Friday May 25, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Skymark orders two more A380s

Business Jun. 24, 2011 - 05:50AM JST ( 26 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

26 Comments

-3

NetNinjaJun. 24, 2011 - 09:37AM JST

A380s. Lots of accidents lately. On the ground and in the air. It's a monster size plane, no question about that. Don't think it's a good move considering recent events.

The 787 Dreamliners from Boeing would have been a better choice IMO.
0

hoserfellaJun. 24, 2011 - 12:14PM JST

NetNinja - wrong on both counts. To date, the A380 has only been involvolved in one (1) incident which has since been discovered to be a design flaw with the Rolls Royce engines. Nothing to do with the aircraft itself. The 787 Dreamliner is a much smaller aircraft designed to fly to cities outside of just the main hubs like the superjumbo-class A380 or 747s. Your "recommendation" for Skymark to choose the 787 is like asking a family of 7 to buy a prius instead of a van.
0

USNinJapan2Jun. 24, 2011 - 07:16PM JST

hoserfella

Not sure what your definition is of "incident" but Airbus crunched its own A380 at the Paris Air Show just this past week. They hit a building with the damn thing while taxiing to take off for a flight demo and sheared off the wing tip and had to cancel any flight demos they had scheduled for the A380. They also had to cancel all flight demos at the Paris Air Show of their A400M military transport due to 'engine problems'. Not a good week for Airbus, especially at one of the premier air shows in the world.
1

Spidapig24Jun. 24, 2011 - 07:27PM JST

Hoserfella,

I would love to know your definition of an incident but there have been several. The one you mentioned which was a Qantas flight and it actually happened twice (the second not as bad as the initial incident). A Thai airways jet in Bangkok hit a building, another rolled off a runway at Singapore airport, another Qantas planes nose gear jammed, an Air France planes auto pilot failed in flight.

So l would actually agree with NetNinja on this that the aircraft has some issues.
0

hoserfellaJun. 24, 2011 - 08:29PM JST

Cant blame Airbus if a pilot cant learn to taxi without hitting a building. As I mentioned before, the engine problem was the fault of Rolls-Royce, whom Airbus succesfully settled out of court with this past week. Spidapig, the crash you are referring to is the A330, not the A380
0

Spidapig24Jun. 24, 2011 - 08:32PM JST

hoserfella,

And what crash am l refering too?
-1

hoserfellaJun. 24, 2011 - 08:37PM JST

Spidapig - you are referring to the crash off the coast of Brazil 2 years ago, no?
0

Spidapig24Jun. 24, 2011 - 08:45PM JST

hoserfella,

No l wasnt actually, the incident l mentioned didnt lead to a crash.
-1

hoserfellaJun. 24, 2011 - 08:47PM JST

Spidapig- well what "incident" are you referring to?
0

SerranoJun. 24, 2011 - 08:52PM JST

"A-380"

Is that the aircraft that, if the flight is full or nearly full, and you're near the back, it'll take forever to get off?
0

USNinJapan2Jun. 24, 2011 - 10:07PM JST

hoserfella

Cant blame Airbus if a pilot cant learn to taxi without hitting a building.

You've got to try pretty hard to find a modern airport that has structures built along a taxiway close enough for standard aircraft to clip with its wing. Seeing as it wasn't an A380 belonging to any airline but Airbus' own showroom aircraft and assuming Airbus uses its best pilots to showcase their planes at an air show as important as Paris' it really doesn't help their image if you're going to chalk it up to pilot error. And then of course the plane may just be too damn big/wide for its own good as many believe. Either way, it certainly does qualify as an incident involving the A380 and one that underscored the likely problems airlines and airports may have in accommodating this behemoth, right smack in the middle of a major air show to boot.
0

