How a blown engine won Airbus a $3.5 billion deal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How a blown engine won Airbus a $3.5 billion deal
Last November, a Rolls-Royce Trent engine explosion on a Qantas A380 superjumbo sent tremors through the aviation industry. Eight years earlier a blowout on a similar engine virtually handed John Leahy a $3.5 billion deal.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That Pic
That pic has been air brushed, the A-380 is not that good looking.
Anyways we have a better option..as long as the engines are EAs we will be just fine.
Some competition for the A380 | Reuters
Sleep well!
Anyways we have a better option..as long as the engines are EAs we will be just fine.
Some competition for the A380 | Reuters
Sleep well!
Bottom line in the news quoted is that the 777 has outsold the 340 six to one. The 340 line is effectively closed with no new orders and the last one going to the State of Kuwait.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DERG
Thought you may find this interesting:
Rolls-Royce on Thursday quantified the initial cost of dealing with an engine failure that caused a Qantas flight to make an emergency landing last year.
The group announced a £56m dent in full-year profits as the cost of rectifying all the problems on the faulty engine.
Sir John Rose spoke publicly for the first time about the problems with its Trent 900 engine used on the Airbus A380, parts of which exploded last November on a Qantas flight from Singapore to Sydney.
The company said that such “uncontained” engine failures occur roughly once a year in the global civil aviation sector. Rolls-Royce last suffered such an engine fault in 1994.
Now, either news travels slowly to the top of the organization, or there are multiple definitions to the words "uncontained failures".
AO-2010-066
On 30 August 2010 at approximately 2330 Pacific Daylight Time, a Boeing 747-438 aircraft, registered VH-OJP, departed San Francisco International Airport on a scheduled passenger service to Sydney, Australia. As the aircraft passed through 25,000 ft, the aircraft's number-4 engine sustained an internal mechanical failure, resulting in the energetic release of debris and puncturing of the engine casing and nacelle. The engine was shut down and the flight crew returned the aircraft to San Francisco, where it landed without further incident.
The investigation is continuing.
FAA Airworthiness Directive
During 2004, an incident was reported involving uncontained multiple intermediate-pressure (IP) turbine blade release on a Trent 700 engine. The blade release was the result of an overspeed of the IP turbine rotor that was initiated by an internal fire in the high-pressure/intermediate-pressure (HP/IP) bearing chamber. Post-incident analysis and investigation has established that blockage of the HP/IP turbine bearing oil vent tube due to carbon deposits was a significant factor in the failure sequence. The Trent 800 has a similar type design standard to that of the Trent 700 and has also been found in service to be susceptible to carbon deposits in the oil vent tube.
Thought you may find this interesting:
Rolls-Royce on Thursday quantified the initial cost of dealing with an engine failure that caused a Qantas flight to make an emergency landing last year.
The group announced a £56m dent in full-year profits as the cost of rectifying all the problems on the faulty engine.
Sir John Rose spoke publicly for the first time about the problems with its Trent 900 engine used on the Airbus A380, parts of which exploded last November on a Qantas flight from Singapore to Sydney.
The company said that such “uncontained” engine failures occur roughly once a year in the global civil aviation sector. Rolls-Royce last suffered such an engine fault in 1994.
Now, either news travels slowly to the top of the organization, or there are multiple definitions to the words "uncontained failures".
AO-2010-066
On 30 August 2010 at approximately 2330 Pacific Daylight Time, a Boeing 747-438 aircraft, registered VH-OJP, departed San Francisco International Airport on a scheduled passenger service to Sydney, Australia. As the aircraft passed through 25,000 ft, the aircraft's number-4 engine sustained an internal mechanical failure, resulting in the energetic release of debris and puncturing of the engine casing and nacelle. The engine was shut down and the flight crew returned the aircraft to San Francisco, where it landed without further incident.
The investigation is continuing.
FAA Airworthiness Directive
During 2004, an incident was reported involving uncontained multiple intermediate-pressure (IP) turbine blade release on a Trent 700 engine. The blade release was the result of an overspeed of the IP turbine rotor that was initiated by an internal fire in the high-pressure/intermediate-pressure (HP/IP) bearing chamber. Post-incident analysis and investigation has established that blockage of the HP/IP turbine bearing oil vent tube due to carbon deposits was a significant factor in the failure sequence. The Trent 800 has a similar type design standard to that of the Trent 700 and has also been found in service to be susceptible to carbon deposits in the oil vent tube.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DERG, I will 'follow you around' on this one. If you can't immediately see the difference between an A340 and an A380 then ........... 
