America sabotages A320neo with faulty engines

[Armand2REP]

By
Anurag Kotoky
February 10, 2018, 9:31 AM EST

• IndiGo says it has withdrawn three planes from service
• Latest of several issues for Pratt & Whitney powered aircraft

Airbus SE has halted all deliveries of its Pratt & Whitney-powered A320neo after the latest disclosure in a series of flaws with the next-generation engine, according to the company’s biggest customer for the aircraft.

IndiGo, India’s biggest carrier, said on Saturday that it had withdrawn three affected planes from service and canceled some flights after the European Aviation Safety Agency warned of a new issue on the troubled engine program that may be connected to several in-flight shut downs. The investigation to determine the root cause continues, the agency said.

The Product Safety Boards of Pratt & Whitney and Airbus have decided that “all neo deliveries are postponed till further notice,” IndiGo spokesman Ajay Jasra told Bloomberg. “Airbus and Pratt are working in close cooperation and will be swiftly communicating on the way forward to regain normal operations and resume aircraft deliveries.”

The disclosure marks a blow to efforts by Pratt, a unit of United Technologies Corp., to restore confidence in its most important product following a series of glitches on the engine. It comes after Airbus Chief Executive Officer Tom Enders had started to signal his confidence that the turbine’s troubles had been coming to a close.

The European regulator said operators with planes using two affected engines must stop flying them within three flight cycles. Aircraft with one affected engine are restricted from certain extended-range flights.

As many as 11 of the 113 delivered Pratt-powered jets have been grounded, according to people familiar with the matter, with 43 in-service engines affected in total, all from the most recent batches to come off the engine-maker’s production line. Further turbines at both Airbus and Pratt facilities are affected, they said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...a320neo-shipments-as-new-engine-issues-emerge

 

[Wisemarko]

By
Anurag Kotoky
February 10, 2018, 9:31 AM EST

• 
  
  
  • IndiGo says it has withdrawn three planes from service
  • Latest of several issues for Pratt & Whitney powered aircraft

Airbus SE has halted all deliveries of its Pratt & Whitney-powered A320neo after the latest disclosure in a series of flaws with the next-generation engine, according to the company’s biggest customer for the aircraft.

IndiGo, India’s biggest carrier, said on Saturday that it had withdrawn three affected planes from service and canceled some flights after the European Aviation Safety Agency warned of a new issue on the troubled engine program that may be connected to several in-flight shut downs. The investigation to determine the root cause continues, the agency said.

The Product Safety Boards of Pratt & Whitney and Airbus have decided that “all neo deliveries are postponed till further notice,” IndiGo spokesman Ajay Jasra told Bloomberg. “Airbus and Pratt are working in close cooperation and will be swiftly communicating on the way forward to regain normal operations and resume aircraft deliveries.”

The disclosure marks a blow to efforts by Pratt, a unit of United Technologies Corp., to restore confidence in its most important product following a series of glitches on the engine. It comes after Airbus Chief Executive Officer Tom Enders had started to signal his confidence that the turbine’s troubles had been coming to a close.

The European regulator said operators with planes using two affected engines must stop flying them within three flight cycles. Aircraft with one affected engine are restricted from certain extended-range flights.

As many as 11 of the 113 delivered Pratt-powered jets have been grounded, according to people familiar with the matter, with 43 in-service engines affected in total, all from the most recent batches to come off the engine-maker’s production line. Further turbines at both Airbus and Pratt facilities are affected, they said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...a320neo-shipments-as-new-engine-issues-emerge

Sabotage?!! OMG you are clueless about P&W, Airbus and civil aviation in general if you really meant what you typed. Airbus has 45-50% of A320 content made in US and Boeing 737 use 50-55% its content made in Europe/Japan. There’s nothing “American” or “European” about these planes. It’s all corporate.

 

[IBRIS]

Airbus uses American engines. Hang those who were middle men for this deal.

 

[nimo_cn]

Sabotage?!! OMG you are clueless about P&W, Airbus and civil aviation in general if you really meant what you typed. Airbus has 45-50% content made in US and Boeing use 50-55% content made in Europe and Japan. There’s nothing “American” or “European” about these planes. It’s all corporate.

this Frenchman always fabricates title that can not reflect the facts.

 

[Armand2REP]

Sabotage?!! OMG you are clueless about P&W, Airbus and civil aviation in general if you really meant what you typed. Airbus has 45-50% of A320 content made in US and Boeing 737 use 50-55% its content made in Europe/Japan. There’s nothing “American” or “European” about these planes. It’s all corporate.

