As mentioned in viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1358761

dynkrisolo wrote:

I'm surprised this is not reported by anyone. I went to FR24 and see if there are other PW1100G A320neos grounded. Here's what I have found.

Volaris newly deliverd N529VL has yet to enter service, this one doesn't count.

As previously stated, IndiGo's VT-ITF, G, J, K,M, N, O and S are grounded, out of a total fleet of 22.

Spirit still has two out of five (N901NK and N905NK) grounded.

LATAM Brazil has one out of two (PT-TMN) grounded.

Hong Kong Express has one out of three (B-LCL) grounded.

China Southern two out of seven (B-8673 and B-8637) grounded.

Both of ANA's two neos have not been flown since July 8th (JA211A & JA212A).

So, 16 out of the 55 PW-powered neos delivered (not including the Volaris second aircraft) are out of service.

Further, this was in news today:

. Due to constant trouble with these engines, the US engine manufacturer was replacing and/or rectifying them. "PW is facing this issue on the A-320 Neos globally. Due to this, it is unable to supply replacement engines at the required pace. Also, there are some changes in the modifications that were being carried out on the replacement engines. So, the result is that the airlines using the A-320 Neo with PW engines are suffering," said a source.
IndiGo spokesman Ajay Jasra said: "...we continue to face operational issues with the Neo engine.... While this has caused operational disruptions, both PW and Airbus are working to address the issues. In the meantime, we continue to receive the necessary operational and technical support including the provision of spare engines to help mitigate the operational impact on us."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... n=referral
This is a very significant news, which surprisingly got very little attention yet. 30% of PW NEOs are globally grounded.

Also, ANA's 2 NEOs JA211A & JA212A and VT-ITS all have not flown since 8th July. Sounds like some similar issue with all 3 of them.

PW A320Neo would make B787 feel proud

Wow that's not pretty...

I wonder if Airbus and PW will have bad blood in the future.

Haven't heard of any c series affected. Amazing.

As Varsity1 mentioned, why are other PW GTF engines on other aircraft not having problems? Do the different engines really have that big of a difference?

LoganTheBogan wrote:

As Varsity1 mentioned, why are other PW GTF engines on other aircraft not having problems? Do the different engines really have that big of a difference?

The reason can be found in the Cseries production thread. It's been discussed recently about small changes between the engines and fittings which make the Cseries engine less suseptible in comparison to the larger A320 engine.

LoganTheBogan wrote:

As Varsity1 mentioned, why are other PW GTF engines on other aircraft not having problems? Do the different engines really have that big of a difference?

The list of grounded aircraft does not specify if any/all have updated components, carbon seal, etc.

The updated combustor is yet to be released, so one would expect some engines are suffering because of that. What would be troubling is if engines with new carbon seals have carbon seal issues.

Did QR did the right thing by cancelling their orders, rather than living this life of uncertainty?

anshabhi wrote:

Did QR did the right thing by cancelling their orders, rather than living this life of uncertainty?

It's starting to look like this. One decision AAB got right, in refusing the frames built. Now Indigo have those duds to sort out.

Kind of ironic considering how much crap Boeing got regarding the initial problems with the 787.

This is very bad and clearly falls on Airbus. The engines have to be as thoroughly vetted as the frame itself during initial flight certification. The first 747's had major early engine issues and Boeing demanded they be fixed before first deliveries. For the most part they were.

I have no doubt Pratt blew smoke up Airbus' ass just like they did with Boeing on the 747 program 40 plus years ago. The difference.... Boeing leaned hard on Pratt back in the day. I wonder if Airbus did the same in this situation during flight certification.

Maybe they did....but still no excuse.

Varsity1 wrote:

Haven't heard of any c series affected. Amazing.

if you ignore the unconstained engine failure they had...

Good indication that the other PW variants will be just as stable, since the engine has matured.

best regards
Thomas

Pratt doesn't seem to have good luck on new product launches. The JT9D on the early 747, PW4000s and now the GTF. Good company but poor launches.

JA211A did come back online today flying to Hangzhou as NH929/30.

But the issue with GTF holds.

