Those spare A330/A340 sure come in handy now with all the trouble with RR engines.

Why are new jet engines generally becoming more unreliable? Is the tech moving too fast for the environment they actually operate in, or is it down to a shortage of engineers? Is routine maintenance being led by the accounts department?

Pellegrine wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Air New Zealand has 11 789's - have listed all registrations as hard to tell what's out

ZK-NZC - diverted to SYD operating SIN-AKL due to carrying less fuel due to RR engine issues

http://b787s.net/air-new-zealand-b787-9 ... diversion/

ZK-NZD - operational

ZK-NZE - out of service since 5 December 2017

http://b787s.net/air-new-zealand-b787-9 ... al-return/

ZK-NZF - last flight on 20 April, may be in maintenance

ZK-NZG - unclear if this is out of service, was suppose to operate to PVG on 19 April but return service was cancelled

ZK-NZH - operational

ZK-NZI - last in service on 17 April, may be in maintenance

ZK-NZJ - Diverted to GUM while operating NZ289 PVG-AKL, due to carrying less fuel related to RR engine issues

http://b787s.net/air-new-zealand-b787-9 ... diversion/

ZK-NZK - Diverted to GUM while operating NZ92 HND-AKL, due to carrying less fuel related to RR engine issues

http://b787s.net/air-new-zealand-b787-9 ... diversion/

ZK-NZL - aircraft returned to AKL today while operating NZ99 to NRT, mentioned on NZ thread that future flights for this aircraft have been canned until further notice

http://b787s.net/air-new-zealand-b787-9 ... al-return/

Why would the RR issues limit fuel capacity?

qf789 wrote:

Virgin Atlantic has 16 789's

G-VWHO entered LHR maintenance 7 September 2017 and has been out of service since

http://b787s.net/virgin-atlantic-b787-9 ... intenance/

WOW. This bird has racked up over ~$5-7 million in lease/loan payments and hasn't flown a single revenue flight in that time. Wow...

This may explain why NZ is doing fuel stops

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... in-447910/

qf789 wrote:

Pellegrine wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Air New Zealand has 11 789's - have listed all registrations as hard to tell what's out

ZK-NZC - diverted to SYD operating SIN-AKL due to carrying less fuel due to RR engine issues

http://b787s.net/air-new-zealand-b787-9 ... diversion/

ZK-NZD - operational

ZK-NZE - out of service since 5 December 2017

http://b787s.net/air-new-zealand-b787-9 ... al-return/

ZK-NZF - last flight on 20 April, may be in maintenance

ZK-NZG - unclear if this is out of service, was suppose to operate to PVG on 19 April but return service was cancelled

ZK-NZH - operational

ZK-NZI - last in service on 17 April, may be in maintenance

ZK-NZJ - Diverted to GUM while operating NZ289 PVG-AKL, due to carrying less fuel related to RR engine issues

http://b787s.net/air-new-zealand-b787-9 ... diversion/

ZK-NZK - Diverted to GUM while operating NZ92 HND-AKL, due to carrying less fuel related to RR engine issues

http://b787s.net/air-new-zealand-b787-9 ... diversion/

ZK-NZL - aircraft returned to AKL today while operating NZ99 to NRT, mentioned on NZ thread that future flights for this aircraft have been canned until further notice

http://b787s.net/air-new-zealand-b787-9 ... al-return/

Why would the RR issues limit fuel capacity?

qf789 wrote:

Virgin Atlantic has 16 789's

G-VWHO entered LHR maintenance 7 September 2017 and has been out of service since

http://b787s.net/virgin-atlantic-b787-9 ... intenance/

WOW. This bird has racked up over ~$5-7 million in lease/loan payments and hasn't flown a single revenue flight in that time. Wow...

This may explain why NZ is doing fuel stops

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... in-447910/

Ahhhhhhhhh. I didn't think about if one engine fails and they have to drift down to FL250.

uta999 wrote:

Why are new jet engines generally becoming more unreliable? Is the tech moving too fast for the environment they actually operate in, or is it down to a shortage of engineers? Is routine maintenance being led by the accounts department?

