Qantas has been hit by a string of problems which have grounded all three of their flagship A380s in the past few days.
One of the planes was back in service this morning, but the other two were declared unserviceable with a fuel tank indication system problem.
“Qantas is an early customer of the A380 and naturally, as with any new aircraft type and like other operators of the A380, we expect the occasional issue to arise,” the airline said in a statement.
“We are working very closely with Airbus to resolve these but we remain committed to the A380 as the cornerstone of our new generation product offering.”
The airline’s first superjumbo, the Nancy-Bird Walton, was initially delayed for 19 hours in Sydney on Saturday because of a fuel leak.
After repair work the much-heralded plane was cleared to fly the “kangaroo route” to Singapore then London.
In London, it was again found to be leaking fuel and experienced a nose wheel ground steering issue. The plane was declared “unserviceable” and had to be grounded.
The episode comes after Qantas grounded the same plane due to a “minor technical fault” at Los Angeles airport five weeks ago.
In the latest incident, the Nancy-Bird Walton was scheduled to fly from London to Melbourne as a one-off because of the initial delay in Sydney.
Passengers travelling to Melbourne on flight QF10 were delayed for more than 16 hours as a result of the dramas.
One passenger stranded in London told The Daily Telegraph Online: “Lots of people were really excited to be going on the new plane.
“Now basically they’ve cancelled the flight because there’s a fuel leak.
“It’s a worry because it’s brand new and a fuel problem is pretty serious.”
They eventually left London on a Boeing 747 at 2.24pm on Monday, instead of the original departure time of 10pm Sunday.
A Qantas spokeswoman yesterday said repairs had been completed and the Nancy-Bird Walton departed London for Melbourne on flight QF10 at 11.25pm Monday local time (10.25am Tuesday Sydney).
The other two A380s were grounded in Sydney and engineers were “currently working to resolve this and we hope to have both aircraft returned to service very soon”, the airline said.
Of the two “unserviceable” A380s in Sydney, one was scheduled to be ready to operate QF31 Sydney-Singapore-London at 5.40pm today.
The other A380 was scheduled to be back in operation tomorrow.
By: sekant - 6th March 2009 at 08:41
“You are saying that Boeing is so good and superior that their new planes know no snitches.” Please show me where I have ever said that. I don’t believe I have ever stated that the 777 didn’t have any problems. The thread titile is: “Qantas grounds A380 fleet.” I don’t recall that happening in the case of the 777. .
You clearly stated that the 777 issues were minor in comparison. When, as I have posted, there were problems of similar natures with planes having diverted because of decompression, planes had to be grounded because of major engine issues. They may not be the exact same issues, but there certainly were not minor in comparison. The letter of UA to Boeing, a highly unusual exercice, listed a whole list of other issues.
Stuff that happen to all newly inducted planes, and whether you care to admit it or not this affects Boeing as much as Airbus.
As far as who is embarrassed, I’ll bet the passenger service people who notified that pax that their travel plans were interrupted were embarrassed for their airline. And I’ll bet Airbus was a little embarrassed also, if I had built the airplane, I would have been.
.
Got stuck 8 hours in Amsterdam last year because the KLM/747 Ihad issues after we had boarded. Got stuck one entire day in Guadeloupe (not that I minded) a year ago because the Air France B777 to CDG had major issues and was grounded. Were Boeing embarassed in any way ?? No, because this happens day in, day out.
By: Ship 741 - 6th March 2009 at 00:56
Hi Ship, my apologies if I have upset you but my intension was to support the A380 as an aircraft, your references to the project makes sense but this was not clear on your original post and I do agree with what you were trying to state, having experienced a 7 hour flight on the A380 and compared to the 773 or the 744, my experience was very favourable and biased towards the A380, I do hope these early operational difficulties are resolved, I have been lucky to have experienced many types from the Lockheed to Boeing and Airbus, the A380 is just progress and I hope that any future types from any airframe maker enters service safely and smoothly.
Regards
Joe
Hey Joe, no one upset here…..I appreciate a good debate. I read somewhere that the A380 is very quiet in the cabin, no doubt a very positive characteristic. I’m sure these difficulties will be resolved, but it is rather embarassing in the meantime.
I definitely concur with your hope for a safe future for all future commercial airplanes.
By: joe3400 - 5th March 2009 at 22:44
Hi Ship, my apologies if I have upset you but my intension was to support the A380 as an aircraft, your references to the project makes sense but this was not clear on your original post and I do agree with what you were trying to state, having experienced a 7 hour flight on the A380 and compared to the 773 or the 744, my experience was very favourable and biased towards the A380, I do hope these early operational difficulties are resolved, I have been lucky to have experienced many types from the Lockheed to Boeing and Airbus, the A380 is just progress and I hope that any future types from any airframe maker enters service safely and smoothly.
