Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13606 posts, RR: 25 Posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6896 times:
Hopefully the topic isn't too misleading towards the end.
The illustrious and wonderful Stephen Forshaw, Vice President of Public Affairs at Singapore Airlines Limited, has declared that:
Any hiccup in the A380 program is frustrating but "we are not taking delivery of a substandard aircraft," he said.
"We probably don't have a lot of choice" if there is another delay, he added.
SIA's rhetoric doesn't appear as tough as its comments in June when it said it may seek compensation after Airbus said deliveries of the double-decker A380.
Forshaw said Airbus's past difficulties with the A380 have been production problems rather than technical problems with the aircraft.
OA412 From United States, joined Dec 2000, 2141 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6859 times:
Quoting Singapore_Air (Thread starter): The illustrious and wonderful Stephen Forshaw, Vice President of Public Affairs at Singapore Airlines Limited, has declared that:
Seriously, is that kind of wording really necessary?
NYC777 From United States, joined Jun 2004, 4295 posts, RR: 46 Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5997 times:
What else can SIA do? Even though Airbus is going to pay them (yet again) they're locked into it. But notice that the A350 and A380 orders at Farnborough were just LoIs not firm orders. Me thinks that SQ can really make them pay dearly for it or else cancel those LoI out right.
What is really being said here? Is the A380 not meeting some specifications SIA wanted hence being substandard?
It sounds like Airbus has alot of very unhappy customers at the moment.
Justloveplanes From United States, joined Jul 2004, 472 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5866 times:
It's probably still the wiring issue - and SIA won't take their first plane with incomplete wiring.
It could be possible that there is a wiring DESIGN problem (interferance, signal degradation, etc.), and hence Airbus' difficulty in getting a handle on this. It's not looking like an increased manpower solution will work anymore. If it was, then the envisioned fixes should be at least in place for SIA's first 380 given all the resources being put on it.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 61 Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5581 times:
Airbus better get its check book out again......two expressions come to mind:
1. The third try is a charm, and things will normalize on the A380 program after this lastest delay.
OR
2. Three strikes and your out! Airbus is going to face a major credibility problem.
---------
With SQ being so vocal cocnerning the A380 and its development problems, I still cannot believe that they signed up with Airbus to be a launch customer for the A350XWB......does SQ really want to go through all of this again in about 5 years?
DAYflyer From United States, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5429 times:
Quoting NYC777 (Reply 4): What else can SIA do? Even though Airbus is going to pay them (yet again) they're locked into it. But notice that the A350 and A380 orders at Farnborough were just LoIs not firm orders. Me thinks that SQ can really make them pay dearly for it or else cancel those LoI out right
I agree with this. They will make them pay dearly but thats about all they can do about it.
Unles off course there is another major delay of more than 6 months.
If ran an airline I would have cancelled the order and gone with the proven platform, the 747.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10187 posts, RR: 71 Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4704 times:
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 9): With SQ being so vocal cocnerning the A380 and its development problems, I still cannot believe that they signed up with Airbus to be a launch customer for the A350XWB......does SQ really want to go through all of this again in about 5 years?
We'll have to wait and see whether or not SQ firm up the A350 LoI into an order.
Quoting Xfeed (Reply 11): does AIRBUS really want to go through all of this again in about 5 years?
Xfeed From Portugal, joined Sep 2006, 8 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4370 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 12): Airbus have no one to blame but themselves.
Of course Airbus can only blame on themselves. I fully agree with that and said nothing against it.
My point is that Airbus is as much interested in having the same delays on the A350XWB as SQ or any other buyer. Both the building company and the airline loose huge amounts of money. That's why I believe Airbus will be more careful next time and anyone should talk like if it was certain to happen again.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10187 posts, RR: 71 Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4180 times:
Xfeed, I misunderstood your earlier point. Sorry.
Yes, I like the A350 and I hope that Airbus don't make any more missteps with it. If Airbus get the A350 right, then the B777 is dead and the B787 will have competition.
Lightsaber From United States, joined Jan 2005, 5138 posts, RR: 86 Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2986 times:
Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 6):
It could be possible that there is a wiring DESIGN problem (interferance, signal degradation, etc.)
This could be a serious concern. Hopefully, they just lost track of what batch of wire went into the plane and had to rewire for certification. But if its a DESIGN issue... Oh boy. Ok, rewiring a connector is trivial (for certification and delivery purposes) if for example the in signal went to the "out" port.
As to the "substandard" comment, its pretty simple. The customer bought the plane to a specification. If its not meeting the specification, than they'll be angry and call it what they want. For all I know, they found a lighter wire.
