Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA's G-VIIW (777) Grounded At TLV  
User currently offlineEl Al 001 From Israel, joined Oct 1999, 1063 posts, RR: 2
Posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 12737 times:

There's a 777-236 in front of the main LY hangar in TLV.

Suffered from major mechanical problem before a flight to LHR last Tuesday which made it being grounded for 5 days now.

Currently there are BA's technicians working on it as it has GE90 engines and LY knows only Trents....

Anyone with more info?

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSwiftski From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 2701 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 12649 times:

No idea I'm afraid.

*Turns on joke mode*

Maybe it's in exchange for the LY one at LHR


User currently offlineSwiftski From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 2701 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 12476 times:

Done some digging.

G-VIIX operated Tuesday (18th) daily 777 flight; BA165 LHR-TLV.

G-VIIX then returned without incident on BA164 TLV-LHR, also Tuesday 18th.

She then went on to operate BA157 the next day (19th) LHR-KWI.

G-VIIW (aircraft in question) operated BA165 LHR-TLV on Monday 17th.

AFAIK there was no BA164 back to LHR due to the aircraft going tech.

On Sept 19th there were no additional BA flights TLV-LHR

G-YMML operated BA164 and BA165 (772)

G-BNWD operated BA163 and BA162 (762).

Hope this helps.


User currently offlineEl Al 001 From Israel, joined Oct 1999, 1063 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 12403 times:

Lol  Smile Thanx...

LY managed doing it in 3 days...

There were no flights from FRI morning to SAT eve. in TLV because it was Yom Kippur (That is the only day each year when the airport is closed for 32 hours...)

Engine no. 1 is now surrounded by scaffolding and the casing of the engine are missing (On the ground)


User currently offlineSwiftski From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 2701 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 12334 times:

Quoting El Al 001 (Reply 3):
There were no flights from FRI morning to SAT eve. in TLV because it was Yom Kippur (That is the only day each year when the airport is closed for 32 hours...)

I assume this will also have halted the repair process.


User currently offlineTheginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 12249 times:

I think they have been waiting for the engine manufacturer to get a spare engine over to TLV

User currently offlineWAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11952 times:

Quoting Swiftski (Reply 2):
G-YMML operated BA164 and BA165 (772)

G-BNWD operated BA163 and BA162 (762).

Hope this helps.

G-BNWD is a B763ER.

It is exactly for reasons such as this that BA did not stick with GE after they were more or less forced to take them on the first batch of B772s. They're good engines but they are not in the same league as Rolls Royce Trents.



I AM the No-spotalotacus.
User currently offlineSwiftski From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 2701 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11904 times:

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 6):
G-BNWD is a B763ER.

Correct.

I copy pasted the second line, just changed the details. I made an error on the 762; sorry about that.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8966 times:

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 6):
It is exactly for reasons such as this that BA did not stick with GE after they were more or less forced to take them on the first batch of B772s. They're good engines but they are not in the same league as Rolls Royce Trents.

Utter rubbish...while I prefer RR's over GE, the GE's have more than proven their capabilities/engine reliabilities...including the older GE's....

if you have some data to corroborate you points then show them...otherwise your comments are about as worthless as they get....



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8779 times:

This raises the question of who does CO's maintenance in TLV. It seems a little hard to imagine that BA would have to go to such lengths to do an engine change. Has CO ever had to do an engine change in TLV and are there in any better shape should something like this occur?

User currently offlineHovitzer From Israel, joined Jul 2005, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8583 times:

Unfortunattly, Due working in the cargo office, I don't have complete answers regarding handling with the frustrating pax. In other cases of cancelled flights most of the pax got on alternative flights (LY, LH, LX, 5U, IZ), others on the next scehduled flight and all the rest in hotels.

User currently offlineTheginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8403 times:

It is not as simple as sending a 747-400 down to TLV to pick up the pax. First of all one has to be available for a day and a half as the flight crew for that would not be in TLV so would have to take rest in TLV before coming back. I expect the best option was to disperse people on other carriers. Happens if one of BA's other aircraft goes tech downroute and there is not a spare to send down there.

With regards to it taking a long time to do an engine change it often takes this sort of time if a similar thing happens at a remote african airfield. At a lot of these airfields there are no hangers so the change has to take place outside, also there can be no suitable lifting equipment so the engine has to be hoisted up and down from the pylons.


User currently offlineHovitzer From Israel, joined Jul 2005, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7822 times:

Quoting Theginge (Reply 17):
With regards to it taking a long time to do an engine change it often takes this sort of time if a similar thing happens at a remote african airfield. At a lot of these airfields there are no hangers so the change has to take place outside, also there can be no suitable lifting equipment so the engine has to be hoisted up and down from the pylons.

After talking to one of the English engeenirs down the aircraft today it came clear to me that the only thing that delays the replacement is the fact that LY is not using GE-90's and therefore there are no spare parts availble.
Nothing to with african airfields or so.


