EK 380s
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uae
Posts: 2,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was at ETC last week. What ever people say the 380 is here to stay and at last 90.Courses planned in July and on wards.Just sit tight! I think the big problem is the 340 is short and cant give up anyone and the 380 needs pilots in hugh numbers when they do start coming again and they are slow to hire enough to cover off the fleets properly.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: i'm in the parking lot
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus To Retrofit Wings On 120 A380s
Airbus To Retrofit Wings On 120 A380s
Airbus will have to retrofit 120 A380s to resolve a problem with wing component cracking before a permanent fix will be implemented on new-build aircraft.
The aircraft maker has already delivered 74 A380s, but the total number in need of retrofit will grow to 120 aircraft because of work already in the production system, says Tom Williams, Airbus’s executive VP-programs.
Airbus has developed two fixes it says will permanently deal with the cracking of some rib-feet, which has already resulted in an airworthiness directive requiring enhanced inspection intervals and fixes where component cracking is found. One solution addresses the retrofit fix while the other alters the production process so the problem never occurs. The fixes should restore the aircraft to 19,000 flight cycles and regular inspection intervals, Williams says.
Airbus expects the cost of resolving the situation to top €260 million ($327 million).
There are several causes for the problem. One was the use of a specific aluminum alloy and its heat treatment; the alloy delivered weight savings, but the component was more brittle, causing cracking. Another problem occurred in attaching the wing skin to the ribs, where excessive loads were placed on components during assembly.
The problem was compounded by a failure to properly account for the temperature-induced material expansion and contraction during operations.
The European Aviation Safety Agency still has to approve the repairs, which Airbus will need to validate inflight trials using an instrumented Airbus A380 test aircraft, which Williams expects to be flying in the fall.
To avoid future problems, Airbus has decided to make changes beyond those immediately needed. For instance, Rib 48 and Rib 49 at the outer end of the wing will be replaced even though they have not shown cracking because they are made of the same alloy that has caused problems. The ribs will be replaced with ones made of a more traditional alloy.
Airbus is now deliberating how it will implement the retrofit and is in discussions with its airline customers. Options include parking the aircraft several weeks to fully install the fix, or a phased enhancement during several C-checks. The repair comes with a relatively modest 90 kg weight penalty.
Some airlines also may defer taking delivery of the aircraft until the permanent solution is installed.
In the retrofit, all 23 hybrid ribs will be replaced with all-metallic ribs, and the rib feet will be strengthened. An inspection hole in the area where the cracking takes place also will be strengthened.
The permanent fix, which replaces all the composite ribs with metal ones, should be available in early 2013; the change should not affect the aircraft’s weight.
Airbus also has adapted its A380 design process to improve its finite element modeling techniques to catch such problems earlier, and is applying more stringent measures to the development program for its A350 widebody. In most cases, the materials are different, but where the aluminum alloy involved in the A380s has been used it has been replaced with aluminum lithium.
Meanwhile, Airbus is gradually seeing improvements in dispatch reliability of the A380 to 97.6%, and as high as 98.6% in March. “It is going in the right direction,” says Airbus Chief Operating Officer for Customers John Leahy, although he acknowledges this reliability rate still trails that of the company’s other aircraft products.
Leahy also hopes to book 30 A380 orders this year, but says that is “a stretch.”
The aircraft maker next year expects to deliver the first A380 to Emirates Airline with 575 metric tons maximum takeoff weight (MTOW), which boosts the aircraft’s range to 8,500 nm.
Also becoming available is a 490-metric-ton maximum takeoff weight version, which complies with more stringent noise requirements and should allow airlines like Emirates to operate early-hour flights at slot-constrained airports, such as London Heathrow.
Emirates already has signed up to take a 510-metric-ton MTOW A380, to be used in regional routes with about 650 seats.
The aircraft maker has already delivered 74 A380s, but the total number in need of retrofit will grow to 120 aircraft because of work already in the production system, says Tom Williams, Airbus’s executive VP-programs.
