PDA

View Full Version : A380 problems


ules
15th Oct 2009, 02:09
Hi guys no bashing here please, I am just really curious why qantas are having so many issues with the new a380, hyraulic problems seems to be the cause all the time. Ever since qantas have recieved these new aircraft it has been problem after problem, ive done some searchig on the net and im really confused to why singapore and emirates arent having these problems? surely there has to be a life expectancy of more than 6 months atleast on any parts (unless damage was caused by pilots)
anyone care to comment ?

Wiley
15th Oct 2009, 02:47
You want the simple answer ules? Emirates and Singapore are having the same or similar problems.

It's a new aeroplane, and I very much doubt there's been a new aeroplane delivered into airline service since 1930 or so, be it a Boeing or any other brand that doesn't have problems, from major to minor, in the first year or two of service. The 777, quite possibly the modern day DC3 in terms of utility and commercial success, was known as "the cripple seven" when it first came into service.

Shot Nancy
15th Oct 2009, 03:17
Never fly the "A" model of anything. ;)

ditch handle
15th Oct 2009, 03:37
Any truth to the rumour that the yet to fly 747 800 is expected to burn at cruise something in the order of 7 tonnes and hour as opposed to the A380 that burns 13 ?

Also, I find curious that the launch customer of said aircraft is the German carrier Lufthansa.

Is it the Germans or French who are the largest shareholders in Airbus Industries........... ?

Taildragger67
15th Oct 2009, 03:47
Also, I find curious that the launch customer of said aircraft is the German carrier Lufthansa.

Why? Just because Airbus brings something new out, doesn't mean that LH will ignore other products in the market. LH were buying 737s well after the A320 was in service and continue to operate them. Maybe it fills a niche for them. They're not the only large long-haul operator not to operate 777s... :hmm: Then again, who knows what will happen there when they start to look for a replacement for their MD-11F fleet.

AF continue to be a major Boeing buyer, despite Airbuses being snapped together on their turf. If anyone was going to get political about it, one would've thought it'd more likely be them.

powerstall
15th Oct 2009, 03:49
Lufthansa actually ordered the 747-800 as a replacement for their aging 747's. They were supposed to receive the 748's a few months after the delivery of their A380. :E

18-Wheeler
15th Oct 2009, 07:08
Any truth to the rumour that the yet to fly 747 800 is expected to burn at cruise something in the order of 7 tonnes and hour as opposed to the A380 that burns 13 ?

It wouldn't surprise me, as the 747-400 will get down to about 10 tonnes/hr pretty quickly and then when up around the 40,000' area get down to 8 tonnes/hr. Not much of a stretch to believe 7 tonnes/hr then.
No idea what the A380 burns sorry.

777WakeTurbz
15th Oct 2009, 09:13
I was told Cathay didnt order any A380s because of all the problems they had with the 340s. Im not sure of how much of the 340 systems were modified for the 380, but could it just be similar problems in the similar system that they have yet to figure out how to eliminate?

CabinCrew747
15th Oct 2009, 10:16
Hi,

I would imagine SQ, QF and EKs (currently) relitivly small A380 fleets do not help with reliability compared to the carriers respecitve A330, 777 and 744 fleets?

NWT
15th Oct 2009, 10:47
See QF 380 had full emergency at LHR earlier this week. Believe some sort of brake/hydraulic issue, full emergency declared, usual fire crews waiting for aircraft, plane landed and taxiied to T4 as normal...followed by fire crews.
Any idea what was the problem?

packrat
15th Oct 2009, 11:04
To purchase the A380 was always going to be a poor decision.Boeings research indicated that a long range faster fuel efficient medium sized aircraft was what airlines were going to need in the future.These aircraft were going to provide flexibility in the highly cyclical aviation environment.
Unfortunately Boeing has had problems of its own.The 787 has been beset by fundamental organizational problems that the Boeing corporation should have foreseen.
The A380 is fine when the aviation cycle is at the top but falters when it isn't(pax loads).Its performance is certainly not living up to expectations.In particular fuel burn rate.
It is rapidly becoming obvious that systems reliability is another issue

leewan
15th Oct 2009, 11:47
You want the simple answer ules? Emirates and Singapore are having the same or similar problems.

