Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Middle East
Reload this Page >

EK looking at up to 70 A350/B787.

Middle East Many expats still flying in Knoteetingham. Regional issues can be discussed here.

EK looking at up to 70 A350/B787.

Old 9th Mar 2015, 19:20
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hades.
Posts: 752
EK looking at up to 70 A350/B787.

http://http://www.ttrweekly.com/site...more-aircraft/


Or
http://www.ttrweekly.com/site/2015/0...more-aircraft/
helen-damnation is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2015, 21:09
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: SKG
Posts: 0
A350s

Buy A350s
paokara is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 03:19
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,087
Well, that's a no brainer, really.

The 787 is the first modern airliner that will be TCP free, as it "inhales" it's cabin air directly and not through the engines.

This will be a huge issue if the public/press suddenly realises what that means, especially on LR/ULR. Some future competitor might play that card.
We as professionals above all should push for this new technology, as we are constantly exposed to such fumes.

I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone would support the 350, an otherwise really nice plane. It should be safety first, then health following very narrowly and this issue will bite the 350 big time, as it missed this hugely important innovation. I am actually really curious as to what technology will be adopted for the 77X and, if ever, the 380neo. Will they miss out as well??

Last edited by glofish; 10th Mar 2015 at 03:32.
glofish is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 05:09
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: germany
Posts: 28
777X will still have the classic bleed-air system, no fancy modern 787 stuff in this part of the 777X.

Happy Landings,
LowPass330
LowPassGliderA330 is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 06:29
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,087
Another lost opportunity then, unfortunately.
glofish is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 09:38
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 542
@glofish, do you really think Emirates would base their decision on the fact that the 787 "inhales" its air directly?

The 350 is a superior product in almost every way. Go and ask QR. Its on time, not breaking down every other day, and is much more comfortable than the 787.

Firstly, airliners have been flying for years on end with bleed from the engines leaking all sorts of oily residue into the cabin. There has been no major epidemic among passengers or crew.

Secondly, there is pollution all over the world in the form of cars, industry etc. Its simply part of the world we live in unfortunately, and it will take time for that to change.

Thirdly, Airbus is a major exporter for the EU and they won't simply allow the press to raise this issue in a big way if they know it will be bad for business. There might be a bit more attention given to crew especially those who report the symptoms of poisoning, but beyond that there is no way they are going to take every airplane apart from the 787 out of the sky overnight because of this issue.
Airmann is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 10:35
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,087
beyond that there is no way they are going to take every airplane apart from the 787 out of the sky overnight because of this issue
Certainly not, what a stupid argument. But we can help pressing every manufacturer and airline to make/purchase cleaner and healthier aircraft, as this technology is readily available.
We did that with mandating catalytic converters in cars and reigning in hormone use in food, etc. etc. and it helps. Even if it was at the beginning "bad for business".

Airbus is a major exporter for the EU and they won't simply allow the press to raise this issue in a big way if they know it will be bad for business
Now this is a cynical and presumptuous statement. Freedom of the press in Europe salutes!
Begs the question what other issues in your view could possibly not be allowed to get public attention by Airbus then?
glofish is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 10:40
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Doomadgee
Posts: 57
LopassGlidera330- That was a classic.

Poor Gloie just had the wind taken out of his sails. He hates anything airbus, he flies the 777 and the fact that his only reason on why EK should get the 787 was for its Aircon, shows how out of touch of reality the bloke is.
I would have liked to see the look on his face when he read that the 777x was going to have the classic bleed system.

Capn Rex Havoc is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 11:16
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,087
Any intelligent, or at least valuable contribution to the thread Havoc?
Or do you simply want to join the low ranks of Whitey?

To soothe your poor soul a bit, yes, i was disappointed when LPG answered to my question (you might have missed that in your drewl). That's why i wrote about a lost opportunity, even if it involves a John Deere .....

Give me an Airbus with the safest and healthiest technology and i'll be a fan of the first moment. But you just have to let me keep my opinion that some features of some Airbii are less safe, less efficient and less healthy, as in this case that opposed ONLY the 787 and 350.

It's been several years, but you might still find it on PP, i even applauded the A380 for its lesser NOx output, but then again that would not make such a beautiful contribution of yours juicy enough .....
glofish is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 11:18
  #10 (permalink)  
NSC
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: FFM
Posts: 49
new?

I was of the opinion that direct inlet( not via bleed) was not what you would call new, but rather old. it was discarded because of weightsavings.
NSC is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 11:20
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Doctor's waiting room
Posts: 684
Airmann

Firstly, airliners have been flying for years on end with bleed from the engines leaking all sorts of oily residue into the cabin. There has been no major epidemic among passengers or crew.
An epidemic is not required to highlight that the risk. There was recently a coroner's report published in the UK, in relation to the death of a BA F/O which was apparently fume related. The coroner stated that the aviation industry is living in blissful ignorance and is doing very little to tackle this issue.