The reason is that the technology is pushing into real material limits now. An uncoated blade will not handle the heat and normal erosion. The blade will handle the heat and erosion with the right coating. The wrong coating causes problems... which does not show for years....

Parts are designed with almost no excess material compared to 20 years ago... What is the balance between minimum material (with coatings) and reliability? Again, it may take years for a problem to really show up.

I seriously wonder about all of the people predicting new highly more efficient engines about 2025 that are being developed. Perhaps in 2025 concept engines will exist... but reliable ones may take another 5 or 10 years as they work through experience that can only be gained by using the engines (and taking a risk of "problems"). Personally, I think Boeing may be somewhat brilliant with its seemingly proposed 1.5 generation 797 engine. Lets take the stuff we know well to improve an engine... and have what should be a very reliable engine up front; and leave the risky parts to another future aircraft or at least much later in the engine development cycle.

Have a great day,

Are these issues impacting new A330 / 350 orders?

https://leehamnews.com/

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Are these issues impacting new A330 / 350 orders?

https://leehamnews.com/

Sounds like an excuse at this point. Though as I said before. I think it’s vastly naive to assume there won’t be issues with the engines for those planes. Maybe they are so different it won’t crop up. But if I were RR and Airbus and we knew or thought it would I sure wouldn’t mention it until I have to do I can hopefully be well along on a fix.

Just read this article from Aviation Week.

commercial-aviation/analytics-establishing-its-place-airlines

What surprised me about the T1000 issues was the state of the engine Blades when the problems were discovered.

Of more interest the responses of the airlines to the issues.

If analytics help reduce flight cancellations by a magnitude of 100 for Delta, I wonder how much analytics could help reduce the fan Blade issue certification issues for RR

BA have suspended their 789 service to LAX for the month of May.

juliuswong wrote:

Those spare A330/A340 sure come in handy now with all the trouble with RR engines.

Sure they will.
Curious to see, Virgin sent an A346 in storage for parting out for spares even if one of their 789s is parked since Sept. 2017.
And curious even more, but out of topic, that a plane roughly 15 years old has to be parted out for spares.

2175301 wrote:

uta999 wrote:

Why are new jet engines generally becoming more unreliable? Is the tech moving too fast for the environment they actually operate in, or is it down to a shortage of engineers? Is routine maintenance being led by the accounts department?

The reason is that the technology is pushing into real material limits now. An uncoated blade will not handle the heat and normal erosion. The blade will handle the heat and erosion with the right coating. The wrong coating causes problems... which does not show for years....

Parts are designed with almost no excess material compared to 20 years ago... What is the balance between minimum material (with coatings) and reliability? Again, it may take years for a problem to really show up.

I seriously wonder about all of the people predicting new highly more efficient engines about 2025 that are being developed. Perhaps in 2025 concept engines will exist... but reliable ones may take another 5 or 10 years as they work through experience that can only be gained by using the engines (and taking a risk of "problems"). Personally, I think Boeing may be somewhat brilliant with its seemingly proposed 1.5 generation 797 engine. Lets take the stuff we know well to improve an engine... and have what should be a very reliable engine up front; and leave the risky parts to another future aircraft or at least much later in the engine development cycle.

Have a great day,

It kinda does not work like that unfortunately. When people have ideas they need to go through a change control process. Many ideas need an engine test to validate them. A simple engine test like we are doing in three weeks costs £10,000 a day. A complex change that needs a blade off test will cost circa 12 million and some also need on wing tests.

What that means is there’s lots of ideas that a business case cannot be made for, so they wait for a new engine that’s going through a full certification program.

Honestly the control of change is very strict, hence all the major changes go on new engines with certification programs.

2175301 wrote:

uta999 wrote:

Why are new jet engines generally becoming more unreliable? Is the tech moving too fast for the environment they actually operate in, or is it down to a shortage of engineers? Is routine maintenance being led by the accounts department?

