Bad news for Pratt and Airbus.


Lufthansa CEO in today earnings event stated the carrier was not ready to accept additional A320neo frames until issues related to its new Pratt & Whitney engines were closer to being resolved.

For the moment it also will keep its existing sole operational A320neo restricted to domestic routes where it has engineering support.

LH was originally planned to receive 5 additional neo's in 2016.

In good news, CEO also said the model was meeting its 20% cost reduction compared to ceo models.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lufthansa-results-a-idUSKCN0WJ1YY

Quoting mercure1 (Thread starter): In good news, CEO also said the model was meeting its 20% cost reduction compared to ceo models.

The Lufthansa CEO should worry about his job if the company has a model that operates with 20% less cost. Before you know it he will be replaced by a New Executive Officer.

I´ve heard this rumor some weeks ago and was quite surprised when D-AINA was delivered almost on time. Seems that LH accepted the plane as a kind of test aircraft for now. Its of course also good to say "we are first".

Quoting wolbo (Reply 1): The Lufthansa CEO should worry about his job if the company has a model that operates with 20% less cost. Before you know it he will be replaced by a New Executive Officer.

Now its interesting to know wether the model is female or not 

Does anyone know what types of messages are causing difficulty? It would not surprise me if there are many fault messages displaying. Nuisance messages are common when airplanes enter service and can take some time to get used to and fixed. Once mechanics discover the issue they get much quicker at resolving it, but it can take extensive knowledge to diagnose whether a fault is real or not. That would probably explain why Lufthansa wants to limit operations to only a few cities within Germany. Deploying the A320NEO to outstations that aren't familiar with the fault messages would probably result in quite a few delays early on, especially with contract maintenance that works many different airplanes.

Hello all,

Well, LH can still claim that they were the launch customer for the A320 NEO. Now comes the pause. How long or short it is, will depend how much of a fire A can build under Pratt's feet to expedite the cure/fixes.

Reminds me of the problem Pratt had with the 747 project. Planes sat with the concrete blocks suspended from the pylons. Not until B's chief test pilot took the Pratt boss for a ride to demonstrate the surging problems they had, serious effort and O/T were invested to work out the fix.

I truly hope for all parties concerned that they fix the problem and work to get back the momentum that was lost with this problem...

If this aircraft is something like a cost saving light bulb as it is being found to be by LH: just plug it in & cost savings start to pour, & if the problem is to have engineering support available at specific airports, LH could have accepted more A320neo's & have them take over MUC/HAM/TXL routes while benefitting from their immediate efficiencies until engine hickup is solved; anyway all problems should be treated under warranty, yes !!

Same time as this news came out it looks like IndiGo has accepted one of their A320neo.

Weren't Pratt going to use big data to reduce start up times?

If no one is flying the planes how are they going to get big data?

Some times the repetitive discussions on A-net exasperate me. This is no criticism of the current thread at all. Indeed it is good new information. To avoid repetition, and I hope the thread starter does not mind, here is some old information.

There was a thread "A320npe No Pratt Engines. What Next? Pt2", now archived.

We discussed the following:

1. I have a feeling that on this big casting which surrounds the engine core to provide the appropriate rigidity and in the neo application has the additional purpose of being used to hang the engine onto the pylon,

2. Am I correct in thinking from the pics exhibited by BoeingVista, it can be said the 747 pylon installation concept shown was not the same as the installation concept manufactured by Airbus and installed within their pylons for the A320 Pratt neo?

3. I am not much bothered which came first, the chicken or the egg (the engine's casting or the Airbus pylon). I just want to be sure it was the case that the 747 flight testing did not cover the (seemingly) necessary tasks involved with certification of the installation of the engine on the Airbus wing.

4. The underlying point being made and now I suggest confirmed is that the Pratt 747 test bed was not flight testing the engines actually supplied to Airbus. Thus the 'rubbing' that is causing Pratt some difficulty and which is currently being assigned to temperature differentials may have other causes. For instance, it might be that the engine case comprising castings surrounding the core may need some re-design to take the loads imposed by the Airbus pylon mounting.

And in Part 1, we discussed lots of stuff, but including:

I have now re-read the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch report of the Kegworth crash. I am coming to the view that these npe engines should not be used in passenger service until more work is done by the manufacturer and the airworthiness authority. Call it the precautionary principle if you will, but as far as I know there are outstanding issues which do not appear to be under control. Under control and not under control are to me black and white binary issues.

I am not a professional engineer, but I have seen in many walks of life that engineers are human and capable of mistakes. Especially when given deadlines by non-engineers, and pressured by commercial folk.