To a certain extent, that is true. But their problems have not caused them to cancel flights to the extent of QF's. SQ's engineering planning guys do preventive mx by foreseeing problems that might happen and doing inspection on them or replace known trouble giving components before they start giving problems. Just look at a SQ A380 arriving at its bay at SIN and you will see a battalion of MX vehicles standing by. Any SQ 380 with a ground time of at least 4 hrs will have at least one engine cowling open. Another reason could be that QF's A380 woes are highly publicized compared to other airlines and a/c types making it look problematic.


Believe some sort of brake/hydraulic issue

A380s had issues with the BSCU unit early on. Not sure whether that has been resolved.

The A380 is fine when the cycle is at the top but falters when it isn't.Its performance is certainly not living up to expectations.In particular fuel burn rate.
It is rapidly becoming obvious that systems reliability is another issue

Mind giving me the sources to your bold statement. Mine doesn't seem to think so.

ATW Daily News (http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=11132)

max1
15th Oct 2009, 11:49
ules

i before e except after c.

I hope I don't stuff anything up. It is annoying. Stands out like hound testes.

parabellum
15th Oct 2009, 13:05
Quote:
You want the simple answer ules? Emirates and Singapore are having the same or similar problems.
To a certain extent, that is true. But their problems have not caused them to cancel flights to the extent of QF's. Q's engineering planning guys do preventive MC by foreseeing problems that might happen and doing inspection on them or replace known trouble giving components before they start giving problems. Just look at a SQ A380 arriving at its bay at SIN and you will see a battalion of MC vehicles standing by.


But if they are changing and inspecting components outside the normal maintenance schedule then this will make it an expensive aircraft to run.

ules
15th Oct 2009, 13:40
Fair enough guys new aircraft have always seem to have new problems arise. But with their delays and the amount of money the airlines have paid to airbus for brand new planes i think it is ridiculous they have spent enourmous amount of time testing these aircraft out. Once a product is finished shouldnt it hold its value and reliability? They seem to be losing more money rather than making money on these birds, sure they are great they can carry more cargo/passengers and they are more fuel efficient. but with the amount of time spent repairing them and reimbursing passengers for delays they seem to be loosing rather than gaining. I havent flown on an a380 i will one day i absolutely love the aircraft.I think airbus is losing its value they might aswell build the planes in china if a problem is going to arise every 2nd flight .:8

gassed budgie
15th Oct 2009, 13:49
The A380 is a piece of crap. I, and the guys that fly it have already written it off. Once it is loaded to it's MTOW (which is exceeded if full of fuel, pax and freight), its first altitude is only FL230. This is because it is so heavy and doesn't have the power to fly higher. After burning off about 40 tonnes then it can climb to FL280, then a further 40-50 tonnes it can get to FL340. These altitudes seriously comprimise the efficiency and speed of the aircraft. Every time we head from LAX to YSSY, we fly out higher and faster than the A380 which leaves about 40 mins before us, and every flight we overtake it at about FL360 whilst it is at about FL280. Furthermore, when we overtake it we have full fuel, pax (not so much anymore) and freight. The A380 is very limited in the 3 aforementioned, as it is an overweight plane. It's performance is severely comprimised by this weight limitation; part of the reason that the latest talk is that Jetstar will get all of the airbuses including the A380's.

On a shorter flight ie YSSY - HNL they would be much more efficient, just on long haul they are rubbish as they are always at MTOW. As for the handling, it was well documented that should the USA not being on the middle of the GFC, they'd tell Qantas to get stuffed. Bear in mind that Qantas is the most frequent international carrier through this airport. This is because of the problems the A380 poses on the ground. Being so large, it exceeds minimum safe distances when taxiing so the adjacent runway is shut down temporarily, the taxiways are shut down and even service vehicles have to wait for it. Furthermore, it needs an incredibly wide turning circle as there is no steering gear on the main gear (would add about 14 tonnes) which means it scuffs tyres and bends struts. It is expensive too, with its large wingspan engines 1 and 4 have no reverse thrust (weight saving and FOD risk) so it relies heavily on its brakes, engines 2 and 3 and aerodynamic devices like the spoilers. I could go on for hours on this but trust me, speak to any pilot who has come from the 474 and ask them what they think of it.


The above is from another forum in another place.
Never having flown a 380 let alone stepped inside of one, I was wondering if any of the ppruners here that have hands on experience with the 380 would agree with the above sentiments.