The reason is that the technology is pushing into real material limits now. An uncoated blade will not handle the heat and normal erosion. The blade will handle the heat and erosion with the right coating. The wrong coating causes problems... which does not show for years....

Parts are designed with almost no excess material compared to 20 years ago... What is the balance between minimum material (with coatings) and reliability? Again, it may take years for a problem to really show up.

I seriously wonder about all of the people predicting new highly more efficient engines about 2025 that are being developed. Perhaps in 2025 concept engines will exist... but reliable ones may take another 5 or 10 years as they work through experience that can only be gained by using the engines (and taking a risk of "problems"). Personally, I think Boeing may be somewhat brilliant with its seemingly proposed 1.5 generation 797 engine. Lets take the stuff we know well to improve an engine... and have what should be a very reliable engine up front; and leave the risky parts to another future aircraft or at least much later in the engine development cycle.

Have a great day,

2175301

You are aware the GE9X introduces CMC turbine blades? Pratt and RR will be ready by circa 2025. Now add variable cycle. The LEAP was the first, now add more. The GE9X adds more cooling loops for tight blade tolerances to improve efficiency; of course that goes in the CFM engine. Perhaps variable fan nozzle? That should have gone in the PW1100G, but the engine so beat efficiency that it was taken out to reduce cost and weight.

Pratt/LEAP showed high mach# compressors are doing as well as predicted. Turbine technology progressed so much since the PW1100G that Pratt is doing a new casing! And combined with GE9X cooling loops... Nice efficiency gain.

The 797 will not push engines forward as much as the NEO. But oh was a lot of tech developed that didn't make the final cut. Heck, much of the turbine tech is in the LEAP-1B but not the 1A.

The 797 might do better than 1.5 gen ahead.

RR made errors. But that doesn't mean progress stops.

Lightsaber

My apologies if this has been asked or discussed already but do all RR-powered 787 customers experience problems or are there still a few who don't have problems? If so, how come one airline does have these problems while another one doesn't?

A388

A388 wrote:

My apologies if this has been asked or discussed already but do all RR-powered 787 customers experience problems or are there still a few who don't have problems? If so, how come one airline does have these problems while another one doesn't?

By now, all Trent 1000 Package A and B engines should have been upgraded to Package C and I believe they all are under multiple ADs at this point.

Customers with Trent 1000-TEN engines (the latest specification) are currently not subject to any active ADs that I am aware of.

Stitch wrote:

A388 wrote:

My apologies if this has been asked or discussed already but do all RR-powered 787 customers experience problems or are there still a few who don't have problems? If so, how come one airline does have these problems while another one doesn't?

By now, all Trent 1000 Package A and B engines should have been upgraded to Package C and I believe they all are under multiple ADs at this point.

Customers with Trent 1000-TEN engines (the latest specification) are currently not subject to any active ADs that I am aware of.

There are no pack A flying anymore and a pack B cannot be upgraded to a C.

RB211trent wrote:

There are no pack A flying anymore and a pack B cannot be upgraded to a C.

I imagine a Package B operator under a TotalCare agreement just gets a new Package C engine if they choose to upgrade? It would have to be the same for the Trent 1000-TEN, as well, due to all the internal changes.

Stitch wrote:

RB211trent wrote:

There are no pack A flying anymore and a pack B cannot be upgraded to a C.

I imagine a Package B operator under a TotalCare agreement just gets a new Package C engine if they choose to upgrade? It would have to be the same for the Trent 1000-TEN, as well, due to all the internal changes.

Not the case.

Stitch wrote:

RB211trent wrote:

There are no pack A flying anymore and a pack B cannot be upgraded to a C.

I imagine a Package B operator under a TotalCare agreement just gets a new Package C engine if they choose to upgrade? It would have to be the same for the Trent 1000-TEN, as well, due to all the internal changes.

Perhaps a little better than that, but subject to a confidentiality agreement.

RB211trent wrote:

Not the case.