Airbus plant in Mobile AL is 45% American content to meet domestic work-share to avoid Boeing protectionist lawsuits like they filed against Bombardier. All the rest is mostly French content. These faulty engines were not for the US market but India and others. Boeing lobby will do anything to interfere in Airbus operations just as they interfered in UTC-Rockwell Collins merger. It is concession of the merger to sell P&W crap engines to sabotage Airbus sales.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-...oeing-s-charge-bombardier-dumping-doesn-t-add
http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/utc-rockwell-deal-could-hinge-concessions-boeing

 

[asianobserve]

P&W is a private company and beholden to shareholders. What will shareholders get from the company's name being tarnished by faulty engines? In the very competitive industry of commercial aviation reputation is everything. Especially in the aviation engine industry where 3 major manufacturers (RR, GE & R&W) are competing to supply only 2 major airplane manufacturers (Boeing & Airbus).

P&W will not risk the future of its company by doing a childish dirty work for Boeing, which in the first place is closer to GE than P&W.

What happened here is a major bungle for P&W engineers and quality control teams. They have to redress this issue fast or else they'll lose a highly successful airplane line (A320 Neo) to CFM (GE & Safran partnership).

 

[Armand2REP]

P&W is a private company and beholden to shareholders. What will shareholders get from the company's name being tarnished by faulty engines? In the very competitive industry of aviation reputation is everything. Especially in the aviation engine industry where 3 major manufacturers (RR, GE & R&W) are competing to supply only 2 major airplane manufacturers (Boeing & Airbus).

The parent company is United Technologies that gets much of its work from Boeing. Since 2015 P&W has been its worst performing unit. With the Rockwell Collins merger UTC cannot survive without Boeing who has all the leverage. The three major engine manufacturers are CFM, RR and P&W. UTC is letting P&W fail and it appears at the behest of Boeing to hurt Airbus in India who has hundreds of Pratt 320neos on order.

 

[asianobserve]

The parent company is United Technologies that gets much of its work from Boeing. Since 2015 P&W has been its worst performing unit. With the Rockwell Collins merger UTC cannot survive without Boeing who has all the leverage. The three major engine manufacturers are CFM, RR and P&W. UTC is letting P&W fail and it appears at the behest of Boeing to hurt Airbus in India who has hundreds of Pratt 320neos on order.

You're theory is laughable. Frankly you have gone to the cuckoo side this time. All these companies are equally exposed to Boeing and Airbus. In fact, if Airbus contracts dries up for UTM and P&W then it's safe to assume that UTC and P&W will probably collapse.

You're even crazier to think that UTC will let it's most important subsidiary P&W collapse. as I said if P&W collapses it will bring down with it UTC. Besides, the last thing that UTC now wants is a question on its financial health as it will directly impact on the offer price of Rockwell Collins for its merger bid.

Airbus is a very big client for P&W especially the A320 Neo which has a far bigger order tally than the competing Boeing 737 Max.

 

[Armand2REP]

You're theory is laughable. Frankly you have gone to the cuckoo side this time. All these companies are equally exposed to Boeing and Airbus. In fact, if Airbus contracts dries up for UTM and P&W then it's safe to assume that UTC and P&W will probably collapse.

You're even crazier to think that UTC will let it's most important subsidiary P&W collapse. as I said if P&W collapses it will bring down with it UTC. Besides, the last thing that UTC now wants is a question on its financial health as it will directly impact on the offer price of Rockwell Collins for its merger bid.

UTC is dominated by its non-aviation sector until the merger with Rockwell Collins is completed. It can survive a P&W collapse when it is the worst performing unit and is about to cost them billions in penalties and redesign work to fix their garbage GTF engine. It is a better move to the shareholders to write them off now. Otis Elevator and Climate Controls are actually very profitable units. To get rid of P&W will help the merger as it is getting rid of liability that is factored into the stock price.

Airbus is a very big client for P&W especially the A320 Neo which has a far bigger order tally than the competing Boeing 737 Max.

It is not the job of Airbus to prop up a failing engine maker, especially when Safran/GE make a better engine.

 

[Wisemarko]

Airbus plant in Mobile AL is 45% American content to meet domestic work-share to avoid Boeing protectionist lawsuits like they filed against Bombardier. All the rest is mostly French content. These faulty engines were not for the US market but India and others. Boeing lobby will do anything to interfere in Airbus operations just as they interfered in UTC-Rockwell Collins merger. It is concession of the merger to sell P&W crap engines to sabotage Airbus sales.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-...oeing-s-charge-bombardier-dumping-doesn-t-add
http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/utc-rockwell-deal-could-hinge-concessions-boeing

Another idiotic post. Airbus plant in Alabama was originally to produce A330 MRTT if Airbus won the deal.
Link: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...d-shift-a330-freighter-assembly-to-us-220816/

They didn’t win the deal but decided to continue footprint in the US by assembling a320. Bombardier entry is much later issue.

