Other Airbus stuff [Archive]

vapilot2004

10th Oct 2006, 03:48

According to reports divined from multiple sources, Airbus is currently facing a technology-induced but management created challenge in getting the A380 back on track for delivery. The delays have injured brand confidence and will take a big bite out of profits in the coming years.

Meanwhile, we have the A350 programme which was not ambitious enough in it's original design goals that must be re-born.

If management allows the Airbus engineers to work together properly, the technological challenges will be conquered with relative ease.

The economic challenge - minimising the impact of the A380 and A350 issues on EADS future profits and success is not an easy one to resolve - due in no small part to politics and the individual countries involved. A company outsider was surely needed to examine the situation and propose the very likely unpopular changes in order to rescue Airbus from its own (mis-) management.

M. Streiff must have understood the economic hardships and the unavoidable political wrangling ahead for his charge before signing up. His 100 day proposal seems to bear this out. Perhaps Streiff's bailout can be considered the first step towards Airbus' recovery.

A tentative plan has been put forth. Now it is up to the Franco-German majority powers of EADS to work out the details and then stand together as a united group.

Management's failures involve both the economic losses suffered by EADS and it's partners and taxpayer-investors as well as those to be endured by the industrial employees - and then there is the undeserved tarnish on an otherwise brilliant company's reputation.......

They must redeem themselves with a perhaps uncharacteristic disregard for personal or political cost.

West Coast

10th Oct 2006, 04:19

I guess Airbus wants to beat Boeing in every category.

CEO's, going down faster than a Bonanza full of doctors.

onetrack

10th Oct 2006, 04:57

When the pilot jumps out the door .. isn't it time for the pax to start getting really worried?? .. :suspect:

http://news.google.com/news?q=Airbus+suppliers&hl=en&lr=&sa=X&oi=news&ct=title

WHBM

10th Oct 2006, 13:32

Now looking at the issues, it seems there are technical problems (it can't just be some wrong-length wiring to cause such a delay) which needs technical people to be applied to the issue and get it sorted. A fairly standard R&D snafu.

But the various Chief Executives seem to be living in a parallel universe. Instead of encouraging the tech staff considerably in this endeavour, the main aim of which is to recover the revenue stream from aircraft deliveries, they are going round just spouting about job cuts and getting tied up as a result in political jockeying from various locations.

Job cuts are what you do when you have people with not enough work to do. In the present situation there is plenty of work to do and the team need to get stuck in, not be made to feel uncertain about their futures.

SwissportSFB

10th Oct 2006, 14:56

Yes I heard the CEO of Airbus got smart and stepped down and has now joined the Boeing team. Now he knows he has a lifetime career in aviation. :O

Wino

11th Oct 2006, 05:13

WHBM,

Airbus has a problem though if they can't manufacture the aircraft for a price that the market will bear, and the only way to reduce the price in a large manufacturing operation is to reduce the head count...

So They can get the work done, and have an aircraft that costs about a billion dollars a copy... Wonder how many they will sell?

There may be a lot of that going on here as well...

Cheers
Wino

HectorusRex

12th Oct 2006, 10:25

Can Airbus Get Anything Done On Time?
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=ce59b037-9227-484d-b519-c23899e4ddd9&

Thu, 12 Oct '06
Company Hints At Delays For A350XWB And A400M

Can it possibly get worse at Airbus? Parent company EADS has seen its share of troubles of late. Now leadership is hinting at even more problems.

Delays with the A380 program at Airbus have caused shakeups with company leadership. Stock selling scandals, a flagship program delayed for two years and two new CEOs within a few months are all contributing to the company hemorrhaging money -- nearly $6 billion.

Stiff competition with Boeing and a weak dollar are adding to the company's woes.

Airbus accepted a two-year delay in the A350 program when it announced the XWB variant at Farnborough this year. The XWB is the company's answer to Boeing's 787 Dreamliner. Now, EADS is says even more delays are likely with that program -- and with its A400M military transport program as well.

The A400M is an airlift aircraft Airbus hopes to pit against Lockheed's C-130 Hercules. NPR reports that program is facing cost increases.

EADS co-Chairmen Manfred Bischoff and Arnoud Lagardere say the company is uncertain of Airbus' ability to launch the A350XWB right now. In a joint interview with Les Echos, they said they intend to make a decision in the next few weeks.

Bischoff said, "All of the shareholders are totally behind this program. But before we launch it, we must assure ourselves that we can do it, both technically and financially. That is what we are in the process of examining. We will make a decision in the coming weeks."