Airbus has developed two fixes it says will permanently deal with the cracking of some rib-feet, which has already resulted in an airworthiness directive requiring enhanced inspection intervals and fixes where component cracking is found. One solution addresses the retrofit fix while the other alters the production process so the problem never occurs. The fixes should restore the aircraft to 19,000 flight cycles and regular inspection intervals, Williams says.
Airbus expects the cost of resolving the situation to top €260 million ($327 million).
There are several causes for the problem. One was the use of a specific aluminum alloy and its heat treatment; the alloy delivered weight savings, but the component was more brittle, causing cracking. Another problem occurred in attaching the wing skin to the ribs, where excessive loads were placed on components during assembly.
The problem was compounded by a failure to properly account for the temperature-induced material expansion and contraction during operations.
The European Aviation Safety Agency still has to approve the repairs, which Airbus will need to validate inflight trials using an instrumented Airbus A380 test aircraft, which Williams expects to be flying in the fall.
To avoid future problems, Airbus has decided to make changes beyond those immediately needed. For instance, Rib 48 and Rib 49 at the outer end of the wing will be replaced even though they have not shown cracking because they are made of the same alloy that has caused problems. The ribs will be replaced with ones made of a more traditional alloy.
Airbus is now deliberating how it will implement the retrofit and is in discussions with its airline customers. Options include parking the aircraft several weeks to fully install the fix, or a phased enhancement during several C-checks. The repair comes with a relatively modest 90 kg weight penalty.
Some airlines also may defer taking delivery of the aircraft until the permanent solution is installed.
In the retrofit, all 23 hybrid ribs will be replaced with all-metallic ribs, and the rib feet will be strengthened. An inspection hole in the area where the cracking takes place also will be strengthened.
The permanent fix, which replaces all the composite ribs with metal ones, should be available in early 2013; the change should not affect the aircraft’s weight.
Airbus also has adapted its A380 design process to improve its finite element modeling techniques to catch such problems earlier, and is applying more stringent measures to the development program for its A350 widebody. In most cases, the materials are different, but where the aluminum alloy involved in the A380s has been used it has been replaced with aluminum lithium.
Meanwhile, Airbus is gradually seeing improvements in dispatch reliability of the A380 to 97.6%, and as high as 98.6% in March. “It is going in the right direction,” says Airbus Chief Operating Officer for Customers John Leahy, although he acknowledges this reliability rate still trails that of the company’s other aircraft products.
Leahy also hopes to book 30 A380 orders this year, but says that is “a stretch.”
The aircraft maker next year expects to deliver the first A380 to Emirates Airline with 575 metric tons maximum takeoff weight (MTOW), which boosts the aircraft’s range to 8,500 nm.
Also becoming available is a 490-metric-ton maximum takeoff weight version, which complies with more stringent noise requirements and should allow airlines like Emirates to operate early-hour flights at slot-constrained airports, such as London Heathrow.
Emirates already has signed up to take a 510-metric-ton MTOW A380, to be used in regional routes with about 650 seats.
Last edited by The Turtle; 25th May 2012 at 07:35. Reason: link added
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: nowhere
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumors are that 4 aircraft are sitting in Toluse and Emirates has no intention to accept them until when they will be fixed. In addition to that it seem that for this year no more 380s will arrive........
I don not believe it but it would be nice to hear from our management what is the real situation..........
Flare
I don not believe it but it would be nice to hear from our management what is the real situation..........
Flare
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fatbus- I agree with you. Ek always has gone from famine to feast and back to famine again. They are always out of phase with demand. Once the 380s start arriving they will have a hard time keeping up with demand.
Now give us a call!!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lhr rain,
Are you in LHS or RHS? I'm second top bid rostered 48 hrs, 4 layovers, 2 turns & every flight departs after 0830 from DXB.
I would suggest as an FO on 'mini' bus fleet life is relatively sweet (considering a probable transfer to the a380 before command upgrade).
Are you in LHS or RHS? I'm second top bid rostered 48 hrs, 4 layovers, 2 turns & every flight departs after 0830 from DXB.
I would suggest as an FO on 'mini' bus fleet life is relatively sweet (considering a probable transfer to the a380 before command upgrade).
