787 Issues

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › 787 Issues

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

6758 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1998331 18-Apr-2018 10:00

sbiddle:
Dingbatt: Had an interesting discussion about the engine problems with the Trent 1000. I suggested it might put airlines off the 787, but apparently there are just as many A350s being powered by the 'bad batch' of engines. And I believe that is part the problem. There are airlines all over the world, flying both B787 and A350, that are clamouring for the fixed units. I'm not sure where Air New Zealand stands in the pecking order, but I imagine, not that high.

A350's use the Trent XWB. This was developed exclusively for the A350 and is a not the same as the Trent 1000 - not does it suffer from the same issue.

The only engine issue Airbus have is the P&W GTF engine on the A320neo and A321neo aircraft which has caused a huge amount of grief (and delays) for those programs.

Oops yes quite right. Confused the 330neo (Trent 7000) with the 350.

The A320 neo engines are something completely different and not related to the 787. Which kind of makes sense when they are from different manufacturers.

Just shows what trying to push the engineering to its limits to get that last drop of juice from the orange (or lemon if more appropriate) can cause. The margins are very fine. But if I recall correctly, the RB211s that AirNZ had on some of their B747s had to be babied far more than the GEs, but once they were going they were more efficient.

This must be costing RR bucketloads. Would not want to be a shareholder at the moment.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1998392 18-Apr-2018 11:01

So, sounds like the consensus is dream liners going west (ie Singapore) are OK?

Flying that way in November to UK after geekzone suggestions that lax should be avoided if heading to UK.

I hope we don't get shifted to another plane type as it would be the second time a 787 flight I've been on has changed aircraft type. I'm keen to experience the 787, I've also flown emirates 380 and enjoyed them.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79309 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1998546 18-Apr-2018 13:35

Air NZ safety checks on Rolls-Royce engines disrupts 6500 passengers.

Linux

11434 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1998557 18-Apr-2018 13:46

freitasm:

Air NZ safety checks on Rolls-Royce engines disrupts 6500 passengers.

Would disrupt passengers more if a plane fell out of the sky

Linux

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1998621 18-Apr-2018 14:35

Oh well on the CHC-AKL route the planes will only need to have about a 20 minutes' ETOPS rating. For example CHC to AKL & problem arises over Nelson, only 20 minutes back to CHC, or Wellington. Bit further on they could land at RNZAF Ohakea, bit further on there's Hamilton or Auckland. Add to that the fact that they sometimes cruise up to 41000 feet & they could drift down using a lower power setting on one engine!

Joking aside I think it might be time for the regulators to look at ETOPS rules especially the 330 minutes ones. Are these current generation engines really any better than those made in the 80's and 90's?

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1998679 18-Apr-2018 15:29

amiga500:

Joking aside I think it might be time for the regulators to look at ETOPS rules especially the 330 minutes ones. Are these current generation engines really any better than those made in the 80's and 90's?

It's a lot more complex than just the engines. The rating looks at other aspects of the plane as well, such as fire suppression systems. These are all a lot more complex than they were in the '80s when the ETOPS was devised.

noroad

953 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1998682 18-Apr-2018 15:31

amiga500:

Joking aside I think it might be time for the regulators to look at ETOPS rules especially the 330 minutes ones. Are these current generation engines really any better than those made in the 80's and 90's?

Yes, they are a lot better and there is a lot of since behind it. However I suspect we will one day look back fondly on the days of 3/4 engine aircraft after the first few times dual engine aircraft have dual failures and glide into the sea half way across the pacific.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Tinkerisk

4235 posts

Uber Geek

#1998737 18-Apr-2018 16:25

eracode:

djtOtago:

I wonder how easy it would be to replace the Rolls Royce Tent 1000 engines with GEnx engines?

Nah - yeah - Plug n' Pray.

