as opposed to the other aircraft which have the full production standard.


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7808 times:

Nothing is ever Airbus' fault, haven't we learned that yet? I still feel Airbus rushed this thing in the air. This is why we are seeing these delays. I am still trying to fiure out how this aircraft is going to be a success. With all these delays and compensation and the fact that there aren't that many carriers that can use this thing, especially here in the US. Also I still feel this thing is going to cost a lot more to operate than everyone thinks. Not to mention it is Butt Ugly!   

[Edited 2005-11-11 17:58:09]

User currently offlineJetMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7771 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
though it still likely didn't sit well that A blamed RR for the Singapore delay if there was nothing wrong with the engines.

Didn't RR suggest the engine change?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
Sounds more like poor scheduling of maintenance to me.

Sounds not very likely.


Regards,
JM


User currently offlineSpruit From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 375 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7765 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 4):
Not to mention it is Butt Ugly!

Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder!

 Smile



E=Mc2
User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7742 times:

Nice read JM  

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 3):
As it seems though, the problem is only limited to MSN001 as that has got pre-production engines as opposed to the other aircraft which have the full production standard.

That clarifies a lot of issues... thanks for sharing. Does that mean that RR has now ensured the engines (that were replaced) on MSN001 are the same as the other aircaft thereafter?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 4):

Wow, it took a whole 4 replies until some retard turned a normal thread into another Airbus bash. We're getting better at this   

[Edited 2005-11-11 17:51:02]


Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineJetMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7707 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 4):
Nothing is ever Airbus' fault, haven't we learned that yet?

Who has been the teacher?  Wink

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 4):
I am still trying to fiure out how this aircraft is going to be a success. With all these delays and compensation and the fact that there aren't that many carriers that can use this thing, especially here in the US.

The US airlines are not really relevant for the VLA market. If Boeing had been dependant on US airlines for its B747-400 then it would have been a dramatic failure.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 4):
Also I still feel this thing is going to cost a lot more to operate than everyone thinks.

If the overweight problem is solved (as reported) then your feeling is not justified.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 4):
Not to mehntion it is Butt Ugly!

The most important aspect of all for that discussion...  Yeah sure


Regards,
JM


User currently offlineBR076 From Netherlands, joined May 2005, 1086 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7695 times:

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 7):
Wow, it took a whole 4 replies until some retard turned a normal thread into another Airbus bash. We're getting better at this

Yeah I noticed that too, let's wait till the other usual suspects show up. Wink



ú
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7650 times:

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 7):
Wow, it took a whole 4 replies until some retard turned a normal thread into another Airbus bash. We're getting better at this

You Euros are so touchy, merely stating my opinion. If this is against yours it doesn't mean it's A vs B. Grow up.

Quoting JetMaster (Reply 8):
If the overweight problem is solved (as reported) then your feeling is not justified.

Time will tell.


User currently offlineDazeflight From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 580 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7637 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 10):
Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 7):
Wow, it took a whole 4 replies until some retard turned a normal thread into another Airbus bash. We're getting better at this

You Euros are so touchy, merely stating my opinion. If this is against yours it doesn't mean it's A vs B. Grow up.

Quoting JetMaster (Reply 8):
If the overweight problem is solved (as reported) then your feeling is not justified.

Time will tell.

Have a look at your post and get over your issues first, before you claim that anyone here is touchy. Better concentrate on golfing,  butthead 


User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1987 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7598 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):

Can't wait to see the pics in Australia for the celebration

Agreed.

I wonder what was (is) really going on with the engines. Not that I think there is some big problem being covered up by Airbus... I'm just curious technically as to what the whole story is. Guess we'll never know.


User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7481 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 10):
You Euros are so touchy, merely stating my opinion. If this is against yours it doesn't mean it's A vs B. Grow up.

People in here were having a completely normal conversation discussing engines and money compensation, until you barged in and started talking about how you think the A388 is butt ugly, how airlines are not interesting in using "this thing", and how airbus has rushed the whole thing (Oh wait a moment... why are there delays? Oh right yeah I remember, they didn't want to rush things and get it right instead). I think it's clear who's being touchy here. There was absolutely no point in you pooping on an interesting thread, just because you don't like an aircraft, and making your opinion clear when it contributes nothing productive to the thread, and is clearly flamebait!



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineM27 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7456 times:

Quoting BR076 (Reply 9):
Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 7):
Wow, it took a whole 4 replies until some retard turned a normal thread into another Airbus bash. We're getting better at this

Yeah I noticed that too, let's wait till the other usual suspects show up.

Well, when you have statements like this-

Quoting JetMaster (Thread starter):
The chief operating officer of Airbus, Charles Champion, who is also head of the A380 program, said there had been no problem with the Rolls-Royce engines and that the replacement had been just a precautionary measure.

What do you expect? I mean, did they think there was something wrong with them and they couldn't determine that on wing and found out after they were removed there was no problem? I doubt that!

