Renamed & Merged: Qantas Severe Engine Damage Over Indonesia
Skymark Airlines signs MoU for four A380s
First Japanese airline to order the A380
Blagnac - Skymark Airlines, Japan's third largest and growing airline, has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Airbus for the purchase of four A380s, the most advanced, spacious and eco-efficient airliner in service today.
The aircraft will be operated on major international long-haul routes from Tokyo. Engine choice and cabin details will be revealed at a later stage.
Its excellent take-off and landing performance enables the A380 to operate on the shorter 2,500m-runways at Japan's Narita and Tokyo Haneda airports carrying a full passenger payload and cargo to destinations in Europe, North America and Australia.
"By introducing the world's most cost-efficient, modern and environmentally friendly aircraft in our fleet, we will offer the travelling public the best comfort in the sky and a new way of flying. With the A380's spacious and extremely quiet cabin, we'll enter a new era in terms of economic air travel," said Shinichi Nishikubo, President of Skymark Airlines.
"We are extremely happy and proud that Japan's growing and ambitious airline Skymark Airlines has become the first Japanese airline to order the A380 and a new customer for us. This is a historic milestone for Airbus and a breakthrough in this important market. We are delighted to see Skymark Airlines sharing our vision of the A380 as the key aircraft for meeting Japan's air transport needs," said John Leahy, Airbus Chief Operating Officer Customers.
Source : Airbus, an EADS N.V. company (Paris: EAD.PA)
RR Will have to do a very good sales pitch to be selected for this order.
Blagnac - Skymark Airlines, Japan's third largest and growing airline, has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Airbus for the purchase of four A380s, the most advanced, spacious and eco-efficient airliner in service today.
The aircraft will be operated on major international long-haul routes from Tokyo. Engine choice and cabin details will be revealed at a later stage.
Its excellent take-off and landing performance enables the A380 to operate on the shorter 2,500m-runways at Japan's Narita and Tokyo Haneda airports carrying a full passenger payload and cargo to destinations in Europe, North America and Australia.
"By introducing the world's most cost-efficient, modern and environmentally friendly aircraft in our fleet, we will offer the travelling public the best comfort in the sky and a new way of flying. With the A380's spacious and extremely quiet cabin, we'll enter a new era in terms of economic air travel," said Shinichi Nishikubo, President of Skymark Airlines.
"We are extremely happy and proud that Japan's growing and ambitious airline Skymark Airlines has become the first Japanese airline to order the A380 and a new customer for us. This is a historic milestone for Airbus and a breakthrough in this important market. We are delighted to see Skymark Airlines sharing our vision of the A380 as the key aircraft for meeting Japan's air transport needs," said John Leahy, Airbus Chief Operating Officer Customers.
Source : Airbus, an EADS N.V. company (Paris: EAD.PA)
RR Will have to do a very good sales pitch to be selected for this order.
Eureka Pete
Yes, of course it is. I would assume the fact that you are asking the question means that you are outside the industry so I'll be gentle, however let us for a moment assume you are sitting in the back of a fully loaded 747 and the Captain announces that the flight is cancelled because one of the many thousands of non-safety critical components has just broken....for example a single toilet flush.
The ability to fly with any such defects, under what restrictions and for how long is covered by a Minimum Equipment List plus a modicum of common sense, and I hate to have to break it to Joe Public but just about every aeroplane you fly on will carry a list of defects deferred until a suitable maintenance downtime.
The question of course is one of quantum. A situation where an airline which has traditionally operated with a minimum of deferred defects finds increasing quantities of carried forward items and longer delays until clearance might well be symptomatic of a decline in standards, hence most operators' QA mechanisms will carefully track any adverse trends.
Yes, of course it is. I would assume the fact that you are asking the question means that you are outside the industry so I'll be gentle, however let us for a moment assume you are sitting in the back of a fully loaded 747 and the Captain announces that the flight is cancelled because one of the many thousands of non-safety critical components has just broken....for example a single toilet flush.
The ability to fly with any such defects, under what restrictions and for how long is covered by a Minimum Equipment List plus a modicum of common sense, and I hate to have to break it to Joe Public but just about every aeroplane you fly on will carry a list of defects deferred until a suitable maintenance downtime.
The question of course is one of quantum. A situation where an airline which has traditionally operated with a minimum of deferred defects finds increasing quantities of carried forward items and longer delays until clearance might well be symptomatic of a decline in standards, hence most operators' QA mechanisms will carefully track any adverse trends.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
Max tow, eureka pete is probably talking in context.