One can only assume P&W have been and are working 24/7 to fix all the problems.They are now fixing fixes!What a shame.When you see airlines cancelling these engines or swapping to CEO's you know it's bad and it has to be costing P&W and Airbus loads of wonga.
So much has been said about the LR version.But in this climate -when I wonder.Certainly not going to be LR with altitude restrictions.

The stupid thing is none of the issues are 'gear' related.The engine is not some super hot high pressure monster I cannot see an excuse for it.Shame.

P&W have been attempting these fixes for close to two years now. You'd think it would be quicker to start from a blank slate and make a new engine!

It reflects very poorly on them in particular, especially given their past track record with both manufacturers.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Kind of ironic considering how much crap Boeing got regarding the initial problems with the 787.

This is very bad and clearly falls on Airbus. The engines have to be as thoroughly vetted as the frame itself during initial flight certification. The first 747's had major early engine issues and Boeing demanded they be fixed before first deliveries. For the most part they were.

I have no doubt Pratt blew smoke up Airbus' ass just like they did with Boeing on the 747 program 40 plus years ago. The difference.... Boeing leaned hard on Pratt back in the day. I wonder if Airbus did the same in this situation during flight certification.

Maybe they did....but still no excuse.

I guess you never heard what happened with the Boeing 777 and the GE90 in the earlies...

Most of the JT9D issues were fixed during the 747's after entering service (during the production run) a not before service entry. The 787 had some issues with the GENx at one point as well (GE recommended carriers not go above FL280 with the engine for a couple months while a fix was being formulated. The LEAP on the 737M also had its share of issues as well, and I'm sure more will present themselves when subjected to the rigours of airline service.

When you have a relatively radical new engine type, expect issues.

how were these faulty engines certified by both FAA & EASA?

ElroyJetson wrote:

Kind of ironic considering how much crap Boeing got regarding the initial problems with the 787.

This is very bad and clearly falls on Airbus. The engines have to be as thoroughly vetted as the frame itself during initial flight certification. The first 747's had major early engine issues and Boeing demanded they be fixed before first deliveries. For the most part they were.

I have no doubt Pratt blew smoke up Airbus' ass just like they did with Boeing on the 747 program 40 plus years ago. The difference.... Boeing leaned hard on Pratt back in the day. I wonder if Airbus did the same in this situation during flight certification.

Maybe they did....but still no excuse.

Very biased post re Boeing! There`s no denying the awful EIS of the B787......Boeing admitted that themselves & the
airlines had to take the crap too. There was always a chance things wouldn`t go smoothly with a new breed of airframe.
The situation with airbus is totally different, & I`d suggest if you were a fan of aircraft, any aircraft, you`d have some
sympathy for the plight that Airbus find themselves due to the problems of the new type of engine. The airframe is this
instance wasn`t new it was a tried & tested successful frame.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Kind of ironic considering how much crap Boeing got regarding the initial problems with the 787.

This is very bad and clearly falls on Airbus. The engines have to be as thoroughly vetted as the frame itself during initial flight certification. The first 747's had major early engine issues and Boeing demanded they be fixed before first deliveries. For the most part they were.

I have no doubt Pratt blew smoke up Airbus' ass just like they did with Boeing on the 747 program 40 plus years ago. The difference.... Boeing leaned hard on Pratt back in the day. I wonder if Airbus did the same in this situation during flight certification.

Maybe they did....but still no excuse.

Another post of bias from our newcomer who claims sources for anything anti Boeing but trash talks anything else, Bombardier, Airbus etc. This is the quality of posters we get now!

Boeing leaned hard on Pratt so Airbus is doing the same. Anything new will always have problems. And in this case the airframe itself is not to blame, but the engine. Boeing will also have to learn and test with their MAX because the same procedures are going to happen. Like humans, not all things are perfect especially when it's new. Both manufacturers have not NEO / MAX any of their existing airframes so directly which make for a new learning ground.

Maybe when an engine blows up Elroy will be satisfied!

The fact that they are grounded is good as a nod to safety over pure operations. This is nothing like a 787 or A380 debacles. The A350 also needed time to settle. Bet you the A330neo will also have problems at introduction. At least Airbus and P & W are doing something about it and it will only be for the better.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Kind of ironic considering how much crap Boeing got regarding the initial problems with the 787.

