3 ms·

What about when they were first released? If memory serves Rolls placed the blame on the initial problems with the Trent 1000 on air quality in SE Asia (high

What about when they were first released? If memory serves Rolls placed the blame on the initial problems with the Trent 1000 on air quality in SE Asia (high sulfur content specifically). Which is to say, I don't get the impression that certification was done sloppily. Are planes required to have one old-reliable engine? Reliability is (theoretically) improved. From following threads on a.net and pprune it seems like Norwegian actually demanded new engines instead of repaired older ones. Personally, I'm of the mindset that engines are fantastically safe these days. Piston engines were notoriously unreliable, and even older jet engines were deemed unreliable enough to require more than two for oversea crossings. Look back to when the L-1011 was introduced. It was late due to problems with the Rolls Royce RB-211 (predecessor to the Trent family). Even after the L-1011 began service in-flight shutdowns were pretty common. What we're seeing with the 787 is seemingly less frequent and has provoked a stronger reaction. Of course GE (CFM) isn't immune to problems either and if you look back over their history they've had a few nasty problems including that fairly recent Southwest flight with a passenger fatality.

wahern 7y ago
They are much more reliable, but also much more costly to build and maintain. There was an argument that the A380 wasn't less fuel efficient simply because it had four engines. When you only have two engines they need to be much more reliable, have much higher peak output, and the costs of maintenance are greater. Whereas when you have four engines each engine is cheaper to build, can have more efficient power profiles, and are generally cheaper to maintain. All-in-all it's mostly a wash in terms of cost efficiency. The argument goes that what killed the A380 wasn't having 4 engines, but having 4 old engines. All the newer planes have engines at least 1 if not 2 generations newer. Notably, the A380 wasn't cancelled until it became crystal clear that engine manufacturers weren't going to invest in redesigned engines. That's when the Emirates order fell through. While their year long dance with Airbus over pricing is what got the most press, it was the backroom negotiations with Rolls Royce that controlled whether the A380 remained cost effective.
- salawat 7y ago
  I thought A380 was doomed because of lack of configurability for a freight option, and the fact that some narrow bodies were starting to eat it's lunch as direct flights started to become more common instead of hub and spoke. What you've posted though seems way more plausible though I've gotta admit.
  - wahern 7y ago
    There are many reasons why the A380 didn't have a large market, which would indirectly contribute to its cost effectiveness. But there's a dominant, ELI5 narrative that says that the A380 was intrinsically uncompetitive because 4 engined planes couldn't be as fuel efficient as 2 engined planes. Maybe that's true, but I found the counter argument interesting and persuasive. I think this is the article I originally read, https://leehamnews.com/2018/12/13/has-the-a380-worse-economics-than-the-777-9-or-a350-1000/#comments https://leehamnews.com/2018/12/13/has-the-a380-worse-economi... but it's paywalled. Here's an older article with similar points, https://leehamnews.com/2015/12/11/bjorns-corner-twins-or-quads/ https://leehamnews.com/2015/12/11/bjorns-corner-twins-or-qua...
avar 7y ago
> If memory serves Rolls placed the blame on the initial problems with the Trent 1000 on air quality in SE Asia (high sulfur content specifically). As a related factoid BMW doesn't sell some of its engines in North American, Australian and Malaysian markets due to high sulphur content in the fuel (e.g. [1]). It would be interesting if the same thing happened for aircraft engines and South-East Asian air. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_N53 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_N53

wahern 7y ago

They are much more reliable, but also much more costly to build and maintain. There was an argument that the A380 wasn't less fuel efficient simply because it had four engines. When you only have two engines they need to be much more reliable, have much higher peak output, and the costs of maintenance are greater. Whereas when you have four engines each engine is cheaper to build, can have more efficient power profiles, and are generally cheaper to maintain. All-in-all it's mostly a wash in terms of cost efficiency. The argument goes that what killed the A380 wasn't having 4 engines, but having 4 old engines. All the newer planes have engines at least 1 if not 2 generations newer. Notably, the A380 wasn't cancelled until it became crystal clear that engine manufacturers weren't going to invest in redesigned engines. That's when the Emirates order fell through. While their year long dance with Airbus over pricing is what got the most press, it was the backroom negotiations with Rolls Royce that controlled whether the A380 remained cost effective.

salawat 7y ago
I thought A380 was doomed because of lack of configurability for a freight option, and the fact that some narrow bodies were starting to eat it's lunch as direct flights started to become more common instead of hub and spoke. What you've posted though seems way more plausible though I've gotta admit.
- wahern 7y ago
  There are many reasons why the A380 didn't have a large market, which would indirectly contribute to its cost effectiveness. But there's a dominant, ELI5 narrative that says that the A380 was intrinsically uncompetitive because 4 engined planes couldn't be as fuel efficient as 2 engined planes. Maybe that's true, but I found the counter argument interesting and persuasive. I think this is the article I originally read, https://leehamnews.com/2018/12/13/has-the-a380-worse-economics-than-the-777-9-or-a350-1000/#comments https://leehamnews.com/2018/12/13/has-the-a380-worse-economi... but it's paywalled. Here's an older article with similar points, https://leehamnews.com/2015/12/11/bjorns-corner-twins-or-quads/ https://leehamnews.com/2015/12/11/bjorns-corner-twins-or-qua...

avar 7y ago

> If memory serves Rolls placed the blame on the initial problems with the Trent 1000 on air quality in SE Asia (high sulfur content specifically). As a related factoid BMW doesn't sell some of its engines in North American, Australian and Malaysian markets due to high sulphur content in the fuel (e.g. [1]). It would be interesting if the same thing happened for aircraft engines and South-East Asian air. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_N53 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_N53