Your point is of course correct, however there is indeed a vast difference between a crapper and a disintegrating engine blowing holes in your wing.I know you know this but just to make the point for many out of industry readers.
The point being of course did QF / RR know of a serious issue and did they fail to act quickly enough to a problem?
If so, were there signs of oil leaks already and not considered a problem at the time?
Was any mod or special inspection deferred?
I cast no blame or infer any wrong doing just wanting the facts.
Can anyone confirm that RR are indeed picking the QF losses?
I though I heard QF were not chasing RR.I find that odd if so.
It is looking that AJ's "days not weeks" statement was poorly advised.
Like line repairs, think of a sensible time frame and at least double it to have some Murphy's Law insurance.
Your point is of course correct, however there is indeed a vast difference between a crapper and a disintegrating engine blowing holes in your wing.I know you know this but just to make the point for many out of industry readers.
The point being of course did QF / RR know of a serious issue and did they fail to act quickly enough to a problem?
If so, were there signs of oil leaks already and not considered a problem at the time?
Was any mod or special inspection deferred?
I cast no blame or infer any wrong doing just wanting the facts.
Can anyone confirm that RR are indeed picking the QF losses?
I though I heard QF were not chasing RR.I find that odd if so.
It is looking that AJ's "days not weeks" statement was poorly advised.
Like line repairs, think of a sensible time frame and at least double it to have some Murphy's Law insurance.
Amp Clamp, the issue of compensation is never publicly disclosed - I believe that the insurers insist on it.
We were never told how much compensation QF got for the ex Malaysian B744 paint job cracks, the 2 year delay of the A380 and the 4 year delay of the B787, etc.
I suspect that we'll never hear the final outcome of the RR compo.
We were never told how much compensation QF got for the ex Malaysian B744 paint job cracks, the 2 year delay of the A380 and the 4 year delay of the B787, etc.
I suspect that we'll never hear the final outcome of the RR compo.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
How do you redeploy A380 tech crew? They're endorsed to fly one aircraft which is grounded!
Get them all in to senior management circles for "Crisis Meetings" on how they should start running an airline. Let them have it from all quarters!
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: AKL/SYD
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has QF sent A380 teams over to the various ports where the A/C are grounded to carry out inspections, daily/weekly checks etc...?
With L.A in mind, most Line Stations are staffed by the bare minimum LAME's to cover their daily operations, 3 extra A380's sitting on the deck would be a manpower black hole, and with all the usual movements, customers (if any) etc.... still needing to be attended to, surely they would require assistance?
With L.A in mind, most Line Stations are staffed by the bare minimum LAME's to cover their daily operations, 3 extra A380's sitting on the deck would be a manpower black hole, and with all the usual movements, customers (if any) etc.... still needing to be attended to, surely they would require assistance?
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Right of Left
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are the A380 crews (tech +CC) sitting around twiddling their thumbs at the moment or have they been re-deployed around the network ?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIA Airbus fleet returns to service as Qantas mulls grounding till December
UPDATE: Steve Creedy, Aviation writer From: The Australian
November 17, 2010 12:48PM
QANTAS may wait till December before its Airbus A380s fly again, while Singapore Airlines has returned its 11-strong fleet to service.
The flying kangaroo is considering whether to divert engines meant for its undelivered aircraft to its grounded superjumbos.
Qantas today said it was looking at taking modified new engines meant for two of its aircraft on the Airbus production line in Toulouse, France to replace Trent 900 engines on grounded planes that have shown potentially dangerous oil leaks.
But it now appears that it will be next month at the earliest before the first Qantas Airbus A380 takes to the air, amid worries the peak summer season will be affected.
The flying kangaroo is taking an ultra-conservative approach to safety after the disintegration of an engine on an A380 near Singapore almost two weeks ago. An oil fire in the engine is believed to have caused the disintegration of an intermediate pressure turbine disc, which peppered the left wing with shrapnel and caused substantial damage.
Qantas immediately grounded its entire A380 fleet in the wake of the engine explosion, while the other operators with Trent 900 engines, SIA and Lufthansa, kept planes flying under a series of inspections that were ordered by manufacturer Rolls-Royce and European regulators.
SIA later took three A380s out of service, including two that were operating on Australian routes, for precautionary engine changes.
A spokesman for SIA, Nicholas Ionides, yesterday declined to comment on the Qantas decision to ground its planes, but said safety was SIA’s first priority and it would not fly if it believed its planes were unsafe.
Mr Ionides said: “We remain in very close contact with Rolls-Royce and Airbus, and all checks that we have carried out to date have been in full compliance with their recommendations and instructions.
