The Beluga can easily do it with a tech stop in Shannon or Keflavik, but even a non-stop from Hamburg or Paris might be feasible with a less than full payload. It will depend on cost/availability, both types are capable. I would assume AB would rather use their own assets if possible.

So after 2 weeks the A380 is still there and nothing happened?

Thanks for posting. :rolleyes: That article is good reading for quite a few of the posters on this forum.

Basically just a rehash of the Reuters article quoting an unnamed source from the BEA, which will have little or no say in how the aircraft is recovered.

To be taken with a pinch of salt.

If I may, there is something incorrect in the article: we did not wait 2 hours in Goose Bay before being rescued but ... 15 hours. It is probably the worst case for an OCC to deal with: how to reaccomodate 500 pax stranded in a remote military base ?

It's not a difficult issue, and some carriers are better at it than others, it seems. But in any event, it should be all worked out in advance and on the shelf in a manual in ops control ready to be taken down.

The fact it happened on a Saturday afternoon rather than a weekday is illustrative of modern trends, despite it being a 24x7 industry, where nobody low enough in the hierarchy to be working the 24x7 shifts, rather than office hours, is allowed to decide anything.

A realistic plan would have AF cancel the first (or first two) evening departures from Eastern US/Canada, and send the aircraft to Goose, which would allow the crews enough hours remaining to transfer the passengers and take them on to somewhere more hospitable, if not LAX then at least a major city with hotels and onward flights.

This is what AF did : cancel a YUL-CDG flight and use the a/c to fly YUL-Goose-ATL.
The problem again is the number of pax. Even the biggest a/c in AF fleet (apart from 380) the 77W in leisure configuration - by chance operating the late flight from YUL - was not big enough for 500 pax. So, an additional 737 had to be chartered.

My understanding was that the relief 777, which was diverted from the late evening YUL departure, had not even left Paris on its westbound schedule when the incident happened; it flew to Montreal first (quite likely overflying Goose on the way) before being redirected. It then seems to have spent the remainder of the night at Goose, only departing well into the following day.

I think you have a point ! No idea why AF decided not to cancel the westbound flight. The 777 spent something like 5 hours in Goose Bay. There were various issues. The 777 was initially due to fly to LAX but could not because of flight plan issues (???). Pax had to be bused between the 380 and the 777 with only 2 small shuttles. And there were IT problems to issue the load sheet.

Glad we have Canada to divert to after crossing bunch of water and ice in case of (presumed) issues.
Think about that sometimes flying over the continent Africa in the dark, i know there are some ok places to divert to but for the rest...
Years ago diverted to Yellowknife with an engine fire indication, great welcome and support, pax(272) were put up with the locals since hotels are not abundant and the local hamburger joint provided first nite dinner for all of us.
Pax had a great time and continued to Frisco the next day on a spare plane flown in.
Canadian warm welcome even made the news in Frisco.
Thank you

Just to pick up, the A380 landed at Goose at 1240 L (1540 Z). A 777 departing Paris at 1850 L (1650 Z) flew AF348 to Montreal, did a 4 hour turnround there, double the normal for the return to Paris, departing after midnight (over 12 hours after the A380 landed), flew empty to Goose, was on the ground there from 0250 to 0650 L, then flew to Atlanta, arriving there mid-morning. The crew who would have reported at Montreal at normal time were possibly out of hours, with all the delays, for then getting to LA. I presume the pax finally got to LAX on Delta flights about the same time as the following day's A380 from Paris. With no hotac.

How Air France will rescue its A380 from Canada | Daily Mail Online

Looks like a three engine ferry is in the works.

I have followed this event as I did the Swizz B777 diversion.
Remind me why an engine has not been flown in, installed tested and departed.

In the B777 there was no N-1 ferry option, and no wing damage.

With regards to the slats that have to be changed and the wing inspected, that has to be 100% , regardless , me thinks?

Hanging on a new engine and not using it makes no sense to me.!
Might it be that MOT thinks the same?

By the way, a new engine on a ship would have been there by now.!

Yet again, just another rehash of the Reuters article, plus the usual dash of DM hyperbole.

That's far from certain, a four-engined ferry is at least as likely.

Probably yes! But one suspects that there's a ton of work to ensure that everything else (flaps, wing, you name it) is fine and that no more damaged bits will fall off anywhere else. Only then will it be fit to fly with either 3 or 4 engines.

The shipping of the engine is, I suspect, the least of their problems to solve at the moment.

A bit of topic creep, apologies, but my interest is piqued. Whilst not relevant to this particular incident, it is interesting that the Trent 900 fits in a 747 freighter. I don't know if RR have managed to keep their other large Trent derivatives under that size limit, but doing so is a big economic enabler for fancy deals on engine purchasing, ownership, maintenance, etc. Anyone out there know? The XWB has a slightly larger fan, but I don't know if that is reflected in overall diameter. The 7000 fan is slightly narrower, as is the 1000. And if RR has exploited this fit-in-a-jumbo characteristic to enable fancy deals with airlines buying the engine, what happens when (a long time in the future) the 747 freighter stop flying?

I'm not sure that's an issue. The Swiss B77W that diverted to Iqualit in February had a replacement GE90-115B flown in on an An-124.

The big GE engines have a readily removable fan module that can be removed or installed in less than a shift, no special tooling required. Sure, they can go into the AN-124 intact, but it's not that big a deal if a -124 isn't available and it needs to fit in a 747F.
BTW, you do know that Boeing is still building new 747-8F, and remain convinced that there will remain sufficient demand to make it worth while to keep building them for many years. Many of the 747F currently flying are getting pretty long in the tooth - well over 100k hours (especially the freighter conversions - most were pretty high time before they were converted to freighters) and Boeing sees them getting replaced with new 747-8F before too much longer...

The AF did the same thing on C-5 TF-39s. I had a fan changed in EDF once, 141 brought in the fan module, couple of shifts later, outside, we were off.

Apparently not due pylon and wing damage.

https://www.avweb.com/eletter/archiv...t=email#229785

A 380 Captains take.

https://twitter.com/DaveWallsworth/s...87041278566400

Is the tail camera from an A380 have loop record?