Qantas A380 service to UK resumes on 27 November
Back to Forum- This topic has 16 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 6 Jan 2011
at 07:12 by LindsayW.
-
- Author
- Posts
- Skip to last reply Create Topic
-
JohnPhelanAustraliaParticipantQantas has announced the resumption of A380 services to the UK as of this coming weekend.
Note however that, at this time, the QF A380s will fly ONLY on the Kangaroo route (UK-Australia).
The services to LAX on which QF has used the A380s will be served by B747 aircraft at this time. This is because the routes across the Pacific require maximum thrust of the Trent 900 engines and it is under those conditions that the oil leaks are thought to occur.
Unofficially, I believe there’s also a concern that if they fly them across the vast Pacific, there are very few airports at which to land if there is a problem. Whereas on the flights to the UK, the great bulk of the route is over land so there are lots of possible diversion airports that can be reached quickly if necessary.
The A380s which were grounded at LAX are being flown back to Australia without any pax – which underscores QF’s concern about those engines across the Pacific.
QF’s announcement:
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20101123/pdf/31v25lklcq2cz2.pdf
23 Nov 2010
at 01:44
Binman62ParticipantJohnPhelanAustralia……Thanks for the update but I wonder if I am alone in being concerned at the implications of your comments re the use of the aircraft on the kangaroo route and not the Pacific.
“There is concern that if there is a problem over the Pacific very few airports can handle the aircraft.” ………..Surely the aircraft is safe to fly or it is not!?This entire debacle has, from the start, been a PR disaster for Airbus, Rolls Royce and Qantas. There has been no transparency, openness or joint statement of any kind. Lufthansa and Singapore airlines continued to operate with only minor disruption and the travelling public have been given no indication why Qantas felt it necessary to ground a fleet for almost month whilst other operators did not. The web is full of details of the issues faced as well as speculation of how close this flight came to catastrophe. I realise that in Australia the view is different but the damage to the reputation of Qantas globally is huge.
Now 3 weeks later the aircraft can fly again but still we do not know officially what caused the problems and why Qantas felt it necessary to take the action it did.
Despite this we get today’s announcement that the aircraft can again take to the skies….. but only if an en route alternate is readily available!!!!!……..surely this cannot have played any part in the thinking of an International Airline.
I fervently hope that the decision to operate on the kangaroo route had more to do with the commercial imperative of moving large numbers of people on their longest route in a peak travel period, rather than anything to do with operating the aircraft within certain limits.
23 Nov 2010
at 11:02
JohnPhelanAustraliaParticipantBinman, at a press conference today Alan Joyce spoke at some length. Here is an excerpt from one of the stories now appearing in Australian media:
“Mr Joyce said that the “check regime” that has been carried out will ensure that the planes are safe and will prevent the problems from occurring again.
He said that the aircraft would not be used on the trans-Pacific Los Angeles route until the company was “100 percent sure” the problems had been resolved.
Instead Qantas will start by operating a single A380 on routes between Australia and the UK, and will assess how to best deploy the other planes at a later date.”
Note the second para – that flights to LAX will not resume until QF is “100% sure” the problems have been resolved. In other words – QF is not 100% sure it’s fixed, and that is also why QF will not (at this time) fly it on routes where maximum thrust is required (i.e. from Australia to LAX).
Privately, QF is furious with the way RR has handled the whole thing – including not informing QF that it had modified the newer Trent 900 engines!! It will take a long time for QF to totally trust RR again; hence the CEO’s comment, which can be translated as “just because RR says the problem is fixed, we won’t necessarily believe that”.
Having said all that, QF is getting VERY positive public comment now, supported by our Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for grounding the A380 fleet, which CASA says was clearly the correct course of action. It is SQ which is now on the receiving end of public suspicion in Australia, for continuing to fly its A380 fleet with the same engines. It seems only to have enhanced QF’s reputation in Australia, as an airline which puts safety ahead of everything else – by a long way.
As a passenger, I’ve had to endure several lengthy waits on aircraft or being deplaned and put up overnight because of QF’s policy to not take off unless everything is perfect – this has sometimes been frustrating for me (even when sitting in a stationary aircraft in F or J for 4 or 5 hours) but it’s why Australians rate QF’s safety record so highly.