Wiley
15th Oct 2009, 22:14
sure they are great they can carry more cargo/passengers and they are more fuel efficient(My boldface). I'm not sure that's been the case with the 380. From what I've heard, it's a gas gobbler when compared with (not a hell of a lot) smaller aircraft that carry (not a hell of a lot) less payload, like the 777-300ER. Someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong, but from an fuel economy point of view, it would seem not to be an ideal ULH aircraft. It seems to have been designed to be economically optimal at around a seven hour stage length.

As for pax comfort: I'd have to agree with A 380-800 driver. It's very nice. My only complaint is that it's so damned quiet, if someone's snoring loudly up to five or six rows away, he soundblasts the whole damned cabin.

dragon man
15th Oct 2009, 23:36
The other night i did Lax Syd with a A380 in front of me. As i had some spare time i had the dispatcher provide me with the t/off weight and burn off for the 380. Working from its empty weight and comparing it to my own flight the 380 was 5% more fuel efficient per kg of payload not passenger. From the customers point of view it is an absolute winner. Ive traveled in business class myself and it was fabulous. No need to pay for first class if you get business on the 380.

MaxHelixAngle
16th Oct 2009, 00:14
Gassed budgie,

The quote from another forum is horribly wrong on so many accounts:

Unlike the B747 the A380 rarely has MTOW issues ex LAX
As A380-800 driver mentioned it can achieve FL320-340 at MTOW
The A380 frequently out-climbs the B747, a great advantage northbound out of Singapore over Afghanistan
The A380 is only a few minutes slower on the sector compared to the B747 at normal cost indices
The A380 is perfectly suited to longer sectors such as LAX-SYD and is performing inside the stated performance guarantee from Airbus and Rolls Royce
There was a well publicised news article about LAX airport getting the irrits with the A380, after this article a management pilot flew to LAX to meet with Airport and ATC personnel who all stated there was no basis for the article and they were in-fact happy with the A380. Note as-well that ICAO airport design spec's allow for an aircraft with 80mx80m dimensions.
The A380 has Body Wheel Steering on the 4 of the 6 wheels on each Body Wheel Steering Truck.


There is one point it is correct about though, it does only have reverse on the inboard engine's, The A380 has such an efficient wing that the Vref speed's are far lower than the B747 allowing for tremendous landing performance. Airbus saw a cost saving and decided not to include reverse on any of the engines to realise some substantial weight and maintenance savings, however the FAA stepped in and wanted it, hence a compromise was reached.

The A380 has down sides like any aeroplane but overall it is a great piece of kit, the pilot's love it, the passengers love it and the airline loves it.

Wod
16th Oct 2009, 08:07
And another thing.

Pilots don't focus on it, but planners do.

For QF ( and it is not confined to QF) slot constraints are an issue at ports such as SYD, NRT, LHR because of finite constraints, and at ports like LAX and FRA, because of time of day issues relating to onward connections.

SYD is limited by runway movements for crucial hours of the day. Only way to move more pax at the most popular times is to increase the number of seats per slot. Domestically, that is 737-800 in lieu of -400, or 767/A330 in lieu of 737. A380 does the same versus 747.

All part of the mix.

KLN94
16th Oct 2009, 09:23
I flew Syd - Singapore return this week aboard the Singapore Airlines A380, my first flight in it.

Overall impressions very good. Had to fly economy, the seating is larger and more comfortable than my recolelction of the 747 and other long haul aircraft. Suggest sitting upstairs on the outer isles where there are two seats only, not three, and due to curvature of the fuselage, there is a bin (and more space) under the window, same as upstairs on a 747.

Re hydraulic problems, the subject of this thread, I can confirm that we were delayed by one hour out of Singapore due hydraulic problems. The pilot said that hydraulic oil was discovered on the tarmac under the plane, so it had to be checked. Much activity by the maintenance personell was evident.

Flew return sector in the downstairs aft cabin and I strongly suggest avoiding this cabin due loud hydraulic motor actator noise from rear airframe, plus much more pax traffic heading for the toilets.

But I was very impressed with the A380. It is now my aircraft of choice and the Singapore product is good. Next week I am Qantas to LAX, in economy, so I will see how that goes with interest...

airtags
16th Oct 2009, 10:51
budgie - refer Wiley's post - although dragun's burn calcs are not far off the mark.