This is very bad and clearly falls on Airbus. The engines have to be as thoroughly vetted as the frame itself during initial flight certification. The first 747's had major early engine issues and Boeing demanded they be fixed before first deliveries. For the most part they were.

I have no doubt Pratt blew smoke up Airbus' ass just like they did with Boeing on the 747 program 40 plus years ago. The difference.... Boeing leaned hard on Pratt back in the day. I wonder if Airbus did the same in this situation during flight certification.

Maybe they did....but still no excuse.

It clearly falls on PW. It is their engine.

While not great, I'm confident it will get solved before too long.

And by the way, a few groundings and months of delays is not a patch on the 787. You don't need to wait for the 'Ha! Airbus messes up as well!' moment, there is always the A380.

Varsity1 wrote:

Haven't heard of any c series affected. Amazing.

Yeah thats not entirely true. One of the first two at Air Baltic had their engine swapped within the first 4 weeks of service. I recall when that aircraft wasn't flying for 5 days saying I wondered if the engine was getting changed and it came out that this was the case so it does effect both series.

C-Series delivered 14 ( 8 CS 100, 6 CS 300 ) Thrust 18.5 to 22klbs
NEO deliveries : 127 ( 122 A320, 5 A321 ) Thust 27 to 33klbs

Higher loads, more visibility. More interest in bashing

Haven't followed this recently, but are orders for the P&W engines down compared to say 1 or 2 years ago? Do we see an effect on orders because of this debacle?

MrHMSH wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Kind of ironic considering how much crap Boeing got regarding the initial problems with the 787.

This is very bad and clearly falls on Airbus. The engines have to be as thoroughly vetted as the frame itself during initial flight certification. The first 747's had major early engine issues and Boeing demanded they be fixed before first deliveries. For the most part they were.

I have no doubt Pratt blew smoke up Airbus' ass just like they did with Boeing on the 747 program 40 plus years ago. The difference.... Boeing leaned hard on Pratt back in the day. I wonder if Airbus did the same in this situation during flight certification.

Maybe they did....but still no excuse.

It clearly falls on PW. It is their engine.

While not great, I'm confident it will get solved before too long.

And by the way, a few groundings and months of delays is not a patch on the 787. You don't need to wait for the 'Ha! Airbus messes up as well!' moment, there is always the A380.

Yes, it is clearly Pratt & Whitney's fault, but still reflects poorly on Airbus. I wonder what influence these kinds of things will have on future developments. Must be hurting their relationship, Airbus isn't able to deliver their planes on time because of these issue's, so that in itself is costing them money.

Dutchy wrote:

Haven't followed this recently, but are orders for the P&W engines down compared to say 1 or 2 years ago? Do we see an effect on orders because of this debacle?

CFM recieved 846 orders for Leap 1A in PAS17.

https://www.cfmaeroengines.com/press-ar ... -air-show/
PW received a very small number of new orders. They didn't even make a press release about that.

anshabhi wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Haven't followed this recently, but are orders for the P&W engines down compared to say 1 or 2 years ago? Do we see an effect on orders because of this debacle?

CFM recieved 846 orders for Leap 1A in PAS17.

https://www.cfmaeroengines.com/press-ar ... -air-show/
PW received a very small number of new orders. They didn't even make a press release about that.

So we do see quite an effect on new orders. That must hurt for PW.

Dutchy wrote:

So we do see quite an effect on new orders. That must hurt for PW.

And management was so very sure that they could squeeze juice from now on.
What a PHB fail.

What I wonder is how the industrial partners ( MTU in the lead ) view this outcome.
Must be foaming ...

Airbus was adamant at the time that they wanted the GTF from IAE not Pratt.

It appears people have no clue what's going on and are drawing random conclusions.

P&W is currently modifying the entire in-service fleet with an improved seal for the number three bearing. Because of this, one may find several aircraft "grounded" over maintenance. In addition, the supply chain is pretty constraint, so the retrofit may take longer than one would expect. Several aircraft are just waiting for parts to arrive.

New engines are already being delivered with an improved seal for the number three bearing, though in limited numbers. Deliveries will improve during H2 2017.

