NZ flight cancellations over Xmas, thanks to Rolls Royce

[Chris2303]

Air NZ cancels 82 international flights over Christmas period due to engines"Air New Zealand has cancelled some of its international flights due to ongoing issues with its Rolls-Royce engines.

The national carrier says maintenance requirements has forced it to cancel some 82 flights, affecting 14,000 customers travelling between 10 December and 5 January.

Most of the cancelled flights were between Christchurch and Perth, as well as Auckland and Sydney, with limited disruption between Auckland and Tonga.

The airline said it would begin processing changes to customer bookings this week and then contact affected passengers.

Air New Zealand spokersperson Dave Wilson said the airline had been performing regular checks on the engines since April and had been doing all it could to fast-track the required maintenance from Rolls-Royce, but there was a significant wait for repair services.

The airline warned there may be further cancellations."

[Slezy9]

Seems like any airline with RR engines on the 787 is on a very long road to normality... One can only hope Air NZ (and others) are properly compensated by RR. Although it is almost impossible to compensate for the loss in reputation.

[TBM-Legend]

Forget compensation for Air NZ, what about the disrupted holiday and business plans for the passengers. For one, my family is booked BNE-ALK-LAX in December and onwards plus return in January...

Northern winter should have allowed them to ACMI some Euro jets and send that bill to RR...

Poor planning = poor results!

[Chris2303]

Poor planning = poor results!

To whom are you referring?

[TBM-Legend]

To whom are you referring?

Please read my post. Air NZ is responsible for maintaining a schedule. [RR is responsible for getting these engines online.]

My family is booked for 10 Dec ex-BNE to LAX via AKL.

[AerocatS2A]

Please read my post. Air NZ is responsible for maintaining a schedule. [RR is responsible for getting these engines online.]

My family is booked for 10 Dec ex-BNE to LAX via AKL.
Do you have reason to believe your flights are affected?

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travel-alerts

[Chris2303]

Please read my post. Air NZ is responsible for maintaining a schedule. [RR is responsible for getting these engines online.]

My family is booked for 10 Dec ex-BNE to LAX via AKL.

In what way is NZ responsible for poor planning when the problem has been created by a once great aero engine company?

"Air New Zealand senior manager of customer care and communications Doug Grant said that while the airline never expected to still be facing issues with Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines, it's focused on minimising impact to customers."

You sound like one of those people who requires a train company to have 100 buses available in rush hour when their operations turn to custard due to a suicide.

[topend3]

Probably chose services with minimal disruption though, rebook pax on other services on the same day so not a huge amount of inconvenience.

[TBM-Legend]

The RR engine issue are well known in the industry and I know ANZ would have been fully briefed by RR not just yeaterday.

Poor performance by RR is like the RB211 saga of early days when Cathay referred to their L1011's at Bi-Stars not Tri-Stars...

We have not been contacted by Air NZ and our issue is connections in LAX to ATL plus other stuff.

[Beer Baron]

Poor planning = poor results!
Yup, should have planned to fly direct with Virgin or Qantas. :p​​​​​​​

[ElZilcho]

The RR engine issue are well known in the industry and I know ANZ would have been fully briefed by RR not just yeaterday.

Poor performance by RR is like the RB211 saga of early days when Cathay referred to their L1011's at Bi-Stars not Tri-Stars...

We have not been contacted by Air NZ and our issue is connections in LAX to ATL plus other stuff.

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travel-alerts?eventid=X2aVNdeFrWS6E09iO96a

Neither BNE-AKL nor AKL-LAX are listed as being effected... especially since AKL-LAX (which you’re concerned about due connections) is serviced by the 777.

But don’t let that get in the way of a good moan on the bandwagon.

As for the issues being ongoing... while that’s true, the situation is constantly evolving. RR continue to let Airlines down when their “fixes” end up being band-aids rather than a permanent solution. Inspections, (particularly on the TEN engines) keep getting brought forward which almost always results in a few fails as components “wear out earlier than forecast”. The ones that don’t break then have their EDTO approvals slashed as they reach certain cycle limits which effects certain Airlines more than others due to their Geographical location.

Its an absolute cluster f@$k.

[big buddah]

why would you fly Bne-Akl-Lax?

[TBM-Legend]

Thanks for that update. Much appreciated. The way it was first reported here didn't offer and real details.

