Airbus cancels $6bn contract with Qatar Airways after paint fight

UncleDave said:
Showing up at the customs counter and baggage area with 500 other people is absolutely the pits.

The 747 was bad enough in this regard, the 380 was ridiculous.

Did it once to see what it was like - no thanks- I'd rather fly direct to my destination on a smaller plane that a 2 hop 380 deal.

Astro is right on the money this thing was a loser, wrong plane at the wrong time.
Click to expand...


This is spot on. Many times it’s not just one heavy bird that is disembarking passengers so if you have two, three or more of these at one time things get crazy.

LAX, 2.5 hours just to get through immigration. Then there was customs. I had a four hour layover and got to my connecting gate just as they started to board.

It is a pain.
 
PimTac said:
This is spot on. Many times it’s not just one heavy bird that is disembarking passengers so if you have two, three or more of these at one time things get crazy.

LAX, 2.5 hours just to get through immigration. Then there was customs. I had a four hour layover and got to my connecting gate just as they started to board.

It is a pain.
Click to expand...
Funny you can get across the southern border quicker than throug immigration in LAX.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: GON
I flew from Tokyo from to Nagasaki, about a two hour flight on a 747. I was very aware that we were like cattle, entering at the front and the rear of the plane and a little while later we were mooing our way out of there. The plane was absolutely full.
 
Snagglefoot said:
I flew from Tokyo from to Nagasaki, about a two hour flight on a 747. I was very aware that we were like cattle, entering at the front and the rear of the plane and a little while later we were mooing our way out of there. The plane was absolutely full.
Click to expand...


After many trips to Japan loading a big plane anywhere in the US is always slower and less efficient than in Japan- they listen and act like they care and get about their business with no fuss and superb manners.
 
IndyFan said:
They are having all kinds of trouble getting the production line back up to speed. I don't think they could fill the orders Qatar would need quickly enough. And I've read that they are still having other problems, too. Either way, their production rate is just too slow to take advantage. The 777X is behind schedule, too. So Boeing just isn't positioned well unless Qatar orders a bunch of 737 Max jets.
Click to expand...
All those resources wasted on developing a mid size - when if boeing produced a carbon fiber + PurePower single aisle they’d be mopping up on sales … Time to move on past the 737
 
Having worked on everything from the old B707/DC8 up to the modern A350 and B787, I simply don't trust a carbon fiber fuselage. With metal you can monitor fatigue and easily test for degradation. Composites fail when they're ready to fail. They don't give warnings, they don't give signs... they just let go. With fillet panels and flight controls and gear door closures it's not that serious because those items are never under pressurization.

One of the worst accidents we've ever had in aviation was when an American Airlines jet left New York (flight 587 in November of 2001). The jet was an Airbus A300 with 260 people onboard. The rudder was made of carbon fiber and even the attachment lugs were carbon fiber bonded to the rudder spar. It was reported that common wake turbulence led to the rudder lugs being ripped apart. The rudder (vertical stabilizer) completely departed the airframe and fell into the ocean and the plane crashed. The flat spin was so violent that it ripped both engines off of the wings and the crash resulted in the death of everybody on board.

Why make mount lugs out of unidirectional carbon fiber tape? Why? Boeing uses carbon skin and nomex core mechanically fastened to alulminum and titanium structures. It works and it's reliably inspectable. I simply don't think it's a good idea to make a fuselage out of the same material. It's very strong but very fragile. It fails. We've seen a few planes peel their skin back when the aluminum monocoque structure corrodes but these have all resulted in NDT inspection techniques to detect this condition. How many flight 587's will there be in the future all in the name of fuel savings?
 
FowVay said:
Having worked on everything from the old B707/DC8 up to the modern A350 and B787, I simply don't trust a carbon fiber fuselage. With metal you can monitor fatigue and easily test for degradation. Composites fail when they're ready to fail. They don't give warnings, they don't give signs... they just let go. With fillet panels and flight controls and gear door closures it's not that serious because those items are never under pressurization.

One of the worst accidents we've ever had in aviation was when an American Airlines jet left New York (flight 587 in November of 2001). The jet was an Airbus A300 with 260 people onboard. The rudder was made of carbon fiber and even the attachment lugs were carbon fiber bonded to the rudder spar. It was reported that common wake turbulence led to the rudder lugs being ripped apart. The rudder (vertical stabilizer) completely departed the airframe and fell into the ocean and the plane crashed. The flat spin was so violent that it ripped both engines off of the wings and the crash resulted in the death of everybody on board.

