Ce site web utilise des cookies. En utilisant et en naviguant davantage sur ce site, vous acceptez cela.
Saviez-vous que le suivi des vols FlightAware est soutenu par la publicité ?
Vous pouvez nous aider à garder FlightAware gratuit en autorisant les annonces de FlightAware.com. Nous travaillons dur pour que notre publicité reste pertinente et discrète afin de créer une expérience formidable. Il est facile et rapide de mettre les annonces en liste blanche sur FlightAware ou d’examiner nos comptes premium.
Back to Squawk list
  • 24

Air New Zealand Cuts Boeing 787 Flights as Trent Engine Checks Continue

Air New Zealand is suspending two routes from its international network partly because of aircraft shortages caused by ongoing Boeing 787 engine issues. (www.atwonline.com) Plus d'info...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

David Ingram 1
Go with the GEs. My stock has taken a beating but they're home grown and have built good stuff for ages. A failure at altitude with only one more engine is...........not good.
Ian Deans 1
Anti-Airbus bias is rife here...now it's anti-Rolls Royce. Don't you think GE and P&W have had their problems too? RR will fix the Trent issues in due course.
SamArnold 1
I can't read the article without being a paid subscriber to ATW. Anybody see the article anywhere else? Or could they post the text here? Thanks
Roger Moffat 1
The guts are that article are here

Cade foster -4
BUY GE engines. Foreign companies will purchase Boeing planes but they have to go with RR engines to spread the money around. Stupid decision making by a very few at the top and so many must suffer.
Torsten Hoff 8
GE has their own problems with the LEAP engines.
srg50 4
Yeah, just like the foreign companies who bought PW for their early 747s and DC10s with their dangerous hydraulic design.
chalet 1
Never heard that they had "hydraulic design" issues. The trouble was "ovalization": stresses during takeoff caused the engine casing to deform into an oval shape and the high-pressure turbine blades grinding against the sides. They solved it alright
srg50 1
DC10 had the hydraulic design problems. When BA ordered L1011s they had Lockheed modify the hydraulic design to avoid the DC10 type issues. Both went on to be fantastic aircraft. Home grown isn't always perfect. Because RR are having issues with the 787 engines doesn't mean that foreign engines are inferior. They'll work through it just like PW did, it's hurting the bottom line but that's all. If I recall correctly it took a flight on a B747 with a PW exec on board where an engine failed before they would address the problem.
chalet 1
Again the DC-10 never had "hydraulic problems". Most of them had GE CF6 engines and a few such as those of NW Airlines had P&W engines. One American DC-10s had a horrible accident when taking off from O´Hare due to faulty engine mountings and United had one terrible accident in Iowa when the center engine blew up; on both cases the engines were CF6s. After appropriate modifions, the CF6 went on to be one of the most reliable and successful aviation engines.
srg50 1
Yes they did. It was the design that placed all of the hydraulic lines in a vulnerable position. The failure of the centre engine in Iowa caused a loss of pressure of all three hydraulic systems. Loss of the centre engine should not have been catastrophic. IIRC BA had Lockheed route one of the systems on the L-1011 away from the others. MD modified the DC-10 hydraulic systems after the Iowa crash to prevent a total loss of pressure.
chalet 1
Agree but it was not an engine caused problem, it was the hydraulic system that had to be modified as you say by retrouting some piping.
srg50 1
Correct!! Never said it was the engine that caused the problem, it was a design flaw in the aircraft as per my original post.

Se connecter

Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!