Read first before giving us headache.

 

[Armand2REP]

Another idiotic post. Airbus plant in Alabama was originally to produce A330 MRTT if Airbus won the deal.
Link: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...d-shift-a330-freighter-assembly-to-us-220816/

They didn’t win the deal but decided to continue footprint in the US by assembling a320. Bombardier entry is much later issue.

Read first before giving us headache.

What does MRTT have to do with it? It makes no sense to produce sections in Europe and ship them to the US for assembly. We do it because if we didn't we would suffer up to 300% tariffs as the WTO ruling backs up Boeing.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-of...16/september/united-states-prevails-wto-panel

and recently ruled against Bombardier...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-airbus-bombardier-deal-20171017-story.html

To avoid being an export we let them assemble it to avoid tariffs. Otherwise it would not make any sense to send a French section, a German section, an Italian section ect.

It is the same reason we moved assembly to China, to avoid tariffs.

 

[Wisemarko]

What does MRTT have to do with it? It makes no sense to produce sections in Europe and ship them to the US for assembly. We do it because if we didn't we would suffer up to 300% tariffs as the WTO ruling backs up Boeing.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-of...16/september/united-states-prevails-wto-panel

and recently ruled against Bombardier...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-airbus-bombardier-deal-20171017-story.html

To avoid being an export we let them assemble it to avoid tariffs. Otherwise it would not make any sense to send a French section, a German section, an Italian section ect.

It is the same reason we moved assembly to China, to avoid tariffs.

Yawn ... if you don’t know things go and learn. MRTT was the reason to start Alabama project. At least read the link!
There are no tariffs on airbus in USA. WTO ruling was in 2016 for fine only. Alabama factory started in 2012. I am done arguing silly things you are posting

 

[Armand2REP]

Yawn ... if you don’t know things go and learn. MRTT was the reason to start Alabama project. At least read the link!
There are no tariffs on airbus in USA. WTO ruling was in 2016 for fine only. Alabama factory started in 2012. I am done arguing silly things you are posting

I guess you didn't read the WTO ruling I posted...

In June 2011, the WTO found that the EU and four of its member States (Germany, France, the UK, and Spain) conferred more than $18 billion in subsidized financing to Airbus and had caused Boeing to lose sales of more than 300 aircraft and to lose market share throughout the world. In fact, in looking at the effect of the EU subsidies, the Appellate Body agreed with the Panel that “[w]ithout the subsidies, Airbus would not have existed… and there would be no Airbus aircraft on the market. None of the sales that the subsidized Airbus made would have occurred.” In contrast, the WTO rejected the EU assertion in the EU’s counter-complaint that U.S. subsidies were responsible for the viability of Boeing’s large civil aircraft production.

2011 predates the tanker competition and a factory for a non-existent tanker order. Moving A320 assembly was the only way to stay competitive to US carriers to avoid the tariffs. Moving it to Alabama when all the leg-work was done for something else was just saving the effort.

You can be done with your nonsense, come back if you want a serious discussion.

 

[Wisemarko]

I guess you didn't read the WTO ruling I posted...

In June 2011, the WTO found that the EU and four of its member States (Germany, France, the UK, and Spain) conferred more than $18 billion in subsidized financing to Airbus and had caused Boeing to lose sales of more than 300 aircraft and to lose market share throughout the world. In fact, in looking at the effect of the EU subsidies, the Appellate Body agreed with the Panel that “[w]ithout the subsidies, Airbus would not have existed… and there would be no Airbus aircraft on the market. None of the sales that the subsidized Airbus made would have occurred.” In contrast, the WTO rejected the EU assertion in the EU’s counter-complaint that U.S. subsidies were responsible for the viability of Boeing’s large civil aircraft production.

2011 predates the tanker competition and a factory for a non-existent tanker order. Moving A320 assembly was the only way to stay competitive to US carriers to avoid the tariffs. Moving it to Alabama when all the leg-work was done for something else was just saving the effort.

You can be done with your nonsense, come back if you want a serious discussion.

Another idiotic answer. WTO rulings are not binding on winning country. NONE of the A320s or other Airbus flying in the US have penalty tariffs levied on them from that ruling or any other ruling. The link I send you clearly states why that factory was set up. None of the BS you are giving me shows otherwise.
Before responding show me source that says that “this factory was constructed to avoid tariffs.”