I’m told both QF and Airbus are very unhappy with the way RR has dealt with all of this – it seems the reason there has been no “joint statement”, as you mention, is that RR has taken the attitude that it wants to say as little as possible in the public arena about this whole thing.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/travel/news/qantas-to-resume-a380-flights/story-e6freqwo-1225959209292
23 Nov 2010
at 13:55
BABenjiParticipantSo how sure are Qantas with regards the safety of the A380’s they operate? They must be pretty sure and Mr Joyce must have confidence otherwise I’m certain he wouldn’t be getting on board the “relaunch” flight to London next week. Personally speaking, that’s not enough for me. I like facts. What happened? Why did it happen? What has been done to put it right? Presently there is just speculation and the occasional (as JohnPhelanAustralia states) coded message from Qantas about RR.
Are RR silent because they don’t know? Are they silent because they are not convinced as to the seriousness of the issue (given that Singapore and Lufthansa didn’t ground their fleets after the checks, although some anomolies were found, I believe).
Given that the statistics on a passenger being involved in a fatal accident run at several million to one, a 1% doubt in the safety of the plane would be quite significant.
As with all things in life, it is the uncertainty which makes one nervous and the lack of information is causing me to wonder what the best thing for me and my travel is. The whole situation leaves one with more questions than answers.
23 Nov 2010
at 16:09
LindsayWParticipantMore news from the Australian papers today:
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has praised the way Qantas has handled the problems with its A380 fleet….
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/23/3074573.htmQantas is likely to have to wait months before it can fly its flagship A380 superjumbos on its key long-haul route between Australia and the US….
http://www.smh.com.au/business/los-angeles-remains-off-limits-to-qantas-a380s-20101123-185o2.html24 Nov 2010
at 02:31
Binman62ParticipantBAbenji….could not agree more….would be happier still if he was a passenger flying across the Pacific!. You simply can not operate an aircraft in this day and age on one route and not another on the basis of safety. It is either safe or it is not.
It is all very well for the Australian authorities to praise Qantas for the benefit of the domestic market, but the message in general is confused and unclear. The cycnic in me would suggest that Qantas fear the litigation that US courts would bring down on their heads should there be a problem with a transpacific flight .For the time being, and until such time as the safety of the aircraft is again clear. the Qantas A380 should be avoided like a plague.
24 Nov 2010
at 08:32
BABenjiParticipantLatest from down under:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-gets-ready-to-put-a380s-back-on-us-route-20101230-19b3z.html
Happy New Year all.
31 Dec 2010
at 00:10
LuganoPirateParticipantDoes RR know the reason for this engine failure yet? I have not seen much publicity about the reason (please correct me if I’m wrong) and I too would really like to understand the reason, and know that a full test programme has been implemented, before I would fly the 380.
I know there have been many flights by several airlines since, without mishap, but how many of us on this forum remember the Comet? They did not all crash, and many safe flights were made, but several did, leading to their withdrawal from service and handing the lead in aircraft manufacture to Boeing.
Not wishing to sound too glum, but Airbus’s ancestors can be traced back to the de Havilland company and Rolls Royce built the engines for both planes.
Yikes!!!
31 Dec 2010
at 10:59
whatseconomyParticipantAirbus ancestors may have been the De Havilland company and the Comet may well have been powered by Rolls Royce Avons but the reson the comet crashed was metal fatigue around the square passenger windows. Subsequent design of the windows into ‘Ovals’ cured the problem on the Comet 4. The engines had no bearing on any of the crashes. in fact the only problem with the RR engines wasthat they were too powerful (having been developed as derivitives from combat aircraft engines).
Lets not get away from the fact the A380 is a fantastic aircraft and far surpasses anything our colonial cousins from the US can achieve.Happy New year
31 Dec 2010
at 13:24
LuganoPirateParticipantI agree whatseconomy the reason was metal fatigue for the Comet crashes and had nothing to do with the RR engines. I also agree the 380 is a great plane though I have not yet flown on one.
My main point was that I would really like to know exactly what happened, and wonder if RR /QF yet know why the engine exploded the way it did, and why they are now safe for flight?
Happy New Year and safe travels to you as well.
31 Dec 2010
at 19:12
LindsayWParticipantQantas has been given the green light by engine-maker Rolls-Royce to operate its A380 aircraft at full payload on the Los Angeles route….
6 Jan 2011
at 03:44 -
AuthorPosts