Are A380's safe enough to fly? [hairline cracks found in wings]

[UP4014]

Understand where you are coming from, but the difference between what you are talking about and what I am is that this is not normal wear and tear, and not part of the standard maintenance routine. They are only taking this step because of an apparent (design?) problem. I would therefore think it is subject to compensation.

Or return the goods for a refund.

 

[nlagalle]

Understand where you are coming from, but the difference between what you are talking about and what I am is that this is not normal wear and tear, and not part of the standard maintenance routine. They are only taking this step because of an apparent (design?) problem. I would therefore think it is subject to compensation.

Yes and an AD has been released which refers to the matter and how it should be dealt with. Should Qantas decide to ground the plane is their decision, and as such would be harder to claim any compensation for that being it was their choice to do it.. had the AD directed them to ground all aircraft for checking and repairs before flying again, then it would be grounds to claim something from Airbus.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yes and an AD has been released which refers to the matter and how it should be dealt with. Should Qantas decide to ground the plane is their decision, and as such would be harder to claim any compensation for that being it was their choice to do it.. had the AD directed them to ground all aircraft for checking and repairs before flying again, then it would be grounds to claim something from Airbus.

yes. fair point. then it may be open to question whether or not you thought the AD was sufficient, and whether you trusted that. you might well be able to argue that more and more cracks continue to be found and that you have taken your steps accordingly.

no company is going to ground a plane and forgo revenue and then NOT try and recoup that if at all possible.

 

[nlagalle]

yes. fair point. then it may be open to question whether or not you thought the AD was sufficient, and whether you trusted that. you might well be able to argue that more and more cracks continue to be found and that you have taken your steps accordingly.

no company is going to ground a plane and forgo revenue and then NOT try and recoup that if at all possible.

but that is the companies call. if the Aviation administration thinks the AD is sufficient and the company doesn't, that's their call. It would be the same as if a car company had a recall by a set time and you decided the car wasn't safe to drive - would you expect them to reimburse you the costs of not being able to drive it?

if you believe that Qantas does put safety first, then they have done exactly that - forgone revenue.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

but that is the companies call. if the Aviation administration thinks the AD is sufficient and the company doesn't, that's their call. It would be the same as if a car company had a recall by a set time and you decided the car wasn't safe to drive - would you expect them to reimburse you the costs of not being able to drive it?

if you believe that Qantas does put safety first, then they have done exactly that - forgone revenue.

but I would not have thought any of the aviation administrations are a party to the contract between Qantas and Airbus for the purchase of the aircraft. I think the two are independent.

If you look at the Qantas grounding for example... QF made an initial offer. The ACCC didn't step in until several hours later to force QF to give out more compensation (if I understand the timing of the events). Prior to the ACCC's action, and even after, an individual would be open to seek a different compensation package, through the courts, if they so desired. (As it happens I think the final comprehensive compensation package was a fair one.. but there may be other individual circumstances that are not covered.) (Otherwise you would have run in to the argument that it was the individual's choice to book and fly on another airline when QF has a term and condition that they will uplift you on the next available flight on their own metal.) I think it may be the same here.

It's all going to depend on the wording of the contract between QF and airbus. Perhaps there is a clause that says no compensation is payable in circumstances where aviation administrations issue a directive.

 

[drron]

but that damage may well have been limited because the wing was not compromised. the question is, if you had the same type of incident, would the hairline cracks affect the integrity of the wing and it's ability to staynin some sort of shape?

But it was the plane on the ground in SIN where the cracks were first discovered so despite all that damage + the wing cracks the bird survived.
You are not going to tell us the cracks only happened after landing I hope.
And we are not going to change our end of year plans for our first 380 flights because of these cracks.

 

[serfty]

The article indicates it was the same aircraft that experienced severe turbulence between London and Singapore last month.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But it was the plane on the ground in SIN where the cracks were first discovered so despite all that damage + the wing cracks the bird survived.
You are not going to tell us the cracks only happened after landing I hope.
And we are not going to change our end of year plans for our first 380 flights because of these cracks.