“We are also continuing with inspections of all our Trent 900 engines in full compliance with the (European Aviation Safety Agency’s) Airworthiness Directive, which ensures the safe and continuous operation of the fleet.”
UPDATE: Steve Creedy, Aviation writer From: The Australian
November 17, 2010 12:48PM
QANTAS may wait till December before its Airbus A380s fly again, while Singapore Airlines has returned its 11-strong fleet to service.
The flying kangaroo is considering whether to divert engines meant for its undelivered aircraft to its grounded superjumbos.
Qantas today said it was looking at taking modified new engines meant for two of its aircraft on the Airbus production line in Toulouse, France to replace Trent 900 engines on grounded planes that have shown potentially dangerous oil leaks.
But it now appears that it will be next month at the earliest before the first Qantas Airbus A380 takes to the air, amid worries the peak summer season will be affected.
The flying kangaroo is taking an ultra-conservative approach to safety after the disintegration of an engine on an A380 near Singapore almost two weeks ago. An oil fire in the engine is believed to have caused the disintegration of an intermediate pressure turbine disc, which peppered the left wing with shrapnel and caused substantial damage.
Qantas immediately grounded its entire A380 fleet in the wake of the engine explosion, while the other operators with Trent 900 engines, SIA and Lufthansa, kept planes flying under a series of inspections that were ordered by manufacturer Rolls-Royce and European regulators.
SIA later took three A380s out of service, including two that were operating on Australian routes, for precautionary engine changes.
A spokesman for SIA, Nicholas Ionides, yesterday declined to comment on the Qantas decision to ground its planes, but said safety was SIA’s first priority and it would not fly if it believed its planes were unsafe.
Mr Ionides said: “We remain in very close contact with Rolls-Royce and Airbus, and all checks that we have carried out to date have been in full compliance with their recommendations and instructions.
“We are also continuing with inspections of all our Trent 900 engines in full compliance with the (European Aviation Safety Agency’s) Airworthiness Directive, which ensures the safe and continuous operation of the fleet.”
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even more pictures here:
The Anatomy of the Airbus A380 QF32 near disaster – Plane Talking
Sandilands gets stuck into Rolls Royce too:
One thing needs to be kept firmly in mind. Rolls-Royce the maker of the Trent 900 engine which disintegrated knew about the faults that the current airworthiness directive concerning these engines says are likely to have caused an intense oil fire in a structural cavity in the intermediate pressure turbine area of the engine.
Rolls-Royce had designed and was introducing a fix for the oil leak issues for this into the engines at its own speed. Qantas was left in the dark. It is fair to suggest that Qantas needs to review relationships with engine manufacturers in which it pays for power by-the-hour and leaves much of the maintenance and oversight of those engines to the designer and manufacturer.
To emphasise the obvious. The interests of the engine maker and holder of the service agreements are not the same as those of the airline. A carrier might want to correct and replace inadequate design features to a different, more urgent timetable that the party that benefits from the support contract, and has its own brand image to protect.
The Anatomy of the Airbus A380 QF32 near disaster – Plane Talking
Sandilands gets stuck into Rolls Royce too:
One thing needs to be kept firmly in mind. Rolls-Royce the maker of the Trent 900 engine which disintegrated knew about the faults that the current airworthiness directive concerning these engines says are likely to have caused an intense oil fire in a structural cavity in the intermediate pressure turbine area of the engine.
Rolls-Royce had designed and was introducing a fix for the oil leak issues for this into the engines at its own speed. Qantas was left in the dark. It is fair to suggest that Qantas needs to review relationships with engine manufacturers in which it pays for power by-the-hour and leaves much of the maintenance and oversight of those engines to the designer and manufacturer.
To emphasise the obvious. The interests of the engine maker and holder of the service agreements are not the same as those of the airline. A carrier might want to correct and replace inadequate design features to a different, more urgent timetable that the party that benefits from the support contract, and has its own brand image to protect.
I agree with Mr Hat, the more that comes out about this incident, the more i am impressed by the crews efforts.
Maybe instead of constantly kicking the roo in the guts here, shouldn't we also be asking why Singapore Airlines is still flying australians around in aircraft that have a design flaw? Of course Qantas is an easier target (not undeserved!) but i find it interesting that there seems to be no questions of Singapore Airlines operating this aircraft while Qantas '80's remain grounded.
Maybe instead of constantly kicking the roo in the guts here, shouldn't we also be asking why Singapore Airlines is still flying australians around in aircraft that have a design flaw? Of course Qantas is an easier target (not undeserved!) but i find it interesting that there seems to be no questions of Singapore Airlines operating this aircraft while Qantas '80's remain grounded.