Then what is the case?

FatCat wrote:

juliuswong wrote:

Those spare A330/A340 sure come in handy now with all the trouble with RR engines.

Sure they will.
Curious to see, Virgin sent an A346 in storage for parting out for spares even if one of their 789s is parked since Sept. 2017.
And curious even more, but out of topic, that a plane roughly 15 years old has to be parted out for spares.

An interesting rumor doing the rounds on twitter is that two BA 747s at Victorville are being prepared for return to service.

Stitch wrote:

RB211trent wrote:

Not the case.

Then what is the case?

The engines are owned by the airline/leasing company, if they choose to do a deal with RR to swop them out it is between RR and themselves to do a deal, maybe some have.

https://twitter.com/Tim_the_Pilot/statu ... 0920560640 says:

Interesting development, apparently some (two at present) BA B744's are coming back from Victorville next month to help ease the B787 engine issues. Long live the queen ! #B747

Now that's a creative approach to the problem!

Revelation wrote:

https://twitter.com/Tim_the_Pilot/status/989100190920560640 says:

Interesting development, apparently some (two at present) BA B744's are coming back from Victorville next month to help ease the B787 engine issues. Long live the queen ! #B747

Now that's a creative approach to the problem!

There have also been 2 772’s come out of storage, both ex VIM Airlines for LA, one was in storage at ASP and the other VCV

All of a sudden, those old retired forgotten B772ER, A332, A333 and A343 are experiencing surge in demand! Sad that many are now Coke cans instead of continuing to haul pax around the world.

Has the industry gone too far with 2 engines ETOPS?
Flying single engine requires the operative one running at maximum thrust for much more time, it will be very stressful...

Has this 787-8 G-ZBJE been damaged? It's currently out in the open, minus at least one engine at LHR since early March. It's also been removed from all BASOURCE tracking lists.

Her sisters are usually in maintenance for ten days.

British Airways B787-8 G-ZBJE Enters Heathrow Maintenance.
Mar 7, 2018

Boeing 787-8 l/n 173, British Airways G-ZBJE, entered the London Heathrow maintenance facility this afternoon after arriving as BA36 from Chennai.

RB211trent wrote:

Stitch wrote:

RB211trent wrote:

Not the case.

Then what is the case?

The engines are owned by the airline/leasing company, if they choose to do a deal with RR to swop them out it is between RR and themselves to do a deal, maybe some have.

Ingeniously packaged and structured to benefit both owner and OEM, and subject to confidentiality agreements.

Interesting comment re ETOPS being pushed too far and places excessive load on remaining engine. I wonder if there is any source giving the number of occassions when an aircraft has had to use ETOPS for real? Would that source show the type of occassion and situation i.e how long it was in diversionary mode to designated en route or destination alternates? And what engine manufacturer. May warrant fresh thread.

FatCat wrote:

Has the industry gone too far with 2 engines ETOPS?

In millions of flights, flown over billions of miles, through 4 different decades.... the amount of people killed in an ETOPS-caused accident remains a very round number: 0.

So gonna go with, no.

JayinKitsap wrote:

This and PW's problem on the 320's really points to why it is nice to have 2 engines on a model.

It doesn't really help airlines who are going through a problem that didn't start until after EIS though.

The competing airline doesn't have a whole bunch of spare inventory just sitting around, waiting for the event that their competitor has an mtx/production issue. So even if a customer chose to switch to GE because of these problems, it'd be months (if not years) before they could receive a GE engine. By then, RR is likely to have implemented a long-term remedy.

Norwegian yet to determine impact on 787 engine checks but syas wet leases are needed to cover the inspections

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ch-448051/

FatCat wrote:

Has the industry gone too far with 2 engines ETOPS?
Flying single engine requires the operative one running at maximum thrust for much more time, it will be very stressful...

Nope.

Is "Maximum Continuous".

Much lower rating..

cheers

brindabella wrote:

Nope.

Is "Maximum Continuous".

Much lower rating..

cheers

Thanks