Qantas A380 reliability issues creeping up again?

[marcojim]

VH claims in an article published by ET that QF’s final 2 A380s will return in early 2025 which will allow 787s to take over BNE - LAX and PER - AKL…

Qantas wants to bring the 787 back to Brisbane-LAX

There’ll be no tears shed if Brisbane can ditch its Airbus A330 flight to Los Angeles.

www.executivetraveller.com

 

[moa999]

but that hasn't stopped them leasing Finnair aircraft and running those in Finnair colours/seats and crew though - so nothing really stopping them using those TG ones in Thai colours

The difference being the Finnair 330s were already activated. TG or MH 380s haven't flown for yonks, and would need extensive return to service work even under a wet lease, and as we've seen with OQC and the others in AUH there is seemingly a shortage of global A380 engineering capacity.

Good that the ET article puts a timeframe on things. I'd expect the number in AUH to be reduced when South African A380 flights commence in October, before seemingly normal service commences in 2025.

 

[jb747]

From your description it seems like something was really concerning them or else they would have continued to dump fuel for a while longer.

I don't think they dumped at all. But, I also don't think they were concerned about something. They just chose not to.

Will be interesting to see what you can deduce from the manual.

Looking at FR24 and you can see that they taxied back to the gate. That means that the green hydraulics were functioning, as that gives nose gear steering. There is an electric actuator as backup, but that's really just to get you off the runway, and will overheat if you try to taxi normally with it. The approach speed is high, but commensurate with the weight. So that tells me they didn't have any configuration issues (which also makes sense if they'd lost the yellow system, but green is still normal).

I actually see three possible outcomes for the crew with this failure on departure. The procedures do not place any priority on it, so it's not what I would consider an emergency.
1. Continue to destination. Why not? You haven't lost anything that you need in flight, and a landing with one system out will actually be easier at destination than the departure point. It would become an issue if you had to divert later in the flight, but that's not really a consideration at this time.
2. Dump all the fuel that you can (which leaves you with about 80 tonnes) and land. Approach numbers much more normal, and far less likelihood of tyre issues. If I had to return, this would be my choice.
3. Don't dump any fuel, and return. You've just saved about 100 tonnes of fuel, which would cost something in the order of $200k. Tyre issues probable.

Personally, in the absence of any other issues (which we don't have any idea about), I'd go with #1. I can't see anything in the books that precludes this choice, but my books are also well out of date.

Would a take off for a SIN-LHR flight be usually done about right on the maximum take off weight?

There would be a margin of somewhere between about 15 and 25 tonnes. So heavy, but not max.

 

[RSD]

Looking at FR24 and you can see that they taxied back to the gate. That means that the green hydraulics were functioning, as that gives nose gear steering. There is an electric actuator as backup, but that's really just to get you off the runway, and will overheat if you try to taxi normally with it. The approach speed is high, but commensurate with the weight. So that tells me they didn't have any configuration issues (which also makes sense if they'd lost the yellow system, but green is still normal).

Green system and yellow system - you are starting to restore long-lost memories from when I was working on the A380 design program!

I actually see three possible outcomes for the crew with this failure on departure. The procedures do not place any priority on it, so it's not what I would consider an emergency.
1. Continue to destination. Why not? You haven't lost anything that you need in flight, and a landing with one system out will actually be easier at destination than the departure point. It would become an issue if you had to divert later in the flight, but that's not really a consideration at this time.
2. Dump all the fuel that you can (which leaves you with about 80 tonnes) and land. Approach numbers much more normal, and far less likelihood of tyre issues. If I had to return, this would be my choice.
3. Don't dump any fuel, and return. You've just saved about 100 tonnes of fuel, which would cost something in the order of $200k. Tyre issues probable.

Offhand I can't think of anything in the hydraulic systems that wouldn't be too hard to fix in a few hours at LHR so I can't see a preference for getting the problem fixed at SIN instead of LHR.

$200k was probably easily what three tyres + hotel rooms + putting passengers on other carriers cost

 

[Cloud9]

Green system and yellow system - you are starting to restore long-lost memories from when I was working on the A380 design program!



Offhand I can't think of anything in the hydraulic systems that wouldn't be too hard to fix in a few hours at LHR so I can't see a preference for getting the problem fixed at SIN instead of LHR.

$200k was probably easily what three tyres + hotel rooms + putting passengers on other carriers cost

Easily. But doesn't account for yet more reputational damage on a wafer thin crust of faith.

 

[RSD]

Easily. But doesn't account for yet more reputational damage on a wafer thin crust of faith.

I think that has already been written down to $0

 

[jb747]

Green system and yellow system - you are starting to restore long-lost memories from when I was working on the A380 design program!

I think it's standard Airbus, but with other aircraft that don't have the electric actuators also having a blue system.

Offhand I can't think of anything in the hydraulic systems that wouldn't be too hard to fix in a few hours at LHR so I can't see a preference for getting the problem fixed at SIN instead of LHR.

