QF'S new lemon?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF'S new lemon?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06164/697876-28.stm
So the real question is.... should the following aircraft be penalised an extra 5 miles (2 - 2.5 minutes each) to facilitate the Super-Heavy or whatever they will call the cateogry? Personally, I can't see why not as we accomodate Heavies already - but I am sure commericial pressures will be brought to bear by those being delayed and penalised.
Apparently, a rumour is going around that after landing in SY on RWY16R, further operations are restricted on that RWY until the A380 has exited, taxiied back, and turned clear in to the Apron, due to wingspan issues - this must be another 5 minutes minimum.
New Airbus has worrisome wake at higher altitudes
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
By Andy Pasztor and Daniel Michaels, The Wall Street Journal
The Airbus A380 airliner, already buffeted by years of production and development headaches, is likely to face a daunting challenge once it enters service next year: unprecedented operating restrictions intended to protect nearby aircraft from flying into the air turbulence churned up by the superjumbo jet.
Rules that include special flight restrictions and extra spacing could pose an immediate marketing problem for Airbus because other planes in the A380's vicinity will likely have to either slow down or wait longer to take off to allow for the additional distance. Airbus designed and marketed the $300 million plane amid promises that it would fit seamlessly into existing global air-traffic patterns.
International aviation regulators and aerodynamic experts failed again last week to reach a consensus about the extent of the safety hazards created by the A380's unusually powerful wake, according to people involved in the deliberations. Meeting behind closed doors in Montreal, a study group including U.S. and European government officials continued to disagree about permanent safeguards to ensure that turbulence created by the A380 won't affect airplanes during takeoff, cruising and landing. In extreme cases, such turbulence is capable of wrenching even a large jetliner out of control.
Without a set of permanent standards, some version of the strict interim guidelines now in effect -- requiring at least twice the normal in-flight separation when trailing the twin-deck Airbus model -- likely will stay in place until well into 2007. Barring a last-minute breakthrough, these people said, this means that the world's largest passenger aircraft is poised to begin service with significantly more-stringent separation rules than any other jet.
Airbus has touted the 555-seat A380 as "the economical solution for heavily traveled routes." But the interim guidance from the International Civil Aviation Organization calls for minimum separations of 10 nautical miles for all aircraft following a landing A380, compared with the typical five miles required when following today's largest aircraft. For aircraft flying the same route directly behind an A380 at cruising altitude, the recommended minimum spacing is tripled to 15 nautical miles. A further complication is that controller organizations previously warned they may need as long as nine months preparation time to phase in new standards.
Airbus, which is 80 percent-owned by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. and 20 percent-owned by Britain's BAE Systems PLC, declined to comment on the turbulence issue. Some Airbus officials recently have expressed a willingness to accept a modified version of the present standards as a first step -- with the understanding that permanent rules would follow relatively quickly. The scientific work initially was supposed to be finished around the start of this year, but verifying certain computer-modeling techniques has been especially tough.
The strength of a wake depends partly on the weight of the aircraft that produced it. Wind and weather conditions can make turbulence hard to measure accurately around airports. Turbulence levels are also particularly tough to evaluate while a jet is climbing or cruising at high altitudes.
Since the controversy erupted last year, Airbus has invested millions of dollars and months of extensive flight tests to try to demonstrate that the wake of the 500-ton A380 poses no greater potential safety threat than turbulence generated by Boeing's largest model, the 747, which weighs about 100 tons less. There haven't been any recent crashes of jetliners attributed primarily to wake encounters, though over the years some business and private planes have experienced serious incidents and even crashed after following a larger aircraft too closely near an airport.
Industry and government officials on both sides of the Atlantic increasingly predict that Airbus will be forced to accept different rules than it anticipated. Andre Auer, head of the Joint Aviation Authorities, a European umbrella group with some regulatory responsibilities, said in an interview days before last week's Montreal sessions that the interim guidelines for the A380 "are likely to stay in place until commercial service starts."
The ICAO, which issued the preliminary safety standards in November, confirmed that no final agreement has been reached. The study group is interested in "harmonizing the new specifications, whatever they may be," so they apply equally all over the world, said spokesman Denis Chagnon. He added that the study group "is working well together" and hopes to issue a report in mid-November that ICAO officials could then review.
Privately, even some Airbus officials predict the A380 temporarily may have to be put into a new air-traffic-control category, until its safety is proved in actual conditions.
The A380 has faced other head winds, including a six-month production delay. Separately, engineers were recently forced to reinforce some structural elements inside the wings after they fell short on a stress test in February.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
By Andy Pasztor and Daniel Michaels, The Wall Street Journal
The Airbus A380 airliner, already buffeted by years of production and development headaches, is likely to face a daunting challenge once it enters service next year: unprecedented operating restrictions intended to protect nearby aircraft from flying into the air turbulence churned up by the superjumbo jet.