Spiderguy252 wrote:

P&W have been attempting these fixes for close to two years now.

Not true at all.

The shaft bending, hydraulic temperature and software issues were resolved in 2016. P&W is currently dealing with the number three bearing and the combustion chamber. These 2 issues were discovered in early 2017. It's physically impossible to work on issues for 2 years that were discovered 6 months ago.

It's important to distinguish these issues from one another.

Read more about it here:

PW1100G Bearing Failure
PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

A retrofit to address the bearing failure was released in April this year. Production engines followed in May.

Dutchy wrote:

Haven't followed this recently, but are orders for the P&W engines down compared to say 1 or 2 years ago? Do we see an effect on orders because of this debacle?

For what its worth I think there is.

(studiously avoiding the fanboy stuff.....)

The NEO has, for want of a better expression, had "strong momentum" in the marketplace since its inception - right up until its EIS.
More recently, the MAX has started to show more strongly vs the NEO.

My fag packet tells me that the difference in the number of orders since the MAX was launched (to keep it somewhat equitable), peaked at about 870 difference (3 340 NEO vs 2 870 MAX) in favour of the NEO right at the end of 2015 - i.e. right before EIS.
I think that NEO's advantage has reduced to just below 700 now - and as point of order this was happening before the 737-10 MAX launched.

There is an argument that sales naturally ease at about EIS I guess.
I suppose 737 fans might argue the pendulum swing was inevitable.
If they do then they need to realise that they are implicitly acknowledging that the P+W issues have no material impact on the marketplace and therefore there is "nothing to blame Airbus for" - can't have it both ways....

But I have watched the NEO back log grow and grow to frankly astronomical proportions, and wondered at which point the sheer lead time is going to depress orders.
I'm pretty sure that a couple of years ago Airbus would have expected to deliver more than 200 or so NEO's this year.
I know they were aiming for at least 60 per month by 2018.
The recent strengthening of CEO orders suggests to me NEO slots are being back-filled this year.
2018 was supposed to be the year that deliveries were all NEO - hard to see at this point.

Obviously the programme is so strong that in the grand scheme of things this will go down as a "glitch"

As an aside, we haven't seen what is going to happen to the MAX ramp up yet, and whether CFM can support that full also.
I'd expect it to be better, as Airbus are the first-mover in delivering the LEAP technology and therefore should be exposed to more risk

Rgds

Dutchy wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Haven't followed this recently, but are orders for the P&W engines down compared to say 1 or 2 years ago? Do we see an effect on orders because of this debacle?

CFM recieved 846 orders for Leap 1A in PAS17.

https://www.cfmaeroengines.com/press-ar ... -air-show/
PW received a very small number of new orders. They didn't even make a press release about that.

So we do see quite an effect on new orders. That must hurt for PW.

The Paris air show is one data point at a random place in time. Maybe we should monitor sales for the next 12 to 24 months to get a better picture of the matter.

KarelXWB wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

CFM recieved 846 orders for Leap 1A in PAS17.

https://www.cfmaeroengines.com/press-ar ... -air-show/
PW received a very small number of new orders. They didn't even make a press release about that.

So we do see quite an effect on new orders. That must hurt for PW.

The Paris air show is one data point at a random place in time. Maybe we should monitor sales for the next 12 to 24 months to get a better picture of the matter.

Sure, that's why I asked for a comparison between the first half year of 2016 and now, let's say over the last 1/2 year.

Surprising? Nah.

anshabhi wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Haven't followed this recently, but are orders for the P&W engines down compared to say 1 or 2 years ago? Do we see an effect on orders because of this debacle?

CFM recieved 846 orders for Leap 1A in PAS17.

https://www.cfmaeroengines.com/press-ar ... -air-show/
PW received a very small number of new orders. They didn't even make a press release about that.

It is a very difficult choice to pick LEAP looking at GTF fuel efficiency numbers.

You cannot compare an A320NEO AOG within 90 minutes from home base to a B787 going tech 11 hrs from home base.

6E doesn't lift a finger or lose a penny if NEO goes tech, on top, it gets paid good compensation. The way AI support contract is structured, AI has to do most of the work to bring it back online and fight for compensation.