Baseline is punters are CHOOSING 380 over 744's ....
argue the numbers but pax perception = revenue reality

Beer Baron
16th Oct 2009, 13:40
Any truth to the rumour that the yet to fly 747 800 is expected to burn at cruise something in the order of 7 tonnes and hour as opposed to the A380 that burns 13 ?

No there is no truth to this rumour. The Boeing website states that the 747-8 will have 2% lower fuel burn than the 747-400. So the comparison is more like 9.8 Vs 13 tonnes per hour on average. One must also remember the 380 holds 19% more passengers.

boeing boeing.. gone
16th Oct 2009, 15:00
only 2%?? when you consider the thing has new wings and new donks!!

boeing boeing.. gone
16th Oct 2009, 15:08
how many extra seat can the -8 carry over the 400??

404 Titan
16th Oct 2009, 15:42
boeing boeing.. gone

Seat mile costs is what the airlines are interested in. If Boeings figures are accurate then it is 13% more efficient than the B747-400 and 6% more efficient than the A380. According to their web sight it is designed to fill the 400-500 seat pax market.

Seat-mile costs for the 747-8 Intercontinental are 13 percent lower than the 747-400, with 2% lower trip costs. The 747-8 Intercontinental is more than 10 percent lighter per seat than the A380 and consumes 11 percent less fuel per passenger. That translates into a trip-cost reduction of 21 percent and a seat-mile cost reduction of more than 6 percent compared to the A380.

brown_hornet
16th Oct 2009, 16:06
gassed budgie, me thinks that was a classic wind up post there by whoever put that up;)

Haven't been on the 380 long but one thing that does impress is the performance of the thing, most flights have certainly been up there in terms of approaching MTOW and every time as A380-800 driver has stated we can quite easily make the low thirties. As a side note, on the way to LHR the other night, had been flying for approx 11 hours and realised that we were now just reaching the MTOW of the 744.....pretty impressive. If only it drank a little less juice and every accountant would have a hard on:8

Bad Hat Harry
17th Oct 2009, 02:29
How old is the 744 technology.Current cockpits are what?...15 years old?
The Airbus A380 should and does have all the goodies.
When(if) the 787 gets off the ground then comparisons should be made.
Then we should have a reasonable idea of how good/bad/indifferent the dugong is.

Going Boeing
17th Oct 2009, 04:03
As a side note, on the way to LHR the other night, had been flying for approx 11 hours and realised that we were now just reaching the MTOW of the 744.....pretty impressive.

brown_hornet, have another think about your post. In QF service, the basic weight of the A380 is 105 tonnes heavier than the B747-400ER which has the same range and 4 class configuration. Not so impressive when you think that you are carrying around a lot of extra weight because somewhere, in the distant future, Airbus intends to stretch the A380 fuselage utilising the existing wing/centre wing box structure. Until then, we have a modern aircraft with many fuel saving technologies trying to overcome an excessive weight problem. Yes, it will make money in comparison with the B744 if you have average load factors above 85% - personally, I believe that a fleet of B777-300ER's would provide much better returns for the shareholders (as well as a lot more satisfaction for the crews).

ANCIENT
17th Oct 2009, 05:34
Going Boeing. "More satisfaction for the crew!" Why?

Trent 972
17th Oct 2009, 06:05
GB, with respect, in QF ops the A380 (http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/aircraft-seat-map-airbus-380/global/en)(all 4 class config.) carries 48% more passengers (450) than a QF B744 (http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/aircraft-seat-map-boeing-744er/global/en) in 4 class config. (307)
The 744 doesn't even come close. The A380 has 50% more floor space (http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a380/index2.html)than a 744, so whichever config. is chosen the 380 will fit approx 50% more passengers when comparing apples with apples.
When and if the bean counters ever get around to matching the A380 seat plan to what the market really wants. ie. more econ and premium econ, the difference will be even greater.
As for 773's, no doubt they would be good, but do the numbers on LAX-MEL and the tripler comes out pretty poorly.

Going Boeing
17th Oct 2009, 06:27
"More satisfaction for the crew!" Why?

The Tripler is a "sexy" aeroplane to fly - the Dugong, unfortunately, isn't! :)

Trent 972, I agree with you re the seating figures but there is still the problem of the serious weight penalty. I suspect that you'll soon see the B744 Pacific config aircraft altered to increase the Economy/premium economy seats at the expense of some business class seats.