PS: Why did we choose ANZ over VA and QF? On the day requested they did not have any availability of our seat class for more than one person. [Mostly QF myself and a little others..]

[AerocatS2A]

We have not been contacted by Air NZ and our issue is connections in LAX to ATL plus other stuff.

Presumably because you aren't affected.

[TBM-Legend]

Never assume!

[RickNRoll]

Seems like any airline with RR engines on the 787 is on a very long road to normality... One can only hope Air NZ (and others) are properly compensated by RR. Although it is almost impossible to compensate for the loss in reputation.

That won't be much use if RR goes broke. The damages from this would be causing a world of hurt to RR.

[mattyj]

1 billion dollars write down in their last annual reports I heard

[Asturias56]

Not just RR - every major engine manufacturer has had problems with their latest generation of engines

You get the idea that they're stretching things beyond the limits under pressure to deliver that extra 1% in fuel efficiency - there are no contingency margins left

[DHC4]

why would you fly Bne-Akl-Lax?

Why wouldn’t you, good airline, very good price compared to the other two.

[tdracer]

Not just RR - every major engine manufacturer has had problems with their latest generation of engines

You get the idea that they're stretching things beyond the limits under pressure to deliver that extra 1% in fuel efficiency - there are no contingency margins left

Hogwash :ugh:
Even with the ongoing issues with the Trent (and others), the overall reliability of the latest generation of engines is an order of magnitude better than it was 40 years ago. You just notice it more because today few aircraft have more than two engines.
There was a good reason why 40 years ago, all long range aircraft had three or four engines...

[Office Update]

tdracer,

Spot on re the 3 or 4 engines....
In fact it was common policy to stagger the engines so none had same or similar times, just in case .. The bigger the turbo compound engines got the bigger the fireworks display when they let go.

[zinny]

These issues have been going on in one way or another for over two years. Rolls Royce have continually moved the goalposts plus new issues have arisen. In the meantime air nz have got rid of perfectly good 767s when they had ongoing 787 issues at the time. They then got lease 777s and again, have started getting rid of them before 787 issues fully resolved. All the talk now about getting 787 10s and getting rid of the 777 200 in 2022. Yes, new GE engines but who’s not to say they’ll have issues. Wouldn’t be releasing one more perfectly reliable 777 until all 787s run seamlessly. Company and accountants being tight! All they see are fuel savings re fleet composition. Not prepared to have an extra cent on the bottom line re 777s over 787 a moment longer than they have to. Customers and brand the losers. Meanwhile managers get bonuses

[ElZilcho]

These issues have been going on in one way or another for over two years. Rolls Royce have continually moved the goalposts plus new issues have arisen. In the meantime air nz have got rid of perfectly good 767s when they had ongoing 787 issues at the time. They then got lease 777s and again, have started getting rid of them before 787 issues fully resolved. All the talk now about getting 787 10s and getting rid of the 777 200 in 2022. Yes, new GE engines but who’s not to say they’ll have issues. Wouldn’t be releasing one more perfectly reliable 777 until all 787s run seamlessly. Company and accountants being tight! All they see are fuel savings re fleet composition. Not prepared to have an extra cent on the bottom line re 777s over 787 a moment longer than they have to. Customers and brand the losers. Meanwhile managers get bonuses

As you said, the goalposts keep moving.

The issues with the Package C engines, for the most part, is resolved/managed. The current issues with the TEN engines (which effect 4 of our 787's) was only communicated by RR a week ago (at best). And lets not forget, the TEN engines were touted by RR to be the fix for the Pack C issues. In reality, they're even worse.

Could the GE's have issues? Of course. Could the the Trent 800 engines (on our 772's) also have unknown issues? Hard to say. Does a 737-800 have cracked pickle forks?! Perhaps all 737 NG operators should have held onto their Classic 300/400's for an extra decade "just in case". There comes a point when holding onto old frames "just in case" is simply not viable. Especially when the Engine manufacturer sells you (and ever other Airlines) a lie that the newer version of an Engine has resolved the issues at hand. I guarantee, every 787 operator worldwide would happily operate a fleet of old, reliable 767's with the benefit of hindsight.

The lease 772's from Singapore got parked up in the desert. We still have the -300 lease from EVA. I doubt any 772's will get parked up anytime soon. With 8 orders for 787-10's and another 12 options... there's enough orders to start replacing RR 789's before retiring the 772's.