According to Lagardere, the A350 program is necessary because of Boeing's 787, but, "we must first bring together all of the technical and financial conditions for its success."

Earlier this week, ANN reported Airbus' loss of its CEO Christian Streiff amid disagreements with EADS over Streiff's proposed restructuring plan. Streiff stepped down after less than 3 months as Airbus' CEO when it seemed EADS would bow to political pressure from countries sure to lose jobs under his plan.
FMI: www.eads.com

air pig

12th Oct 2006, 16:06

Oh yes indeed, but the French have now go what they wanted, control of Airbus. They will do everything legal and questionable to keep this industrial disaster area afloat, as a sign of gallic pride.

If they subsidse the company, it will have Boeing complaining of illegal subsidies to prop up the company, possibly in contravention of WTO regulations.

The question is, do we want in the future only one monoply supplier of large aircraft, therefore demanding any price they care to name.

The compnay demands a regieme of restructuring, to sort out the problems of overmanning, inefficient management which has a structure like no other company, and too many production lines in diverse locations and even countries.

Airbus have less than half the orders to breakeven on previous cost projections for the A380, what if some airlines walk away and take Airbus to court for breach of contract or just downsize their order. Airlines with small numbers ordered may not be able to take a smaller number and find it a cost effective option.

The A400M is going to be even later, will countries meerly go and replace their Herks as an easier and assured option??

TSR22

12th Oct 2006, 18:29

Hi Guys,

Just to add to the story, I have a friend who works in the avionics industry as a designer:cool: . He told me, last weekend, that there are now DAILY meetings regarding the serious financial troubles with Airbus which are going to have a knock-on effect throughout the industry. Doesn't sound very good.
It certainly looks like BA Systems may have jumped from a sinking ship in the nick of time.
He also added that there are huge offset costs now involved due to delays in the programmes - amounting to millions.
Shame though - I quite fancied myself as a future A380 pilot...:E
I do hope that they manage to pull through.

TSR...

seacue

12th Oct 2006, 19:11

How many major new aircraft had enough orders to break even even before entry into service. I suspect the answer is none.

I have zero doubt that Airbus will survive. It's a matter of national pride and a strong desire to offer competition to Boeing.

Things may look bad now, but there will be a miracle recovery ... WTO or no. "Don't ask permission, ask forgiveness if confronted later".

F4F

12th Oct 2006, 20:47

Agreed seacue!
Maybe soon time to buy a few shares... for those who have the means :}

Wino

12th Oct 2006, 20:58

How many major new aircraft had enough orders to break even even before entry into service. I suspect the answer

Ummmmm over 450 orders for the 787 so far.

interestingly in the time since the 380 was launched, boeing has booked as many 747 sales...

CHeers
Wino

punkalouver

13th Oct 2006, 11:26

Isn't it great that we don't have to listen to John leahy anymore. Three cheers.

panda-k-bear

17th Oct 2006, 16:21

Wino - how many of those 747s are freighters and how many are passenger aircraft?

punkalouver - why, has he left Airbus then?

Mudfoot

17th Oct 2006, 17:55

Isn't it great that we don't have to listen to John Leahy anymore. Three cheers.

Ummm, who says?!? He's still in the building, only Elvis has left...

Cheers, y'all.

Strepsils

17th Oct 2006, 18:23

In the 90's when the whole Very Large Aircraft project was just kicking off, I thought (as did many others) that the only sensible way ahead was for Boeing and Airbus to collaborate on it.

Failing that, they both agree what they will be building i.e. Airbus do the A380, Boeing do the 787 and there's no time or money wasted on the A350 or 747-X.

Ten years on, I'm still wondering why they didn't do it that way:rolleyes:

Dan Air 87

17th Oct 2006, 18:42

Strewth-can you imagine the Americans (Boeing) and the French, Germans & Brits (Airbus)co-operating on something? It will never happen-if it did they would still be arguing on the shape of the bloody aircraft never mind designing it! It just would not happen.

HighLow

19th Oct 2006, 10:11

Question:

Do people feel that after recent developments with CEO stepping down, their delay with A380 along with the massive commercial investment/pressure to get the aircraft flying, has this put AIRBUS as a whole in a precarious situation in terms of survival?

HighLow

(Just about to commence an A320 rating, and now thinking otherwise, maybe Boeing not a bad option after all) I can live without a table in the cockpit(Airbus) if it means that Im flying in an aircraft that will still be flying in 10-15 years time.

