For the aviation fans

[Long Wheel Base]

So when does the ex Air Maur. A350 arrive at SAA?

ZS-SDC arrives in Johannesburg 29/30 October 2019 (Hainan #1)

ZS-SDD arrives in Johannesburg 5 November 2019 (Hainan #2)

ZS-SDE arrives in Johannesburg 5/6/7 November 2019 (MK #1)

ZS-SDF arrives in Johannesburg last week of November 2019(MK #2)

 

This comes from a long email about the delay. Long story short, Licensing with SACAA and painting took longer than expected. They obviously could only paint them once all licenses and registration was finalised.

[Robbie Stewart]

ZS-SDC arrives in Johannesburg 29/30 October 2019 (Hainan #1)

ZS-SDD arrives in Johannesburg 5 November 2019 (Hainan #2)

ZS-SDE arrives in Johannesburg 5/6/7 November 2019 (MK #1)

ZS-SDF arrives in Johannesburg last week of November 2019(MK #2)

 

This comes from a long email about the delay. Long story short, Licensing with SACAA and painting took longer than expected. They obviously could only paint them once all licenses and registration was finalised.

 

So, what I am reading into this is that "blah blah blah we could not  get the planes until we guaranteed the guarantee that we would pay for the planes blah blah blah"....?

[Long Wheel Base]

So, what I am reading into this is that "blah blah blah we could not  get the planes until we guaranteed the guarantee that we would pay for the planes blah blah blah"....?

Yeah no comment. I honestly don't know how the contracts with Airbus work. But I do know, just like the public knows, that we don't/can't pay.

[Lotus]

Yeah no comment. I honestly don't know how the contracts with Airbus work. But I do know, just like the public knows, that we don't/can't pay.

I think Airbus knows the value of playing the long game, like China.

[Bateleur1]

Yeah no comment. I honestly don't know how the contracts with Airbus work. But I do know, just like the public knows, that we don't/can't pay.

 

Aren't SAA aircraft on lease?  Then I am sure they could organise things and as Lotus said, Airbus ain't stupid.  The fact is however for SAA to be more profitable they will need more fuel economical aircraft.  Those A340-600 served their purpose but they are compared to the latest aicraft heavy fuel burners.  They could rather use the last of those 340-600 on the short haul flights were they can be less loaded with fuel and normally you can charge a bit more per head.

[Lotus]

They could rather use the last of those 340-600 on the short haul flights were they can be less loaded with fuel and normally you can charge a bit more per head.

Interesting thought.

 

Aviation economics is part art/ part science. This guy on YouTube is quite interesting on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/user/Wendoverproductions

 

And if you want to understand how low cost airlines (Ryanair) really work, read this book on Michael O'Leary. :

https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asin=B002RI9PRC&preview=newtab&linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_r_kb_dp_stdPDb5C6426A

 

While it's O'Leary's biography (he's like LA - you're a fan or you hate him) it also explains how the Ryanair business model works. And it's not what you think.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Lotus

[Long Wheel Base]

Aren't SAA aircraft on lease?  Then I am sure they could organise things and as Lotus said, Airbus ain't stupid.  The fact is however for SAA to be more profitable they will need more fuel economical aircraft.  Those A340-600 served their purpose but they are compared to the latest aicraft heavy fuel burners.  They could rather use the last of those 340-600 on the short haul flights were they can be less loaded with fuel and normally you can charge a bit more per head.

Yes we lease them and apparently the way we lease them is we pay more the older they get so the 600s are literally costing us. Apparently(I will use this word a lot as I don't want to get nailed for mis-quoting) we are still meant to fly the 600s for a few more years but have asked to stop so Airbus have told us we can as long as we take these 4 "rejected" A350s.

[mazambaan]

Yes we lease them and apparently the way we lease them is we pay more the older they get so the 600s are literally costing us. Apparently(I will use this word a lot as I don't want to get nailed for mis-quoting) we are still meant to fly the 600s for a few more years but have asked to stop so Airbus have told us we can as long as we take these 4 "rejected" A350s.

 

Thanks LWB; ja I also understand they are on lease; maybe not with Airbus themselves and differing terms. Two from Air Maur. and two from Hainan China somewhere?