Last edited by Easy Ryder; 25th May 2012 at 17:50.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft maker next year expects to deliver the first A380 to Emirates Airline with 575 metric tons maximum takeoff weight (MTOW), which boosts the aircraft’s range to 8,500 nm.
Also becoming available is a 490-metric-ton maximum takeoff weight version, which complies with more stringent noise requirements and should allow airlines like Emirates to operate early-hour flights at slot-constrained airports, such as London Heathrow.
Emirates already has signed up to take a 510-metric-ton MTOW A380, to be used in regional routes with about 650 seats.
The only way to make the dugong less fuel guzzling is to reduce it’s DOW.
We are waiting for such an announcement. Actually, unfortunately, they’re busy adding aluminium ……
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anyhoo- bit of a waste of time talking facts to you. Enjoy the the lightie you are on, and relax.
This is not meant satirically, I am really curious.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: the ridge where the west commences
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An empty 380 weighs 130 tons more than an empty 777 300ER.
The useful load of a 300ER is 60 tons.
Before 1 kg of revenue-producing load is placed on a 380 it is already carrying the load which 2 300ERs could carry but carries that load as dead weight.
For it's 130 ton dead-weight penalty the A380 carries 5 tons more load than a 300ER.
Very, very few people people have ordered the A380.
Discuss.
The useful load of a 300ER is 60 tons.
Before 1 kg of revenue-producing load is placed on a 380 it is already carrying the load which 2 300ERs could carry but carries that load as dead weight.
For it's 130 ton dead-weight penalty the A380 carries 5 tons more load than a 300ER.
Very, very few people people have ordered the A380.
Discuss.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the clarification, fatty. Interesting.
I have therefore amended or confirmed my earlier contribution:
How? A full actual 380 out of LHR to DXB does not weigh more than 466 tons.
(same as original contr.)
Again: What for? With a ZFW of 373 (iso 366), what regional route could require 137 (iso 144) tons of fuel?
The only way to make the dugong less fuel guzzling is to reduce it’s DOW.
(same as original contr.)
Fatbus you are right, but it's so much fun to rub the truth into the stubbornly blind
I have therefore amended or confirmed my earlier contribution:
Also becoming available is a 490-metric-ton maximum takeoff weight version, which complies with more stringent noise requirements and should allow airlines like Emirates to operate early-hour flights at slot-constrained airports, such as London Heathrow.
(same as original contr.)
Emirates already has signed up to take a 510-metric-ton MTOW A380, to be used in regional routes with about 650 seats.
The only way to make the dugong less fuel guzzling is to reduce it’s DOW.
(same as original contr.)
Fatbus you are right, but it's so much fun to rub the truth into the stubbornly blind
Glofish,
The 510t version at EK now does not have a crew rest fitted so carries 27 more seats in Y class. Its ZFW is also increased to 373t so can carry a bit over 73t of revenue. It does UK, BKK, HKG, ICN, etc. It does not need to be heavier than 510t as to use weight above this would require a crew rest. The one in the article quoting 650 seats is the two class version, which is not in the fleet yet.
The 569t version has a max ZFW of 369t so carries 69t of revenue, and can carry that to JFK and SYD in both directions.
I find it hard to believe that a EK Boeing pilot would be confused about differing MTOWs and ZFWs for the same airframe. Isn't it the same with the classic 772s?
The Don
The 510t version at EK now does not have a crew rest fitted so carries 27 more seats in Y class. Its ZFW is also increased to 373t so can carry a bit over 73t of revenue. It does UK, BKK, HKG, ICN, etc. It does not need to be heavier than 510t as to use weight above this would require a crew rest. The one in the article quoting 650 seats is the two class version, which is not in the fleet yet.
The 569t version has a max ZFW of 369t so carries 69t of revenue, and can carry that to JFK and SYD in both directions.
I find it hard to believe that a EK Boeing pilot would be confused about differing MTOWs and ZFWs for the same airframe. Isn't it the same with the classic 772s?
The Don
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don
I do get the different versions, I was not entirely familiar with them, now I'm enlightened, thanks.
But that was not the issue of my contribution.
The lengthy article made believe that there is a big improvement to the dugongs performance. When you look behind the the smokes and mirrors, you realize that it will be able to fly a whooping 190nm further!
