Virgin taps Boeing for 787 compensation
Virgin Atlantic is in talks with Boeing over compensation for the late delivery of the 787 Dreamliners it ordered in April last year, the Telegraph reports. The airline was expecting delivery of its first 787-9, one of 15 it requested at a cost of about $2.8bn, in early 2011, but the manufacturer last week admitted to further …
"it is not the same problem and not the same aircraft."
So it isn't just one "Friday" plane, it's a symptom of systematic manufacturing problems? I'm not getting in *any* Airbus 380...
as the plane plumets towards the runway at Heathrow you can be comfortable with the knowledge that the fuel pump has failed for a completely different reason.....
On a more serious note, how many fuel pumps are there? One would expect this to be a system that has redundancies? Any aircraft engineers out there?
"So it isn't just one "Friday" plane, it's a symptom of systematic manufacturing problems? I'm not getting in *any* Airbus 380..." .... By Anonymous Coward
Posted Wednesday 26th March 2008 09:55 GMT
If it was anything like that, AC, it would more accurately be as a result of systematic manufacturing and therefore no problem to remove/fix/improve/change.
Didn't Virgin only order Dreamliner because Airbus delayed their A380 orders?
" If there were the slightest risk of lives being put in danger they'd be grounded, simple as that."
it was grounded, and they had to use another plane, so there was a risk of lives being put at risk.
whether its the pump, relay, part of a relay...who cares, it ALL should work perfectly on a brand new plane.
The system will normally keep working even without the fuel pumps - there are bypass valves and there's some level of suction generated by the engine itself that will draw fuel through the pipes. At least I assume this is as true of the A380 as it is of the B777 (based on reading stuff about the recent Heathrow incident)
No idea how many pumps there are, but I think most aircraft aren't allowed to take off with *any* failures - just so you have plenty of spares in-flight.
>> I'm not getting in *any* Airbus 380...
You could phone the airline in advance and find out I s'pose...if you can get through to someone who knows these sorts of things...
But I'm guessing that you won't have a choice.....not many airlines I know announce which planes they will use on specific flights.....OK - so this is a broad generalisation....and of course, for the newer planes, there is some advance publicity of specific routes - but even in the case of Singapore Airlines, they run multiple flights and have only 3 A380's...
I've never known or been told in advance which type of plane I'd be flying on....!
Mines leather and has a sheepskin collar.
So just like the patent trolls, is there a new opportunity in ordering brand new aircraft and then claiming compensation when they don't fly on schedule?
As an Aero Engineer (at least on paper), my first thought echoed AC. It's not an issue with an individual aircraft. Still, I wouldn't let it worry me. The amount of redundant systems in modern aircraft mean that something like will be a gripe, not a massive safety concern.
The amount of times I used to take jump seats (pre September 11th) and I'd look at the fuse board, There'd be tags hanging off various items to say they're inoperable.
Eg: TCAS out of action, Main undercarriage brakes overheating so couldn't use maximum autobrakes.
Regarding the article, Boeing might be realising that highlighting issues with with competitors products (A380 delays) may not be such a good idea in the future. There are always going to be delay when producing a machine with 4 million parts.
I don't think you're paying attention then. E.g. the BA web site indicates that flight BA0238 from Boston to Heathrow on 29 March is a Boeing 777, and the return flight BA0213 on 1 April is a Boeing 747. Do try a bit harder next time.
Will this mean even more years of neglected LGW route planes? or will it force them to do a decent refit on them?
The levels of redundancy required to achieve certification on a modern passenger jet are substantial. There are multiple fuel pumps on board, monitored by multiple completely redundant avionics systems. The plane can continue to fly under multiple concurrent failures. The reason they are grounded when there is any failure is that in a safety critical environment you would have to be a complete Tony Blair to start a new mission with an existing failure reducing your level of resilience.
These things are not like the shoddy rubbish we knock up in IT, they are actually designed, tested and certified, in the configuration they will fly by experts who can do the reliability maths. These people do not fall for dumb ideas like hardware replicating disks or operating system clusters to ensure that any data fault propagates across all instances of the system and takes out everything.