My Reply 43 suggests that "it does not seem wise to have paying passengers do the work of test pilots." Or take the risks that Test Pilots take, I might have said. My fingers are crossed for them. I suggest that flying passengers in that bird may be a risk too far, resulting from an excess of pressure to meet arbitrary dates.

This issue will take time, so be it. Better safe than sorry. The delays caused by Pratt to date is unfortunate. It can get much more unfortunate, very much more.

.......and it begins. The PW1100G will never pan out IMO.

Hello all,

Regarding the engine, I realize it was in the manufacturers test cell and run for the hours needed, and flown on a test bed for the hours needed, both for certification by everyone. My questions are:

Has this engine, or others for that matter, been tested to simulate airline ops prior to introduction to a customer? Or was it flown for several hours then shut down until the next/ several days test? I hope I phrased the questions properly.

It just seems to me that this problem should have been caught much earlier than it was.

@glideslope, I'm sure that eventually the engine will be "updated' and will pan out. But I've been told that I'm an optimist....

Quoting wolbo (Reply 1): The Lufthansa CEO should worry about his job if the company has a model that operates with 20% less cost. Before you know it he will be replaced by a New Executive Officer.

Bravo, Bravo.. That was really good I was confused at first but eventually got it

Quoting kraz911 (Reply 10): It just seems to me that this problem should have been caught much earlier than it was.

Apparently saving 20% on fuel requires an army of Mx personnel at every stop to get the job done.

Whatever the issue or issues are, it is not the customers responsibility (LH) to provide the test bed for PW.
I understand new airplane/powerplant issues but it appears PW has not done due diligence.
They appear way off the mark.

LH has made the choice to wait until PW gets their act together. Why pay for a hangar queen.

Okie

Quoting Okie (Reply 12): LH has made the choice to wait until PW gets their act together. Why pay for a hangar queen.

That is my fear as well. I've been skeptical of the geared fan since its inception. It's a fantastic development, but it needs many years of experience to perfect it. That is something the airlines ordering it don't have the patience for.

Should have followed Easyjet into the CFM Leap engines.   

Took a ride on a U2 A320neo EDI-SXF with the Leap engines last week and I must say I was impressed. Look so much better, quick to start and very quiet.

Sandyb123

So if they are spending more time and effort on maintenance of the engines, how exactly are they meeting the 20%, unless he means something specific like fuel burn?
We heard only positive things on the a/c leading up to this, so...........what gives?

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 13): That is my fear as well. I've been skeptical of the geared fan since its inception. It's a fantastic development, but it needs many years of experience to perfect it. That is something the airlines ordering it don't have the patience for.

From all outward appearances the geared part seems to be the only part of the equation that is working.
There seems to be issues from what I can gleam that seem to related to expansion/contraction of the engine from temperature changes.
The seal retainer issue sounds similar as well due to additional loading when the case cools and the shaft has not, however I have no real knowledge if that is the issue but it would fit that scenario.

Okie

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 14):

Unless I'm missing some humour here I don't think that you did considering the U2 don't have any NEO in operation or even fully assembled yet

Quoting kraz911 (Reply 10): It just seems to me that this problem should have been caught much earlier than it was.

I think it is important to realize that the purpose of the flight testing is for completing certification testing and not necessarily simulating the operating environment. There are many requirements that the airplane has to complete for testing. Many simulations and scenarios don't even represent real life operations. Stall testing, engine out simulations, emergency descents, short field takeoff and landing etc don't necessarily test the airplanes reliability or endurance. Each flight test is a flight used to verify that the airplane performs as designed in various circumstances. It is unlikely that the airplane ever flew 8 short one hour hops in a day with 45 minute ground time like an airline actually flies the plane. With a derivative like the A320neo there is even less testing. Many of these various warning messages and alerts have specific circumstances that set them off. Many times the airplane interfaces are so complex that nuisance messages are not discovered until after the airplane enters into service. The A380 and 787 had tons of nuisance messages early on.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 18): Many times the airplane interfaces are so complex that nuisance messages are not discovered until after the airplane enters into service

That is pretty common.
However the situation is so bad that the engines that were to be installed had to go back for mechanical mods. It looks to be at least a couple of months before the reworked turbines will even be available.
Does not sound like a simple issue of software or fault codes.


It would be pretty counter productive to put the powerplants on when they need a shop return before they would be useable for passenger service without a full Mx crew at every outstation.


LH is taking the right step here forcing PW to get to the root of the problem.