Oh!! I get confused. So few A380s and so many cracks!

 

[maninblack]

When I start my new international airline next year I will be getting some of these;
Photos: Boeing 747-8JK Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
and some of these;
Photos: Boeing 777-232/LR Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

and I will have my whole network pretty nicely covered with my planes in the air, not in the maintenance hanger or still in the factory or in the pipeline. Wonder why Qantas didn't think of that :?:

 

[UP4014]

When I start my new international airline next year I will be getting some of these;
Photos: Boeing 747-8JK Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
and some of these;
Photos: Boeing 777-232/LR Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

and I will have my whole network pretty nicely covered with my planes in the air, not in the maintenance hanger or still in the factory or in the pipeline. Wonder why Qantas didn't think of that :?:

And you would have selected 2 reliable known products. But while on business your wife would have had to go shopping in Seattle not Paris and that might have been a problem.

Matt

 

[straitman]

but I would not have thought any of the aviation administrations are a party to the contract between Qantas and Airbus for the purchase of the aircraft. I think the two are independent.

But surely this is irrelevant to the discussion about safety. The important thing is whether you believe in or have faith in the AD process. Having been involved in hundreds, maybe thousands of these over the years, I have to say I believe the system works well.

The issue of 'possible' compensation is a separate and entirely different subject.

 

[nlagalle]

but I would not have thought any of the aviation administrations are a party to the contract between Qantas and Airbus for the purchase of the aircraft. I think the two are independent.

The contract of sale wouldn't have anything to do with what AD's are released. As a manufacturer you don't know issues you may have down the track.

If you look at the Qantas grounding for example... QF made an initial offer. The ACCC didn't step in until several hours later to force QF to give out more compensation (if I understand the timing of the events). Prior to the ACCC's action, and even after, an individual would be open to seek a different compensation package, through the courts, if they so desired. (As it happens I think the final comprehensive compensation package was a fair one.. but there may be other individual circumstances that are not covered.) (Otherwise you would have run in to the argument that it was the individual's choice to book and fly on another airline when QF has a term and condition that they will uplift you on the next available flight on their own metal.) I think it may be the same here.

I don't believe the ACCC had anything to do with compensation due to the grounding. The only time they stepped in was when it was discovered for a few hours after the grounding, you were able to purchase tickets. so the two do not match at all.

It's all going to depend on the wording of the contract between QF and airbus. Perhaps there is a clause that says no compensation is payable in circumstances where aviation administrations issue a directive.

I highly doubt it will have anything like you are suggesting, if sale contracts had those clauses, then manufacturers will be going broke paying out compensation! or buying an aircraft would double in cost. As I mentioned earlier, there are dozens of AD's for various aircraft active as we speak. you just don't read about them. This has only made headlines as the A380 is a new plane and of course for here it is Qantas.

 

[maninblack]

Some photos of the A380 in the workshop. The engineers have quite a job on their hands with this one.
http://i993.photobucket.com/albums/af53/raiderpilot/Models/Airline Models/IMG_4967.jpg
A bit of glue and tape used judiciously will get the job done though.
http://i993.photobucket.com/albums/af53/raiderpilot/Models/Airline Models/IMG_5526.jpg
Good work fellas. Ready for service. All aboard. Pour me another Comtes de Champagne and a Mogadon chaser please.

 

[nlagalle]

When I start my new international airline next year I will be getting some of these;
Photos: Boeing 747-8JK Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
and some of these;
Photos: Boeing 777-232/LR Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

and I will have my whole network pretty nicely covered with my planes in the air, not in the maintenance hanger or still in the factory or in the pipeline. Wonder why Qantas didn't think of that :?:

I do believe that when the decision was made for the A380 that there was no 747-8 even thought of. you do also know that when the original 747 came out it wasn't trouble free either? And i do belive it has already been discussed why QF didn't take the 777 as the early versions didn't have the range either.. but hey hindsight is a wonderful thing!