Hirsutesme

19th Oct 2006, 10:32

Get real, it's too big, too many jobs, for the consortium of governments involved in Airbus to let it go down the pan.

Andy_S

19th Oct 2006, 10:43

(Just about to commence an A320 rating, and now thinking otherwise, maybe Boeing not a bad option after all) I can live without a table in the cockpit(Airbus) if it means that Im flying in an aircraft that will still be flying in 10-15 years time.
I wouldn't worry.
The chances of the various governments who have an interest, whether direct or indirect, allowing Airbus to fail are close to zero.
Even if, hypothetically, they did, then there would be a queue of interested parties ready to cherry pick the attractive parts of Airbus such as A320 production.
And even then, there's no reason why a properly maintained 320 shouldn't be flying in 10-15 years, with or without Airbus.

onetrack

19th Oct 2006, 10:46

There are three things that will probably stop Airbus from folding up ..

1. They have a good range of smaller aircraft, that are still selling well .. and are well accepted by customers. Operating costs of the Airbus appear to be lower than the equivalent Boeing. Whether this can continue, is a matter of conjecture, of course.

2. Many European Govts have a very large financial and pride investment in Airbus. They aren't going to back away from that, anytime soon .. even if it does mean tipping another few billion in, to get Airbus settled, and back on track.

3. The 380 is flying .. potential customers can see that it's a goer. The problems with wiring are bound to be settled in due course. It's not like the 380 is a pie-in-the-sky dream, that billions are disappearing into, like a black hole, with nothing to show for the $$ spent.

Boeing are quite convinced that Airbus are still a major threat, and will pose a major threat in the foreseeable future.
This point has been made by one of Boeings chiefs in the last couple of weeks. They do not see Airbus going under, anytime soon.

The biggest threat to Airbus .. is customers getting tetchy over delays and more delays, and cancelling orders.
If a major airline cancels a big order, it will possibly send Airbus into a serious tailspin.
You can bet your bottom $, that Airbus senior execs will .. right this very minute, and for many months to come .. be applying soothing words, and comforting moves .. such as major $$ compensation to those airlines that are most at risk of cancelling .. to keep the orders in the pipeline.

xraf

19th Oct 2006, 11:17

If it doesnt work, is too complicated, over budget, over priced and over sized - just sell it to the military, thats what happened to all the similar problematic projects of history. :ugh: [Should we start a thread to list them? I'll start it with Nimrod, Osprey and Merlin]

...So until the military version is announced I think we can assume Airbus still think they will get a civvy version online eventually:ok:

In the meantime we can all enjoy the shinnanagins and media manoeuvres but in any event dont forget the French are world famous for French
Government support for French projects.:D [and good on 'em for it!] I know its Pan-European but its still theirs according to them!

EGKK931

28th Oct 2006, 19:13

This question probably answers itself and I think I know the answer just want to know for sure.

I recently flew with Easyjet, on an A319 and I was privaliged enough to be allowed to visit the flight deck after touch down.

I was able to get a couple of pictures, including one of me in first officers seat :p was thrilled and also had a chat with the captain and first officer.

From looking at my pictures, I suddenly realised there is NO (I don't know how to describe...I know the word but won't come to me, apologies, the lever, to turn, like steering wheel, pull back to take off etc.)

That is not present in an A319 or any airbuses as far as I am aware and my guess is that the joysticks on the sides of the flight deck in the A319 are used instead of the central column of controlling the aircraft?

Sorry for the complicated post hopefully you will understand my question and assumed answer.

I have included a photo off airliners.net of what I mean by no central column and the side joysticks.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0549814/M/ (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0549814/M/)

Vee One...Rotate

28th Oct 2006, 20:07

Hi EGKK931,

You're right. The sidestick replaces the control column and, due to the fly-by-wire systems and flight control philosophy found on Airbuses, works in a slightly different way. If you're interested in the details, I've seen quite a few threads on Proon about the differences - a search will bring them up.

One point to note is that Airbus aircraft have 'hard' flight envelope protection which prevents the pilot from, for example, stalling, over-banking, and overstressing the aircraft. At least in normal operation anyway...

Best regards,

V1R

4DCP

28th Oct 2006, 20:08

Hi EGKK,

Yes you're quite right, Airbus use the side 'joystick' instead of a Boeing style central control coloumn, one on each side.