Seriously, I want to see the A380 delivered and soon. Of course, a safe certified airframe. Bless it, I want to head to the LAX In-and-out for a burger and sightseeing of the big plane.
But customers hate delays. They really hate 2nd delays. 3rd delays... oh, let's not go there.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15992 posts, RR: 64 Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2926 times:
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 9): With SQ being so vocal cocnerning the A380 and its development problems, I still cannot believe that they signed up with Airbus to be a launch customer for the A350XWB......does SQ really want to go through all of this again in about 5 years?
Perhaps the dual LoIs for the 787 and A350 are "mutual insurance". If Boeing delivers the 787 "on time and on target" and offers a 787-10 sufficient to cover the 772ER mission profiles, SQ can then cut Airbus loose.
If Boeing totally drops the ball on the 787 and EIS is pushed back or the plane doesn't meet the specs agreed to, then SQ has the ability to take A350's on early delivery.
Either way, SQ needs the A330s to be a bridge for the 772ERs that are being replaced, since Boeing/lessors seem to be unwilling to discount deep enough to keep SQ operating the type and the 767 isn't available due to low production volumes and long delivery times.
And I imagine SQ has zero-penalty "escape clauses" with both LoIs and will have them written into sales contracts if and when they confirm either or both into firm sales contracts.
Texfly101 From United States, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2481 times:
Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 6): t could be possible that there is a wiring DESIGN problem (interferance, signal degradation, etc.), and hence Airbus' difficulty in getting a handle on this
People should maybe think in the area of control system interference. Notice that the first flight aircraft aren't having any significant flight problems to write home about. Its the production aircraft that are being held up and no announcemnet on the full nature of the problem nor any proposed fix. They're the ones with the wiring in place, control systems, entertainment, environmental, etc. All wiring has seperation requirements between non control system wiring and control system system wiring. Get too close and you get transients that you really don't want. And they come as a truly nasty surprise. Tracking them down is a bitch. Re-designing them even harder with no guarantees that they will work, just lots of hard work, test and re-test, and sleepless nites. Anyway, that was from some interesting comments I've heard, just between the lines grist for the mill.
UAL747 From United States, joined Dec 1999, 6527 posts, RR: 36 Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2281 times:
Stupid question, but at the initial order, when was the first A380 supposed to be delivered to Singapore Airlines and when was it supposed to be in service?
Translation: "We will not go through another A343 experience"
Seriously...SIA cannot except an a/c with wiring issues...or any sort of issues that delay service entry of an airliner - no airline can. No mystery there.
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
Alaskaqantas From New Zealand, joined Dec 2005, 854 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2098 times:
Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 6): It's probably still the wiring issue - and SIA won't take their first plane with incomplete wiring.
It could be possible that there is a wiring DESIGN problem (interferance, signal degradation, etc.),
I remember watching a movie on the putting togeather of the A380 with John Travolta as the narrator and stuff. At one point the wire was only just a little bit short for the Camera that was set up in the tail of the plane, so I guess they went back in and put in a brand new wire.
Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 10): If ran an airline I would have cancelled the order and gone with the proven platform, the 747.
agreed, but that being said I still can't wait to fly the A380... or the 747-8, if a passengar airline buys into it!
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 18): Stupid question, but at the initial order, when was the first A380 supposed to be delivered to Singapore Airlines and when was it supposed to be in service?
not stupid at all, I was wondering myself.
I hope that this gets fixed so that they can atleast have the first flight this year!!!
~Cheers-
~~Kyle H.
to some people the sky is the limit, to aviation enthusiasts, its home!
Dank From United States, joined Jul 2006, 793 posts, RR: 25 Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1952 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14): Yes, I like the A350 and I hope that Airbus don't make any more missteps with it. If Airbus get the A350 right, then the B777 is dead and the B787 will have competition.
I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised with the move that Airbus made with the newest 350. Now time will tell if they can do it. But if they come within a couple of % of what they promised, it really does spell the end of the 777 and puts pressure on the 787 (a good thing, even for Boeing in the long run). Now it is a big if. But hopefully, the 380 has taught airbus a few good lessons.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 16): Perhaps the dual LoIs for the 787 and A350 are "mutual insurance". If Boeing delivers the 787 "on time and on target" and offers a 787-10 sufficient to cover the 772ER mission profiles, SQ can then cut Airbus loose.
If Boeing totally drops the ball on the 787 and EIS is pushed back or the plane doesn't meet the specs agreed to, then SQ has the ability to take A350's on early delivery.