Rules that include special flight restrictions and extra spacing could pose an immediate marketing problem for Airbus because other planes in the A380's vicinity will likely have to either slow down or wait longer to take off to allow for the additional distance. Airbus designed and marketed the $300 million plane amid promises that it would fit seamlessly into existing global air-traffic patterns.
International aviation regulators and aerodynamic experts failed again last week to reach a consensus about the extent of the safety hazards created by the A380's unusually powerful wake, according to people involved in the deliberations. Meeting behind closed doors in Montreal, a study group including U.S. and European government officials continued to disagree about permanent safeguards to ensure that turbulence created by the A380 won't affect airplanes during takeoff, cruising and landing. In extreme cases, such turbulence is capable of wrenching even a large jetliner out of control.
Without a set of permanent standards, some version of the strict interim guidelines now in effect -- requiring at least twice the normal in-flight separation when trailing the twin-deck Airbus model -- likely will stay in place until well into 2007. Barring a last-minute breakthrough, these people said, this means that the world's largest passenger aircraft is poised to begin service with significantly more-stringent separation rules than any other jet.
Airbus has touted the 555-seat A380 as "the economical solution for heavily traveled routes." But the interim guidance from the International Civil Aviation Organization calls for minimum separations of 10 nautical miles for all aircraft following a landing A380, compared with the typical five miles required when following today's largest aircraft. For aircraft flying the same route directly behind an A380 at cruising altitude, the recommended minimum spacing is tripled to 15 nautical miles. A further complication is that controller organizations previously warned they may need as long as nine months preparation time to phase in new standards.
Airbus, which is 80 percent-owned by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. and 20 percent-owned by Britain's BAE Systems PLC, declined to comment on the turbulence issue. Some Airbus officials recently have expressed a willingness to accept a modified version of the present standards as a first step -- with the understanding that permanent rules would follow relatively quickly. The scientific work initially was supposed to be finished around the start of this year, but verifying certain computer-modeling techniques has been especially tough.
The strength of a wake depends partly on the weight of the aircraft that produced it. Wind and weather conditions can make turbulence hard to measure accurately around airports. Turbulence levels are also particularly tough to evaluate while a jet is climbing or cruising at high altitudes.
Since the controversy erupted last year, Airbus has invested millions of dollars and months of extensive flight tests to try to demonstrate that the wake of the 500-ton A380 poses no greater potential safety threat than turbulence generated by Boeing's largest model, the 747, which weighs about 100 tons less. There haven't been any recent crashes of jetliners attributed primarily to wake encounters, though over the years some business and private planes have experienced serious incidents and even crashed after following a larger aircraft too closely near an airport.
Industry and government officials on both sides of the Atlantic increasingly predict that Airbus will be forced to accept different rules than it anticipated. Andre Auer, head of the Joint Aviation Authorities, a European umbrella group with some regulatory responsibilities, said in an interview days before last week's Montreal sessions that the interim guidelines for the A380 "are likely to stay in place until commercial service starts."
The ICAO, which issued the preliminary safety standards in November, confirmed that no final agreement has been reached. The study group is interested in "harmonizing the new specifications, whatever they may be," so they apply equally all over the world, said spokesman Denis Chagnon. He added that the study group "is working well together" and hopes to issue a report in mid-November that ICAO officials could then review.
Privately, even some Airbus officials predict the A380 temporarily may have to be put into a new air-traffic-control category, until its safety is proved in actual conditions.
The A380 has faced other head winds, including a six-month production delay. Separately, engineers were recently forced to reinforce some structural elements inside the wings after they fell short on a stress test in February.
Apparently, a rumour is going around that after landing in SY on RWY16R, further operations are restricted on that RWY until the A380 has exited, taxiied back, and turned clear in to the Apron, due to wingspan issues - this must be another 5 minutes minimum.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Blockla
How much bigger is the wingspan say compared to a B744? I'm guessing no more than 5m each side, but nothing to base that on.
www.boeing.com
www.airbus.com
But this has a nice little graphic about half-way down:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4993030.stm
I would have thought it had more to do with wing design than outright size and a/c weight. Look at the 757, for example.
..from the correctness police..
Why would it be a QF Lemon? It's manufactured by Airbus!
B747-800?
The actual designation is B747-8 
Yes..Ok..it's a slow news night!
Why would it be a QF Lemon? It's manufactured by Airbus!
B747-800?
The actual designation is B747-8 Yes..Ok..it's a slow news night!
