QANTAS A380 US flights to end?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your nearest Marriott
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QANTAS A380 US flights to end?
*
In from the USA
*
Subject: Qantas: Engine Problems Mean Its A380s Can't Fly to the U.S. Big Problem
*
Qantas: Engine Problems Mean Its A380s Can’t Fly to the U.S. Big Problem
By Brett Snyder | December 16, 2010
You’d think that the Qantas A380 saga would be winding down by now,
but you’d be wrong. Qantas is still struggling with the fact that it
can’t operate the A380 to the U.S. because the engines simply can’t
handle it. This means that things continue to get worse for
engine-maker Rolls-Royce, and I imagine legal bills have only started
to pile on. Rolls needs to get this thing under control, because right
now Qantas is in a bad place.
While Singapore and Lufthansa both use the Rolls-Royce Trent 970,
Qantas had to use the 972 to get 2,000 pounds more thrust for its
operation. There actually isn’t much of a difference in the engines at
all, but one is rated to give a little more power. For Qantas, that
little bit extra is really important.
Qantas has re-started flights from Sydney to places like Singapore on
the A380, because it doesn’t need full thrust to operate that route.
However, the prize has always been flights to Los Angeles, and that’s
a different story.
At nearly 7,500 miles, Qantas needs every bit of thrust to get off the
ground at LAX with a full passenger load and a lot of fuel. And that
full thrust requirement is apparently why Qantas is having bigger
engine problems with this airplane than anyone else. Any time you use
full thrust, you put more stress on the engine. Engines are supposed
to handle that just fine, but not in this case.
Qantas has now found that it can operate no more than 75 flights at
top thrust before it needs to replace an engine. That’s ridiculous,
considering each engine can cost $10 million or more. And it leaves
Qantas with a huge problem.
Rolls-Royce had suggested last month that Qantas operate the engines
with less thrust. That suggestion is completely worthless since it
would mean Qantas could carry a mere 80 passengers on the LA to Sydney
route. The airline might as well just operate a 747 at full capacity
for a lot less cost with a lot more passengers. If it can’t carry a
full load on the A380, that airplane is worthless.
The funny thing is that Qantas didn’t even want the more powerful
engines in the first place. It opted for the same ones as Lufthansa
and Singapore originally, but then Airbus announced the A380 would
weigh 5 tons more than planned. That pushed Qantas to order the
higher-thrust engines in order to make the airplane viable on the LA
route.
So now Qantas is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It has A380s
on the property but it can’t fly them where it wants without needing a
multimillion dollar engine change every few months. Rolls-Royce is
going to*have to fix this problem or Qantas is going to have to
find an alternative.
The silver lining for Qantas is that it’s not going to be responsible
for any of the cost here. Rolls-Royce and Airbus (to a lesser extent,
if any), however, are going to have to open up those wallets. For
Qantas, however, it would much rather just have an airplane that
functions properly. Instead, Qantas now has to go through its peak
travel season without the ability to use the A380 to the U.S.
*
*
In from the USA
*
Subject: Qantas: Engine Problems Mean Its A380s Can't Fly to the U.S. Big Problem
*
Qantas: Engine Problems Mean Its A380s Can’t Fly to the U.S. Big Problem
By Brett Snyder | December 16, 2010
You’d think that the Qantas A380 saga would be winding down by now,
but you’d be wrong. Qantas is still struggling with the fact that it
can’t operate the A380 to the U.S. because the engines simply can’t
handle it. This means that things continue to get worse for
engine-maker Rolls-Royce, and I imagine legal bills have only started
to pile on. Rolls needs to get this thing under control, because right
now Qantas is in a bad place.
While Singapore and Lufthansa both use the Rolls-Royce Trent 970,
Qantas had to use the 972 to get 2,000 pounds more thrust for its
operation. There actually isn’t much of a difference in the engines at
all, but one is rated to give a little more power. For Qantas, that
little bit extra is really important.
Qantas has re-started flights from Sydney to places like Singapore on
the A380, because it doesn’t need full thrust to operate that route.
However, the prize has always been flights to Los Angeles, and that’s
a different story.
At nearly 7,500 miles, Qantas needs every bit of thrust to get off the
ground at LAX with a full passenger load and a lot of fuel. And that
full thrust requirement is apparently why Qantas is having bigger
engine problems with this airplane than anyone else. Any time you use
full thrust, you put more stress on the engine. Engines are supposed
to handle that just fine, but not in this case.
Qantas has now found that it can operate no more than 75 flights at
top thrust before it needs to replace an engine. That’s ridiculous,
considering each engine can cost $10 million or more. And it leaves
Qantas with a huge problem.
Rolls-Royce had suggested last month that Qantas operate the engines
with less thrust. That suggestion is completely worthless since it
would mean Qantas could carry a mere 80 passengers on the LA to Sydney
route. The airline might as well just operate a 747 at full capacity
for a lot less cost with a lot more passengers. If it can’t carry a
full load on the A380, that airplane is worthless.
The funny thing is that Qantas didn’t even want the more powerful
engines in the first place. It opted for the same ones as Lufthansa
and Singapore originally, but then Airbus announced the A380 would
weigh 5 tons more than planned. That pushed Qantas to order the
higher-thrust engines in order to make the airplane viable on the LA
route.
So now Qantas is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It has A380s
on the property but it can’t fly them where it wants without needing a
multimillion dollar engine change every few months. Rolls-Royce is
going to*have to fix this problem or Qantas is going to have to
find an alternative.