Or is like--I'm going to remove the tires off my truck: they have about 10,000 miles on them (about 1/4 life expectancy) and the tread is good and there is no problem I can determine whatever, but just as a precaution, I'm going to go get a new set.

You know the guy could have just said-there was some uncertainty about this or that, and we felt it best to leave no question. But no, he says there is no problem, we just did it as a precaution! I ask, why did you do it as a precaution, and why didn't you put a new rudder on it, just as a precaution?

And before I get the deal about the engines were pre production yada,yada, yada stuff, I just remind you of the word UNSCHEDULED.

Its the obvious double speak spin applied hear that bothers me! Reminds me of Ocean front property in Arizona for sale.

As for

Quoting JetMaster (Thread starter):
Airbus assured Asian airlines that there would be no further delays in the delivery of the superjumbo

to use a saying I've heard--Statements like this or the quickest way to get God to laugh.


User currently offlineAbba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1372 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7448 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
Good to hear, though it still likely didn't sit well that A blamed RR for the Singapore delay if there was nothing wrong with the engines. Sounds more like poor scheduling of maintenance to me.

The engines were changed due to RR's request. It has been widely reported.

Quoting Spruit (Reply 2):
What is the first delivery date for an aircraft to SQ? And it would be interesting to find out what the compensation turns out to be!!

Perhaps a sweet deal on the 350....

Abba


User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7388 times:

Quoting M27 (Reply 14):
I ask, why did you do it as a precaution, and why didn't you put a new rudder on it, just as a precaution?

For reasons you, me, and others would not understand. Lets let the professionals do their work, shall we?  

Quoting Abba (Reply 15):
Perhaps a sweet deal on the 350....

 yes 

[Edited 2005-11-11 19:23:13]


Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2218 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7380 times:

Quoting M27 (Reply 14):
And before I get the deal about the engines were pre production yada,yada, yada stuff, I just remind you of the word UNSCHEDULED.

So what? It's a TEST program, isn't it?

In a test program, even with production spec engines, the engines are wired up to the gills with telemetry sensors. Swapping an engine, pre-production or not, is therefore much more difficult. Things need to be wired up correctly, sensors need to be calibrated, or yadda yadda yadda as you might characterize it.


User currently offlineRalgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7301 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 4):
Not to mention it is Butt Ugly!

Isn't it though? It doesn't really matter how heavy it is, it's so ugly the earth repells it. It doesn't need to be able to fly.



09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
User currently offlineM27 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7285 times:

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 16):
For reasons you, me, and others would not understand. Lets let the professionals do their work, shall we?

Great answer! I don't plan to interfere at all!

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 17):
So what? It's a TEST program, isn't it?

In a test program, even with production spec engines, the engines are wired up to the gills with telemetry sensors. Swapping an engine, pre-production or not, is therefore much more difficult. Things need to be wired up correctly, sensors need to be calibrated, or yadda yadda yadda as you might characterize it.

All the more strange that they would do this when there is no problem!


User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7258 times:

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 7):
That clarifies a lot of issues... thanks for sharing. Does that mean that RR has now ensured the engines (that were replaced) on MSN001 are the same as the other aircaft thereafter?

Don't know what type of engines they put on, can't find that anywhere on the web. But as WingedMigrator rightly says they are instrumented to the brim, so you'll have to wire all the FTI back up too.


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7243 times:

"...Champion said the introduction of the plane was now on track. He said production would be stepped up, but new A380 customers will have to wait at least six years to take delivery..."

Is this new? I thought delivery slots were only sold-out through 2009?


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2218 posts, RR: 56
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7125 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 22):
"...Champion said the introduction of the plane was now on track. He said production would be stepped up, but new A380 customers will have to wait at least six years to take delivery..."

Is this new? I thought delivery slots were only sold-out through 2009?

See this article: Critical flight tests ahead as A380 flies in

It says, among other things:

"Airbus chief operating officer, commercial, John Leahy said that all but three production slots until 2010 had already been sold and he wished he had another 30 A380s to sell, not just three.

"We have approached airlines that have options on the A380 but they don't want to give up their slots," he said.


So after de-Leahy-ization of the statement, perhaps they're simply assuming that some options will be taken.


User currently offlineA360 From Portugal, joined Jun 2005, 434 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6957 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 22):
So after de-Leahy-ization of the statement, perhaps they're simply assuming that some options will be taken.

Those 3 delivery slots until 2010 is assuming all options will be taken.
That is because options secure delivery slots... so they cannot sell those slots.

Regards:
A360


User currently offlineCrosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2600 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6877 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A few reported facts.

• The engines installed on A380 MSN001 were a pre-production standard.

• During a flight on 28 October NSN001 suffered an unexplained EGT increase in one engine. The affected engine was not shut down, but was brought back to flight idle and the aircraft's test profile was abandoned and it landed early.

• Another engine on MSN001 had already been removed for wear and other analysis.

• Airbus and Rolls-Royce were concerned about a lengthy publicity tour away from base with a possible unresolved engine issue. Therefore the decision was made to replace the remaining 2 engines with production-standard engines.