USNinJapan2Jun. 24, 2011 - 10:47PM JST

hoserfella

Here's another incident. An Air France A380 also clipped a smaller regional jet at JFK airport a couple of months ago while taxiing.
< http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2011/04/air-france-a380-spins-delta-regional-jet-in-jfk-collision/155560/1>
0

hoserfellaJun. 24, 2011 - 10:54PM JST

USNinJapan2 - again, if pilots at their air show cant taxi, thats human error, but for the life of me I cant see how this falls under the banner of "incidents" as if its an inherently dangerous aircraft. I get the feeling you want to turn this into a Boeing vs. Airbus debate which I could give a rat's a** about. As long as it gets me from point A to point B with no death involved, I'm good. The fact is it's a perfectly safe aircraft It's all a big cattle call in any airliner these days, so who cares what co. makes it, eh?
-2

NetSamuraiJun. 27, 2011 - 03:30PM JST

Looks like this plane is another Spruce Goose. If this plane has another accident or incident the FAA may ground the whole fleet.
-1

Spidapig24Jun. 27, 2011 - 10:23PM JST

hoserfella,

You keep saying you dont care about pilot error. Wow if they cant even taxi the thing how scary, you want them to fly it if they cant control it on the ground.

As l said the other day there have been quite a few incidents involving this aircraft.
-2

hoserfellaJun. 27, 2011 - 10:49PM JST

Spidapig - Wrong. Didnt say that at all. I simply said the aircraft hasnt been at fault once for any incident. Pilot error is pilot error.
0

Spidapig24Jun. 27, 2011 - 10:51PM JST

hoserfella,

Totally wrong, as l explained in my posts on the 24th there have been several incidents with the plane themselves not caused by pilot error....
-1

hoserfellaJun. 27, 2011 - 10:51PM JST

By the way. Spidapig. Still waiting for that definitive incident report. Can I assume it's not forthcoming?
-2

NetNinjaJun. 28, 2011 - 09:39AM JST

Spidapig is correct and I'm sorry to say this Hoserfella but your wrong. I don't think Spidapig24 needs to provide you with a report when other people concur with what he's saying.

He's already proven his point. You haven't done your homework at all. Here you go: "F"

I think it's up to you to show US that your argument has any weight. I sincerely doubt you can make your case. that would be difficult considering the history of the A380 and most of their fleet.

Engine failure is NOT pilot airport. Design flaws are NOT pilot errors. But if you really feel their safe, (actually you don't give a what was that) we can get you a ticket for one on Air China.

Airbus has had more incidents than you can imagine.
It's isn't hard to define incident versus accident. Accident is easy, just look at you.
-1

hoserfellaJun. 28, 2011 - 10:05AM JST

NetNinja- more of the same, tired arguments. I've already explained the difference and history of the RR engines and the A380. Not a single incident has been reported which would be the fault of the Airbus 380.
0

Spidapig24Jun. 28, 2011 - 10:15AM JST

hoserfella,

Let me get this right, you are saying that the engines that are only used on the A380 are not part of the plane when it comes to incidents. Working on your theory nothing that goes wrong on the plane is the fault of the A380 as most parts are made by external suppliers... What a loony way of thinking. The plane is a whole and a fault is a fault, ultimately the parts manifacturer will take responsability however it is still an incident involving the aircraft type.

Working on your theory the auto pilot fault wasnt a fault with the A380 as it was made by an external company true???
-1

hoserfellaJun. 28, 2011 - 10:21AM JST

Not loony at all, Spida. Just common sense. And a 4.5 hour delay does not constitute an incident. Perfectly safe aircraft, and I'm sure when the time comes for you to fly off someday and see the A380 parked at your gate, you won't put your money where your mouth is.
0
Spidapig24Jun. 28, 2011 - 10:26AM JST

hoserfella,

A few facts you seem to have trouble grasping. It wasnt a 4.5 hour delay the plane took off and was forced to land again, and was delay 6.5 hours.

And yes your theory is loony based on your theory nothing is ever the fault of the aircraft as most parts are made by external companies and will therefore not be the fault of the aircraft.... Thats a flawed theory.

End of story
- ModeratorJun. 28, 2011 - 10:30AM JST
  
  Moderator: Readers, please stop sniping at each other.
-1

hoserfellaJun. 28, 2011 - 10:29AM JST

Oh! 6.5 hours! not 4.5! Well that changes everything.............Still waiting for that long list of incidents, Spida.....
-1

hoserfellaJun. 28, 2011 - 10:29AM JST

end of story