Walking around Beijing is perhaps not the best thing for ones health but being exposed to the toxic fumes that one may breath on board, is comparing apples and oranges. I have nearly been made incapacited on landing due to oil related fumes on board. It was an incredibly unpleasant feeling and one that I clearly remember years on. I doubt the same debilitating effects that I encountered, could be achieved from a short walk around a polluted city.
Emma Royds is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 13:27
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 542
@glofish

If you think that the interests of big business and government don't effect what the press reports on then you are being quite naive. They're all ultimately run by the same group of people.

There are some issues that simply don't get to the public's attention (these are few in nature), most get to the public's attention but the news producers decide what gets more air time and what gets less and especially how its presented. There are a million and one ways you can express the story to make it look "ok" or "not that bad" or "the worst thing in the world". Also, the exposure a story gets determines how heavily an individual not involved in these issues feels towards them.

In addition, news producers are salaried individuals who have families to feed and will put job security in front of giving an unbiased fair view of the world to the public. Their bosses in most cases is a government or a super multi billionaire individual who is involved in numerous other businesses.

Quoting Dan Rather
One of the most pernicious ways in which we do this is through self-censorship, which may be the worst censorship of all. We have seen too much self-censorship in the news in recent years, and as I say this please know that I do not except myself from this criticism.

As Mark Twain once said, “We write frankly and freely but then we ‘modify’ before we print.” Why do we modify the free and frank expression of journalistic truth? We do it out of fear: Fear for our jobs. Fear that we’ll catch hell for it. Fear that someone will seek to hang a sign around our neck that says, in essence, “Unpatriotic.”

We modify with euphemisms such as “collateral damage” or “less than truthful statements.” We modify with passive-voice constructions such as “mistakes were made.” We modify with false equivalencies that provide for bad behavior the ready-made excuse that “everybody’s doing it.” And sometimes we modify with an eraser—simply removing offending and inconvenient truths from our reporting.”

@Emma Royds

I agree with you that its an issue for us pilots. I get a great whiff of fumes every time we start up. But again I want everyone here to be realistic. It is not the DIRECT cause of death for very many people. What glofish was trying to state is that airlines and the public are going to become so aware of the situation that they will demand bleedless AC systems and that manufacturers and airlines will have no option but to provide that to them and whatever cost. I simply don't see that happening for the reasons which I have stated in my last post. And I especially don't believe that EK will make a decision over aircraft based on it.

I am all for pressuring governments, manufacturers, and airlines to ensure that cabin air is as safe as possible. And if you want my help in order to do that I am all for it. I just don't see this issue going very far right now. Yes, I do think that manufacturers will do their best to ensure safe cabin air, yes I do think that there will be public awareness towards it. But eventually manufacturers will decide when the bleedless system is cost effective for them and their customers and will not be coerced into offering the system due to public opinion. I have given my reasons for that above.
Airmann is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 14:40
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 64
Ladies and gentleman,

If any, it will be a political decision. It will not be a financial, performance or any other kind of decision.
spanishfly69 is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 15:16
  #14 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 2,016
Lets hope for the 787

The Airbus rosters will get a lot better, and the common type rating 787/777 roster will offer a lot more opportunities to escape from flying during times of damaging UV radiation.

The 787 will also allow for shorter trips so pilots can do more sectors to keep their handling skills optimum at 4am with minimum days off.
swh is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2015, 14:28
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: united states
Posts: 8
Where are they getting the money to fund all these planes and airports?
heavyjet340 is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2015, 14:30
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uae
Posts: 2,654
Who cares, we are just bus and tractor drivers
fatbus is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2015, 17:05
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 542
Exactly. And don't dare try to act like you matter.
Airmann is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2015, 20:10
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: not in Dubai anymore
Age: 91
Posts: 713
lets hope for the 350 because then I can get off the 380, the 380 burns too much fuel and can't take as much cargo as the 777 cargo, I don't care how good the rosters or seats are, I just want to get off it and fly something that burns less fuel

Last edited by GoreTex; 14th Mar 2015 at 05:37.
GoreTex is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2015, 05:53
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Doomadgee
Posts: 57
Goretex - You will prob get MFF'd. (Love the sarcasm by the way )
Capn Rex Havoc is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2015, 10:11
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: universe
Posts: 564
Sorry Gorey but the 350 will not be a CCQ from the 380. The FAA and others have refused to sanction it despite efforts by Airbus. Instead it's a common rating with the 330 and those with EASA licences already have 330/350 typed. If you're on the 380 and the 350 arrives expect to stay there!
vfenext is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.