[Long Wheel Base]

Thanks LWB; ja I also understand they are on lease; maybe not with Airbus themselves and differing terms. Two from Air Maur. and two from Hainan China somewhere?

Yes Sir.

[eddy]

This is how you deal with corporate spin and fake news....

 

www.sullysullenberger.com/my-letter-to-the-editor-of-new-york-times-magazine/

 

 

Letter to the Editor
Capt. “Sully” Sullenberger
New York Times Magazine
Published in print on October 13, 2019

In “What Really Brought Down the Boeing 737 MAX?” William Langewiesche draws the conclusion that the pilots are primarily to blame for the fatal crashes of Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian 302. In resurrecting this age-old aviation canard, Langewiesche minimizes the fatal design flaws and certification failures that precipitated those tragedies, and still pose a threat to the flying public. I have long stated, as he does note, that pilots must be capable of absolute mastery of the aircraft and the situation at all times, a concept pilots call airmanship. Inadequate pilot training and insufficient pilot experience are problems worldwide, but they do not excuse the fatally flawed design of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) that was a death trap. As one of the few pilots who have lived to tell about being in the left seat of an airliner when things went horribly wrong, with seconds to react, I know a thing or two about overcoming an unimagined crisis. I am also one of the few who have flown a Boeing 737 MAX Level D full motion simulator, replicating both accident flights multiple times. I know firsthand the challenges the pilots on the doomed accident flights faced, and how wrong it is to blame them for not being able to compensate for such a pernicious and deadly design. These emergencies did not present as a classic runaway stabilizer problem, but initially as ambiguous unreliable airspeed and altitude situations, masking MCAS. The MCAS design should never have been approved, not by Boeing, and not by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The National Transportation Safety Board has found that Boeing made faulty assumptions both about the capability of the aircraft design to withstand damage or failure, and the level of human performance possible once the failures began to cascade. Where Boeing failed, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) should have stepped in to regulate but it failed to do so. Lessons from accidents are bought in blood and we must seek all the answers to prevent the next one. We need to fix all the flaws in the current system — corporate governance, regulatory oversight, aircraft maintenance, and yes, pilot training and experience. Only then can we ensure the safety of everyone who flies.

• Capt. “Sully” Sullenberger

 

Edited October 15, 2019 by eddy

[Bateleur1]

This is how you deal with corporate spin and fake news....

 

www.sullysullenberger.com/my-letter-to-the-editor-of-new-york-times-magazine/

 

 

They can put that in their pipe and smoke it.  Well said.

[Long Wheel Base]

 

This is how you deal with corporate spin and fake news....

 

www.sullysullenberger.com/my-letter-to-the-editor-of-new-york-times-magazine/

 

 

Letter to the Editor

Capt. “Sully” Sullenberger

New York Times Magazine

Published in print on October 13, 2019

In “What Really Brought Down the Boeing 737 MAX?” William Langewiesche draws the conclusion that the pilots are primarily to blame for the fatal crashes of Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian 302. In resurrecting this age-old aviation canard, Langewiesche minimizes the fatal design flaws and certification failures that precipitated those tragedies, and still pose a threat to the flying public. I have long stated, as he does note, that pilots must be capable of absolute mastery of the aircraft and the situation at all times, a concept pilots call airmanship. Inadequate pilot training and insufficient pilot experience are problems worldwide, but they do not excuse the fatally flawed design of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) that was a death trap. As one of the few pilots who have lived to tell about being in the left seat of an airliner when things went horribly wrong, with seconds to react, I know a thing or two about overcoming an unimagined crisis. I am also one of the few who have flown a Boeing 737 MAX Level D full motion simulator, replicating both accident flights multiple times. I know firsthand the challenges the pilots on the doomed accident flights faced, and how wrong it is to blame them for not being able to compensate for such a pernicious and deadly design. These emergencies did not present as a classic runaway stabilizer problem, but initially as ambiguous unreliable airspeed and altitude situations, masking MCAS. The MCAS design should never have been approved, not by Boeing, and not by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The National Transportation Safety Board has found that Boeing made faulty assumptions both about the capability of the aircraft design to withstand damage or failure, and the level of human performance possible once the failures began to cascade. Where Boeing failed, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) should have stepped in to regulate but it failed to do so. Lessons from accidents are bought in blood and we must seek all the answers to prevent the next one. We need to fix all the flaws in the current system — corporate governance, regulatory oversight, aircraft maintenance, and yes, pilot training and experience. Only then can we ensure the safety of everyone who flies.