I presume that there's more to the story that we don't know, but having actually flown a long sector with one hydraulic system gone (albeit in a different type of aircraft), I don't see the reason either.

$200k was probably easily what three tyres + hotel rooms + putting passengers on other carriers cost

Well, that's the difference between dumping and not dumping. I think the hotel cost would be there whether you did or not, so it actually represents an actual saving. I was curious to find out whether the attitude of the pilots flying the aircraft had changed from my day, when I think most would have dumped it. From what I gathered, it does seem to have done so, to the extent that if the performance manual says you can land at max max weight, then why not. I still wouldn't.

But doesn't account for yet more reputational damage on a wafer thin crust of faith.

Ok, but what is your suggestion? Aircraft will break. You literally have zero idea of how often an aircraft you're on has some level of issues. I'll bet that 90% of the time you're on an SQ/EK etc aircraft, unless the wing falls off, they'll continue. That keeps their 'reputation' intact, until the day it doesn't.

 

[RSD]

Well, that's the difference between dumping and not dumping. I think the hotel cost would be there whether you did or not, so it actually represents an actual saving. I was curious to find out whether the attitude of the pilots flying the aircraft had changed from my day, when I think most would have dumped it. From what I gathered, it does seem to have done so, to the extent that if the performance manual says you can land at max max weight, then why not. I still wouldn't.

I would have thought that getting the weight down quite a bit would have been the better option if having to turn back - why add burst tyres, additional engineering checks and potential other damage to the problem that needs to be fixed? I can't see a hydraulic problem putting an A380 out of service for four or five days in Singapore considering that SQ obviously have an A380 maintenance base there. I guess we will never know if there was a problem that they considered really necessary to put it on the ground while heavy.

 

[RSD]

There are some A380's from Etihad and Lufthansa parked up in Spain - not sure what their plans are for them.

 

[elanshin]

There are some A380's from Etihad and Lufthansa parked up in Spain - not sure what their plans are for them.

Iirc they're getting reactivated from long term storage. Sam chui did a video that happened to show the etihad birds and what was happening.

 

[MrJetset]

Flew QF1 in F a few days ago. Departed on time and landed early in SIN. Was pleasantly surprised as was expecting the worst!

 

[elanshin]

Seems tonight's QF11 is having issues. Friend just said they are cancelled (well he didn't say QF11, but judging by the timing and location +a380, it could only be QF11).

Edit: yeh he just confirmed it's QF11.

 

[RSD]

Seems tonight's QF11 is having issues. Friend just said they are cancelled (well he didn't say QF11, but judging by the timing and location +a380, it could only be QF11).

Yep -

Did your friend say what the reason for the cancellation was?

 

[elanshin]

Yep -
View attachment 398765
Did your friend say what the reason for the cancellation was?

Not yet, i think they're trying to sort out their new flights, so I'll leave them to figure that out first and help if I can.

Edit: He's been rebooked onto AA72 tomorrow. They said it was "engineering issues".
I think it was OQA that supposed to be flying and that's been on the ground from QF2 all day.

 

[Ansett Nostalgic]

VH claims in an article published by ET that QF’s final 2 A380s will return in early 2025 which will allow 787s to take over BNE - LAX and PER - AKL…

Qantas wants to bring the 787 back to Brisbane-LAX

There’ll be no tears shed if Brisbane can ditch its Airbus A330 flight to Los Angeles.

www.executivetraveller.com

Where would the returned A380s be used?

 

[RichardMEL]

Poor Nancy

 

[elanshin]

Where would the returned A380s be used?

SYD - JNB
SYD - HKG
MEL - LAX
These are the 380 routes that are currently not running 380s or intermittently running it.

MEL - SIN could also be restarted which frees 2 330s up. Maybe they'll try negotiating again with Japan and HND.

 

[RSD]

SYD - JNB
SYD - HKG
MEL - LAX
These are the 380 routes that are currently not running 380s or intermittently running it.

MEL - SIN could also be restarted which frees 2 330s up. Maybe they'll try negotiating again with Japan and HND.

Is the demand still there to HKG to warrant an A380 after the riots and what not a couple of years back?

 

[elanshin]

Is the demand still there to HKG after the riots and what not a couple of years back?

Probably not, but then again, QF flights to China now gets routed through HKG following removing PVG flights so maybe they'll have more traffic?

 

[yachty]

MEL - SIN could also be restarted which frees 2 330s up. Maybe they'll try negotiating again with Japan and HND.

I don't think it's going to happen with HND... if EK aren't doing it I don't think QF are going to put the effort in either. EK even fly at the time when the A380 is theoretically permitted, yet they still don't do it.

Is the demand still there to HKG to warrant an A380 after the riots and what not a couple of years back?

It was running seasonally recently (this year? last year?), like it's always done, so presumably yes.