Boeing's decision to stock parts only at 3 depots worldwide and the logistics involved in WB Engine transportation(AI never had the An124/IL76 contract) and AI's GE OnPoint is not a standard contract where GE sends replacements and team from closest and quickest possible location. Everything has to come from AI/GE Mumbai shop.

KarelXWB wrote:

It appears people have no clue what's going on and are drawing random conclusions.

P&W is currently modifying the entire in-service fleet with an improved seal for the number three bearing. Because of this, one may find several aircraft "grounded" over maintenance. In addition, the supply chain is pretty constraint, so the retrofit may take longer than one would expect. Several aircraft are just waiting for parts to arrive.

New engines are already being delivered with an improved seal for the number three bearing, though in limited numbers. Deliveries will improve during H2 2017.

Spiderguy252 wrote:

P&W have been attempting these fixes for close to two years now.

Not true at all.

The shaft bending, hydraulic temperature and software issues were resolved in 2016. P&W is currently dealing with the number three bearing and the combustion chamber. These 2 issues were discovered in early 2017. It's physically impossible to work on issues for 2 years that were discovered 6 months ago.

It's important to distinguish these issues from one another.

Read more about it here:

PW1100G Bearing Failure
PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

A retrofit to address the bearing failure was released in April this year. Production engines followed in May.

Thank you for your patience (with less knowledgeable members here) and also for the comprehensive explanation of PW's issues.

What will we do without you, Karel?

dtw2hyd wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Haven't followed this recently, but are orders for the P&W engines down compared to say 1 or 2 years ago? Do we see an effect on orders because of this debacle?

CFM recieved 846 orders for Leap 1A in PAS17.

https://www.cfmaeroengines.com/press-ar ... -air-show/
PW received a very small number of new orders. They didn't even make a press release about that.

It is a very difficult choice to pick LEAP looking at GTF fuel efficiency numbers.

You cannot compare an A320NEO AOG within 90 minutes from home base to a B787 going tech 11 hrs from home base.

6E doesn't lift a finger or lose a penny if NEO goes tech, on top, it gets paid good compensation. The way AI support contract is structured, AI has to do most of the work to bring it back online and fight for compensation.

Boeing's decision to stock parts only at 3 depots worldwide and the logistics involved in WB Engine transportation(AI never had the An124/IL76 contract) and AI's GE OnPoint is not a standard contract where GE sends replacements and team from closest and quickest possible location. Everything has to come from AI/GE Mumbai shop.

I have never heard of an airplane warranty contract that covers loss of revenue. I don't believe that an airline doesn't lose a penny if NEO goes tech because the loss of revenue from a flight cancellation is not covered under the airplane warranty. Airplane warranties will provide for free parts and labor, but not loss of revenue from flight cancellations.

If 16 out of 55 PW A320neos are grounded worldwide, airlines are losing a lot of revenue by either cancelling flights or having to defer maintenance or reduce flying on the rest of their fleet to cover for the grounded airplanes.

flee wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

It appears people have no clue what's going on and are drawing random conclusions.

P&W is currently modifying the entire in-service fleet with an improved seal for the number three bearing. Because of this, one may find several aircraft "grounded" over maintenance. In addition, the supply chain is pretty constraint, so the retrofit may take longer than one would expect. Several aircraft are just waiting for parts to arrive.

New engines are already being delivered with an improved seal for the number three bearing, though in limited numbers. Deliveries will improve during H2 2017.

Spiderguy252 wrote:

P&W have been attempting these fixes for close to two years now.

Not true at all.

The shaft bending, hydraulic temperature and software issues were resolved in 2016. P&W is currently dealing with the number three bearing and the combustion chamber. These 2 issues were discovered in early 2017. It's physically impossible to work on issues for 2 years that were discovered 6 months ago.

It's important to distinguish these issues from one another.

Read more about it here:

PW1100G Bearing Failure
PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

A retrofit to address the bearing failure was released in April this year. Production engines followed in May.

Thank you for your patience (with less knowledgeable members here) and also for the comprehensive explanation of PW's issues.

What will we do without you, Karel?

