Those orders are mental! With the Emirates order, it looks like the board just said: “Here’s $100 billion, buy as many planes as you can with the money!”

Air New Zealand – £94 million

Sukhoi jet has belly landing in Iceland

A Sukhoi Superjet has made a belly landing during a test flight at Iceland’s Keflavik airport in Reykjavik, according to a statement by its Russian manufacturer.

At the final stage of a test flight to evaluate the Sukhoi Superjet 100’s automatic landing system on Sunday, the aircraft “touched the runway with retracted landing gear,” Sukhoi Civil Aircraft said in a statement.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/8947554/Sukhoi-jet-has-belly-landing-in-Iceland

Picture here: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Sukhoi-Design-Bureau/Sukhoi-Superjet-100-95/2288947/L/&sid=831a2a6de570662012b57648df2d59ac

The Asiana aircraft are not fitted with the same engine type as the BA aircraft that suffered from the issue you are alluding to.

IMO, not as pretty as the airframe it is competing against: the 787. But, at the end of the day, it’s not about looks. Is it.

How much oil is toxic? What if the engine is leaking oil into the system slowly, so that there is no abnormal servicing reflected in the aircraft logbook. Does the concentration, the exposure time, or both cause the condition? If the condition exists, who is responsible: the airline or the engine manufacturer or the airframe manufacturer? I imagine a greedy lawyer would probably sue all three. How about the regulatory authorities? Why did they certify an unsafe system?

I would say most, if not all oil has a degree of toxicity to it. Though (most, I would assume) airlines try their very best to ensure to oil fumes are not bled into the cabin.

It takes very, very little oil to enter into the bleed system before it is detected. True, oil servicing records may not show up the leak first, but it won’t be long before fumes are detected in the cabin.

Like the majority of aircraft defects, they manifest after the aircraft has been certified. So the certification tests may not reveal any faults. All three parties may be responsible. The airline may be over servicing oil wetted hardware or not properly cleaning areas where bleed air is drawn. The engine manufacture may have inadequate seals in their engines, leading to oil seeping into areas of the engine where bleed air is taken. Or, similarly, airframe hardware may have inadequate sealing. So a lawyer may find it hard to try and pin the blame on one party, over the life of the aircraft.

We don’t have an official left red light filtering system here. However, a lot of main roads that have left hand turns, have left handed give way lanes so that cars can safely merge to the left.

I remember when the A380 development started having issues and the aircraft flew/was delivered about 2 years later than Airbus’ initial schedule. That aircraft and company got pretty slated at the time but the AI is still going strong. The fact that the 787 has been grounded for so long is certainly not helping Boeing’s reputation though.

Boeing took a huge technological leap with the 787 and I think it’s just unfortunate in some way that the 787 entered into service before the A350. The A350, an aircraft that isn’t as ‘advanced’ in terms of volume of composite structure used, was planning on using the same battery technology. They could have easily had the same problems had the aircraft entered into service first.

I don’t think any operator would want to see either company leave the market. Think how long it would take to get an aircraft, if every airline had to order from the one company (even with larger assembly lines)!