FYI: Only few A320CEO (older version) have been produced in US and all A320neo, A330, A321neo are imported. If you don’t know then stop typing.

 

[Rahul Singh]

And I am to start my Type Rating for A320NEO and join Indigo. I hope they sort this issue out quickly.

 

[asianobserve]

The P&W PW1000G engine is an advanced geared turbo fan (GTF) engine that is designed to be very fuel efficient. The fan is designed to rotate at different speed from the core so that the fan can spin faster (creating more bypass flow) without the core spinning at supersonic speeds. So this is a high bypass engine, essentially a 2-in-1 engine, turboprop and turbojet.

So I think P&W needs to conduct a thorough review on this tech as it either could propel them ahead of the competition or break them. The PW1000G engine does not only power B737max, A320neo but also Embraer E-jets, C series, Mitsubishi MRJ, and the Russians have even considered this engine as backup in case their own engine for MC-21 does not turn out as planned, so P&W will lose a lot of income if they don't sort out this problem.

Note that the 70-170 pax segment, the PW1000G segment, is the sweetest most contested segment for commercial aviation engine manufacturers as it represents the most numerous type of airplane category. According to some forecast, this segment will demand up to 30,000 jets in the next 20 years, maybe more.

 

[Armand2REP]

Another idiotic answer. WTO rulings are not binding on winning country.

Few if any will question today that WTO agreements set out legally binding rules as part of public international law (PIL). The WTO is not some economic bargain between governmental trade elites without normative value. It is a legally binding treaty squarely within the wider corpus of international law.

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cg...ir=1&article=2090&context=faculty_scholarship

Are you done with the moronic statements?

NONE of the A320s or other Airbus flying in the US have penalty tariffs levied on them from that ruling or any other ruling. The link I send you clearly states why that factory was set up. None of the BS you are giving me shows otherwise.

The link I sent you clearly states why the Bombardier aircraft which is 51% owned by Airbus has 292% tariffs placed on it. It also states why the A320 doesn't have tariffs and it is because it is assembled in the United States which is the only way to avoid the tariffs on the Bombardier aircraft.

FYI: Only few A320CEO (older version) have been produced in US and all A320neo, A330, A321neo are imported. If you don’t know then stop typing.

FYI tariffs can be instituted retroactively so it doesn't matter what has been, what matters is what the Commerce Department decides to slap you with. That can happen at anytime just as the Bombardier ruling came from a Boeing complaint who doesn't even have a product in that class.

 

[Wisemarko]

Few if any will question today that WTO agreements set out legally binding rules as part of public international law (PIL). The WTO is not some economic bargain between governmental trade elites without normative value. It is a legally binding treaty squarely within the wider corpus of international law.

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cg...ir=1&article=2090&context=faculty_scholarship

Are you done with the moronic statements?



The link I sent you clearly states why the Bombardier aircraft which is 51% owned by Airbus has 292% tariffs placed on it. It also states why the A320 doesn't have tariffs and it is because it is assembled in the United States which is the only way to avoid the tariffs on the Bombardier aircraft.



FYI tariffs can be instituted retroactively so it doesn't matter what has been, what matters is what the Commerce Department decides to slap you with. That can happen at anytime just as the Bombardier ruling came from a Boeing complaint who doesn't even have a product in that class.

You are done with me with your moronic answers. First you accuse USA for sabotaging Airbus! Not Boeing but US!! Now you have some weird theory on Airbus plant- I visited the plant when being constructed in 2013.. anyway. Obviously you did not read the link so what the point. Adios

 

[Armand2REP]

P&W engine disintegrates mid-flight on United Airlines...

 

[Armand2REP]

Five injured after Delta passengers evacuate plane in Nigeria
Posted: Feb 13, 2018 6:38 PM ESTUpdated: Feb 14, 2018 12:14 AM EST


By Steve Almasy and Rene Marsh CNN
(CNN) -- At least five people were injured after Delta passengers used emergency slides to evacuate a flight that had returned to the airport in Lagos, Nigeria, the airline said Tuesday.

The Airbus A330-200 had an issue with one of its two engines, Delta said.

Flight 55 landed safely but five passengers suffered minor injuries during the evacuation while the plane was on the runway.

The passengers evacuated the plane using escape slides -- an unusual occurrence that shows the seriousness of the incident.

The flight was headed to Atlanta. Delta's website indicates an Airbus A330-200 has 234 seats. It has two Pratt & Whitney PW4000 turbofan engines.

The engine's manufacturer, Pratt & Whitney, said in a statement that it's working with "authorities to assess the situation."

http://www.ktvq.com/story/37498844/five-injured-after-delta-passengers-evacuate-plane-in-nigeria