On the flipside they don't seem to know much about IT and I would not fancy getting on a BOING and waiting for the Linux geek in the next row to hack through to the avionics from his seat and try to help everybody by recompiling the avionics kernel mid flight because it's SATA driver was out of date.
We should also ask why beardy Branston is buying US airliners when he could be spending the money in Europe, could it be anything to do with illegal protectionism in the US and the deal for his new Virgin airline there including buying BOING planes to help slow down the collapse of the US economy?
"it was grounded, and they had to use another plane, so there was a risk of lives being put at risk."
What planet are you from? Or are you a Boeing employee? It was grounded to REDUCE the risk not to increase it?
"whether its the pump, relay, part of a relay...who cares, it ALL should work perfectly on a brand new plane." Again I ask, what planet are you from? What is special about the plane being "NEW"? You think old planes should have more failures then new ones?
And what do you mean "should work perfectly"? Nothing is perfect. And the more complex it is, the less perfect it must be.
Instead of jumping up and down and panicing hysterically, increasing your risk of heart attack and/or being thought of as a fool, why not use your brain and think intellegently about risk.
What is the risk of failure, what is the cost of such a failure, what is the cost of reducing that risk. What is the 'acceptable' level?
I'm not flying on any new plane until Service Pack 1 is released for it...
"We should also ask why beardy Branston is buying US airliners when he could be spending the money in Europe, could it be anything to do with illegal protectionism in the US and the deal for his new Virgin airline there including buying BOING planes to help slow down the collapse of the US economy?" .... By The Cube Posted Wednesday 26th March 2008 12:14 GMT
Crikey, The Cube, that would be callous, prolonging the agony. I never took Sir Richard for such a fool/really useless/virtually useful tool. Que sera, sera.
In the light of no new initiative to halt the collapse, other than the ongoing cosy rearranging of balance sheets after the "shoot-yourself-in-both feet" decimation of Capitalist Lead Credibility through All Sector Sub-Prime Performance .... a Parasitic Tangent explored against the most Vulnerable and most easily Led/Overcome, which has led to where we now are , in collapse ..... why bother unless you're being well paid and are expecting things to change.
If Sir Richard, the Bearded One, isn't changing them himself, I wouldn't like to betting on a donkey of a white elephant ...... especially whenever there are Arabian thoroughbred races and rides whenever and wherever you would wish.
Bloody hell I think I understood most of that, time for a lay down....
;)
"I've never known or been told in advance which type of plane I'd be flying on....!"
I have :) But it did cost a little more to specify Concorde.
Yea, how can there be problems on one of the most complex pieces of engineeing known to man? If Honda(1) and Renault(2) can make simple simple machines (cars) without issues why can Airbus do it with an aircraft?
(1) Other than the handbrakes of course that can release after a minor nudge.
(2) Other than the Cleo bonnets that they can't stop popping open when you're driving along.
Posted By Steven Wednesday 26th March 2008 15:05 GMT....
"Bloody hell I think I understood most of that, time for a lay down....
;)"
And think how much you would understand if you had read, say, 1000 or more of his posts. He is a prolific poster 4 Sure.
Actually it's the pilot's decision whether he or she can fly the plane with a failed system. Some things (such as an inoperative engine) automatically rule out a take-off, but a plane can still be rostered if a suitably redundant component has failed.
If planes were grounded for not being in 100% working order, the airlines would have failed long ago.
The thing I think of when reading articles about this 'next generation' of aircraft is how much like operating systems it is: Each new 'version' costs so much more, and is always delayed. As far as I know, both the two large aircraft manufacturers got into financial trouble making this new generation of aircraft. Will they be able to afford to make the next generation after that?
"not many airlines I know announce which planes they will use on specific flights"
Actually, all airlines do precisely this. They publish them in various places but the most widely used is the Official Airlines Guide (OAG). From there the information is disseminated to the Global Distribution Systems that provide the information to travel agencies in both the real world and cyberspace. Some airlines provide even more information to GDSs and each other via direct data feeds but the OAG data is the base line. Even low-cost airlines that do not distribute via the GDSs and travel agents still publish to OAG.
Mind you there is always the possibility of a last minute change due to technical or operational issues that could mean a flight is operated by an aircraft different to the one planned. Even then though the overwhelming probability is that any substitution would be like for like in terms of aircraft type.