And what's this 'Anyways'?
And what's this 'Anyways'?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@oceancrosser
While there aren't any more A340s in the pipeline, the line is NOT closed, because it is also the A330 line - the two types have always been complementary and until the ETOPS criteria were relaxed, the 4-engined solution was essential for long sectors overwater or above sparsely-inhabited areas. How Boeing got the rules relaxed was at one time a source of comment and questions, but in any case the combined A330/A340 approach, with a near-common wing has proved its worth, with an incidental benefit in the KC version of the A330.
ADD: For whoever mentioned non-aviation gas turbines, RR has for years supplied industrial and marine gas turbines, from the Avon onwards and including the Spey and RB211. ISTR that the lighter Avon beat heavy "standard" industrial turbines from the US for Phase 2 of a massive pipeline from Siberia to Western Europe over 30 years ago, for example.
ADD: For whoever mentioned non-aviation gas turbines, RR has for years supplied industrial and marine gas turbines, from the Avon onwards and including the Spey and RB211. ISTR that the lighter Avon beat heavy "standard" industrial turbines from the US for Phase 2 of a massive pipeline from Siberia to Western Europe over 30 years ago, for example.
Last edited by Jig Peter; 12th Feb 2011 at 16:22. Reason: Addendum
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing's 767 & 747
DERG
SOURCE:Air Transport Intelligence news
Boeing's venerable 767 has become only the second widebody aircraft to cross the 1,000th delivery mark.
The 91st 767-300ER for Japan's All Nippon Airways, powered by twin General Electric CF6-80C2 engines and registered JA622A, was unveiled during a 2 February ceremony at Boeing's final assembly plant in Everett, Washington.
"As we salute the 1,000th 767, the next 767 is already being built in a new bay where we can produce airplanes much more efficiently for years to come. We hope many of the new 767s will become U.S. Air Force tankers built right here," says Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh.
After an output of 1,000 airframes, the 767 production line has transitioned from its original home inside the 40-24 building to 40-33, a rear-facing bay that required modifications to the factory, such as a new door and a removal of a corner from the world's largest building by volume to accommodate transit to the flight line.
The goal is to shrink the aircraft's factory footprint by half, instituting lean manufacturing practices to cut Boeing's recurring cost to build each aircraft.
In place of the original 767 line, Boeing will establish a second "surge" final assembly line for its 787, which is expected to be operational by early 2012.
The move to a lean two-position assembly line is aimed at making Boeing's tanker proposal more affordable, a key measurement in the KC-X competition.
Boeing plans to submit a final bid for the KC-X contract on 11 February.
The only other widebody jetliner to see 1,000 deliveries is the Boeing 747, which has seen more than 1,430 built since 1968. The 1,000th 747, a -400 model, was delivered to Singapore Airlines in October 1993.
When it entered service with United Airlines in September 1982, the 767-200 featured a two-person flight deck, offering airlines a significant cost savings over the three-crew Boeing 707, which it replaced.
The type also holds the title of being the first to receive 180min extended twin-engine operations (ETOPS) certification from the US Federal Aviation Administration, pushing commercial aviation past rules initially developed for piston aircraft and opened more efficient routing for over water operations.
In the company's near-100-year history, the 767-300ER also holds the distinction of being the most profitable Boeing airliner.
Turbine D
SOURCE:Air Transport Intelligence news
Boeing's venerable 767 has become only the second widebody aircraft to cross the 1,000th delivery mark.
The 91st 767-300ER for Japan's All Nippon Airways, powered by twin General Electric CF6-80C2 engines and registered JA622A, was unveiled during a 2 February ceremony at Boeing's final assembly plant in Everett, Washington.
"As we salute the 1,000th 767, the next 767 is already being built in a new bay where we can produce airplanes much more efficiently for years to come. We hope many of the new 767s will become U.S. Air Force tankers built right here," says Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh.
After an output of 1,000 airframes, the 767 production line has transitioned from its original home inside the 40-24 building to 40-33, a rear-facing bay that required modifications to the factory, such as a new door and a removal of a corner from the world's largest building by volume to accommodate transit to the flight line.
The goal is to shrink the aircraft's factory footprint by half, instituting lean manufacturing practices to cut Boeing's recurring cost to build each aircraft.
In place of the original 767 line, Boeing will establish a second "surge" final assembly line for its 787, which is expected to be operational by early 2012.
The move to a lean two-position assembly line is aimed at making Boeing's tanker proposal more affordable, a key measurement in the KC-X competition.
Boeing plans to submit a final bid for the KC-X contract on 11 February.