• MSN001 was the only A380 flying with the pre-production standard engines.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
Good to hear, though it still likely didn't sit well that A blamed RR for the Singapore delay if there was nothing wrong with the engines.

They don't yet know if there was "nothing wrong" with the engines - which is why they have all been replaced with production-standard donks.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
Sounds more like poor scheduling of maintenance to me.

Sounds like you don't understand the issues involved to me.

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 3):
Better to be safe than sorry and change those engines if there is even the slightest doubt. An in-flight shutdown or emergency landing would be worse press!
As it seems though, the problem is only limited to MSN001 as that has got pre-production engines as opposed to the other aircraft which have the full production standard.

Very true!

Quoting M27 (Reply 14):
What do you expect? I mean, did they think there was something wrong with them and they couldn't determine that on wing and found out after they were removed there was no problem? I doubt that!

Or is like--I'm going to remove the tires off my truck: they have about 10,000 miles on them (about 1/4 life expectancy) and the tread is good and there is no problem I can determine whatever, but just as a precaution, I'm going to go get a new set.

You know the guy could have just said-there was some uncertainty about this or that, and we felt it best to leave no question. But no, he says there is no problem, we just did it as a precaution! I ask, why did you do it as a precaution, and why didn't you put a new rudder on it, just as a precaution?

And before I get the deal about the engines were pre production yada,yada, yada stuff, I just remind you of the word UNSCHEDULED.

The analogy of tyres for problems with a jet engine doesn't sit well with the reported facts, especially when there is a possible problem and they're about to embark on a publicity tour.

What if your tyres were only 1/4 worn but you'd got some tyres fitted that were still under development, and a new upgraded model had already been available based on that development. A few days ago the back-end lost grip while you were driving along a straight road, for no reason you can understand, so you changed the rear tyres to the new version. Tomorrow you're driving your family 400 miles to a wedding. Do you consider replacing the front tyres?

Flight Internation Article which originally carried the story.

Regards
CROSSWIND


25 Ikramerica : Absolutely. Not just bad press, but away from home base, it would cause major delays. Changing out the engines was the right choice, no argument, whi
26 Post contains images StuckInCA : Thanks for the information. Seems sensible.
27 Post contains images Toulouse : NIKV69 Thanks for your great insight and contribution to this thread. Crosswind. Thanks for your post. (And just in case, I'm being sincere here, unl
28 SparkingWave : When the first 747s were being produced, Pratt & Whitney had a lot of trouble developing its JT9D engines for the plane. They were racing to finish th
29 WingedMigrator : I stand corrected...
30 BG777300ER : Maybe I'm just being stupid but even if I was given the chance to be on the first commercial A380 flight, I wouldn't do it. I know it will go through
31 Post contains images JetMaster : That post was spot on! Really? They WERE? Source please. Your perception of reality... Reported based on facts or speculations on a.net? Ok - based o
32 Glideslope : Absolutely. This is why operators are so reluctant to order the plane. Airbus simply can no longer be relied upon for the truth. You also see this wi
33 Post contains images JetMaster : Indeed a very "simple" way of describing possible future developments... Regards, JM
34 B707Stu : Isn't it time to work on a hybrid aircraft?
35 Art : Too simple IMO
36 Abba : Glideslope seems to be a desperate man. Abba
37 MidnightMike : Airbus fade away? Airbus is much to large of a company to fade away like that, if the A380 does not perform as advertised, Airbus will throw money at
38 Korg747 : That's not enought to kill airbus, each of the A340s/330s and the A320s would have to crash one by one on a regular basis too. Airbus have proven it
39 Astuteman : Ironically, you are likely to find in about 10 years time that the A380 is a REAL cash cow for Airbus, even if they're only shifting 20 - 25 frames a
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airbus CEO: No More A380 Delays posted Fri Sep 30 2005 13:43:46 by JetMaster
?A380 Delays Effect On Engine Makers? posted Tue Oct 3 2006 20:14:33 by Mush
Newspaper Reports More A380 Delays posted Wed Sep 20 2006 16:55:08 by Mlglaw
SIA: More A380 Delays "Frustrating" But Necessary posted Thu Sep 14 2006 09:30:26 by Singapore_Air
Airbus: No More A380 Orders This Year posted Wed Oct 19 2005 14:16:02 by PanAm_DC10
Airbus-No Fullstop To Problems Yet? Co-CEO Pickle? posted Sat Jul 8 2006 05:33:22 by Halibut
Why No More A380 Pics? posted Fri Feb 4 2005 18:53:14 by A380900
Airbus Parent Eads Pounded Over A380 Delays posted Wed Oct 4 2006 18:19:59 by BoomBoom
More About A380 Delays posted Fri Sep 22 2006 15:37:20 by Katekebo
Lufthansa On A380 Delays, Confidence In Airbus.. posted Fri Sep 22 2006 09:48:58 by Keesje