Regards
Joe
By: Ship 741 - 5th March 2009 at 20:17
This is not a personal attack but judge for yourself, Ship you state that the A380 fleet is anemic, its anaemic mate, also how is the fleet week, feeble, lacklustre, insipid, pale and or wishy-washy because that’s what anaemic means.:dev2:
Weak sales in the A380 program is what I was referring to, my apologies for not so stating.
Almost 9 years into the program, only about 200 orders, and some of those are soft……and one of the Airbus execs stated in 2006 that the breakeven was 420 frames. From a business standpoint, ie profit/loss, I’d say that qualifies as weak or lacklustre
By: joe3400 - 5th March 2009 at 20:07
This is not a personal attack but judge for yourself, Ship you state that the A380 fleet is anemic, its anaemic mate, also how is the fleet week, feeble, lacklustre, insipid, pale and or wishy-washy because that’s what anaemic means.:dev2:
By: Ship 741 - 5th March 2009 at 19:37
Who do you think you are fooling, mate?? I point out that snags hit all new planes, be there boeing’s or airbuses’. You are saying that Boeing is so good and superior that their new planes know no snitches. You are way past the fan boy state.
And this is an embarassment only in the eyes of people who know squat about aviation. Not really surprised that you are among the lot.
Minor in comparison?? UA B777s had to be diverted three times during their first few months of exploitation because of loss of cabin pressure. It made big headlines at the time and the issue was blown out of all proportion (probably by the likes of you). Several early BA 777s had to be grounded because of engine issues.
SIA said the same type of thing about the 380. You expect a new airplane outperform existing ones. Nothing new or striking here.
When pressed, you always resort to personal attacks: “people who know squat about aviation….not really suprised that you not are among the lot” is only your latest. It doesn’t lend credence to your arguments. Comments like “usual bull” aren’t constructive either.
“You are saying that Boeing is so good and superior that their new planes know no snitches.” Please show me where I have ever said that. I don’t believe I have ever stated that the 777 didn’t have any problems. The thread titile is: “Qantas grounds A380 fleet.” I don’t recall that happening in the case of the 777.
WRT new airliners have teething problems. I never said they didn’t. I will grant that when a fleet is as small as the anemic A380 fleet, or the Concorde, the problems seem magnified. (WRT my ‘anemic” comment, by this time in the 747 program, over 100 airplanes had been delivered, 93 in 1970 alone.)
As far as who is embarrassed, I’ll bet the passenger service people who notified that pax that their travel plans were interrupted were embarrassed for their airline. And I’ll bet Airbus was a little embarrassed also, if I had built the airplane, I would have been.
Grey: Not sure that I have defended Boeing or the 777 to the level of sainthood. I will admit that the 777 program appears to have been the most “model” program run by any of the big manufacturers since, well, a long time. But there were a lot of things that could have been better.
The A380’s were “grounded” when they were in an unairworthy state. The whole small fleet needed repaired at the same time. Thus, not flying, ie., grounded.
By: sekant - 5th March 2009 at 17:52
Any criticism of the blessed A380 brings out the defenders and fan boys. So be it. The bottom line, which you have not refuted (and I do not believe can be refuted), is that this is an embarrassment for Qantas and Airbus that they would have preferred not happen.
Who do you think you are fooling, mate?? I point out that snags hit all new planes, be there boeing’s or airbuses’. You are saying that Boeing is so good and superior that their new planes know no snitches. You are way past the fan boy state.
And this is an embarassment only in the eyes of people who know squat about aviation. Not really surprised that you are among the lot.
The problems United had seem to be minor by comparison…..their whole fleet was never grounded for example. Airlines routinely groan for better support, to the extent of “leaking” private correspondence..
Minor in comparison?? UA B777s had to be diverted three times during their first few months of exploitation because of loss of cabin pressure. It made big headlines at the time and the issue was blown out of all proportion (probably by the likes of you). Several early BA 777s had to be grounded because of engine issues.
United executive Joseph O’Gorman, who wrote the letter, issued a statement yesterday saying: “The 777 is an excellent airplane. We just want to make it better. The 777 is outperforming all other new airplanes we’ve introduced into our fleet.” …..
SIA said the same type of thing about the 380. You expect a new airplane outperform existing ones. Nothing new or striking here.
By: Grey Area - 5th March 2009 at 17:40
Any criticism of the blessed A380 brings out the defenders and fan boys. So be it.
So, it would seem, does any adverse comment on the saintly B777. :rolleyes:
The B777 is my favourite modern airliner, by the way.
The bottom line, which you have not refuted (and I do not believe can be refuted), is that this is an embarrassment for Qantas and Airbus that they would have preferred not happen.
But neither of the other A380 operators grounded any of their aircraft, did they?
QANTAS A380 ops resumed in fairly short order, didn’t they?
A storm in a teacup blown out of all proportion by the media, as usual.
By: Ship 741 - 5th March 2009 at 16:16
The usual bull to be expected.