Either way, SQ needs the A330s to be a bridge for the 772ERs that are being replaced, since Boeing/lessors seem to be unwilling to discount deep enough to keep SQ operating the type and the 767 isn't available due to low production volumes and long delivery times.
And I imagine SQ has zero-penalty "escape clauses" with both LoIs and will have them written into sales contracts if and when they confirm either or both into firm sales contracts.
Your hypothesis is intriuging. Except, that one assumes if they don't firm up the 350s, the 330s aren't in the game. Then what do they do about the 772s? It isn't really in SQs habit to keep them as long as it would take to get the -10s.
Of course, we could flip this around and say that maybe SQ gets an even better deal with the 380 delays and goes for the 358 instead of the the 788...
Not saying either is particularly likely. But either is possible (or neither!).
I'm really intrigued to see what happens with the -10. Hopefully the SQ 359 order woke them up over at Boeing.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15992 posts, RR: 64 Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1919 times:
Quoting Dank (Reply 21): Your hypothesis is intriuging. Except, that one assumes if they don't firm up the 350s, the 330s aren't in the game. Then what do they do about the 772s? It isn't really in SQs habit to keep them as long as it would take to get the -10s.
Whether SQ goes with the 787 around ~2009 or the A350 around ~2012, they need to replace some of their 772ERs which will leave the fleet starting in 2007. Therefore, their status possibly rests on whatever conditions Airbus set on the A330 deal.
I know some folks believe Airbus figuratively (if not literally) "gave them away" to SQ in exchange for the A350 order, but perhaps they're tied to the A380 add-on and consummating or rejecting the A350 deal has no influence over their disposition...
Dank From United States, joined Jul 2006, 793 posts, RR: 25 Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1729 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 22): Quoting Dank (Reply 21):Your hypothesis is intriuging. Except, that one assumes if they don't firm up the 350s, the 330s aren't in the game. Then what do they do about the 772s? It isn't really in SQs habit to keep them as long as it would take to get the -10s.
Whether SQ goes with the 787 around ~2009 or the A350 around ~2012, they need to replace some of their 772ERs which will leave the fleet starting in 2007. Therefore, their status possibly rests on whatever conditions Airbus set on the A330 deal.
I know some folks believe Airbus figuratively (if not literally) "gave them away" to SQ in exchange for the A350 order, but perhaps they're tied to the A380 add-on and consummating or rejecting the A350 deal has no influence over their disposition...
SQ no doubt got a very sweet deal (but I am among those who don't believe that they will be at a loss unless airbus somehow can't sell them at the end of the lease). But, I believe that all three orders (330s, 350s, and new 380s) are all tied together (the 380s are also part of an LOI and weren't firmed as far as I know, at least not according to the airbus press release). And my guess is that they are all tied to the penalty payments. So, my guess is that they bail on one part, then the other parts get renegotiated. But I could be wrong.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13606 posts, RR: 25 Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1533 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 16): Perhaps the dual LoIs for the 787 and A350 are "mutual insurance".
I have to disagree here. If that is the case, SIA has no aircraft and they are desperately short now it seems as it is with regards to the B747s. The B777s are reaching an 'unacceptable' age by around 2010ish.
01 OCTOBER 2009: This user has retired from aviation to the status of lurker. Thanks Airliners.net for some great times
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10187 posts, RR: 71 Reply 25, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1240 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 18): Stupid question, but at the initial order, when was the first A380 supposed to be delivered to Singapore Airlines and when was it supposed to be in service?
Delivery in March 2006 and EIS in April. The first delay pushed that back to delivery in April. The second delay (announced June 2005) pushed that back to delivery in November. The third delay (announced June 2006) pushed that back to December and later slots back six to seven months.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 22): Whether SQ goes with the 787 around ~2009 or the A350 around ~2012, they need to replace some of their 772ERs which will leave the fleet starting in 2007.
No, SQ's B777s will probably starting leaving the fleet in 2009, perhaps 2010.
Quoting Dank (Reply 21): one assumes if they don't firm up the 350s, the 330s aren't in the game. Then what do they do about the 772s? It isn't really in SQs habit to keep them as long as it would take to get the -10s.
If SQ were to not firm up the LoI for the A350s, they would probably get some interim lift in the form of B777s -- or they might still insist on the interim A330s as compensation for the WhaleJet delays.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13606 posts, 
From United States, joined Dec 2000, 2141 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 204 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10187 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Sep 2006, 8 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Dec 2005, 854 posts, 
agreed, but that being said I still can't wait to fly the A380... or the 747-8, if a passengar airline buys into it!
Printer friendly format 