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Re: Are A380's safe enough to fly?

Apparently the cracks are part of the design and as the aircraft ages engineers will have to apply moisturiser more often.

Section to be ammended. Inflight Health and Wellness

Saw the article this morning and just posted the link.

 

[maninblack]

I do believe that when the decision was made for the A380 that there was no 747-8 even thought of. you do also know that when the original 747 came out it wasn't trouble free either? And i do belive it has already been discussed why QF didn't take the 777 as the early versions didn't have the range either.. but hey hindsight is a wonderful thing!

Boeing worked on the concept of a revised/stretched 747 as early as 1996 and started discussions with major airlines. This is long before QF plumped for the A380. It's not a case of hindsight, QF boards have made repeated questionable/risky fleet decisions over the past 15 years and some of us questioned those decisions contemporaneously.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The contract of sale wouldn't have anything to do with what AD's are released. As a manufacturer you don't know issues you may have down the track.



I don't believe the ACCC had anything to do with compensation due to the grounding. The only time they stepped in was when it was discovered for a few hours after the grounding, you were able to purchase tickets. so the two do not match at all.



I highly doubt it will have anything like you are suggesting, if sale contracts had those clauses, then manufacturers will be going broke paying out compensation! or buying an aircraft would double in cost. As I mentioned earlier, there are dozens of AD's for various aircraft active as we speak. you just don't read about them. This has only made headlines as the A380 is a new plane and of course for here it is Qantas.

Exactly - so my original point remains. I originally stated that Qantas may be seeking compensation for the grounding of this plane. The response was that no - there is an AD - this plane does not fit within that AD - so it is Qantas's choice. I then said I don't believe an AD would preclude any other action, whether it is choice or otherwise to ground the plane. I still highly doubt that if the plane is out of service to fix cracks that there would not be some attempt to recover any losses in some way. (That is... just because a regulator has become involved doesn't preclude any other action.)

My understanding was that at the initial time of the grounding, QF was offering compensation only in line with its terms and conditions. (That it would uplift on their next available service or offer a refund.) I thought it was the ACCC's involvement that secured the 'you must pay ALL reasonable costs'? And that included covering the cost if you booked on another airline.

On the final point, it think you may have read my original statement incorrectly. It was just a hypothetical clause which might have the effect of limiting compensation... for example, saying 'we will not pay for precautionary grounding of aircraft unless an AD has been issued'. That would be the one scenario where QF might have to bear costs if it was their 'choice' rather than an instruction. Obviously such a clause would be time limited so that ADs issued for normal wear and tear would not be subject to compensation. Here however we have a totally different scenario - new planes.

 

[Berlin]

The latest on German newsmagazine Spiegel is that Qantas has grounded all its A380s until repairs are done... Anyone know more?

Haarrisse in den Flügeln: Qantas stoppt A380-Flüge - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Wirtschaft (Sorry- it's in German, bad enough that SMH and the likes are completely ignorant towards the news for now...)

 

[oz_mark]

I don't believe the ACCC had anything to do with compensation due to the grounding. The only time they stepped in was when it was discovered for a few hours after the grounding, you were able to purchase tickets. so the two do not match at all.

May not be the right thread for this, but absolutely the ACCC had discussions with Qantas about the levels of compensation. Qantas had initially sought to limit the compensation exposure, but the ACCC had the agree to cover all reasonable expenses incurred by those affected.

ACCC expects QANTAS to be fair in dealing with customers

 

[straitman]

The latest on German newsmagazine Spiegel is that Qantas has grounded all its A380s until repairs are done... Anyone know more?

Haarrisse in den Flügeln: Qantas stoppt A380-Flüge - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Wirtschaft (Sorry- it's in German, bad enough that SMH and the likes are completely ignorant towards the news for now...)

I just tried a Google search and found nothing to that affect.