A380 problems
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: (insert funny location here)
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380 problems
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 ?
anyone care to comment ?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 58
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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........... ?
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........... ?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Also, I find curious that the launch customer of said aircraft is the German carrier Lufthansa.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind You.....
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 idea what the A380 burns sorry.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wherever the work is!
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: The brighter side of life.
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Any idea what was the problem?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: With Ratty and Mole
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by packrat; 15th Oct 2009 at 11:53.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sin City
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You want the simple answer ules? Emirates and Singapore are having the same or similar problems.
Believe some sort of brake/hydraulic issue
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
It is rapidly becoming obvious that systems reliability is another issue
ATW Daily News
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,096
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: (insert funny location here)
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 .
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sure they are great they can carry more cargo/passengers and they are more fuel efficient
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.
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.
Gassed budgie,
The quote from another forum is horribly wrong on so many accounts:
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: An old flying boat station on Moreton Bay
Age: 84
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.