Why make mount lugs out of unidirectional carbon fiber tape? Why? Boeing uses carbon skin and nomex core mechanically fastened to alulminum and titanium structures. It works and it's reliably inspectable. I simply don't think it's a good idea to make a fuselage out of the same material. It's very strong but very fragile. It fails. We've seen a few planes peel their skin back when the aluminum monocoque structure corrodes but these have all resulted in NDT inspection techniques to detect this condition. How many flight 587's will there be in the future all in the name of fuel savings?
Click to expand...
monkey piloting resulted in crash
 
PimTac said:
They do have that new Bradley International Terminal now.
Click to expand...

Finally, our prior international experience was below 3rd world country level.

People would come to LA from all over the world and the first experience out of the gate was that it was a craphole, and they were right.

I always had to apologize for our infrastructure before Bradley terminal .
(who Ive still got a beef with since the riots of 92 wrong "LA" hero to name it after)
 
billt460 said:
It seems many of these oil rich, cash soaked, Middle East nations do seem to have a knack for wasting billions of dollars. And it's not just Qatar. Look at Dubai. First there was the Palm Islands. Hundreds of high end homes all crammed next to each other.... Which are now sinking. Then came the, "World Group" of 300 man made islands that have been an ongoing project for the last 17 years, and have yet to be completed.

Not to mention that have caused an all but ecological disaster. Between all of this, along with their gold bar vending machines in hotels, Lamborghini cop cars, and sprinkling gold dust on top of Cappuccino for $300.00 @ cup. They even have California beat when it comes to making money disappear into thin air.

They waste enough money to make Zsa Zsa Gabor blush from embarrassment.
Click to expand...
Don't like unlimited refills eh?
 
FowVay said:
Having worked on everything from the old B707/DC8 up to the modern A350 and B787, I simply don't trust a carbon fiber fuselage. With metal you can monitor fatigue and easily test for degradation. Composites fail when they're ready to fail. They don't give warnings, they don't give signs... they just let go. With fillet panels and flight controls and gear door closures it's not that serious because those items are never under pressurization.

One of the worst accidents we've ever had in aviation was when an American Airlines jet left New York (flight 587 in November of 2001). The jet was an Airbus A300 with 260 people onboard. The rudder was made of carbon fiber and even the attachment lugs were carbon fiber bonded to the rudder spar. It was reported that common wake turbulence led to the rudder lugs being ripped apart. The rudder (vertical stabilizer) completely departed the airframe and fell into the ocean and the plane crashed. The flat spin was so violent that it ripped both engines off of the wings and the crash resulted in the death of everybody on board.

Why make mount lugs out of unidirectional carbon fiber tape? Why? Boeing uses carbon skin and nomex core mechanically fastened to alulminum and titanium structures. It works and it's reliably inspectable. I simply don't think it's a good idea to make a fuselage out of the same material. It's very strong but very fragile. It fails. We've seen a few planes peel their skin back when the aluminum monocoque structure corrodes but these have all resulted in NDT inspection techniques to detect this condition. How many flight 587's will there be in the future all in the name of fuel savings?
Click to expand...
You're drawing the wrong conclusion from AA 587.

AA 587 crashed because the pilot flying (The first officer) over-stressed the tail.

If it had been aluminum, it would have snapped off just the same, from the structure being overloaded.

That was a failure in piloting, not engineering, and not materials.
 
You folks can mark my words on this. Those carbon fuselage aircraft are going to be problematic down the road.

Hard landings and overspeeds caused by pilot input are understandable. When a pilot's input causes the entire vertical stabilizer to break off then there is something seriously wrong with either the materials or the design. That's all I'm saying.
 
Last edited:
UncleDave said:
After many trips to Japan loading a big plane anywhere in the US is always slower and less efficient than in Japan- they listen and act like they care and get about their business with no fuss and superb manners.
Click to expand...
I never been - but their stories of efficiency rival German punctuality.
 
UncleDave said:
I always had to apologize for our infrastructure before Bradley terminal .
(who Ive still got a beef with since the riots of 92 wrong "LA" hero to name it after)
Click to expand...
my most recent visit to LA makes the Bay Area look like amateurs but there’s change in the wind. I remember going through T1 at LAX, the main Southwest terminal almost 20 years ago. It was dingy and showing it’s age - it made SFO’s Terminal 2(before the International terminal/BART station opened up) look modern.

There’s been quite a bit of work done at LAX, of course it’s also the busiest international port of transit besides SFO and SEA(not counting YVR) on the West Coast. T1 at LAX wasn’t how I remembered it.

There’s some semblance of public transit(and Toyota moving to Texas probably helped the LACMTA and LADOT make some progress) but it’s still a hot mess getting around, even with a car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GON
Qatar Airways orders 160 wide body Boeing jets with GE engines
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
2K
y_p_w
S
  • Locked
World's largest airshow
Replies
0
Views
727
sprintman
Back
Top Bottom