PDA

View Full Version : Merged: Qantas and Rolls Royce Secret


DEFCON4
4th Dec 2010, 09:56
Dec 04, 2010
Qantas is ready to sue the maker of its A380 engines, Rolls Royce, alleging new rules for its engines mean it can only carry 80 passengers across the Pacific in its Airbus 380s.

Qantas says it will sue Rolls Royce if the pair cannot agree to a settlement figure for losses caused by November's mid-flight explosion, the Herald Sun reports.

The airline filed papers in the Federal Court on Friday saying it bought the Airbus superjumbos because they could carry 450 passengers from Australia to the US.

But the new rules mean the superjumbo is not worth using on flights to the US.

Qantas, which began discussions with Rolls Royce this week, said it was keeping all options open to recoup its losses after its A380 planes were grounded and operational constraints imposed.

Qantas is fighting for damages and is also seeking a court order for Rolls Royce to fund a $1 million credit note guaranteeing against "uncontained engine failure".

In its statement, Qantas said although Rolls Royce continued to modify the Trent 900 engine, it failed to update 23 engines on Qantas' jets.

When the A380 engine exploded near Singapore mid-flight on November 4, only one engine on Qantas' jets had been modified.

Qantas was forced to ground its A380 fleet after the incident.

The airline agreed on Wednesday to undertake one-off engine inspections , on top of the mandatory inspections every 20 flying cycles that were imposed by an international airline safety directive.

Engineers suspect a defective engine part caused November's explosion.

The incident has cost Qantas tens of millions of dollars in lost earnings due to cancelled flights and restrictions on the number of passengers A380s can carry.

What New Rules?

The Kelpie
4th Dec 2010, 10:09
Is it any wonder that Joyce 'did the right thing' by grounding the a380 fleet. All that media spin that qf puts safety as a priority - yes it does but only when he thinks they won't be footing the bill!

Maybe as a strategy RR should establish how much the route was losing and counterclaim that grounding the A380 on the route is actually saving Qantas money! The accountants will love that one!!!

EW73
4th Dec 2010, 11:13
Didn't QF specifically select the uprated (72,000 lbs) thrust engines to provide sufficient thrust for the long range flights, ala MEL - LAX.

Also isn't it true that all that advertising from airbus regarding the efficiency of the a380 is ONLY if every seat is utilized, otherwise the seat/mile cost figure goes out the window!

EW73 :\

astroboy55
4th Dec 2010, 12:18
the 380 has to go. Was always the wrong choice for QF. Maybe emirates/singapore etc can make money from it, but QF never will.
If it cant be used on the US routes....whats the point. Sure, the PAX may love it, but im sure their love could be equally directed to a 777/787/748/whatever.

How will QF get themselves out of this one?? Probably by increasing the bonuses for AJ/BB/DH and all the other bastards that are screwing a once great airline. The pricks make me squirm in my seat every time I see them.

Rolls Royce...you're in some trouble methinks....

stubby jumbo
4th Dec 2010, 12:41
Easy solution to QF woes.

Flog off all of the A-380's to Qatar airways.....they are going to need 'em for 2022.

Order 100 x 777-200 LR's NOW !

Game over

Happy Ending:p

clear to land
4th Dec 2010, 13:12
Sorry 777 production line booked for x years due to every other man and his dog with the EXCEPTION of QF realising they are, atm, the most efficient money maker around, flying almost any sector length needed carrying freight also (oh yes, there is actually money in freight, even without price fixing!!!) And QF management all received a bonus ??? :ugh:

donpizmeov
4th Dec 2010, 18:36
Not only can you not get them, but the 772LR is the only aeroplane in the EK fleet to make less money than the A345. If you were to wish for the 773ER you would be on the money.

Deaf
4th Dec 2010, 21:05
Rolls Royce to fund a $1 million credit note guaranteeing against "uncontained engine failure".

Keep seeing this $1 million thing which seems low is it $100 million or $1 billion?

Mach2point7
4th Dec 2010, 21:53
"A spokesman for Qantas said their (sic) were currently three builds or versions of the Trent 900, A, B and C. The incident on November 4 was in an A build engine, and all such builds have been removed from the Qantas fleet." - Ben Sandilands, Plane Talking website.

Does anybody know if Qantas is suggesting that they were not aware of these three build standards prior to Nov 4 ?

T-Vasis
5th Dec 2010, 04:03
Maybe emirates/singapore etc can make money from it, but QF never wil

That is where you are wrong. The 380 is delivering excellent economics to Qantas and has exceeded expectations in some instances...

the most efficient money maker around, flying almost any sector length needed

Except V are unable to make money, hence mass market extraction. Why can't V make money if the aircraft is so "efficient" and able to fly "any sector length needed"...

Because cost of operating the asset is only one component of whether a market will deliver a return or loss...Just having a flash new 777 does not mean the market is viable and/or that asset is best suited for that market...V's failure it matching equipment to market...I mean - three class 777 on leisure based markets...what fools their route analysts must be to believe they could extract the appropriate yield on these "leisure" markets...

ernestkgann
5th Dec 2010, 05:19
As of Feb '11 V are out of the leisure business, three class premium to the US and UAE only. Massimo said that they should break even by mid '11, that's not only profitable but recouping all start up costs. Load factors averaging 80%+.

T-Vasis
5th Dec 2010, 06:42
should break even by mid '11

I hope for them they do...