User currently offlineBAW076 From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2006, 750 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7737 times:

I hope she (G-VIIW) is ok.. She flew me to New York last September! I'm rather fond of her!!


N754AN (x2), G-CPEL, G-MIDE, G-BPEC, G-BZHC, EI-DCH, LN-KKN, G-VIIW, G-BNLT, G-DBCA, G-MEDE, G-DBCE, G-MIDP.
User currently offlineEWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5523 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7702 times:

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 15):
Has CO ever had to do an engine change in TLV

Not yet (knock wood).



You can't cure stupid
User currently offlineTheginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7612 times:

Quoting Hovitzer (Reply 18):
After talking to one of the English engeenirs down the aircraft today it came clear to me that the only thing that delays the replacement is the fact that LY is not using GE-90's and therefore there are no spare parts availble.
Nothing to with african airfields or so.

Didn't say it was to do with African airfields, just using it to illustrate a point of some engine changes being far from simple jobs.


User currently offlineWAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7239 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 11):
Utter rubbish...while I prefer RR's over GE, the GE's have more than proven their capabilities/engine reliabilities...including the older GE's....

if you have some data to corroborate you points then show them...otherwise your comments are about as worthless as they get....

BA decided not to operate any more GE90s for a reason. Trent actually has higher fuel burn than the equivalent GE-90 due to the triple spool design but the teething problems with the original GE90s were enough to ensure that no more were ordered. Here we have a case in point, a brand new GE90 suffering a catastrophic failure requiring complete replacement. I can say with 100% confidence that this has never happened on a BA B772 fitted with RR Trents. For BA at least, the Trent is infinitely more reliable than the GE90 even if it is slightly thirstier on the longer missions.

[Edited 2007-09-24 01:22:23]


I AM the No-spotalotacus.
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4938 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7057 times:

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 22):
Here we have a case in point, a brand new GE90 suffering a catastrophic failure requiring complete replacement. I can say with 100% confidence that this has never happened on a BA B772 fitted with RR Trents. F

Presumably a brand new overhaul. Statistically it is a very long shot but I am sure it is within the realm of possibility.
How do you explain NZ who operates 16 Trents having to remove two within less than one year of service. These were new engines.
I laud your patriotism but engines are devices subject to a all sorts of mechanical issues. I firmly believe no engine manufacturer has a lock on absolute zero removals from the wing within 5000hours.


User currently offlineAA87 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 140 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6705 times:

This is one of those rare threads touching on Israel that doesn't veer off into politics and other assorted irrelevancies. So take this question in the facetious manner intended: how did BA get away with buying GE to start with, and how did El Al get away with NOT buying GE ?? maybe there's hope for free trade and free markets after all ...

User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6696 times:

BA seems to have had numerous 777 GE problems over their operational lives with the carrier. Do I recall one being scrapped recently?

User currently offlineBAW076 From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2006, 750 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6451 times:

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 25):
BA seems to have had numerous 777 GE problems over their operational lives with the carrier. Do I recall one being scrapped recently?

The only one that has been scrapped that has flown with BA was G-ZZZE. This aircraft was a non-ER 772 with GE90 powerplants.

It's history:

12/01/1996 British Airways G-ZZZE
22/07/2002 Boeing N703BA
13/01/2003 Khalifa Airways 7T-VKQ Stored at Frankfurt 16/02/03
01/03/2004 Varig PP-VRD Stored at MZJ 04/2006 - rereg N703BA 08/2006 - Flown to ARG 12/2006 for part-out and scrapping

I think this is the one you were thinking of.

Chris  wave 



N754AN (x2), G-CPEL, G-MIDE, G-BPEC, G-BZHC, EI-DCH, LN-KKN, G-VIIW, G-BNLT, G-DBCA, G-MEDE, G-DBCE, G-MIDP.
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6319 times:

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 22):
but the teething problems with the original GE90s were enough to ensure that no more were ordered.



Quoting WAH64D (Reply 22):
For BA at least, the Trent is infinitely more reliable than the GE90 even if it is slightly thirstier on the longer missions.



Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 23):
I laud your patriotism but engines are devices subject to a all sorts of mechanical issues. I firmly believe no engine manufacturer has a lock on absolute zero removals from the wing within 5000hours.

 checkmark ...correlation doesn't mean causality....the GE's have been shown to be just as reliable as the Trents.......the fact BA has had a few problems doesn't mean too much in terms of comparing both engine manufacturers...



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineBingo From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 359 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5559 times:

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 22):
Here we have a case in point, a brand new GE90 suffering a catastrophic failure requiring complete replacement.