Okie

Folks, 20% better efficiency doesn't mean squat if the airplane can't leave the gate. Is the PW engine also the source of delays for the C Series getting into service? If that's the case, now we have a pattern. Should Mitsubishi be concerned?

Having to keep mechanics at every station will quickly negate any improvement in operating costs. I hope they get the issues resolved soon.

Cheers, Ralph

Quoting kraz911 (Reply 10): Has this engine, or others for that matter, been tested to simulate airline ops prior to introduction to a customer? Or was it flown for several hours then shut down until the next/ several days test?

That's what Frequency and Reliability (F&R) testing is supposed to accomplish. It's part of the Cert process and is supposed to mimic airline operation.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 13): That is my fear as well. I've been skeptical of the geared fan since its inception. It's a fantastic development, but it needs many years of experience to perfect it. That is something the airlines ordering it don't have the patience for.

It's not the GTF part of it that is causing the problem.

Quoting mercure1 (Thread starter): In good news, CEO also said the model was meeting its 20% cost reduction compared to ceo models.

just on seat count alone that would mean only 12.9% trip fuel burn reduction based on LH old seating, not 15% as spec'd.

Quoting mercure1 (Thread starter): Bad news for Pratt and Airbus.

I am still waiting for the large series of GTF re-engined LH and SWISS 343s.    , rendering the 779,    , obsolete.

  

Best,
Ferroviarius

I make it 14.3%.

( 0.8*180 / 168 )

Quoting Okie (Reply 19): However the situation is so bad that the engines that were to be installed had to go back for mechanical mods. It looks to be at least a couple of months before the reworked turbines will even be available. Does not sound like a simple issue of software or fault codes. It would be pretty counter productive to put the powerplants on when they need a shop return before they would be useable for passenger service without a full Mx crew at every outstation. LH is taking the right step here forcing PW to get to the root of the problem.

I agree with you. Nuisance messages requiring mechanics to run tests to clear them is normal. What is going on with the engine uneven cooling is not normal. The slow production rate of engines is not normal. Nuisance messages that require excessive maintenance to address isn't the only problem here. With Qatar not accepting delivery I rolled my eyes a bit at first and didn't think too much of it since they have a history of doing that. With Lufthansa refusing delivery of new airplanes, that is an entirely different story.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 26): . What is going on with the engine uneven cooling is not normal.

It isn't, though the cooling issue was discovered last year, before LH accepted their first A320neo. The cooling issue and its temporary fix is well documented by now. It was also said the issue would be resolved by April this year. It's not April yet, so I wonder if LH halts their deliveries due to something else. Perhaps they are getting just to many error messages in the cockpit?

Quote: Software issues, where the engine sends erroneous messages to the cockpit, are also about 50 percent resolved, Spohr said.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 28): I wonder if LH halts their deliveries due to something else. Perhaps they are getting just to many error messages in the cockpit?

I believe that is plausible. Getting so many messages that they don't think that they can turn the airplane around at an outstation is a bit concerning. Nuisance messages are expected. So many nuisance messages that Lufthansa doesn't have enough faith in the airplane that their mechanics can turn it around outside of Germany is concerning. Software revisions normally take months to fix. The pressure of multiple airlines refusing delivery can speed the process up and remove road blocks, but it takes quite a bit of engineering work to discover all the root causes for erroneous messages. With only a couple planes in service, there isn't a huge amount of data for all the scenarios that could happen. I do wonder what will happen over the next year. What happens when an airline starts flying the plane on 5+ hour flights? What happens when the airplane flies in -15C weather? What happens when the airplane flies in +40C weather and gets sand blasted? The certification testing is done to ensure the airplane performs as designed and safely, but it doesn't ensure that there are no nuisance indications in the flight deck that take hours for mechanics to resolve.

I figure it is not an engine problem but more likely with new crappy seating arrangement, how do we deplane 800 people in leas than 2 hours?

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 14): Should have followed Easyjet into the CFM Leap engines. Took a ride on a U2 A320neo EDI-SXF with the Leap engines last week and I must say I was impressed. Look so much better, quick to start and very quiet. Sandyb123

Sure?

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 14): Should have followed Easyjet into the CFM Leap engines.

LH ordered both Pratts and CFM Leaps.

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 14): Took a ride on a U2 A320neo EDI-SXF with the Leap engines last week and I must say I was impressed. Look so much better, quick to start and very quiet.

You're sure it wasn't an A320 CEO, with CFM56 engines and sharklets? Hint, the CFM Leap doesn't have petal reversers like the CFM56.