The only other widebody jetliner to see 1,000 deliveries is the Boeing 747, which has seen more than 1,430 built since 1968. The 1,000th 747, a -400 model, was delivered to Singapore Airlines in October 1993.
When it entered service with United Airlines in September 1982, the 767-200 featured a two-person flight deck, offering airlines a significant cost savings over the three-crew Boeing 707, which it replaced.
The type also holds the title of being the first to receive 180min extended twin-engine operations (ETOPS) certification from the US Federal Aviation Administration, pushing commercial aviation past rules initially developed for piston aircraft and opened more efficient routing for over water operations.
In the company's near-100-year history, the 767-300ER also holds the distinction of being the most profitable Boeing airliner.
Turbine D
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: @oceancrosser
While there aren't any more A340s in the pipeline, the line is NOT closed, because it is also the A330 line - the two types have always been complementary and until the ETOPS criteria were relaxed, the 4-engined solution was essential for long sectors overwater or above sparsely-inhabited areas. How Boeing got the rules relaxed was at one time a source of comment and questions, but in any case the combined A330/A340 approach, with a near-common wing has proved its worth,.....
I recently finished reading a fascinating book "How Boeing Defied the Airbus Challenge" by Mohan Pandey, a retired Boeing executive. This book is about last 20-years of Boeing Airbus ETOPS Battle. Now I feel I am an expert on ETOPS,
and would like to offer a few comments :
1. The ETOPS rule came out in the1980's before the launch of A330/A340. The rule permitted twins to fly over long sectors overwater or above sparsely-inhabited areas. So strictly speakingthe 4-engined solution was NOT essential for long sectors overwater or above sparsely-inhabited areas at the time A340 came into airline operations. Airbus launched the A340 for a different strategic reason.
2. The book contends that the 777 vanquished the A340.
3. The book is all about Boeing Airbus fight over ETOPS. A market for billions of dollars.
4. The book shows Airbus picked on ETOPS because Airbus thought this was the only way to save the A340.
5. Having fought against ETOPS for long-range operations and lost, Airbus followed Boeing and launched the A350XWB, a twin for long-range operations.
While there aren't any more A340s in the pipeline, the line is NOT closed, because it is also the A330 line - the two types have always been complementary and until the ETOPS criteria were relaxed, the 4-engined solution was essential for long sectors overwater or above sparsely-inhabited areas. How Boeing got the rules relaxed was at one time a source of comment and questions, but in any case the combined A330/A340 approach, with a near-common wing has proved its worth,.....
I recently finished reading a fascinating book "How Boeing Defied the Airbus Challenge" by Mohan Pandey, a retired Boeing executive. This book is about last 20-years of Boeing Airbus ETOPS Battle. Now I feel I am an expert on ETOPS,
and would like to offer a few comments :1. The ETOPS rule came out in the1980's before the launch of A330/A340. The rule permitted twins to fly over long sectors overwater or above sparsely-inhabited areas. So strictly speakingthe 4-engined solution was NOT essential for long sectors overwater or above sparsely-inhabited areas at the time A340 came into airline operations. Airbus launched the A340 for a different strategic reason.
2. The book contends that the 777 vanquished the A340.
3. The book is all about Boeing Airbus fight over ETOPS. A market for billions of dollars.
4. The book shows Airbus picked on ETOPS because Airbus thought this was the only way to save the A340.
5. Having fought against ETOPS for long-range operations and lost, Airbus followed Boeing and launched the A350XWB, a twin for long-range operations.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avgenie
Don't believe what you read. Very few books are without some kind of agenda.
For companies that do the long treks FOUR engines always will be better.
Airlines like JAL, Singapore, Qantas and South African.
The 747-800 is, in my opinion, THE global proven airframe, as long as it has GE/EA/PW engines.
I would suggest you look at the routes they take. Oceanic operations. Before someone chips in with ALL the other operators who use these routes with ETOPS I would remind that for the above noted the routes are the "bread and butter" everyday revenue provider.
Turbine D has convinced my brain FOR Etops but not my intuition.
The Asian Steppe is like the Moon.
Regards
For companies that do the long treks FOUR engines always will be better.
Airlines like JAL, Singapore, Qantas and South African.
The 747-800 is, in my opinion, THE global proven airframe, as long as it has GE/EA/PW engines.
I would suggest you look at the routes they take. Oceanic operations. Before someone chips in with ALL the other operators who use these routes with ETOPS I would remind that for the above noted the routes are the "bread and butter" everyday revenue provider.
Turbine D has convinced my brain FOR Etops but not my intuition.
The Asian Steppe is like the Moon.