The silver lining for Qantas is that it’s not going to be responsible
for any of the cost here. Rolls-Royce and Airbus (to a lesser extent,
if any), however, are going to have to open up those wallets. For
Qantas, however, it would much rather just have an airplane that
functions properly. Instead, Qantas now has to go through its peak
travel season without the ability to use the A380 to the U.S.
*
*
Last edited by I.R.PIRATE; 6th Jan 2011 at 09:43.
Two points to make:-
1. (The inevitable) - You don't know how to spell QANTAS - even though it appears numerous times in the article!
2. Old news - article dated 16 December!
1. (The inevitable) - You don't know how to spell QANTAS - even though it appears numerous times in the article!
2. Old news - article dated 16 December!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your nearest Marriott
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Points taken, my post is from the Dark Side of the moon - where things happen at a slower pace. The date is irrelevant really, as the post was intended to find out whether anything has changed since then, and to generate discussion on whether anyone actually knows if these figures quoted for engine life can actually be true.
If performing RATED take offs mean that the aircraft require an engine change after only 75 flights, how many FLEX take offs can they sustain then? And where is the threshold in EPR that would start cutting into such 'calculated' figures?
I apologise most profusely for the slip of the U following the Q - call it typo muscle memory.
If performing RATED take offs mean that the aircraft require an engine change after only 75 flights, how many FLEX take offs can they sustain then? And where is the threshold in EPR that would start cutting into such 'calculated' figures?
I apologise most profusely for the slip of the U following the Q - call it typo muscle memory.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Belfast
Age: 40
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4Greens - Where did you get this information? Todays QF11, QF93 and QF107 are all still airborne and operating as B744's today. Will one tomorrows QF11/93 operate as A388?
411A - Doing this would increase the total flight time by around 2-3hrs and result in lost traffic to those who can operate the direct services, as QF can with their 744ER. I think the point Qantas will be making is that they were sold an aircraft which would fit their requirements albeit at close to it limits at MTOW. That aircraft is now unfit for purpose through no fault of their own. RR could find themselves with a very hefty compensation bill if they don't get this sorted.
It has been interesting to note that since restarting services to LHR with A388, QF have consistently been climbing to lower initial altitude on the LHR-SIN leg than SQ's A380's. IIRC even at MTOW the A380 was supposed to be able to reach initial cruise altitude of FL350, QF been going to FL330 recently from LHR.
411A - Doing this would increase the total flight time by around 2-3hrs and result in lost traffic to those who can operate the direct services, as QF can with their 744ER. I think the point Qantas will be making is that they were sold an aircraft which would fit their requirements albeit at close to it limits at MTOW. That aircraft is now unfit for purpose through no fault of their own. RR could find themselves with a very hefty compensation bill if they don't get this sorted.
It has been interesting to note that since restarting services to LHR with A388, QF have consistently been climbing to lower initial altitude on the LHR-SIN leg than SQ's A380's. IIRC even at MTOW the A380 was supposed to be able to reach initial cruise altitude of FL350, QF been going to FL330 recently from LHR.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That aircraft is now unfit for purpose through no fault of their own. RR could find themselves with a very hefty compensation bill if they don't get this sorted.
It has been interesting to note that since restarting services to LHR with A388, QF have consistently been climbing to lower initial altitude on the LHR-SIN leg than SQ's A380's. IIRC even at MTOW the A380 was supposed to be able to reach initial cruise altitude of FL350, QF been going to FL330 recently from LHR.
It has been interesting to note that since restarting services to LHR with A388, QF have consistently been climbing to lower initial altitude on the LHR-SIN leg than SQ's A380's. IIRC even at MTOW the A380 was supposed to be able to reach initial cruise altitude of FL350, QF been going to FL330 recently from LHR.
Point 2. It could be due to different payloads, or as another thought, the g-buffet margins used. At BA, we use 1.3g margins as per CAA requirements, QF may well do the same whereas SQ, I seem to recall use 1.2g margins as per the FAA. That could explain the difference in initial cruise levels. One thing for sure, the engine thrust rating doesn't explain cruise level differences.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Belfast
Age: 40
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 January was what I had read over the past couple of days too 
Topbunk - completely understand where you are coming from with the extra 5-6 tonnes OEW which is absolutely an Airbus issue. However I feel that RR shouldn't have sold QF the 972's if they (with hindsight) weren't up to the task of hauling that extra weight around. This is why I would put the ball in RR's court.
As for initial cruise levels, my assumation was based on ops since QF announced the use of reduced thrust under normal ops. Beforehand they always went straight to FL350 anytime I looked. Perhaps I put 2 and 2 together and got 10
Topbunk - completely understand where you are coming from with the extra 5-6 tonnes OEW which is absolutely an Airbus issue. However I feel that RR shouldn't have sold QF the 972's if they (with hindsight) weren't up to the task of hauling that extra weight around. This is why I would put the ball in RR's court.
As for initial cruise levels, my assumation was based on ops since QF announced the use of reduced thrust under normal ops. Beforehand they always went straight to FL350 anytime I looked. Perhaps I put 2 and 2 together and got 10
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your nearest Marriott
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So with the flights resuming next week, have they decided to accept the attrition rate of new engines every 75 take offs, or are they going to run at lower gross weights? Seems a very tangled web being weaved, or perhaps over zealous journalism on behalf of the author of the original piece.
Jet driver - TA, the guilt was killing me, just as the derision must have been eating at Mr. Groundloop. May he sleep better tonight.
Jet driver - TA, the guilt was killing me, just as the derision must have been eating at Mr. Groundloop. May he sleep better tonight.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doing this would increase the total flight time by around 2-3hrs and result in lost traffic to those who can operate the direct services, as QF can with their 744ER.
Better they should get rid of the Airboos pig and stick with the B744ER...