Evertonian
I imagine that the A380 operators will be the ones who have to accommodate the "smaller" jets, especially in the USA. There may be a push to hold the larger aircraft instead of causing disruption to the incumbents.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by UNOME
F-all in the size diff really... about the same as a 340/3,5,6 to a 330-200.
So it was 747-100, 747-200, 747-300, 747-400 and this one is a 747-8?? Ok.
So it was 747-100, 747-200, 747-300, 747-400 and this one is a 747-8?? Ok.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: .
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gday,
Why don't they just start calling the A380 by its real and proper name,
Big White Elephant
This will cost Airbus far more than their current series of aircraft which require kickbacks to the airlines to cover broken promises and inefficiencies.
My suggestion to those waiting for one, get out of your orders for this lemon anyway you can, before it sends you and Airbus broke.
Cheers.
Con
Why don't they just start calling the A380 by its real and proper name,
Big White Elephant
This will cost Airbus far more than their current series of aircraft which require kickbacks to the airlines to cover broken promises and inefficiencies.
My suggestion to those waiting for one, get out of your orders for this lemon anyway you can, before it sends you and Airbus broke.
Cheers.
Con
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Next to Bay 8
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One would have to believe that there are significant orders in the future for the 747-8. QF, CX, BA, JL, UA, NW, NH, KL, CI, CA & SQ all operate large fleets of -400s and they are all very happy with them... surely they would have to be interested in a bigger, better version wouldn't they??? Other than QF and SQ (who ordered in relatively small numbers), none of these have ordered the 380. I for one couldn't see any of them ordering it either.
I've been wrong before, a few times actually.
I've been wrong before, a few times actually.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380 running late again !
Looks like the lemon/white elephant is going to be another 7 months late.
Which means QF won't recieve its first delivery until very late 2007.
If the 787 arrives anytime in 2008 would mean an introduction of 2 completely new types of aircraft technology.
Lets hope that someone has a plan as this will stretch Flight ops and engineering capabilty to its enth degree....?
Interesting times ahead
Which means QF won't recieve its first delivery until very late 2007.
If the 787 arrives anytime in 2008 would mean an introduction of 2 completely new types of aircraft technology.
Lets hope that someone has a plan as this will stretch Flight ops and engineering capabilty to its enth degree....?
Interesting times ahead
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I imagine Boeings sales and marketing people are having a lot of fun with this and making a number of phone calls to Sydney..."If you guys cancel the A-380 order and order the 747-800 we'll lend you however many 777's you need until you get your 787's and 747-800's and did we tell you they use less fuel..etc"....
There must be some very worried accountants and other sales people on commissions in France at the moment...."Mer**..there goes my commission..."
There must be some very worried accountants and other sales people on commissions in France at the moment...."Mer**..there goes my commission..."
In 5 years time when the skies are being plied with dozens of A380s and pax numbers have doubled (and the current hullabaloo will have been long-forgotten), Boeing will be rueing the day they didn't ditch the dinosaur and make a new decent, BIG aeroplane.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Bloggs,
I hope in some respects you are right and that the A380 is a huge success - it is really in nobodys interest, who hangs around these forums at least, for it to be otherwise, except perhaps Boeing shareholders if there are any.
But can we quote you on 16 Jun 2010? (As I am counting the days to retirement!)
EDIT: Oops 2011 - is is that time already!?
I hope in some respects you are right and that the A380 is a huge success - it is really in nobodys interest, who hangs around these forums at least, for it to be otherwise, except perhaps Boeing shareholders if there are any.
But can we quote you on 16 Jun 2010? (As I am counting the days to retirement!)
EDIT: Oops 2011 - is is that time already!?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by lowerlobe
I imagine Boeings sales and marketing people are having a lot of fun with this and making a number of phone calls to Sydney..."If you guys cancel the A-380 order and order the 747-800 we'll lend you however many 777's you need until you get your 787's and 747-800's and did we tell you they use less fuel..etc"....
There must be some very worried accountants and other sales people on commissions in France at the moment...."Mer**..there goes my commission..."
There must be some very worried accountants and other sales people on commissions in France at the moment...."Mer**..there goes my commission..."
But, buy-one-get-one-free might not be a new concept... 'here, buy a few of these new big ones and we'll throw in a few of these slightly smaller ones'...
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PH 298/7.4DME
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*yawns*
This reminds me a little of earlier tonight when I read in the Townsville Bulletin of a businessman who bought himself a special edition Merc ("CLK GTR" or something like that). It cost him over a million, and it was a total lemon. He even described it as "the world's most expensive lemon".
So, he tries to sell it privately, and it broke down during a test drive with a prospective client.
"Tow it to the showroom", was the miffed instruction.
Oops.
520.
So, he tries to sell it privately, and it broke down during a test drive with a prospective client.
"Tow it to the showroom", was the miffed instruction.
Oops.
520.