• Capt. “Sully” Sullenberger

 

On a side note, I personally feel that FAA are pretty slack. Most of the time they don't even come audit us. They either look at the EASA audit results or just rely on previous audits. Guess they say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. At an EASA audit a few years back they were not happy with a few things in our workshops so they revoked their approval. Now this is really bad. As an AMO servicing aircraft that fly into European airspace, not having EASA approval is a nightmare. I can't express how important it is to have EASA approval for us. FAA read the reports and didn't even seem phased, we kept FAA approval.

I fill out a logbook for my SACAA and internal SAAT license. I have a form to fill out for EASA approval that has the same info as my SACAA logbook. FAA???? Nothing, they just make use of our SACAA info.  

[Bateleur1]

On a side note, I personally feel that FAA are pretty slack. Most of the time they don't even come audit us. They either look at the EASA audit results or just rely on previous audits. Guess they say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. At an EASA audit a few years back they were not happy with a few things in our workshops so they revoked their approval. Now this is really bad. As an AMO servicing aircraft that fly into European airspace, not having EASA approval is a nightmare. I can't express how important it is to have EASA approval for us. FAA read the reports and didn't even seem phased, we kept FAA approval.

I fill out a logbook for my SACAA and internal SAAT license. I have a form to fill out for EASA approval that has the same info as my SACAA logbook. FAA???? Nothing, they just make use of our SACAA info.  

 

Saw a documentry on German TV about inspectors at Frankfurt airport.  Seems they inspect all aircraft landing there.  If there are any issues the relevant airline needs to sort it out and may get fined for it.  Should the problem be big enough they aircraft may not takeoff before it is repaired.  If the airline is a repeat offender they might even be stopped from entering German airspace.

[Long Wheel Base]

Saw a documentry on German TV about inspectors at Frankfurt airport.  Seems they inspect all aircraft landing there.  If there are any issues the relevant airline needs to sort it out and may get fined for it.  Should the problem be big enough they aircraft may not takeoff before it is repaired.  If the airline is a repeat offender they might even be stopped from entering German airspace.

Yeah, EASA takes no nonsense. IMHO they the leaders in aviation safety. The EASA inspector that does our audits is this little guy called Freddie(Think hes from Malaysia or Singapore originally). You can't bulldust him, he knows his way around an AMO. THAT guy is good at his job.

[Bonus]

Yeah, EASA takes no nonsense. IMHO they the leaders in aviation safety. The EASA inspector that does our audits is this little guy called Freddie(Think hes from Malaysia or Singapore originally). You can't bulldust him, he knows his way around an AMO. THAT guy is good at his job.

 

Thank goodness someone is!

[SwissVan]

Its not only Boeing in the bad news dept... this was big news in Suisse the last few days

 

Swiss Air recently grounded its fleet of Airbus 220 aircraft (nee Bombardier CSeries) with the Pratt and Whitney Geared Turbofan PW15000G engines

 

Swiss is currently the world’s largest A220 operator, and has said the decision to ground the planes will put “substantial restrictions” on its flight operations.

In a statement to TPG, Swiss said it “takes these incidents very seriously” and is “in close dialogue with the relevant authorities, with Airbus Canada and with the engines’ manufacturer (Pratt & Whitney)”.

“The safety of our customers and our crews is our paramount priority”, the carrier added, referring to the A220 by its original name. “We will do everything we can to return the operation of our CSeries fleet to normal as soon as possible and continue to ensure safe flight operations”.

In a later statement, the airline said some of the aircraft have already returned to service and it expects operations to be mostly back to normal on Thursday.

Customers whose flights were affected will be rebooked by Swiss at the airline’s expense.

The A220 uses a new kind of geared turbofan engine from Pratt & Whitney. The turbine has had some growing pains as the global A220 fleet expands, including one engine that caught fire during a test flight.

https://thepointsguy.co.uk/news/swiss-grounds-airbus-a220-fleet-cancels-numerous-flights/