QF Domestic Fleet Renewal: Airbus 320neo/220 Preferred

[RichardMEL]

Has it? I cannot recall anything even slightly like the 737 Max, and to a lesser extent, the 787 issues.

A320 series on launch had a series of unfortunate crashes in France IIRC. Perhaps not so many deaths but there were definitely incidents in the early days of the program. I have a mate in the US who used to carry around a piece of engine(a small piece) apparently retrieved from one of the crash sites somehow and refused to set foot on an A320 series for decades.

Obviously the issues (I think some point back to the then very new computer control systems and some hard limits imposed by airbus) were resolved and the aircraft has been very reliable for a long time.

Given hundreds of thousands of flights over 30+ years the aircraft is very safe of course.. as is the 737 series overall. And the Max has been flying again for a year now with nothing major going on as more and more have been put into service (thank goodness). Obviously a far smaller data set at this point, but the more the aircraft flies safely and routinely the more we can be confident in it I think. You know like how many worry about 787 batteries now? I was on one the other day and didn't give it a thought

Anyway, for some sort of reference:

List of accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[newbuyer1976]

A320 series on launch had a series of unfortunate crashes in France IIRC. Perhaps not so many deaths but there were definitely incidents in the early days of the program. I have a mate in the US who used to carry around a piece of engine(a small piece) apparently retrieved from one of the crash sites somehow and refused to set foot on an A320 series for decades.

Obviously the issues (I think some point back to the then very new computer control systems and some hard limits imposed by airbus) were resolved and the aircraft has been very reliable for a long time.

Given hundreds of thousands of flights over 30+ years the aircraft is very safe of course.. as is the 737 series overall. And the Max has been flying again for a year now with nothing major going on as more and more have been put into service (thank goodness). Obviously a far smaller data set at this point, but the more the aircraft flies safely and routinely the more we can be confident in it I think. You know like how many worry about 787 batteries now? I was on one the other day and didn't give it a thought

Anyway, for some sort of reference:

List of accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think we've all watched enough episodes of Air Crash Investigations to know by now that most accidents are the result of poor training, poor maintenance AND poor engineering combined. It hardly (with some albeit catastrophic exceptions) is just solely due to the fault of plane design.

 

[RichardMEL]

I think we've all watched enough episodes of Air Crash Investigations to know by now that most accidents are the result of poor training, poor maintenance AND poor engineering combined. It hardly (with some albeit catastrophic exceptions) is just solely due to the fault of plane design.

Absolutely. It's unclear if the max crashes could have been mittigated by better training (and that Boeing did not really make the MCAS addition/changes as a big change is a huge issue) though by the 2nd crash the crew were seemingly aware of the issue but still unable to get out of it.

I guess my point when it comes specifically to the 320 series early issues is that they involved, as I understand it, in some instances, issues with the computer control systems (which aain in the 80's were very new to aviation and a brand new philisophy) and there were software issues that had to be resolved. Same with MCAS which essentially has been a software fix (I know it is way more complex than that involving other parts from 3rd party suppliers and all the rest - eg the Angle of Attack sensors etc).

I don't want any reader to think I am trying to defend what has gone on with the MAX. I'm not. It's such an example of all the wrong things that have gone on in the name of engineering and safety being placed second to costs and "get it done" mantra - from a company renowned for such a focus on safety over the years (look at the 777 program as example). That the seemingly sloppy practices with the 787's built in South Carolina (tools being left in compartments etc) and other issues are very serious too and probably related to a cultural issue. I do not wish to defend any of this, because you can't and it would be ridiculous to attempt it. I bloody well hope the company has learned a very VERY huge lesson (tragically for so many) and manages to rebuild the original culture and focus that made the company so well respected for decades.

(full disclosure: I was once offered a job at Boeing in Seattle so I do have a soft spot for them, but that was 26 years ago and a lot has changed).

Back to what I was trying to get at is that the 320 series had some initial problems with systems that were resolved and it's now one of the safest fleets out there. the MAX, with all the scrutiny and awareness I personally feel is going to be just as safe going forward. It doesn't dismiss the past in any way, but just like I am more than happy to get on an A320, I would get on a Max. I also believe in unicorns and rainbows and "simpler and fairer"

 

[RichardMEL]

Anyway, the Max won't be at QF it seems anyway, so not an issue to worry about. Let's get back to that 321XLR J class speculation

I did like that SK layout - it looks a bit like the SQ layout and some others, and those throne seats would be very nice as a usually solo pax.

We'll just have to hurry up and wait to see what config they come up with...