Unfortunately, as with all Airbus products, changing the configuration of the Dugong is prohibitively expensive as bulkheads form part of the structural integrity of the aircraft. A source who is at the heart of the problem recently indicated that no change in config for the Dugong is economically feasible until after the 12th aircraft is delivered. The experts from "Commercial" got it wrong again (a la the A330 configuration) and it's too costly to correct.

Beer Baron
17th Oct 2009, 08:05
The Tripler is a "sexy" aeroplane to fly - the Dugong, unfortunately, isn't!

That maybe the feeling of a fair degree of pilots however the average passenger couldn't care less about a 777. They wouldn't even know the difference between a 777, A340 or an A330. But they certainly know an A380 when they see one and many would fly in it in preference to most other aircraft, (if only because it's the big new thing).

And even as a pilot, there has to be something "sexy" about hauling nearly 570 tonnes of the latest aerospace technology into the sky with 288 000 lbs of thrust behind you.

Wiley
17th Oct 2009, 08:37
I think most of us, both beancounters and aircrew, would agree that the only real problem is how much of that 570 tonnes is dead weight. It is a very heavy beast before you start adding fuel or payload, and the engines have to cary the dead weight before they start carrying payload.

That said, as others have already noted, it brings a whole new level of comfort (or in current configurations, legroom, at least) to the paying passenger. It remains to be seen how long it will take the beancounters to crib that extra leg room with extra seats to make the ca'ching! factor look more agreeable. Remember, the 74 started out with lounges and bars. They were soon replaced with closely packed seats. I don't think too many people would want to imagine (for example) what a two class EK 380 configured for DXB-BOM is going to look like.

Or a Jet* 380 configured for MEL-SYD.

Wait a few years and you won't have to imagine it.

18-Wheeler
17th Oct 2009, 09:38
Wait a few years and you won't have to imagine it.

FWIW I flew a 747-300 a few years ago from Paris to the Carribbean & back for a charter company, they had approval from the French authorities to remove the middle toilets & galley so they could squeeze more seats into it.
I think I ended up carrying something like 570 pax in it on one trip.

Trent 972
17th Oct 2009, 09:56
Caution - Very simplistic mathematics following:
744ER @ MTOW 412 tonnes divided by 307 revenue seats available equals 1,342 kilograms aloft for each available pax seat.
A380 @ 569 tonnes divided by 450 available revenue seats equals 1,264 kilograms aloft for each available pax seat.
WOD, in his post 22, is right on the money. For a horse designed for a specific course the 380 wins hands down.
The 380 wing is designed to carry 650 tonnes, indicating the growth potential for the design. The 380 is the dawn of a new beginning, whilst the 744, as great as she has been, is a 'has been'.
Bring on the B748 to hopefully keep the progression alive.

parabellum
17th Oct 2009, 12:14
The 380 is the dawn of a new beginning,

No she isn't. The A380 is admirably filling a small niche market for high density long haul and the passengers and the airlines are happy. Sadly the order book tells a very different story and whilst the A380 may be a technical success she will never break even, let alone be a commercial success.

18-Wheeler
17th Oct 2009, 22:49
The 747-400 came about about 30 years after the 100

It's not really important, but it was only 19 years.
747A flew January 1970, the 747-400 February 1989.

parabellum
17th Oct 2009, 23:45
The 380 is an awesome bit of kit. I have said it before- the pax love it, the pilots love it.


No argument there, but it is still a commercial disaster for Airbus. In twenty years time? Well, if you can still get spares for it then it may well still be flying, otherwise it will be out in the desert, or worse!

Capt Kremin
18th Oct 2009, 00:03
307 seats on a QF 747-400?!!?

I think thats out by 100 no matter what the website says.

Capt Fathom
18th Oct 2009, 00:42
Depends on the configuration. Seat Guru (http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Qantas_Airways/Qantas_Airways_Boeing_747-400_5.php)

This one has 307 seats:
First Class: 14 Flat bed sleeping pods
Business Class: 66 Lie-flat Skybeds with no floor storage
Premium Economy Class: 40 seats with 9 inch recline and fixed armrests
Economy Class: 187 seats with 6 inch recline

The two class version has 412 seats:
Business Class: 56 Lie-flat Skybeds More Info
Economy Class: 356 seats with adjustable headrests and lumbar

Trent 972
18th Oct 2009, 04:39
Capt. K, the Qantas website is correct at 307 seats for the 4 class configuration on 744.
A 2 class QF744 with 412 seats would still be at a >50% seat disadvantage when compared to the Airbus recommended 2 class A380 configuration of 644 seats.

