screech Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 Turns out this isnt the first time the Boeing 777 has had engine failures in this class of plane, SIX previous incidents of engine failure have been recorded before this one.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7206596.stmSo, the question is, why don't they ground the fleet of aircraft and find the fault, like they did with the worlds finest aeroplane, Concorde, when it had just ONE accident. They would recall cars if they found a major fault in them, I know finacially it would really hurt the airliners, but what price do you put on peoples lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyderman Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Because after 9/11 Concorde was no longer commercially viable, whereas a 777 is (as well as having one of the best safety records going). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 There are over 1,000 777s around the world and most planes are in service nearly all the time - over 13 years that is a superb safety record. A car with a similar record would be hailed as a miracle.Concorde was taken out of service 3 years after the accident because not enough people were using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchred Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 There are over 1,000 777s around the world and most planes are in service nearly all the time - over 13 years that is a superb safety record. A car with a similar record would be hailed as a miracle.Concorde was taken out of service 3 years after the accident because not enough people were using it.Absolute Rubbish! It accounted for over 20% of ALL BA's profits! The yanks were getting twitchy about it again, as they did when it first arrived on the scene and they didn't have one. They were about to make it very very difficult for the aircraft to operate in and out of USA.Passenger numbers were never a problem at the time, and they wouldn't have been in the future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Concorde was taken out of service 3 years after the accident because not enough people were using it.Top businessmen and celebrities were willing to pay £1,000's for a trip from London to New York and back. The Concorde was always packed on that trans Atlantic route to my knowledge. What's more the Concorde was starting to make a profit the last I heard. The Concorde was a true marvel of modern engineering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Absolute Rubbish! It accounted for over 20% of ALL BA's profits! The yanks were getting twitchy about it again, as they did when it first arrived on the scene and they didn't have one. They were about to make it very very difficult for the aircraft to operate in and out of USA.Passenger numbers were never a problem at the time, and they wouldn't have been in the futureTop businessmen and celebrities were willing to pay £1,000's for a trip from London to New York and back. The Concorde was always packed on that trans Atlantic route to my knowledge. What's more the Concorde was starting to make a profit the last I heard. The Concorde was a true marvel of modern engineering.Ah right, yes, BA and Air France suddenly dropped an aircraft that was making them a profit just because the yanks were a bit twitchy, despite having ignored them for 30 years previously.I think I'll believe the slightly more logical reason that both companies gave myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchred Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Ah right, yes, BA and Air France suddenly dropped an aircraft that was making them a profit just because the yanks were a bit twitchy, despite having ignored them for 30 years previously.I think I'll believe the slightly more logical reason that both companies gave myself.BA got twitchy no doubt about it. Once they pulled theirs Air France could not continue alone. The high cost of Spares, specialised labour and raw materials used on the aircraft was getter harder to obtain. In the past the companies had shared the risk once one pulled out the other had no choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 BA got twitchy no doubt about it. Once they pulled theirs Air France could not continue alone. The high cost of Spares, specialised labour and raw materials used on the aircraft was getter harder to obtain. In the past the companies had shared the risk once one pulled out the other had no choice.BA got twitchy about losing money, sod all to do with safety or whinging yanks.In a statement, BA said Concorde would cease flying in the autumn because of "commercial reasons, with passenger revenue falling steadily against a backdrop of rising maintenance costs for the aircraft".Perfectly normal commercial decision, no conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchred Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 BA got twitchy about losing money, sod all to do with safety or whinging yanks.In a statement, BA said Concorde would cease flying in the autumn because of "commercial reasons, with passenger revenue falling steadily against a backdrop of rising maintenance costs for the aircraft".Perfectly normal commercial decision, no conspiracy.Yep perfectly normal response for a company taking an unpopular decision, only if you studied the passenger figures in detail they WERE NOT going down. Concorde never left Heathrow on a commercial flight with passenger figures below 85%. If they had that on all their other flights they would be in dreamland!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Yep perfectly normal response for a company taking an unpopular decision, only if you studied the passenger figures in detail they WERE NOT going down.I'm unaware of how someone who doesn't work for BA can study the passenger numbers but I'm interested if you can show them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zookeeper Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Yep perfectly normal response for a company taking an unpopular decision, only if you studied the passenger figures in detail they WERE NOT going down. Concorde never left Heathrow on a commercial flight with passenger figures below 85%. If they had that on all their other flights they would be in dreamland!!Even with a steady occupancy revenue can drop. Discount the produce and people will do it but that doesn't make it profitable. Also once it was announced I'd imagine that the figures probably increased as every wanted to experience it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucksred Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Yep perfectly normal response for a company taking an unpopular decision, only if you studied the passenger figures in detail they WERE NOT going down. Concorde never left Heathrow on a commercial flight with passenger figures below 85%. If they had that on all their other flights they would be in dreamland!!Actually you may be wrong there. Among other things Concorde's passenger seats were designed for 9g impact absorbtion. Boeing 747's were designed for 12g.The latest generation of seats, as fitted to 777's A320, & 340, are per specs laid down by CAA, our CAA and EASA, 16g.They therefore may have been illegal to operate in said valuable Transatlantic market, where all airlines have to operate their fleets, to said specs. The US insists on the latest specs being adhered to. any airline which does not, is denied access to their airspaceAlso the airframes, being routinely subject to much higher stresses, and being manufactured from much older materials, would be at civil aircraft standard fatigue limits. Remember the Vulcan bombers left service long before the Victors, which entered service before them. the delta configuration although very inherently strong, wears out very quickly in comparison, due to the higher strains it allows the aircraft to take.Finally everything about Concorde was unique, including numbers in service. Its systems would now be two generations behind the latest Boeings and Airbus's. Their technology would be the same as Boeing 707, McDonnell Douglas DC 10's and Lockheed Tristars, (and the various Tupolevs)few if any are still flying in the major airline fleetsModern passenger jets share considerable commonality, specially if they are operated by the same airline.Grounding all 777's as a result would cause absolute havoc in the industry and not a few Air forces. the engines are also very widely used. until the interim report comes out specifying the fault, no planes will be grounded. all will have had checks carried out at the first convenient time- IE their home logistics base, particularly when landing fees are so high.So, no conspiricy there. my company couldn't even repair the IFE on board as 90% of the service parts used are no longer manufactured and the open market no longer supplies it either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.