[Slezy9]

I doubt any 772's will get parked up anytime soon. With 8 orders for 787-10's and another 12 options... there's enough orders to start replacing RR 789's before retiring the 772's.

Imagine that... surely then Air NZ's line of "we have commercial agreements with RR" with regards to compensation go out the window and the lawyers get called in. It's already beyond a joke, if they start getting rid of 5 year old air frames (5 years as of 2019) it's time to nail RR to the wall.

[The name is Porter]

why would you fly Bne-Akl-Lax?

Because ANZ is a FAR superior product, you should try it. I do it out of Melbourne.

[ElZilcho]

Imagine that... surely then Air NZ's line of "we have commercial agreements with RR" with regards to compensation go out the window and the lawyers get called in. It's already beyond a joke, if they start getting rid of 5 year old air frames (5 years as of 2019) it's time to nail RR to the wall.

Not saying they'll do it, but certainly possible given how many options we have. By the time the last 787-10 (or 9) is delivered from the Firm orders, our original 787's will be close to 10 years old. If we're still dealing with engines issues from RR by then, and have been unable to retire the 772's then I see it as a definite possibility. But that's just my own speculation.

[Asturias56]

Hogwash :ugh:
Even with the ongoing issues with the Trent (and others), the overall reliability of the latest generation of engines is an order of magnitude better than it was 40 years ago. You just notice it more because today few aircraft have more than two engines.
There was a good reason why 40 years ago, all long range aircraft had three or four engines...

TD I agree over 20, 40 and even more so 50 years the main engine providers have been amazing in their ability to improve reliability and performance

But the latest offerings have all had issues

RR - we know all about

PWh- PW1100G so bad that Qatar are switching to CFM Leap

GE - real problems with the 9X

SAFFRAN - had to pay Dassault $280 million due to their inability to get the "Silvercrest" to work

[mattyj]

I’ve been told that it’s fully possible to re-engine the 78 with GEs, it’s just expensive obviously including purchasing a new pylon. On the other hand an AirNZ exec told me that that was “never going to happen at AirNZ”

any idea why why that would be?

[tdracer]

TD I agree over 20, 40 and even more so 50 years the main engine providers have been amazing in their ability to improve reliability and performance

But the latest offerings have all had issues

RR - we know all about

PWh- PW1100G so bad that Qatar are switching to CFM Leap

GE - real problems with the 9X

SAFFRAN - had to pay Dassault $280 million due to their inability to get the "Silvercrest" to work

Even with the Trent issues, it's shutdown rate is still better - by a long shot - than anything that was available 40 years ago. We used to think it was good when we had a shutdown ever 10,000 hours, now if it's every 100,000 hours we get worried, and if it's worse than that you get ETOPS limitations (which is the current Trent status).
Yes, Pratt is struggling with their GTF - something that doesn't surprise me in the least. But since Pratt has pretty much bet the farm on the GTF concept, they'll either figure it out or be forced out of the commercial engine business.
GE is looking quite strong currently - 'real problems with the 9X'? REALLY? You're going to criticize an uncertified engine that is still in the development stage and is at least a year away from entry into service because it's behind schedule? Welcome to the real world...
The LEAP has had an uneventful EIS (MAX aircraft issues not withstanding - the engine has been good). The GEnx had issues with Ice Crystal Icing (which some 30 year old engine designs have also struggled with) but those have been sorted - and the basic engine has been excellent with a shutdown rate around 1/200,000 hours (disclaimer - I don't have access to the latest data since I retired but I've seen no indications it's gone down hill since then).
There is a rather predictable shutdown characteristic for new engines after initial EIS. The initial shutdown rate isn't very good as certain teething pains occur - as much as they try, it's very had to predict and account everything that's going to happen in the real world. As those issues are worked out, the shutdown rate gradually improves until it plateau's - and it'll stay pretty steady around that number for many years. Then, gradually, the rate starts getting worse again as the engine find their way to second tier operators who don't maintain them as well, and things simply get old and wear out. Some very popular, currently very reliable engines had plenty of issues early on (GE90 and PW2000, and PW4000/49" immediately come to mind).

Mattyj, the 787 was designed for the engines to be 'plug and play' - not even the pylon should need to change between GE and Rolls. That being said, I don't know that the task of switching out engine manufactures was ever certified. Further, the LRU cost of a GEnx-1B or Trent 1000 is close to $20 million (USD) - changing out your fleet has a huge price tag, especially if no one really wants your old engines...