 

[jb747]

There's not one accident in the list that equates to what the Max did. In fact, I can't even find the issues you claim happened in France. As I've said previously, all that has been fixed in the Max is that the layer of sugar over the issues is now a bit thicker. The proper fix of trim cutout with control column movement, electric backup trim, and triplicated AoA have not been fixed at all.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Of course the other aspect is that at the time of the A320's design and introduction in to service, Airbus was still learning the ropes as a large scale airline manufacturer. Boeing clearly has no such excuse for the MAX.

 

[ajw373]

Absolutely. It's unclear if the max crashes could have been mittigated by better training (and that Boeing did not really make the MCAS addition/changes as a big change is a huge issue) though by the 2nd crash the crew were seemingly aware of the issue but still unable to get out of it.

I guess my point when it comes specifically to the 320 series early issues is that they involved, as I understand it, in some instances, issues with the computer control systems (which aain in the 80's were very new to aviation and a brand new philisophy) and there were software issues that had to be resolved. Same with MCAS which essentially has been a software fix (I know it is way more complex than that involving other parts from 3rd party suppliers and all the rest - eg the Angle of Attack sensors etc).

I don't want any reader to think I am trying to defend what has gone on with the MAX. I'm not. It's such an example of all the wrong things that have gone on in the name of engineering and safety being placed second to costs and "get it done" mantra - from a company renowned for such a focus on safety over the years (look at the 777 program as example). That the seemingly sloppy practices with the 787's built in South Carolina (tools being left in compartments etc) and other issues are very serious too and probably related to a cultural issue. I do not wish to defend any of this, because you can't and it would be ridiculous to attempt it. I bloody well hope the company has learned a very VERY huge lesson (tragically for so many) and manages to rebuild the original culture and focus that made the company so well respected for decades.

(full disclosure: I was once offered a job at Boeing in Seattle so I do have a soft spot for them, but that was 26 years ago and a lot has changed).

Back to what I was trying to get at is that the 320 series had some initial problems with systems that were resolved and it's now one of the safest fleets out there. the MAX, with all the scrutiny and awareness I personally feel is going to be just as safe going forward. It doesn't dismiss the past in any way, but just like I am more than happy to get on an A320, I would get on a Max. I also believe in unicorns and rainbows and "simpler and fairer"

The Air France accident at the air show was caused by a number of things. But the main issue was pilot error by not understanding properly the envelope protection system and in particular how disabling that to undertake the fly past would effect their ability to control the plane.

The air inter accident was also pilot a error by selecting the wrong descent mode. Though if memory serves me right Airbus redesigned the interface to make the selected mode clearer.

Though none of those or any accidents was caused by having a system in place that was hidden from the pilots that helped the plane fly like the old model which meant cross training costs were minimised.

 

[ChrisMars]

I am glad Qantas, as well as other airlines I fly with, didn't take the 737 max. I am glad I won't have to be on this plane, not because I am scared of it, but because this air-plane is a disgrace.

- Known design flaw on paper, with the centre of gravity largely displaced due to the larger engines.
- Design flaw corrected by software. Why not if done properly, but obviously not.
- Execs and Engineer burying the MCAS as much as possible.
- Execs deciding that a second angle of attack sensor would be a paid option
- FAA complacency with Boeing for certification
- Execs doing everything to avoid clearly needed pilot re-training
- No mentions of the MCAS in any of the emergency procedure
- No grounding after the first crash. I can only speculate, but I imagine some execs and engineer quickly got an idea of what happened already.

Comparing the 737 max debacle with any past Boeing or Airbus incident is ridiculous. Nothing remotely compare with what happened. I can understand a mechanical or a software issue on any new airplane from any manufacturer. Building an air-plane is almost rocket science, it's hard to get it perfect. I just don't understand how the chain of event that led to those two crashes involve so many decision makers that knowingly favoured cash and career over life.

 

[RichardMEL]

Fair enough.

Let's get back to the planes QF is ordering and how the J on the 321XLR will likely disappoint

 

[Daver6]

Fair enough.

Let's get back to the planes QF is ordering and how the J on the 321XLR will likely disappoint

Corrected your typo for you

 

[ajw373]

Don’t over expect and you won’t be disappointed.

Though to be honest judging by how the US and even Europe is going I think y’all may be pleasantly surprised.

 

[RichardMEL]

I'm really excited to see the C Series.. uh I mean A220 in our skies. Looks like a ripping aircraft for the missions. I love the 717 but for obvious reasons its time is near. The E190 fills a nice spot too and optens up interesting routes as we've already seen (I saw one the other day flying MEL-TSV nonstop which I didn't even know was a thing!). I think the A220 will really be a winner in the regional space.

 

[PineappleSkip]

I’m expecting to see QF complementing the mini first class in the 787s and A330s with a micro first class in the new A320s and a nano first class in the A220s.

cheers skip

 

[sudoer]

nano first class

Sounds like any Qantas Group economy seat that's not JQ?