Fixed that for you. :-)

- NET: FTTH, OPNsense, 10G backbone, GWN APs, ipPBX
- SRV: 12 RU HA server cluster, 0.1 PB storage on premise
- IoT: thread, zigbee, tasmota, BidCoS, LoRa, WX suite, IR
- 3D: two 3D printers, 3D scanner, CNC router, laser cutter

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1998794 18-Apr-2018 17:31

noroad:

amiga500:

Joking aside I think it might be time for the regulators to look at ETOPS rules especially the 330 minutes ones. Are these current generation engines really any better than those made in the 80's and 90's?

Yes, they are a lot better and there is a lot of since behind it. However I suspect we will one day look back fondly on the days of 3/4 engine aircraft after the first few times dual engine aircraft have dual failures and glide into the sea half way across the pacific.

Despite the fact that air travel is safer than it's ever been.

One other thing to consider about a 4 engine aircraft - it's about 2 times more likely to have an uncontained engine failure resulting in hull damage / uncontrolled decompression as a 2 engine plane.

How many catastrophic crashes have happened in 2 engine airliners in recent times - where the crash would have been avoided if they had an extra 2 engines?

alasta

6706 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1998972 18-Apr-2018 20:55

Fred99:

How many catastrophic crashes have happened in 2 engine airliners in recent times - where the crash would have been avoided if they had an extra 2 engines?

It has been known to occur when one engine fails and the crew bag the wrong engine. The ATR accident in Taiwan a couple of years ago is the most recent example that I can think of, and the British Midland 737 accident in 1989 is probably them most well known case.

However with a competent crew and modern aircraft it should basically never happen.

geekiegeek

2513 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1999030 19-Apr-2018 04:14

Got the message yesterday afternoon that my flight to Auckland ex Wellington this morning had been cancelled due to "operational issues". Must say that changing to another flight was super easy via the Air NZ app, took about 3 clicks and I'm flying 1 hour later than planned.

geekiegeek

2513 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1999046 19-Apr-2018 07:23

And just now had my return flight Sydney to Auckland changed to a A320.

Bit nerve racking getting "this flight has been cancelled" texts when you are travelling.

noroad

953 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1999070 19-Apr-2018 08:31

Fred99:

Despite the fact that air travel is safer than it's ever been.

One other thing to consider about a 4 engine aircraft - it's about 2 times more likely to have an uncontained engine failure resulting in hull damage / uncontrolled decompression as a 2 engine plane.

How many catastrophic crashes have happened in 2 engine airliners in recent times - where the crash would have been avoided if they had an extra 2 engines?

Yes, that is entirely fair, current generation 2 engine aircraft have proven more reliable than ever before. My issue is when we end up with a common weakness in both engines and as we have here, a failure in one can accelerate the chances of a failure in the one left over. Notably, worst case many engines that have "failed" can actually be restarted and used with a few blades missing if its that or crashing.

This also being said, the 787 is still my favorite ride, it is a fantastic flying experience, not as stable as the 747 but the wide cabin plus extra pressurization is wonderful.

Oblivian

7303 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1999097 19-Apr-2018 08:54

geekiegeek:

And just now had my return flight Sydney to Auckland changed to a A320.

Bit nerve racking getting "this flight has been cancelled" texts when you are travelling.

It's tucked away but ANZ have been super open about their fleet changes recently. Been good for us to catch the widebody domestic changes etc for being plane geeks to photo them :P so this should help appease any future panics

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travel-alerts?eventid=tyFOfznN4n3MGlii7RwS

tecnam2003

64 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#1999182 19-Apr-2018 10:39

Slightly off topic...

Flew CHC AKL used the 787. Nice aircraft ...but....if you are in a hurry find an Airbus alternative flight.

The domestic terminal at AKL can’t accommodate the aircraft at the airbridge so the plane is parked on the hard standing and passengers bussed to the terminal. Luggage also takes the same route.

Flight time 80 minutes....time to exit aircraft, recover baggage and exit terminal 40 minutes..

Maybe this was a bad day but anyone in a hurry to transfer to an international flight should seriously consider alternative options.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8