I think youre using the term catastrophic a little too liberally. You better watch out or you might find yourself working on CNN as an "Airline Expert" before too long! Big grin

There was no uncontained explosion, no hull breach, nothing to signify even a remote chance for a loss of life. If anything, the engine performed as it was supposed to. It spooled up, called in sick and promptly/safely shutdown. The fact that no parts were onsite and the low cycle count on this build were probably cause enough for them to pull the engine, not a "catastrophic failure". For all we know a piece of FOD got sucked up only to make fireworks out of one of the compressors.

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 23):
I laud your patriotism but engines are devices subject to a all sorts of mechanical issues

 thumbsup  I think his love of the Trents is very warming but you cant let love cloud your judgement...


User currently offlineWAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4371 times:

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 23):

Presumably a brand new overhaul. Statistically it is a very long shot but I am sure it is within the realm of possibility.
How do you explain NZ who operates 16 Trents having to remove two within less than one year of service. These were new engines.
I laud your patriotism but engines are devices subject to a all sorts of mechanical issues. I firmly believe no engine manufacturer has a lock on absolute zero removals from the wing within 5000hours.

Of course you are correct. One cycle and not even a very long one at that is not exactly good news though. My bet would be FOD. Failing that its poor quality control on GE's part. BA has either been unlucky with their GE90s or very lucky with the Trent 800s as there is a definite gap in reliability and mx time on both engines with Trent being the clear winner.

Quoting Bingo (Reply 28):
The fact that no parts were onsite and the low cycle count on this build were probably cause enough for them to pull the engine, not a "catastrophic failure". For all we know a piece of FOD got sucked up only to make fireworks out of one of the compressors.

FOD is a strong possibility. An engine event requiring complete shutdown even if contained can be termed as a Catastrophic failure. In the airline business it has a very different meaning than CNNs take. However, you must watch a fair bit of CNN as you seem to know their mindset. I personally wouldn't watch such drivel. Big grin



I AM the No-spotalotacus.
User currently offlineJetlife2 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 221 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4133 times:

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 22):
BA decided not to operate any more GE90s for a reason. Trent actually has higher fuel burn than the equivalent GE-90 due to the triple spool design but the teething problems with the original GE90s were enough to ensure that no more were ordered. Here we have a case in point, a brand new GE90 suffering a catastrophic failure requiring complete replacement. I can say with 100% confidence that this has never happened on a BA B772 fitted with RR Trents. For BA at least, the Trent is infinitely more reliable than the GE90 even if it is slightly thirstier on the longer missions.

Sorry but you are misinformed in several respects. Boeing data shows both engines have very good reliability, statistically the better of the two is the GE90, but both are good. BA propulsion engineering leadership is extremely satisfied with GE90 reliability. I would quote their words directly but that is not for this forum. The engine was not brand new and could not be since there have not been any deliveries for some time; the failure was not catastrophic; etc. etc. You are correct about the relative fuel burn though.


25 Post contains images BAW076 : For those who are interested, G-VIIW is now back in regular service. Arrived back at LHR last night from TLV, Flight number BA9157E, and flew back out
26 RJpieces : Did the crew that was originally supposed to fly it to LHR remain in TLV for a few days, or did they ferry in another crew to take her back to LHR?
27 Post contains images LXA340 : That would've been a nice holiday I would assume they were operating the next scheduled flight with the B772 back to LHR,so instead of 24 hours layov
28 Amirs : I dont think you can ferry a crew, you can ferry an a/c or deadhead a crew.
29 TristarSteve : It may not have been brand new, but had accumualted just ONE flight since overhaul by GE, the oubound sector to TLV was its first since shop visit. T
30 YULWinterSkies : bad luck for BA since they usually fly RR powered aircraft!
31 OzTech : Who needs data... If you are a mechanic and have worked on both GE and RR then the data speaks for itself... Everything you do on a GE takes "at leas
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...
Why No Pics Of DL 777 At TLV Yet? posted Tue May 2 2006 06:42:35 by Jumbojet
BA To Put 777 Back On TLV posted Mon Sep 26 2005 12:01:16 by TLVFred
Thank You BA--777 Back At DTW... posted Sun Oct 26 2003 23:47:28 by ElectraBob
BA Resuming 777 At Dtw? posted Sat Mar 9 2002 03:52:35 by HlywdCatft
What's A BA 777 Doing At Cdg? posted Sun Dec 30 2001 19:10:11 by Arsenal@LHR
BA 777 Fire At DEN Cause Found posted Fri Sep 7 2001 00:09:52 by BA
Another "almost" Incident At TLV posted Fri Aug 24 2007 00:02:40 by Maxsa
BA Probes Jets Collision At Airport posted Tue Jul 31 2007 11:29:13 by Musapapaya
BA Ground Staff Strike At MAD & BCN posted Mon Jun 25 2007 08:40:40 by UPPERDECKFAN
Delta 777 Crews At JFK posted Mon Jun 18 2007 06:03:23 by RJpieces