Then it supposedly flies quieter with a reduced MTOW, although it never exceeded that specific weight anyway in LHR and has no improved engine or aerodynamic package. An effectless feature!
Bring on some news when it really and sincerely shows an improvement, because only then we can relax and enjoy the forthcoming deliveries without rightfully fearing of it burning the remaining profit.
It's funny that off the company record every station enjoying the dugong admits it only generates a profit when full, and that is not the case! JFK would prefer two to three T7s, if they could choose, they'd make more money.
But I guess these guys are all incompetent and brainwashed. The real truth is right here on pp with 380fatty.
I do get the different versions, I was not entirely familiar with them, now I'm enlightened, thanks.
But that was not the issue of my contribution.
The lengthy article made believe that there is a big improvement to the dugongs performance. When you look behind the the smokes and mirrors, you realize that it will be able to fly a whooping 190nm further!
Then it supposedly flies quieter with a reduced MTOW, although it never exceeded that specific weight anyway in LHR and has no improved engine or aerodynamic package. An effectless feature!
Bring on some news when it really and sincerely shows an improvement, because only then we can relax and enjoy the forthcoming deliveries without rightfully fearing of it burning the remaining profit.
It's funny that off the company record every station enjoying the dugong admits it only generates a profit when full, and that is not the case! JFK would prefer two to three T7s, if they could choose, they'd make more money.
But I guess these guys are all incompetent and brainwashed. The real truth is right here on pp with 380fatty.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: not in Dubai anymore
Age: 94
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
seriously glo,
why dont you tell the guys in the financial department to do their job, I am sure they are desperate for your advise.
I do it like fatty, fly from A to B and enjoy the ride in a comfy seat with a nice table, loved the 777 but that was 98.
why dont you tell the guys in the financial department to do their job, I am sure they are desperate for your advise.
I do it like fatty, fly from A to B and enjoy the ride in a comfy seat with a nice table, loved the 777 but that was 98.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you revert to the defamation sarcasm? Running out of arguments?
If it runs down to our bonus everyone tells the finance morons to do their job, don't we?
I am simply pointing out the things that do not run as smoothly as anticipated. The dugong certainly does not perform as expected.
If we now have cheerleaders who constantly embellish the situation, that does not help. It's not even fighting the symptoms, notwithstanding fighting the origin of the problem, namely the 380 being too heavy and the performance not as AB promised.
EK and their (cheer)leaders will not admit to and are politically bound to go for all of the 90. Logically enough their propaganda machine tries to cover up the blunder. I do not blame them for that, we're all too used to that, aren't we. Just remember the cost neutral changes of our t&c ..
This is a rumor network where everyone can freely put their considerations. That's what I'm doing by putting a counterweight to the eternal cheering the dugong.
I would certainly like to see it in the air, albeit never want to fly it, but at the same time I like the company to post profits and, even more, I like my profit share!
So if I am criticizing the overburn of the dugong, try to provide some information or arguments of how EK, AB or the pilots are going fight the problem, but spare me with trivial contributions like GT and A380baby.
If it runs down to our bonus everyone tells the finance morons to do their job, don't we?
I am simply pointing out the things that do not run as smoothly as anticipated. The dugong certainly does not perform as expected.
If we now have cheerleaders who constantly embellish the situation, that does not help. It's not even fighting the symptoms, notwithstanding fighting the origin of the problem, namely the 380 being too heavy and the performance not as AB promised.
EK and their (cheer)leaders will not admit to and are politically bound to go for all of the 90. Logically enough their propaganda machine tries to cover up the blunder. I do not blame them for that, we're all too used to that, aren't we. Just remember the cost neutral changes of our t&c ..
This is a rumor network where everyone can freely put their considerations. That's what I'm doing by putting a counterweight to the eternal cheering the dugong.
I would certainly like to see it in the air, albeit never want to fly it, but at the same time I like the company to post profits and, even more, I like my profit share!
So if I am criticizing the overburn of the dugong, try to provide some information or arguments of how EK, AB or the pilots are going fight the problem, but spare me with trivial contributions like GT and A380baby.