All newly induced planes have glitches. That applies to the 380 as to the 777. United, the firts 777 operator, had to deal with more than 100 snags. It even stooke the unusual step of sending a letter to Boeing to complain about the unusual number of glitches, listing the following problems:
— Electrical malfunctions
— Frozen cables
— Computer software bugs
— Faulty landing gear door
— Unusual oil loss
— Damaged circuit breaker
— Fluid leaking into auxiliary power generatorhttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/archives/1996/9603070108.asp
http://books.google.ch/books?id=CILNWqZskckC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=b777+snags&source=web&ots=iSnB_ocXRs&sig=n1PfeXDX133tk5tIuvXYPDiQVxM&hl=de#PPA90,M1 (p. 90 – more than 100 snags identified)I am not even speaking of the fact that this even applies to new versions of the 777. See the issues that Air France has had with newly introduce -300ER
The problems United had seem to be minor by comparison…..their whole fleet was never grounded for example. Airlines routinely groan for better support, to the extent of “leaking” private correspondence.
Furthermore, from the letter you linked, some interesting quotes, my emphasis in bold:
United executive Joseph O’Gorman, who wrote the letter, issued a statement yesterday saying: “The 777 is an excellent airplane. We just want to make it better. The 777 is outperforming all other new airplanes we’ve introduced into our fleet.”
Boeing quickly added that the 777’s dispatch reliability – its readiness to go when the airline needs the plane – was 97.5 percent at the end of 1995, the best for any model of commercial jet in its first year of service, said spokeswoman Barbara Murphy.
“We do think we have the best reliability in the world,” she added.
Murphy said none of the problems was safety-related. Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Tim Pile said he is aware of the glitches cited by United, but none has led the agency to issue airworthiness directives for the 777.
“Relative to other planes going into service, it’s done very well,” Pile said. “We characterize it more as a customer satisfaction issue.”
Any criticism of the blessed A380 brings out the defenders and fan boys. So be it. The bottom line, which you have not refuted (and I do not believe can be refuted), is that this is an embarrassment for Qantas and Airbus that they would have preferred not happen.
By: J Boyle - 5th March 2009 at 14:52
Agreed, if its minor stuff. it’s no big deal. New airplanes have them.
From experience in a B-1B unit, you’d be surprised how critics of a program will latch onto anything to discredit it.
Look at the Modern Military Forum on this site for dozens of examples.
So I’m sure we’ll give Boeing the benefit of the doubt when 787 probelms occur.
Right?:D
By: sekant - 5th March 2009 at 14:42
Qantas introduced the 747 a long, long time ago. More than 30 years? The state of the art has advanced considerably in the meantime, therefore the 747 or Concorde comparisons are hardly appropriate.
A much more valid comparison might be the 777. I don’t seem to recall similar problems when 777 entered service in 1995. As a matter of fact, it went right into 180 minute ETOPS as “the most thoroughly tested airliner in history” or some such, according to the Boeing hype.
One would expect a more flawless entry for a modern product, especially one that had sevice entry delayed for two years. Any way you cut it, it is an embarrassment for Qantas and for Airbus.
The usual bull to be expected.
All newly induced planes have glitches. That applies to the 380 as to the 777. United, the firts 777 operator, had to deal with more than 100 snags. It even stooke the unusual step of sending a letter to Boeing to complain about the unusual number of glitches, listing the following problems:
— Electrical malfunctions
— Frozen cables
— Computer software bugs
— Faulty landing gear door
— Unusual oil loss
— Damaged circuit breaker
— Fluid leaking into auxiliary power generator
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/archives/1996/9603070108.asp
http://books.google.ch/books?id=CILNWqZskckC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=b777+snags&source=web&ots=iSnB_ocXRs&sig=n1PfeXDX133tk5tIuvXYPDiQVxM&hl=de#PPA90,M1 (p. 90 – more than 100 snags identified)
I am not even speaking of the fact that this even applies to new versions of the 777. See the issues that Air France has had with newly introduce -300ER
By: Ship 741 - 5th March 2009 at 13:49
Qantas introduced the 747 a long, long time ago. More than 30 years? The state of the art has advanced considerably in the meantime, therefore the 747 or Concorde comparisons are hardly appropriate.
A much more valid comparison might be the 777. I don’t seem to recall similar problems when 777 entered service in 1995. As a matter of fact, it went right into 180 minute ETOPS as “the most thoroughly tested airliner in history” or some such, according to the Boeing hype.
One would expect a more flawless entry for a modern product, especially one that had sevice entry delayed for two years. Any way you cut it, it is an embarrassment for Qantas and for Airbus.
By: Bmused55 - 5th March 2009 at 12:13
Qantas had similar little problems when they introduced the 747!!!
Anyone who introduces a new type will have issues.
Infact, I bet just about every new plane has the odd teething trouble as it settles into its service life.
By: steve rowell - 5th March 2009 at 00:59
Normal new plane bugs. Nothing surprising realy.
Qantas had similar little problems when they introduced the 747!!!
By: Bmused55 - 3rd March 2009 at 10:13
Normal new plane bugs. Nothing surprising realy.
Sign In
March 3, 2009 at 7:22 am