Ref + 10
19th Oct 2009, 03:31
I just flew Dubai - Heathrow in one and had a very nice journey. Upstairs in the first row of business though it was quite awkward to go to the lav. They are in the back behind the bar. The one directly in front of me was for first class and the girls, though pleasant, didn't want to let us go forward. Everyone in the first 10 rows tried. In the end they did let most through though. Serving the number of business pax that they had meant that there was a trolley in the aisle virtually always and made it annoying. Sounds like a small issue but you have to make your way past nearly 30 rows of business class configured pax chairs.

The bar was very popular and at one point was standing room only. When disembarking I thought it could be a lengthy affair but I was very pleasantly surprised as I was on the road in a courtesy limo within 30 minutes of stepping off.

Commercial issues aside, it is certainly and ugly beast but it has brought something new to the mix. I'm not a beancounter but I would love to have a fly of the thing. Same way I'd love to have a burn in a 744 really.

Time will tell how the Beluga Whale works out in the real world. In the mean time I have no problem being loaded onto one. :ok:

Capt Kremin
19th Oct 2009, 04:49
If you go to the website you'll find most of the 744's have over 400 seats. I wasn't arguing about the economics btw, just the numbers. I have flown the aircraft...

Fly - Onboard - Seat Maps - Boeing 747-400 Longreach (http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/aircraft-seat-map-boeing-744/global/en)

Capt Fathom
19th Oct 2009, 06:25
most of the 744's have over 400 seats

Well I'm confused Capt Kremin!

Following your link to the Qantas website, they show 5 different configurations for the B744!

With the exception of one, all are under 400 seats!

Starting with the 747-400ER: Seating is 307, 353, 351, 307, and 412.

ules
19th Oct 2009, 14:22
i think jetstar should buy a 744 then they can carry more pax than the 380 if they put rows of seats in the cargo hold. :ok: carry on luggage only. :}:}:}

Back Seat Driver
19th Oct 2009, 21:41
If Captain K goes back to that website he will see 7 x QF744's have the 2 class 412 seat configuration. That is somewhat less than "most of the 744's".
This discussion was about the 4 class configured 744's and that has 307 seats.
The only thing wrong with the 380 is, we don't have enough of them.:ok:

Ski Guru
19th Oct 2009, 23:40
Nor does the Qf744 have the standard Battlestar FTL drive. Thats got to be just as relevant in this thread.

leewan
20th Oct 2009, 06:18
Leewan, your ATW link is to an article written 'Thursday December 13, 2007'... The world has moved on.

Some facts don't change with time. The fact is A380 is a reliable a/c and is very popular among the pax.
SIA customers ask ?where is recession? on packed A380 (http://www.theedgesingapore.com/component/content/7699.html?task=view)
It is a gas guzzler if you look simply at the amount of fuel it consumes. But if you look at the liters per pax per mile, then it's the most fuel efficient a/c out there at the moment. AFAIK, it is definitely making $$$ as far as SQ is concerned.

All new a/cs in service would have an increased amount of mx inspections to uncover latent problems and the A380 is not an exception. The dispatch reliability figures are remarkable considering it's a new a/c type.
As to whether the market can support the A380 in the long term, at the moment, it does look like a niche a/c as not many operators are ordering it. Some potential customers I've heard, are waiting for the A389 instead. Only time will tell.

StallBoy
22nd Oct 2009, 23:54
A380_800 DRIVER

I don't want to sound pessimistic but after the next two oil spikes and the GW nonsense :ugh:I doubt if any of us will be flying in thirty years time unless you are a multimillionaire. I see airports as the homes of huge aluminium dinosaurs:uhoh: waiting to be turned into coke cans.:{:{

blow.n.gasket
23rd Oct 2009, 03:56
Well that will mean the end of the Globalization experiment won't it, how else can an integrated globalized market work without the cheap transport of goods?:ooh:
Buy local may become the new catch cry.:ok:

leewan
10th Nov 2009, 13:58
To all those A380 nay-sayers, read this report.
A380?s stellar performance undermined by ongoing technical issues: operators (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/09/334396/a380s-stellar-performance-undermined-by-ongoing-technical-issues-operators.html)


The full report is in a link at the bottom.

mikebravo787
10th Nov 2009, 14:12
seat guru:- if you go to the website you'll find most of the 744's have over 400 seats.
744 and 380 are both costly to operate.. lets wait for the orders.. to pile-up.. i doubt if the 380 will fly for too long..
just a thought..

mikebravo787
10th Nov 2009, 14:15
well i think the same way.. it will be wise to be lean and mean.. and fit than to fly the big birds and fall-apart..sad but true.. cheers..get your endorsements on the elephant while they fly..