You'd be quite surprised at the limited range of movement, it doesn't move any more than the joystick you might use to play computer games on your PC!

All part of the marvel of fly by wire...

chiglet

28th Oct 2006, 20:14

K931
Donks ago, I was lucky enuff to fly with an A320 skipper [on the jumpseat], The "piece de resistance", was when he pulled a "tray" out of rhe Instrument Panel to do his Paperwork.......:ok:
watp,iktch

EGKK931

28th Oct 2006, 21:01

Cheers for the replies :p

It surprised me, was only last night when got back home and before getting off plane asked to see flight deck and was let in.
So when got my photos home and uploaded them suddenly realised there was no central column and was astonished I didn't realise when I was sitting there admiring the view!

Thanks for your replies never knew before its quite interesting, must be quite different also, pulling up on the side of the flight deck when taking off and landing!

FlightDetent

13th Nov 2006, 09:12

It is different to other many transport aircraft, but otherwise the side mounted "control wheel" is quite common. Also worth nothing is the fact that even if your A319 was quite new out of the production line, side stick airbus cockpits have been around for about 20 years already.

FD
(the un-real)

sillytwistedboy

14th Nov 2006, 13:24

I recall some years ago, that Saab built a car without steering column or wheel using 'steer-by-wire' technology and a joystick mounted on the transmission tunnel by the drivers thigh. 'Car' magazine tested it on private roads and found that although requiring quite different techniques learning to control it was quite easy. What they could not do, ever, under any circumstances, was let go of the joystick unless the vehicle was stationary.
Now, I quite understand that while a car needs to be driven all the time that it is moving and an aircraft does not, could there ever be a time when the Pilot is actually flying the a/c, that he feels it imperative to move his hand from the stick? If so, what happens next?
You will probably have realised that I am not a pilot, and if I have missed the bl**ding obvious, then I apologise and will return to my burrow immediately.

punkalouver

25th Nov 2006, 04:44

http://www.aero-news.net/news/commair.cfm?ContentBlockID=7c642ed9-88d2-4aa1-97c8-a5e202610f12&Dynamic=1

Porrohman

5th Apr 2007, 19:57

According to Flightglobal, Airbus is reporting a 3 month delay to the final assembly of the A400M;

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/05/213106/airbus-reveals-a400m-final-assembly-delay.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/05/213106/airbus-reveals-a400m-final-assembly-delay.html)

First flight of the TP400-D6 power plant is also delayed.

It got me wondering how the A400M compares to the Shorts Belfast of 40 odd years ago to see how much technology has advanced in the intervening period.
They both have a similar max payload (37 tonnes for A400M, 36.3 tonnes for Belfast).
The A400M has 4 x 11,000hp and the Belfast has 4 x 5730hp.
Range at full payload is 1,782nmi for the A400M and 970 miles for the Belfast.
Empty weight is 70 tonnes for the A400M and 59 tonnes for the Belfast.
Ferry range is 5,022 miles for the A400M and 5,200 miles for the Belfast.
MTOW is 130 Tonnes for the A400M and 104.3 tonnes for the Belfast; 11 tonnes of the difference is the empty weight so the rest is presumably fuel which seems to explain the difference in range.
Belfast could accommodate 150 fully equipped troops and the A400M will be able to accommodate 116.
A400M cruises faster and higher than the Belfast which presumably gives a better productivity but that's not surprising given that it has almost twice the installed power.

Sources;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Belfast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Belfast)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A400M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A400M)

With modern technology engines and propellers, composite materials, FBW, computers, advanced aerodynamics etc I had expected to see a far greater advance with the A400M. Maybe the Belfast was a much better platform than it was given credit for? A hypothetical question, but I wonder what the performance figures would be for a Belfast with TP400-D6 engines?

Porrohman

DME MILOS

5th Apr 2007, 21:46

I would imagine that the A400M will stand a slightly better chance of making it more than 1 mile across the border in the next conflict on the list :rolleyes:

chiglet

6th Apr 2007, 21:18

Many [many] moons ago, 1967 in fact...I was given a "Beverly Replacement Brochure" by a [then] g/f from Hull. It looked quite tasty, but I can't remember owt else..[apart from twin fins].....that's the a/c not the g/f tho' she was tasty too :ok:
watp,iktch

Porrohman

15th Apr 2007, 18:35

DME MILOS,

A fair point, but the A400M doesn't look particularly stealthy, and it's not particularly fast or manoeuvrable. I wouldn't want to fly either aircraft over hostile territory.