Yes thank you to Karel and a few other users knowledgeable on what is actually going on. There have been multiple issues with the PW1100G and the impact to airlines has been significant so it can be difficult to understand each and every one of them.

The big question that I have is, what is next with this engine? What new discoveries and emerging issues will there be once these engines get more hours on them and will Pratt actually be able to address the production issues?

Newbiepilot wrote:

The big question that I have is, what is next with this engine?

What's next is a reliable engine with great economics. I am hopeful that it won't be long before all those issues are addressed, and all airlines, Airbus, and PW put this behind their backs, just like what happened to many other great airplanes. As reported, those engines perform slightly better than LEAP in terms of fuel burn. Hoping here that it would be worth it at the end.

Those 2 Spirit Neo's are still baking on their DFW MX ramp.
I'm sure NK has to be getting financial relief from Airbus for this delay?

KarelXWB wrote:

It appears people have no clue what's going on and are drawing random conclusions.

P&W is currently modifying the entire in-service fleet with an improved seal for the number three bearing. Because of this, one may find several aircraft "grounded" over maintenance. In addition, the supply chain is pretty constraint, so the retrofit may take longer than one would expect. Several aircraft are just waiting for parts to arrive.

New engines are already being delivered with an improved seal for the number three bearing, though in limited numbers. Deliveries will improve during H2 2017.

Spiderguy252 wrote:

P&W have been attempting these fixes for close to two years now.

Not true at all.

The shaft bending, hydraulic temperature and software issues were resolved in 2016. P&W is currently dealing with the number three bearing and the combustion chamber. These 2 issues were discovered in early 2017. It's physically impossible to work on issues for 2 years that were discovered 6 months ago.

It's important to distinguish these issues from one another.

Read more about it here:

PW1100G Bearing Failure
PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

A retrofit to address the bearing failure was released in April this year. Production engines followed in May.

You never know if they will discover another problem soon or anything else.

As a noob avgeek, I would be content when the aircraft finally fly, rather than all these fixes which they have been making ever since the first delivery.........

Eyad89 wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

The big question that I have is, what is next with this engine?

What's next is a reliable engine with great economics. I am hopeful that it won't be long before all those issues are addressed, and all airlines, Airbus, and PW put this behind their backs, just like what happened to many other great airplanes. As reported, those engines perform slightly better than LEAP in terms of fuel burn. Hoping here that it would be worth it at the end.

Well we can always be hopeful, but the high time PW1100Gs probably only have 6-7,000 hours on them. Most engines have issues start to show up around 10-20,000 hours, so there may be more problems yet to be discovered and it can be hard to predict how much overhauls will cost. The CFM56 has been able to stay 40,000 hours on wing between overhauls, but I think most airlines would be thrilled to get half that life out of a LeapX or Pw1100G.

KarelXWB wrote:

It appears people have no clue what's going on and are drawing random conclusions.

P&W is currently modifying the entire in-service fleet with an improved seal for the number three bearing. Because of this, one may find several aircraft "grounded" over maintenance. In addition, the supply chain is pretty constraint, so the retrofit may take longer than one would expect. Several aircraft are just waiting for parts to arrive.

New engines are already being delivered with an improved seal for the number three bearing, though in limited numbers. Deliveries will improve during H2 2017.

Spiderguy252 wrote:

P&W have been attempting these fixes for close to two years now.

Not true at all.

The shaft bending, hydraulic temperature and software issues were resolved in 2016. P&W is currently dealing with the number three bearing and the combustion chamber. These 2 issues were discovered in early 2017. It's physically impossible to work on issues for 2 years that were discovered 6 months ago.

It's important to distinguish these issues from one another.

Read more about it here:

PW1100G Bearing Failure
PW1100G Combustion Chamber Failure

A retrofit to address the bearing failure was released in April this year. Production engines followed in May.

As I recall, shaft bending was the issue on the early 747 Pratt engines. Boeing got so frustrated with P&W during the initial flight certification program they took the Pratt CEO on a test flight and rapidly powered up in flight and one of the engines blew.

It scared the crap out of the Pratt executive and that started the ball rolling to get the problem fixed.

I've seen video of those early 747 engines blowing. Quite an impressive show!

KarelXWB wrote:

It appears people have no clue what's going on and are drawing random conclusions.

