9W to get EK A345s?

SC – More than happy to divulge next time we meet! Glad to hear that you havn’t had any finger trouble…but then your airline wasn’t one of them!

Thee beer is cold mate. I was surprised when you wrote regarding the finger trouble, and glad to hear it’s not been Cathay. The fuel system on the 744 is very simple and only requires us to press a couple of buttons when the computer tells us too. 😉

Are you in Honkers soon??????? 😀

Sorry Sandy but I can identify 3 separate cases of B744 fuel system ‘finger trouble’ this year alone, so I’d hardly say it works well and wouldn’t benefit from updating. Apologies for saying that lack of FCMC’s means downgrading to operating like a Boeing but that’s just how it is whether you like it or not.

Shadow1 – The FCMC architecture was changed totally from the A343 to the A346 as the fuel system is very very different between the two. Airbus software is constantly being updated on a day to day basis to include the latest developments (something you cannot easily do on a non-computer driven aircraft) so even an old aeroplane is constantly evolving.

And there are how many 744s versus A340-500/600s?
Also the average age of tha 744 is triple that of the A345/6.

Very unfair comparison.

Very similar systems, whereas Airbus using computers to control squencing valves to move fuel/deliver fuel, Boeing relies on higher output pressures, and pilot interaction. Boeing use cabin pressure to move fuel about (744ER) airbus use pumps. You can argue it either way, remove as much fuel managment (in ther air) from the pilot, and not only have you reduced workload, you have reduced the chance of error. IMHO

Clearly not as the A345/6 fuel system track record shows.

Very similar systems, whereas Airbus using computers to control squencing valves to move fuel/deliver fuel, Boeing relies on higher output pressures, and pilot interaction. Boeing use cabin pressure to move fuel about (744ER) airbus use pumps. You can argue it either way, remove as much fuel managment (in ther air) from the pilot, and not only have you reduced workload, you have reduced the chance of error. IMHO

…but…one manufacturer designed a system in use in most (all?) of it’s types that involves running tanks dry in such a way that it lead to the risk of explosion within the tanks (remember TWA800?). Many Boeings have been carting about extra fuel for the last few years because of fears of uncovered fuel pumps. And some people are trying to claim that the Boeing system is a proven one!!! :p

Things don’t get put into service without testing them first. When I say ‘daily basis’ I mean that it is constantly being evolved rather than literally uploading a different piece of software each day!

SC – More than happy to divulge next time we meet! Glad to hear that you havn’t had any finger trouble…but then your airline wasn’t one of them!

Wysiwyg, thanks for the explanation. Although I now find myself wondering if maybe updating the system on a daily basis might not be where the problem comes from. Would Airbus have ample time to test the system to make sure that it works properly?

Sorry Sandy but I can identify 3 separate cases of B744 fuel system ‘finger trouble’ this year alone, so I’d hardly say it works well and wouldn’t benefit from updating. Apologies for saying that lack of FCMC’s means downgrading to operating like a Boeing but that’s just how it is whether you like it or not.

Care too share the finger trouble problem with us as I have never seen any finger trouble with the 744 fuel system.

Cheers. 😉

Nice little dig there Wys.

Have you ever considered that Boeing are using the fuel system they do because they know it works and does not need updating? Unlike its buggy Airbus counterpart?

Sorry Sandy but I can identify 3 separate cases of B744 fuel system ‘finger trouble’ this year alone, so I’d hardly say it works well and wouldn’t benefit from updating. Apologies for saying that lack of FCMC’s means downgrading to operating like a Boeing but that’s just how it is whether you like it or not.

Shadow1 – The FCMC architecture was changed totally from the A343 to the A346 as the fuel system is very very different between the two. Airbus software is constantly being updated on a day to day basis to include the latest developments (something you cannot easily do on a non-computer driven aircraft) so even an old aeroplane is constantly evolving.

The Fuel Control Monitoring Computers software has been problematic on the A346 as highlighted by the recent Amsterdam diversion. This has now been resolved with a software update. The problem centered around an FCMC failure which managed occur without being noticed by monitoring systems and therefore did not flag up any warnings. Operation without FCMC’s is not problematic (it is equivalent to downgrading the system to the same as that installed in a Boeing) however if you don’t know the system is not working then you don’t know that you need to manually operate the valves to move fuel.

Nice little dig there Wys.