Regards
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree to not believing all you read. I seems we see a little bit of history re-writing here. The missing chapter is probably the A330, that was launched at the same time as the A340, years before the 777.
Airbus broke open the widebody twin market with the A300, in the seventies. Boeing was pushing the quads 707 and 747 and MD the DC10 and Lockheed the Tristar at that time. The 767 entered service in 1982, 10 yrs later.
ETOPS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1977, the A300B4 became the first “ETOPS compliant” aircraft – its high performance and safety standards qualified it for Extended Twin Engine Operations over water, providing operators with more versatility in routing.
If I remember well the JAA and FAA only disagreed in the nineties on ETOPS 180/207. The JAA wanted a year of route proving before allowing 180/207.
379 A340's were sold, do the math..
Airbus broke open the widebody twin market with the A300, in the seventies. Boeing was pushing the quads 707 and 747 and MD the DC10 and Lockheed the Tristar at that time. The 767 entered service in 1982, 10 yrs later.
ETOPS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1977, the A300B4 became the first “ETOPS compliant” aircraft – its high performance and safety standards qualified it for Extended Twin Engine Operations over water, providing operators with more versatility in routing.
If I remember well the JAA and FAA only disagreed in the nineties on ETOPS 180/207. The JAA wanted a year of route proving before allowing 180/207.
Bottom line in the news quoted is that the 777 has outsold the 340 six to one.
Last edited by keesje; 13th Feb 2011 at 13:55.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: DERG
Agree, can't believe everything we read specially in Internet. You may want to check but I think the airlines you mention operate 777s also on long range overwater routes. There is no question, 747 is a great airplane.
I know for some of us it is difficult to think otherwise but I think the new conclusion is: it is not a matter of number of engines but how reliable they are. You may remember from history that Dornier DO X had 12 engines, but a great disappointment.
Quote: keesje
You have proved that you should not believe all you read....
There was nothing called ETOPS back in the 1977!!!! ETOPS regulations came around 1985. So just because it is in Wiki doesn't mean it is necessarily correct
Similarly, "Bottom line in the news quoted is that the 777 has outsold the 340 six to one" is not correct. May need some fact checking
This is what Mr. Pandey's book " How Boeing Defied the Airbus Challenge" says:
Pg. 135 : "by February 2010, airlines had ordered nearly three times more 777s than the A340s."
Pg 17: "As of February 2010, the total orders for the entire Airbus 340 family were only 378"
I think this is right, Boeing has sold around one thousand 777s.
As to the A300, the book says:
Pg vii: "Airbus showed great vision by bringing out a big two-engine airplane (twin), the A300, in the early 1970s before any of the established behemoths had the foresight to do it."
Don't believe what you read. Very few books are without some kind of agenda.For companies that do the long treks FOUR engines always will be better. Airlines like JAL, Singapore, Qantas and South African.The 747-800 is, in my opinion, THE global proven airframe,
I know for some of us it is difficult to think otherwise but I think the new conclusion is: it is not a matter of number of engines but how reliable they are. You may remember from history that Dornier DO X had 12 engines, but a great disappointment.
Quote: keesje
I have to agree to not believing all you read......Airbus broke open the widebody twin market with the A300, in the seventies....In 1977, the A300B4 became the first “ETOPS compliant” aircraft.....Bottom line in the news quoted is that the 777 has outsold the 340 six to one. 379 A340's were sold, do the math..
There was nothing called ETOPS back in the 1977!!!! ETOPS regulations came around 1985. So just because it is in Wiki doesn't mean it is necessarily correct
Similarly, "Bottom line in the news quoted is that the 777 has outsold the 340 six to one" is not correct. May need some fact checking
This is what Mr. Pandey's book " How Boeing Defied the Airbus Challenge" says:
Pg. 135 : "by February 2010, airlines had ordered nearly three times more 777s than the A340s."
Pg 17: "As of February 2010, the total orders for the entire Airbus 340 family were only 378"
I think this is right, Boeing has sold around one thousand 777s.
As to the A300, the book says:
Pg vii: "Airbus showed great vision by bringing out a big two-engine airplane (twin), the A300, in the early 1970s before any of the established behemoths had the foresight to do it."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi avgenie,
I think I nowhere said ETOPS existed or the A300 got ETOPS in the seventies.
I said "in 1977, the A300B4 became the first “ETOPS compliant” aircraft – its high performance and safety standards qualified it for Extended Twin Engine Operations over water, providing operators with more versatility in routing."
Nothing wrong with that. It's not in the name.
Then you stated:
4. seems inaccurate because Airbus pioneered extented twin engine operations with wide bodies and before the 777 with the A330 too.
5. incorrect also, it totally ignores the A330. Which seem Boeing policy in all their comparisons / PR. They focussed on the A340. Maybe to avoid people noticing the 787 has the same dimensions, configuration and missions.
I think the A330 and A340 are variant from the same concept roll from the same production line. "Just" 379 is far from a disaster.
I think I nowhere said ETOPS existed or the A300 got ETOPS in the seventies.
I said "in 1977, the A300B4 became the first “ETOPS compliant” aircraft – its high performance and safety standards qualified it for Extended Twin Engine Operations over water, providing operators with more versatility in routing."
Nothing wrong with that.
It's not in the name.Then you stated:
4. The book shows Airbus picked on ETOPS because Airbus thought this was the only way to save the A340.
5. Having fought against ETOPS for long-range operations and lost, Airbus followed Boeing and launched the A350XWB, a twin for long-range operations.
5. Having fought against ETOPS for long-range operations and lost, Airbus followed Boeing and launched the A350XWB, a twin for long-range operations.
5. incorrect also, it totally ignores the A330. Which seem Boeing policy in all their comparisons / PR. They focussed on the A340. Maybe to avoid people noticing the 787 has the same dimensions, configuration and missions.
I think the A330 and A340 are variant from the same concept roll from the same production line. "Just" 379 is far from a disaster.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The Sporty Game" , the developement of the wide body airliners, by John Newhouse.
Available on amazon.com Interesting history from the mid 1960's until 1982/1983.
He wrote a followup book titled "Boeing vs. Airbus", the battle between the A380 and the 747.
Available on amazon.com Interesting history from the mid 1960's until 1982/1983.
He wrote a followup book titled "Boeing vs. Airbus", the battle between the A380 and the 747.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
misd-agin
Thanks for your post regarding the "The Sporty Game". It was a great read. I didn't realize he had written a new book. I will be sure to get a copy to read!
Thanks for your post regarding the "The Sporty Game". It was a great read. I didn't realize he had written a new book. I will be sure to get a copy to read!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AVGENIE
When they built the USA interstate highway system, between '58 and '64 I believe, every 15 miles or so was designed straight and flat and wide so a B707 could land safely.
Siberia is not like that and it worries me.
When they built the USA interstate highway system, between '58 and '64 I believe, every 15 miles or so was designed straight and flat and wide so a B707 could land safely.
Siberia is not like that and it worries me.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Keesje
I am new to this blog, and not here promoting Boeing or Airbus position, and couldn't care less if Boeing was the first or Airbus the first to start ETOPS. All I wondered was how Wikipedia can say "in 1977, the A300B4 became the first ETOPS compliant aircraft" when ETOPS did not even exist in 1977. The acronym and the rules came in mid-1980s. But obviously your interpretation is different. I respect that.
By the way, Boeing had 757, 767 before the 777, and Airbus had 300, 310 before the 330 approved for ETOPS.
I quoted some statements from the book "How Boeing Defied the Airbus Challenged" but obviously without all the background that is in the book the statements might have appeared a bit out of place. Let me leave it at that.
Hi misd-agin/Turbine D
I found the "Sporty Game" a much better book than his 2007 book "Boeing vs Airbus." Another book that was good was "Birds of Prey, Boeing vs Airbus" by a British guy Matthew Lynn, 1997. I thought the latest book I read "How Boeing Defied the Airbus Challenge" was similar to Sporty Game and Birds of Prey. Happy reading.
I am new to this blog, and not here promoting Boeing or Airbus position, and couldn't care less if Boeing was the first or Airbus the first to start ETOPS. All I wondered was how Wikipedia can say "in 1977, the A300B4 became the first ETOPS compliant aircraft" when ETOPS did not even exist in 1977. The acronym and the rules came in mid-1980s. But obviously your interpretation is different. I respect that.
By the way, Boeing had 757, 767 before the 777, and Airbus had 300, 310 before the 330 approved for ETOPS.
I quoted some statements from the book "How Boeing Defied the Airbus Challenged" but obviously without all the background that is in the book the statements might have appeared a bit out of place. Let me leave it at that.
Hi misd-agin/Turbine D
I found the "Sporty Game" a much better book than his 2007 book "Boeing vs Airbus." Another book that was good was "Birds of Prey, Boeing vs Airbus" by a British guy Matthew Lynn, 1997. I thought the latest book I read "How Boeing Defied the Airbus Challenge" was similar to Sporty Game and Birds of Prey. Happy reading.