Load factors averaging 80%+

Does not mean the yield is appropriate - that's the underlying factor...

neville_nobody
5th Dec 2010, 07:39
If I was in the Boeing sales team I would be asking around as to what deal could be arranged for some 773-ER's and see if they are able to punt Airbus out of QF all together. Dunno whether it could be done or what politics are involved but it is an opportunity to get your proven product in there.

ernestkgann
5th Dec 2010, 09:00
You're right about yield management, the VB group have never had a specialist yield manager til recently. They now have an ex-QF yield management guy that Mr B has recruited.

donpizmeov
5th Dec 2010, 09:05
Ernie you and I could have done that job for twice the pay and free Coffee. We will have to get in earlier with a bid next time.
Spare room is all organised for when you and the boys come on though this way again in the new year.

The Don

ernestkgann
5th Dec 2010, 09:25
True Don. Looking forward to it.

B772
5th Dec 2010, 10:57
EW73

The QF A380's have a higher take-off weight than SQ or LH for trans pacific ops, hence the need for a further 2,000lbs thrust in each engine.

BTW. The QF A380's can only carry approx. the same revenue payload trans pacific as the QF B747-400ER's.

Kangaroo Court
6th Dec 2010, 03:24
Boeing will be very happy to have us all home when the time comes. I'm sure they can accomodate any delivery schedule we would ask of them given the state of the US economy and the fact that Boeing is one of the largest export earners.

The A-380 is a dud; built by a consortium of common market employees who have poor communication, no national pride and very little accountability for things when they go wrong, get over it!

nomorecatering
6th Dec 2010, 11:45
Apparently Airbus is not a happy family on the factory floor.

A friend of a friend spent 6 months at Airbus a while back. Thers 3 nationalities in the factory. English, French and Germans. Apparently they all hate each other and wont speak to each other.

onetrack
6th Dec 2010, 11:57
Nomorecatering - And?... you're trying to tell us, that the Boeing factory is one big happy, joyous, family? I seem to recall that most factory employees speak of their job in terms of... soul-destroying... general job unhappiness... friction created by working with associates from many different cultures... and their work lives filled with repetitive boredom, and constant unreasonable management demands, to do more with less.
Nothing new about the Airbus factory feedback... :rolleyes:

Kangaroo Court
6th Dec 2010, 14:33
Having spent a lot of my career observing Boeing manufacturing~you're wrong.

donpizmeov
6th Dec 2010, 17:23
Too bloody right Kanga. Its Spanish on the floor at Boeing....and a few sneaky looks anytime legal immigration or green card is mentioned.:E

Now the boeing vs airbus debate has gotten to the factory floor. A new low.

The Don

Hobo
6th Dec 2010, 19:43
From the QF website:-

With CASA's approval, two A380s have returned to service, operating between Australia and the UK, with Qantas voluntarily applying a range of conditions that include not operating the aircraft across the Pacific until further operational experience has been gathered.


Does anybody know what this means?

When is it likely that QF will start them back on the Pacific?

Jack Ranga
6th Dec 2010, 19:48
Oprah will be SPEWING :yuk:

Mr.Buzzy
6th Dec 2010, 23:12
You mean the A3-80seater?

hotnhigh
7th Dec 2010, 01:23
If we operate at these power settings, will the engine blow up? I think is what it means. :ugh:

Normasars
7th Dec 2010, 01:32
buzzy,

check your PMs

Bootstrap1
7th Dec 2010, 02:43
The engine is certified at 72000lbs for QF. Only QF have these 72k engines. SIA and Luft have 70k engines.

Rolls Royce have asked QF not to run them at 72k but wont say why, until they issue a certified document stating that QF can do as they please.

The engine has been runup to 84k by RR to 72k out of LAX should not be too much of a problem.

airtags
7th Dec 2010, 06:16
Hobo - I'd rekon in the northern summer

Bootstrap1
7th Dec 2010, 07:34
Kangaroo. you obviously have a poor regard for the 380 and all things airbus. But the 787 is more or less built by a consortium of risk sharing partners and look at the ball of crap that has turned into.

Boeing have screwed themselves well and truly with the way they have managed the manufacture of the 787, and then to compound the issues they straight out lie to all and sundry that the program is still on track blah blah blah.

I used to be a Boeing man but I can say that airbus make a product that is so much more user friendly in many ways.

I hold the 744 and 777 in high regard but their they wont be here forever and if Boeing cant sort out the 787 saga they wont be here either. They have rehashed the 744 again but I believe it is to little too late and too much old technology. Modern aircraft shouldn't be using long cable runs to control flight controls in this day.

Sunfish
7th Dec 2010, 17:37
Bootstrap1:

Modern aircraft shouldn't be using long cable runs to control flight controls in this day.

How many thousands of people has fly by wire killed? How many more before all the bugs are ironed out? In any case what you call "modern technology" ain't that modern anyway, for example the RR Trent uses diffusion bonded Titanium fan blades a technology that was started to be developed Forty years ago.


The aircraft manufacturing industry is very conservative, and for good reason.

Every time I climb into the little bug smasher, I think of all the people who paid with their lives to determine the design requirements of every single component in it, right down to the whistle hole in the engine breather.

You can stick your "modern technology".

Kangaroo Court
7th Dec 2010, 17:42
Bootstrap 1,

I agree with the concerns and sentiments of the Boeing 787 saga. In many ways it confirms the complexity of trying to do things, "The Airbus way".