RedTBar
12th Nov 2009, 15:41
Doesn't this kind of make a mock of the Captains, Cabin Crews and video statements for passengers to " remain seated and keep their seatbelts fastened at all times even when the seat belt sign is turned off as a safety precaution against the unexpected etc etc"
Since the inception of aviation, airlines and manufacturers have gone to a lot of trouble to give the impression that you are in a bar,hotel or restaurant instead of an aluminium tube moving through the atmosphere at an unnatural speed.

QF's 747 initially had an upstairs bar and lounge until the bean counters decided that they could make more money by putting seats in the upper deck.Even today the their 747's have a self serve bar in business class.

Emirates A380's have showers for first class as well.

Todays caveat regarding the possibility of unexpected turbulence is certainly a warning but also a way for the airline to cover themselves legally.

I agree with you aiming point that it does have a contradictory interpretation and with our litigation happy society the airline would want to have a good legal department.Especially on flights in and out of the US:E

Unhinged
12th Nov 2009, 23:09
Doesn't this kind of make a mock of the Captains, Cabin Crews and video statements for passengers to " remain seated and keep their seatbelts fastened at all times even when the seat belt sign is turned off as a safety precaution against the unexpected etc etc"

I think that is a slight mis-quote. The one I hear most often is:

"The Captain has now turned off the Fasten Seatbelt sign. However, we would like to remind you to keep your seatbelt fastened at all times when seated."

A small but important difference.

avguy1
12th Nov 2009, 23:44
The biggest problem with the A380 at Qantas is that there are only 4 of them. If one goes U/S the other 3 are likely at opposite ends of the earth, and all of a sudden you have cut the fleet by 25%. Doesn't matter what kind of plane it is, cut out 25% of a fleet and the network will struggle and it will become "news".

Going Boeing
21st Dec 2009, 00:05
PARIS, Dec 17, 2009 (AFP) - The sole A380 superjumbo operated by Air France was grounded for the second time in a week on Thursday because of a technical problem, officials said.

The plane, due to fly from Paris to New York's JFK airport, suffered a "small technical incident" that force the airline to cancel the flight and place passengers on another plane, a spokesman for the airline said.

"Technicians are in the process of determining the cause of the fault," he added.

On Monday the same plane was grounded in New York because of a technical glitch.

Air France started flying the giant double-decker jet, the world's largest passenger plane, on November 23.

Another A380, flown by Singapore Airlines, had to return to Paris on Wednesday due to an electrical fault.

by Dan De Luce 2009 AFP

FoxtrotAlpha18
21st Dec 2009, 00:17
That's what happens when you've only got one of something!

RedTBar
21st Dec 2009, 01:13
That's what happens when you've only got one of something!
No it doesn't.
It would be better for an airline if it does only have one of a new type in their fleet.
If an airline is having problems with a new aircraft type then the more of that type they have in their fleet the more problems and cancellations they will have.
If the problem is systemic then the more aircraft you have the more problems you are going to have.
Try dealing with multiple cancellations especially at this time of the year.

blow.n.gasket
21st Dec 2009, 05:16
How many different Data cards has the dugong managed to cook so far?:eek:Sounds like a problem brewing to me.:eek:

Wod
21st Dec 2009, 06:39
May be AF's first but it is the 20th A380 delivery.

QF just got their 5th (22nd delivery) and #6 is only 10 days away

A380 production list - Planes (http://plane.spottingworld.com/A380_production_list)

ifsknt
21st Dec 2009, 11:17
I have only flown on the QF Dugong and from a pax perspective in J Class upstairs I was not particulary impressed....its a very open "barn" up there whereas the old 744 has smaller sections which make it more pleasant (personal opinion).How many J Class seats upstairs...72?