I'm still surprised that the A400M empty weight is about 11 tonnes more than the Belfast given the advances in so many technologies and materials that have taken place over the past 40 years or so. They both carry the same payload, and I'd have thought that the weight of the mission equipment etc in the A400M would be more than offset by technology and materials improvements in other areas. Granted, the A400M has 800nm more range at max payload but at what cost? It needs twice the power and considerably more fuel to carry out its mission because of all the extra weight. Are the TD400-D6 engines and those massive props particularly heavy in both weight and fuel consumption? Is it the weight of all the bureaucracy that accompanies international projects? Or is it something else?

Porrohman.

Meldrew

11th Jun 2007, 11:33

Appologies for what may have been asked before. On airbus types that I have travelled on as SLF I have noticed the following. Just after push back and just after arriving at the gate after landing, there is a very loud noise like someone sawing an iron bar with a rusty saw!! or, more appropriately, a sound like an electric motor straining against a heavy clutch mechanism. Is this something to do with locking mechanisms on the baggage hold doors?? Its the only logical thing that I can think of. ( I've already identified the very heavy clunking sounds made by the braking mechanisms!!) I've been noticing this for year, but never really solved the problem!! Thanks in advance to any Airbus Drivers.:)

saman

11th Jun 2007, 16:33

Meldrew,
It's the PTU or Power Transfer Unit, transferring hydraulic power between the different hydraulic circuits. If only one engine is running then not all circuits are powered and then, when a demand is made on an un-powered circuit, eg. flap/slat deployment or retraction, the PTU will do its stuff and make things happen. 'Tis a bit noisy though.
Saman

MUFC_fan

27th Jun 2007, 17:27

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6239874.stm

Can't see this happening. UK provide the manufacturer with the best wings available.

Buster the Bear

27th Jun 2007, 20:16

2 word answer......French protectionism.

Now if HM Govt had invested in the BAC 3-11 project, the UK would now be world leaders in civil aircraft design and supply. Airbus certainly would not have existed. Sadly, and this has been well documented elsewhere, it was Concorde or bust. Airbus soaked up most of the design and build expertise caused by the implosion of our civil airliner business.

The A300 was originally a design concept by none other than the UK aerospace industry and from memory, so was the A320? HM Govt had to go begging to enter the Airbus consortium after the failure of Concorde and did so under French terms.

France and Germany will do whatever it takes to retain its own workforce. After Bae sold off its share of Airbus, wing production within the UK was always going to walk a tightrope. Let us hope history does not repeat itself once again?

Ignition Override

28th Jun 2007, 04:04

West Coast: That was funny. But alas, it would be so much better if a Bonanza went down with a few airline (former) lawyer/CEOs onboard.

An article claimed that Airbus has both a French and a German executive in their upper management.

Isn't it often strange that each topic regarding 'Airbus Gmbh' is never left in Rumours and News?;) Are such topics too hot for Rumours and News?

Does anybody know whether it was true last November etc that Lufthansa ordered the 747-800, as was advertised by Boeing on the back of the newspaper "USA Today"?

reverserunlocked

25th Jul 2007, 16:50

According to a well known spotter site, Lufthansa Technik's D-AEIL will be scrapped at Goodyear in Arizona. The first A340 to be scrapped, therefore. Hands up who feels old?
http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=613267

vapilot2004

25th Jul 2007, 18:07

Delivered 21 Jan 94. Operated for 10 years by Virgin Atlantic then BWIA for less than 3 years. Painted early this year just for the scrapping, I guess.

After the first 777 chop job recently (engineless and ready for a D check) and now this - one does feel old. :}

vs69

25th Jul 2007, 19:53

would that be the ex vs aircraft that got one wing pushed slightly higher than the other?Didnt realise BWIA had given her up

hetfield

25th Jul 2007, 20:00

d-aiel

??????

Onions

25th Jul 2007, 20:00

Would they really scrap her at 13 years old?? Surely A340's arent that unloved.

NigelOnDraft

25th Jul 2007, 20:04

From another site - yes appears to ex G-VSKY on which I have more than a few hours... and later on did park rather untidily on LHR 27L :eek:

Onions

25th Jul 2007, 20:06

Nigel, are you saying you parked it rather untidyly?

