BoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3444 times:
“The first 20 airplanes or so might be considered the “A” model,” this customer says.” The question will be whether anyone wants to take these models with all the wiring issues and bugs.” Instead, this person says, airlines might prefer to take an A380 three years into production, after all the bugs have been worked out. Taking an early-run airplane might invite complex maintenance issues over the wiring installations.
Another airline executive, whose company has not ordered the A380, made similar observations. In addition to the potential maintenance issues, this executive also raised the specter of what will be necessary if a leasing company re-leases an A380 that has different wiring requirements.
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7623 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3402 times:
This is no different from getting the 1st 20 A320s, the 1st 20 737s, the 1st 20 777s, etc. Perhaps we should talk to BA and see what they thought about their GE powered 777s and their "performance" compared to the RR powered 777s.
BoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3191 times:
Quoting EbbUK (Reply 6): I love the way the leeham report talks of "one executive said" and "another customer said"
Sometimes the only way to get a source to talk is by promising not to name them. Reuters does it too:
"They have been under pressure to complete the first planes. There were a lot of changes and if you don't have a good system to track those changes, you get problems. You end up fixing things with elastic bands and paper clips," the source said.
Osiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3237 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 3051 times:
Quoting EbbUK (Reply 6): Smart move by SQ taking 9 of their options up, I can't imagine the deal they've got. Great way to fly and great way to do business.
Yes, here I agree with you. (surprise, surprise). SQ is taking 380s regardless, so why not add more for next to nothing (in relative terms), maintain fleet commonality, etc. Plus those 9 are tied to 350XWBs which they probably got at rock bottom 'crazy eddy' prices as well.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
Milesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2050 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2610 times:
When someone starts mentioning wiring problems in the first 20 airplanes, I start thinking of L-049 Constellations, or the Swissair MD-11.
The 747 almost busted Boeing. The A-380 may do the same to Airbus. And even though they have sold a number of copies, the market for more orders is not there. Look at how many routes were once flown with 747's and are now flown by much smaller airplanes.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6576 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2587 times:
Quoting David_itl (Reply 2): This is no different from getting the 1st 20 A320s, the 1st 20 737s, the 1st 20 777s, etc. Perhaps we should talk to BA and see what they thought about their GE powered 777s and their "performance" compared to the RR powered 777s.
I dunno, the first few A340-600s were real lemons. Just ask Cathay Pacific.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt