A380 problems

[ules]

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]

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]

Never fly the "A" model of anything.

[ditch handle]

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]

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... 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]

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.

[18-Wheeler]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The Results of Poor Decisions

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]

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

[max1]

ules

i before e except after c.

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

[parabellum]

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]

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 .

[gassed budgie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.