NigelOnDraft

25th Jul 2007, 20:09

Nigel, are you saying you parked it rather untidyly?No - but I know a man who did :D [I'd become a Nigel by then..... ;) ]

llondel

25th Jul 2007, 20:23

I have memories of G-VSKY, it was what got me interested in aircraft safety and the whole process of finding out what went wrong and how to stop a repeat. I flew on it to LAX in Nov '97, drove to my hotel and went to sleep. Arriving at the factory I was visiting the next morning, everyone asked me if I'd seen the news about the crash at LHR. I hadn't, but a bit of questioning determined that it was indeed the aircraft I'd flown over on the night before. I still have a copy of an ex-pat newspaper acquired that week with a picture on the front and the headline "Terror on the Tarmac". (I see journalism has maintained its standards over the past ten years...) Reading the accident report a while later and the attention to detail, including finding the small pin on the beach, just caught my interest. OK, I know I should get out more...

vs69

25th Jul 2007, 20:38

must say much respect to the chap who did park it on LHR 27L,fine work

TheOddOne

25th Jul 2007, 21:30

must say much respect to the chap who did park it on LHR 27L,fine work

He's a former Unlimited Aerobatic national competitor, in a SU26, as well as a former A340 captain.

Where are you now, Tim?

TheOddOne

Speedbird48

26th Jul 2007, 01:22

I knew Tim when he was still at school!! Or, rather I knew his Dad quite well at Gatwick and Redhill. Last I saw him was in Gander when I was trying to get a ride to the UK after a CL44 let us down by catching fire!! He was driving a Belfast at the time.

Always good to hear that he is still well thought of and has done well.

Rather a thread bend from a scrapped 340, but!!!

HowlingWind

26th Jul 2007, 01:23

Here's the "parking" job in progress (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0709172&WxsIERv=Nveohf%20N340-311&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Ivetva%20Ngynagvp%20Nvejnlf&QtODMg=Ybaqba%20-%20Urnguebj%20%28YUE%20%2F%20RTYY%29&ERDLTkt=HX%20-%20Ratynaq&ktODMp=Abirzore%205%2C%201997&BP=1&WNEb25u=Creel%20uneevf&xsIERvdWdsY=T-IFXL&MgTUQtODMgKE=Gur%20znva%20jurry%20trne%20ba%20gur%20cbeg%20f vqr%20jnf%20wnzrq%20hc.%20rirelobql%20rfpncrq%20bx.%20fbeel% 20nobhg%20gur%20dhnyvgl%20ohg%20vg%20jnf%20yngr%20va%20gur%2 0qnl&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=65176&NEb25uZWxs=2004-11-10%2000%3A00%3A00&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=016&static=yes&width=979&height=723&sok=JURER%20%20%28ert%20%3D%20%27T-IFXL%27%29%20%20BEQRE%20OL%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=2&prev_id=0766377&next_id=0709171).

Well done, indeed. :D

Onions

26th Jul 2007, 10:22

Still cant believe its going to be broken up. Its valued at about $50,000,000.
Surely it cant be worth more than that as spares?

scudpilot

26th Jul 2007, 11:21

I cannot beleive that crashlanding was 10 years ago! I was working in building 521 (the cargo agents buidling) at the time, and we had just lost our unobstructed views of the runway due to the building of the new BA Cargo Centre, we could tell something was going on due to all the activity of the emergency services, but it was only when I went home and saw the a/c sitting on 27l with all the emergency shutes deployed I realised what had happened!

Mudfoot

2nd Aug 2007, 14:13

from Flight International today:

"The first scrapping of a new-generation Airbus widebody is looming, with a 13-year-old ex-Virgin Atlantic A340-300 expected to be broken for spares.

"Industry sources say that the aircraft is set to come under the breaker's axe.

"The A340 (MSN 0016), which is managed by lessor AerCap, was ferried from Hamburg to the company's storage facility at Phoenix Goodyear airport in July. Although AerCap says that "the decision hasn't been made" whether to part out the A340, industry sources say that the aircraft is set to come under the breaker's axe.

"According to Flight's ACAS database, MSN 0016 was delivered new to Virgin Atlantic in January 1994 on lease from Airbus, and acquired by AerCap (then called Debis AirFinance) in 2000.

"The aircraft was placed with BWIA West Indies Airways in 2004 and returned off lease in January this year after BWIA closed and was replaced by Caribbean Airlines.

"In 1997 while operating with Virgin, the A340 was involved in a major incident at London Heathrow, when it made an emergency landing with one of its main landing-gear bogies retracted.

"Although the A340 is an early-build example, its utilisation is not among the highest in the A340 fleet. According to ACAS, MSN 0016 has accumulated 55,309h and 7,148 cycles, which is around 10,000h and 6,500 cycles below the A340 fleet leader in each criterion.

"Industry sources say that AerCap is considering breaking the aircraft as it would be uneconomical to reconfigure it for onward lease. Another factor is that there is a strong market currently for the CFM International CFM56-5C engines which power the aircraft.

"While this would be the first A330/A340 to be parted out, last year Universal Asset Management announced that it had acquired an early-build Boeing 777-200 for scrapping. The ex-BA aircraft had been in storage and it was deemed uneconomical to undertake the work to return them to service."

jettison valve

2nd Aug 2007, 17:12

:{:{:{:{:{:{:{:{:{:{

vapilot2004

3rd Aug 2007, 09:11

Ahhh, good old Flight Global (International). :p

PAXboy

11th Aug 2007, 22:26

Ah yes, I remember the 5th November 1997 ... I was due out to Paris from T4 that evening. The rain was torrential and the roads to the airport gridlocked and then the airport was gridlocked!!

They combined a couple of flights and we left very late, getting to CDG at about midnight. Which was irritating, as I was on the ORY flight. So they drove us from CDG to ORY in a coach at gone midnight, round the Périphérique in the pouring rain ... :eek:

I got about five hours sleep and staggered into the client for 09:00 to be told that they had made a mistake and I was not needed that day ... :hmm: The fact that I was paid for having to wait at T4 for hours (including on the a/c for about 90 mins) and all the rest did not really compensate.

I was glad to hear that all on board G-VSKY had a happy ending to the story and the picture (linked above) is quite something.

rotornut

18th Oct 2007, 11:09

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a5NdTAzcbz2o&refer=home

172 driver

29th Feb 2008, 22:09

to US tanker contract:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7272129.stm

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/29/221938/airbus-trumps-boeing-as-northrop-wins-kc-x-contract.html

pasoundman

29th Feb 2008, 22:49

Or even .....

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/EADS02298.xml&headline=Northrop%20Grumman/EADS%20Win%20USAF%20Tanker%20Award&channel=defense

Good to see the best man won.

I really didn't expect the USA to honour any concept of open/free trade for a military contract but ...........

So who's going to buy the A400M ?

fleigle

29th Feb 2008, 22:49

Wow, this is a huge upset!, the fur is going to be flying in the political arena now!!

weasil

1st Mar 2008, 01:05

They just posted this story on the Chicago Tribune website too. Boeing is based in Chicago now, and there is a lot of surprised folks around here apparently. They have been touting this contract as a done deal lately in the local media. They are saying the contract will actually go to Northrop Grumman who will do the work on the planes which will come from EADS.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-ba-boeing-northrop-eads-tanker-feb29,0,5774444.story

tommytill

1st Mar 2008, 03:43

Enhances the Aussie Air Force spares availability while away base thats for sure.

And the initiation of an exchange program for tanker drivers will be a lot easier to implement with the yanks choice of the Airbus.

Interesting choice with respect to keeping jobs/money in-country.

vapilot2004

1st Mar 2008, 04:07

Boeing had this contract in the bag in 2004, but a woman named Darleen Druyan crossed the line between her job in the Air Force procurement office and the offices at Boeing defense. Mike Sears (then Boeing CFO) and Ms. Druyan were both jailed for their illegal deals. This was a huge embarrassment for the Air Force and did not exactly do wonders for Boeing's reputation either.

The scandal forced (via the US Congress led by Sen. McCain) the USAF to put the contract up for bids once again and the larger and more capable A330 derived tanker has won. It will be interesting to watch the fallout once Congress is tasked with funding the buy. Some Washington insiders have already begun the assault and labor unions from around the US will also be gearing up for protests.

The arguments will be politically motivated - that is to say a US Air Force aircraft should not now nor ever be built by the French. (their words) Silly, but true.

Here are a few choice quotes from a New York Times article available here. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/business/01tanker.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

In response to questions about possible negative reaction to the deal in Congress, Gen. Arthur J. Lichte, head of the Air Force’s Air Mobility Command, said, “This will be an American tanker, flown by American airmen with an American flag on its tail and, every day, it will be saving American lives.”

Reaction from some in Congress, however, was swift.

“We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military,” the Washington State delegation said in a joint statement. Boeing planes are assembled outside of Seattle. “This is a blow to the American aerospace industry, American workers and America’s men and women in uniform,” the statement added.

Any official protest from the losing bidder would substantially delay the entry into service of the EADS/Northrop tanker. According to one Air Force general, a Boeing protest won't change the outcome - but American politics being what they are - I wouldn't count out the 'home team' just yet.

Dysag

1st Mar 2008, 05:00

It's easy to protest, but difficult to protest successfully if you're pushing an old-generation product that entered service when Ronald Reagan was a brand new president.

The military should not have to put up with a plane that Boeing can't sell in the commercial market (three 767 passenger aircraft sold in 2007) just to keep the line open.

RIP 767, you had a good run.

MAN777

1st Mar 2008, 07:00

Good news for Europe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7272272.stm

WHBM

1st Mar 2008, 08:32

I wonder if those from the US can explain how US manufacturers have supplied large numbers of aircraft to European forces over the years, and they have been happy to build them, but there is a huge fuss when the decision is made the other way.

Here in the UK the large aircraft component of the Air Force is made up of C-17s (US built), Tristars (US built) and multiple generations of Hercules (US built). US workers apparently felt fine building these for us. Yet if the wings of the new tanker are built in the UK and shipped to the Alabama assembly plant, there's a storm of protest.

The words "one way street", rather than "allies", spring to mind, as so often in US-UK military relations.

departurelounge

1st Mar 2008, 08:47

Excellent post WHBM, am in total agreement with you. In fact this "one way traffic" seems to apply to everything, not just military matters. Its about time things were done on our terms rather than theirs.

surely not

1st Mar 2008, 08:48

and of course this storm of protest if successful is in no way an unofficial subsidy of Boeing by political pressures.......................Politicians pulling strings to make sure the 'home town boys' get the work regardless of whether it is the right deal for the Air Force just couldn't be seen as an indirect subsidy could it :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Well played the winning team, including Airbus, and I hope that foul play in dark alleys doesn't get a reversal of the decision.

phil gollin

1st Mar 2008, 09:02

Irrespective of who, what, why and when, I am amazed that the winning consortium have managed to take the currency risk involved. There is almost no way of knowing just how much the Euro and Dollar (let alone the Pound) will fluctuate over the next 15-odd years.

It may be very unfashionable to say so, but hooray for the accountants.

Fly Ginger

1st Mar 2008, 10:10

I am pleased as much for the airbus workers in this country, hopefully this will go along way to secure their future (as much as you can secure anything in aviation). Well done all:D

Eboy

1st Mar 2008, 10:32

Oh, I think any protest is largely confined to Boeing and the related politicians who received Boeing's campaign contributions. Does the US "public" care? Not so much.

According to The Economist magazine, a good part of the newer Boeing commercial aircraft is made in other countries, especially Japan. (20-30 percent or so, as I recall) I have never heard any protests about that from the US public or politicians. Do the US public, or even the politicians, protest US airlines using Airbus aircraft? I have not seen it -- I would guess there is some, but it is low-level if at all.

Of course, this is military procurement, which is rife with waste and unfairness. I am sympathetic to the comments above.

Gulf4uk

1st Mar 2008, 13:12

HI

Not surprising the protests in US election time . So far not seen any
comments from the Hopeful new Big House Occupants no doubt we will
sooner or Later.

Tony

Lobo3

1st Mar 2008, 14:59

Wings are some of the coolest workings around!And vortexes are something that Airbus has really beaten out!Has anyone taken a GOOD look at their wings? Things of Greatness!!:cool:

WHBM

1st Mar 2008, 22:52

The A330 is still selling well and in full production. It was introduced in the 1990s.

The 757/767 joint range is 10 years older, from a previous generation, introduced in 1982. That's over 25 years ago. The 757 has of course ended production and the last few 767s are trickling out before the 787 takes over. Many of the earlier 767s have already gone for scrap. It does seem somewhat inappropriate for Boeing to have based things on such an outdated design which must be apparent to all, let alone the well-known wing vortex issues for the type which as stated above are inappropriate for a tanker with aircraft in trail, or the inability for the aircraft to multi-task as a transport in the same way as the A330. We know the 787 wouldn't be ready for adaptation for a few years, but that would be no reason for the USAF to be stuck with paying big bucks for old technology. Tankers tend to last for ages, the KC-135s have been around for over 50 years. When they were ordered in the early 1950s they were not based on technology introduced in the late 1920s !