The double decker unloading system makes it a sh.t fight to get to immigration if you are in a hurry as all the Y pax disembark at the same time. Its no fun waiting 2 hours in line at LAX if you have a connection to catch.

Personally, I can't inderstand the Dugong's popularity with pax but maybe EK and SQ's are better configured.

Luckily my next US trip is scheduled (deliberately) on a day when "old faithful" will be doing the service.

Pegasus747
21st Dec 2009, 11:32
ifsknt your previous post is incorrect on a number of counts.

Primarily the point that the economy passengers disembark at the same time as the business class passengers.

With a three door operation, the first door open is M1L and the first class passengers disembark. the second door opened is the U1L where the JC pax and the WC pax disembark. Then after the upper deck is cleared and the vesibule cleared the M2L is opened and the YC pax disembark.

the line in LAX has nothing to do with the disembarkation process, its about the shit fight that is known as Tom Bradley terminal and the incompetent US immigration process.

The JC pax are more likely caught behind a dozen other airlines that arrive at the same time.

And the fact that you dont like the configuration is not inconsistent with some pax comments, however 95% plus like the spacious feel and the lie flat beds that they are completely in control of, unlike the SQ ones that have to be put into a bed position and returned upright by a crew member

twiggs
21st Dec 2009, 11:37
So why do we still have to wait 10 minutes after arrival on blocks before we can get off in SYD?

43Inches
21st Dec 2009, 20:20
As many engineers will and do tell - the 744 in it's first years of Qantas service encountered a heap more of issues than the 380 has. New aircraft, new issues - big deal - look how successful the 744 has been and yet not issue free early on...what aircraft is?


744 dispatch reliability first few years 94.5%

A380 average is 96-97% fleet wide and SQ has achieved an average of 98.1%

blow.n.gasket
21st Dec 2009, 22:11
A380-800 driver
Blown G,

None that I am aware of. Not much of a problem


Really, what was that air turnback recently, wasn't a cooked Fuel Data card and an inability to dump fuel because no bloody fuel pumps were running was it?
Then I'm led to believe there was the cooked power distribution card ? Fiji was it?:ooh:

43Inches
21st Dec 2009, 23:05
Thought Fiji was a medical emergency followed by flap warning indicator problem on restart. Crew subsequently ran out of duty hours after waiting for an a330 engineer to check it out, that is a non scheduled port with predominantly boeing support.

Bootstrap1
22nd Dec 2009, 00:03
When QF get dugong #10 they will send the 744s one for one to the desert. But when they have all 20 who knows how long the 744s will remain. Personally I am happy to see the back of the ugly sisters they were such a pain in the butt from the day they arrived, but I think OJH should stay. Even after its little sojourn off the runway in BKK is has proven to be a reliable and solid aircraft. It says something about Boeings in general and the quality of a Boeing repair.

ifsknt
23rd Dec 2009, 09:37
Pegasus

I happily stand corrected on the disembarkation. Must have been one of those Tom Bradley days. I can now remove that "dislike" from my list, thank you.

Regarding the configuration, I have not had to have the SQ bed returned to upright by crew...I have always managed to do it myself. Its also full length and wide and, very comfortable especially on the SIN-EWR leg (A340 but same bed)

I still like old faithful though!

mrdeux
23rd Dec 2009, 11:04
I was flying the 744s when they were brand new. I'm not seeing anything all that different with the 380s.

And I think OJK should stay too.

hbomb
25th Dec 2009, 00:50
I also much prefer the 744 in J class to the 380. It's not just the barn-like sensation of the cabin but the amount of time it takes for service towards the back (90 mins for a drink in 24K) - and also, especially, the impossible configuration of the toilets and galleys. I am sure there is an algorithm to calculate the difference in availability but just a glance will show that lines for the toilets are much longer than in the 744 even if the basic ratio is similar. SQ's arrangement is better and the aisle access for every seat makes a big difference.

mmurray
26th Dec 2009, 08:09
Had to fly economy, the seating is larger and more comfortable than my recolelction of the 747 and other long haul aircraft. Suggest sitting upstairs on the outer isles where there are two seats only, not three, and due to curvature of the fuselage, there is a bin (and more space) under the window, same as upstairs on a 747.

For information upstairs at the back in QF is premium economy in an A380. Well it was in the one I was on. The rest of upstairs is business.

Very pleasant upstairs in QF on the A380.

Michael