Have you ever considered that Boeing are using the fuel system they do because they know it works and does not need updating? Unlike its buggy Airbus counterpart?

Just a quick question! If these fuel management problems have been a reoccuring problem for the A346, why is it that Airbus hasn’t changed suppliers for this particular piece of equipment? Or does Airbus manufacture this system in house?

The Fuel Control Monitoring Computers software has been problematic on the A346 as highlighted by the recent Amsterdam diversion. This has now been resolved with a software update. The problem centered around an FCMC failure which managed occur without being noticed by monitoring systems and therefore did not flag up any warnings. Operation without FCMC’s is not problematic (it is equivalent to downgrading the system to the same as that installed in a Boeing) however if you don’t know the system is not working then you don’t know that you need to manually operate the valves to move fuel.

A recent issue of Flight Int. had an article about Airline comments on the A340-500 and 600. The airlines included VS, SA, CX and others I can’t remember now.

Almost all of the airlines questions noted Fuel System issues. Both models seems to suffer from it. Total reliability is lower than Airbus promised it would be after a year in service. All the airlines did comment that Airbus’ support was second to none however.

So CX’s problems are not unique.

there was an incident a few months back involving a faulty fuel computer on a virgin 346, i dont think an engine or engines flamed out,but the crew made the decision to land at Amsterdam.

It happens all too often.

I’d say Airlines go for the cheapest deal 90% of the time.

Perhaps, but the point is that the product will be of high quality as well- otherwise the airlines would not buy it.

When it comes to buying a computer, most people will normally choose what suits their needs best at a reasonable price. But few would buy a computer put together from loose parts from a dodgy geezer in a pub car park, even if it’s 75% cheaper than one in the shops, because most people know the computer in question would break down within weeks or months at best.

Airlines are not any different. If price was the main factor everyone would buy third-hand russian airliners.

Agreed.

If A offered 4 A340s for the price of 2 and B offered 4 777s at the price of 3. Which deal will the beancounter choose?

Thats Correct, the 4 A340s.

No, especially not in that case. The 777 has kower operating costs and is much more reliable. As a bonus passengers prefer the much smoother ride on the 777.

EK had to go Airbus, because they needed planes quickly to expand their service. Now they are in a phase of consolidation and they can get rid of their worst planes.

That was the point. Well done for realising 🙂

yeah well, you know me,……pretty damn dumb :p

“Business Tries To Maximise Profits Shock Horror!!!” :D:D:D

lol

“Businesses Try To Maximise Profits Shock Horror!!!” :D:D:D

Picking up isolated incidents is perhaps not terrible fair though. I’m sure if there were any safety concerns about any aircraft civil aviation authorities both here and across the Pond would jump on it fairly quickly.

As for which aircraft is better, well it’s a never-ending argument. Only the other day someone was saying that price is only one consideration to take when buying an aircraft. If some models were bad value for money airlines wouldn’t buy them, end of. However if one model is only marginally better than other, and the latter is considerably cheaper then yes, it’d be stupid for airlines not to buy them- they’re going to save themselves a lot of money (i.e. earn more) which is the aim of the company in the first place.

And I suspect that in many cases we’re talking about performance. So much as it might excite pilots and aviation enthusiasts alike, I suspect airlines don’t care much for superior power, massive engines, good looks or impressive climb rates but for economics, cost per trip or maintenance costs. So the answer of ‘which aircraft is better’ depends in most cases on who is asking the question.

It happens all too often.

I’d say Airlines go for the cheapest deal 90% of the time.

Picking up isolated incidents is perhaps not terrible fair though. I’m sure if there were any safety concerns about any aircraft civil aviation authorities both here and across the Pond would jump on it fairly quickly.

As for which aircraft is better, well it’s a never-ending argument. Only the other day someone was saying that price is only one consideration to take when buying an aircraft. If some models were bad value for money airlines wouldn’t buy them, end of. However if one model is only marginally better than other, and the latter is considerably cheaper then yes, it’d be stupid for airlines not to buy them- they’re going to save themselves a lot of money (i.e. earn more) which is the aim of the company in the first place.

And I suspect that in many cases we’re talking about performance. So much as it might excite pilots and aviation enthusiasts alike, I suspect airlines don’t care much for superior power, massive engines, good looks or impressive climb rates but for economics, cost per trip or maintenance costs. So the answer of ‘which aircraft is better’ depends in most cases on who is asking the question.