Last edited by glofish; 26th May 2012 at 11:07.
Good points Glofish, can you please let us know the details of the 380 under-performance? I am sure when you state these facts all will have to agree.
Sittingidly, When you talk about about crap procedures are you referring the EK 777 VNAV approach? It must be up to amendment 999 by now.
The Don
Sittingidly, When you talk about about crap procedures are you referring the EK 777 VNAV approach? It must be up to amendment 999 by now.
The Don
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sittingidly
Try spending your time in a briefing room with some clown lamenting the fact he doesn't have enough time to properly brief a ULR
If that
Originally Posted by sittingidly
Boeing continues to over-achieve
I can't imagine what a mediocre level of acheivement you subscribe to Sittingidly
Originally Posted by sittingidly
One Brit Captain actually emailed the company
Last edited by White Knight; 26th May 2012 at 12:43.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sittingidly
On another forum, I actually gave you credit for a reasonable post. Shame you go and spoil it all again with your massive chip you have against the British. You really need to get over it before it becomes an issue one day on the flightdeck. Care to divulge your ethnic group?
Anyway, what's wrong with asking for more time. Are you the type that rushes through the briefing just to brief the cabin crew at STD -83 because that's what it says so on a crappy piece of paper. I thought report time was officially STD-60 minutes yet the Company 'require' us to undertake this briefing before then. So, are we on duty or not? AS must be laughing all the way to his fat bonuses. BA gave their crew 1.15 before STD with 1.25 for long haul. Whats wrong with that? It reflects the extra work required for the longer flights. I wonder how much support you'd get missing something important but argue that the cabin crew briefing was spot on! You're an idiot man.
On another forum, I actually gave you credit for a reasonable post. Shame you go and spoil it all again with your massive chip you have against the British. You really need to get over it before it becomes an issue one day on the flightdeck. Care to divulge your ethnic group?
Anyway, what's wrong with asking for more time. Are you the type that rushes through the briefing just to brief the cabin crew at STD -83 because that's what it says so on a crappy piece of paper. I thought report time was officially STD-60 minutes yet the Company 'require' us to undertake this briefing before then. So, are we on duty or not? AS must be laughing all the way to his fat bonuses. BA gave their crew 1.15 before STD with 1.25 for long haul. Whats wrong with that? It reflects the extra work required for the longer flights. I wonder how much support you'd get missing something important but argue that the cabin crew briefing was spot on! You're an idiot man.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
don
always a pleasure discussing with someone who does not drift into drivel ....
Now, not having access to what exactly AB promised EK, I can't know if such numbers were correct, I admit.
However, AB never tires to pretend that the 380 uses the smallest amount of fuel. So I must presume that this is what was promised.
Now reading the flight plans of our JFK and LHR flights, where the dugong competes with the T7 on a daily base, I have to find a day where that is true.
Whether it is in consumption vs. kg, or vs. passenger, the dugong uses more fuel.
When it comes to yield (which would not cover the above presumption, but we'll take it as this covers the profit and you know I like profit!!) I have to rely on what the station managers say (off the record naturally), that is the 380 only generates profits if almost full and with full fare premium passengers.
I guess we all agree that this is not happening at the moment.
To me at least, that is 'under-performance' to what was expected.
Cheers
always a pleasure discussing with someone who does not drift into drivel ....
... can you please let us know the details of the 380 under-performance? I am sure when you state these facts all will have to agree ....
However, AB never tires to pretend that the 380 uses the smallest amount of fuel. So I must presume that this is what was promised.
Now reading the flight plans of our JFK and LHR flights, where the dugong competes with the T7 on a daily base, I have to find a day where that is true.
Whether it is in consumption vs. kg, or vs. passenger, the dugong uses more fuel.
When it comes to yield (which would not cover the above presumption, but we'll take it as this covers the profit and you know I like profit!!) I have to rely on what the station managers say (off the record naturally), that is the 380 only generates profits if almost full and with full fare premium passengers.
I guess we all agree that this is not happening at the moment.
To me at least, that is 'under-performance' to what was expected.
Cheers
Last edited by glofish; 26th May 2012 at 14:36.