P&W is currently modifying the entire in-service fleet with an improved seal for the number three bearing. Because of this, one may find several aircraft "grounded" over maintenance. .

You're being way too kind to P&W. The two Spirit neos have been on the ground for months. I wouldn't call that "grounded over maintenance." Only 3 out of the 16 aircraft identified have not been in revenue service for less than a week, but one of those three (JA211A) has returned to service, as someone noted above. We are talking about assets worth more than half a billion dollars, or over a billion based on list price, not generating revenue. The slower they fix the issues, the more it'll cost P&W and the operators. Also, having delivered only four airplanes in the past 2.5 months suggests P&W is far from overcoming the crises.

dynkrisolo wrote:

The two Spirit neos have been on the ground for months. I wouldn't call that "grounded over maintenance."

N901NK and N905NK are not undergoing maintenance: both aircraft are engineless and fall into the category "waiting for spare parts".

KarelXWB wrote:

N901NK and N905NK are not undergoing maintenance: both aircraft are engineless and fall into the category "waiting for spare parts".

Regardless if it's waiting for spares or it's for maintenance, your earlier reply trivialized the crises P&W is facing. That's my main point. Your earlier reply started with the comment that people who have no clues drawing random conclusions. But your trivialization of the situation is questionable, too, IMO. The speed P&W is resolving the field issues is not consistent with what they have briefed the media and what we are actually observing.

Months on the ground and waiting for spare parts? What a fiasco. I really felt for many airlines during the early 787 issues. This truly sounds as bad.

Maybe some day the real story will emerge, but I find it difficult to believe none of these issues appeared during initial flight certification. Maybe both P&W and Airbus felt they had the problem fixed....but something sounds amiss. Some facts regarding when these engine issues first appeared and the initial steps to address the problems would be interesting to find out.

Whatever Pratt or Airbus initially attempted, it obviously didn't work.

Some info on operational impact on 6E:

IndiGo has cancelled more than 80 flights and rescheduled many over the last one week. For instance, while the airline’s original schedule shows 12 non-stop departures from Bengaluru to Kolkata for Thursday, it is selling tickets for eight flights. Similarly, four flights between Bengaluru and Hyderabad, and three flights between Ahmedabad and Bengaluru have been removed from the Thursday schedule. When asked about it, IndiGo president Aditya Ghosh said, “It is bound to happen statistically.”

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 190_1.html

Who the heck thinks they will be given compensation for these...?

Speaking of drawing random conclusions.... Leehamnews has input on the topic.

https://leehamnews.com/2017/07/12/is-no ... more-24109

kimimm19 wrote:

LoganTheBogan wrote:

As Varsity1 mentioned, why are other PW GTF engines on other aircraft not having problems? Do the different engines really have that big of a difference?

The reason can be found in the Cseries production thread. It's been discussed recently about small changes between the engines and fittings which make the Cseries engine less suseptible in comparison to the larger A320 engine.

The issue is heat related. I would assume the Cseries are at lower thrust.

Breaking News!!

Another NEO - VT-ITC develops some snag.
There goes the ninth one for IndiGo!

Airport sources said one of the AC units of the aircraft cabin failed. The pilots detected the snag on the runway, after the air traffic control (ATC) had given the aircraft clearance for take-off.

http://m.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ ... 9f38I.html

though FR24 is showing a flight scheduled to Delhi for tommorow morning. Lets hope for the best!
Otherwise, Patna isn't the airport where an aircraft would like to be stuck.

dynkrisolo wrote:

Regardless if it's waiting for spares or it's for maintenance, your earlier reply trivialized the crises P&W is facing. That's my main point. Your earlier reply started with the comment that people who have no clues drawing random conclusions. But your trivialization of the situation is questionable, too, IMO. The speed P&W is resolving the field issues is not consistent with what they have briefed the media and what we are actually observing.

I understand what you are saying.

Whether a situation is bad or good for a company is not for me to decide, I'll leave that to the boys and girls at Wall Street. I'm only interested in the technical part: what's going on and how it can be resolved, and try to share that information.

P&W should be sued and every airline should install GE engines instead. I guess airline executives are that dumb.