The New York Times: Boeing and Airbus Waver on Reworking Planes

I just stumbled over this very interesting New York Times article from today. It basically states what I already wrote here in my post on July 30th.

Boeing and Airbus Waver on Reworking Planes
By CHRISTOPHER DREW and JAD MOUAWAD

The latest high-stakes maneuvering by Boeing and Airbus does not involve their top-of-the-line models, the 787 Dreamliner and the A380 jumbo jet, but instead their aging smaller workhorses.
The two companies have long been defined by their willingness to take big risks. But perhaps because of all the problems and costs involved with the bigger planes, they have turned more cautious in responding to pressure from the airlines to develop more fuel-efficient substitutes for their smaller planes, the 737 and A320.

Aviation experts say breakthroughs in engine technology offer a rare chance to re-engineer the two companies’ narrow 737s and A320s, which make up three-fourths of the fleets at the largest airlines. But while the new engines could save the airlines hundreds of millions of dollars a year, Airbus would have to invest $1.5 billion to $2 billion — and Boeing possibly twice that — to test and install them on the jets.

To continue reading, please click here.

Qantas Grounds all A380s

For decades, Australian flag carrier Qantas was known for great service, a young fleet and an unparalleled safety record. In the history of Qantas, one of the oldest airlines in the world, not one single plane has crashed. However, Qantas has had a lot of minor and even major incidents lately: 2008 - a Qantas 747-400 suffered rapid decompression after an explosion in air; 2008 - A330 suffered a rapid loss of altitude in two sudden uncommanded pitch down manoeuvres causing serious injuries; and, finally, November 4, 2010 - a Qantas A380 (the first A380 that was delivered to the airline) suffered an engine failure shortly after taking off from Singapore's Changi Airport.

Only a few minutes after take-off the inner left engine of the A380 with the tail number VH-OQA lost parts of its shell that slammed into the wing, causing a hole of several centimeters. Passengers reported they heard a slamming noise, followed by shaking of the plane. At this point, it is not clear, whether an explosion caused the engine shell to fall off or if the part that fell off caused the explosion by ripping apart cables and fuel injectors. The cockpit crew decided to dump fuel and circled above the Indonesian sea for over an hour before returning back to Singapore. Flight QF 32 safely landed at Changi about an hour and fifteen minutes after it took off to Sydney.

Soon after the incident, Qantas announced it would ground its entire Airbus A380 fleet indefinitely. In my opinion, this is not a very smart move and casts a negative light on Airbus and the A380 specifically, which they do not deserve. Obviously, the issue resulted from a problem with the engine and Airbus does not build aircraft engines. Experts agree that Airbus and the A380 did not really play a role in today's incident. The manufacturer of these engines, Rolls Royce, will have to play a major role in the upcoming investigations. There have already been several issues with these types of engines.

I also need to add here that the media totally blew up this story. The plane landed safely, nobody was really injured and three of the four engines were still running perfectly fine. There have been instances when planes crossed the entire Atlantic with only three out of four engines working. The plane was still in the air more than an hour after the incident! Had this been an emergency like the media pretended it was, the plane would have returned to Changi right away, without dumping fuel. At no point was there any chance the plane would crash. Obviously, it was very scary and uncomfortable for the passengers on board, but their lives were not in danger...

CNN: Secrets Pilots Won't Tell You

I was very excited today when I read the headline "Secrets Pilots Won't Tell You" on cnn.com. When I read through the article, I was very disappointed. I expected them to report on how, for example, fly-by-wire technology limits pilots in what they can do, or on poor maintenance or pilot salaries. Some "real" secrets. The secrets CNN mentions, however, are:

1) Pilots are tired and have 16-hour days. Who would have thought? Not a real secret to me! This is especially true for U.S. pilots, not so much for European ones. Is that really scary though? Just think about all the doctors in our hospitals who work 24-hour shifts.

2) Accommodations are bad. Apparently, some U.S. airlines let their pilots sleep in cheap hotels in bad areas. That is indeed something I did not know. But is that really such an important secret? Some pilots may actually live in bad areas or in neighborhoods that are loud. Again, I know that crews from European airlines usually stay at nice hotels.

3) Planes do not carry enough fuel. Well, this is something I would argue with. With fuel being the heaviest "item" on a plane on most flights, of course airlines need to carry as little reserves as possible. This is not a secret, but simple physics. If I fly from Miami to Orlando, I do not need to carry fuel for all the way up to New York with me! Landing a fuel-packed plane is much more dangerous and difficult than landing a light plane with hardly any fuel left.

4) Pilots like compliments about their performance. Really? For god's sake, please do NOT clap when a pilots lands a plane. This is ridiculous. It's his job! Do you applaud a teacher after your English course? Probably not. I do understand clapping after a really challenging landing during strong winds though (and have done it myself).

I think CNN should have titled this piece "U.S. airlines treat their pilots poorly compared to non-U.S. airlines" or something like that. There are no real secrets in this piece. It could have been such a nice article had they focused more on REAL secrets (power of fly-by-wire, flying through strong winds and how modern planes handle that, lightning, etc.). This article is just dull...

Southwest Airlines to Merge with AirTran

As you have probably learned already, Southwest Airlines is set to acquire AirTran for $1.4 billion. On September 27, Southwest Airlines announced the friendly take-over. Interesting is the fact that, for the first time, Southwest will then offer flights to destinations outside of the U.S. (continuing AirTran service to Mexico and the Caribbean).

The deal is in general an interesting move by Southwest, which has shied away from acquisitions for most of its 39-year history. The timing is also well chosen - since Continental's and United's stakeholders just approved their merger a few weeks ago. But why did Southwest consider the merger in the first place? Well, the two airlines competed at around 30 airports and the merger will give Southwest more access to important markets, such as New York, Orlando and Boston. It also gives Southwest more slots at Atlanta, Delta's main hub.

The fact that AirTran owns Boeing 717s as well as 737s will be a huge disadvantage and I would bet my money that Southwest will get rid of AirTran's 717 shortly. One of the key strategies of Southwest is owning only one aircraft type - the 737. This means that all pilots can fly all planes, all parts are the same for all planes and training for crew members is really simple. If they suddenly have two different planes, the costs will go up.

All in all, I think the merger will be good for the U.S. airline industry, but bad for most customers, since I predict that ticket prices will go up...

To read the Wall Street Journal Article, please click here.

Take-off in Thunderstorms Orlando

First of all, I need to apologize for not posting anything in almost a month. I moved from New York to Florida and started a new job, so I didn't have the time yet. But I promise to blog regularly again from now on. Below is a video from my take-off from MCO en route to CLT on a US Airways A321. It was a beautiful flight. There were thunderstorms all around us. It wasn't crazy bumpy, but it was great watching the sunset, the lightning and the city below.

Beautiful Landing at LaGuardia

My brother shot this beautiful video landing at LaGuardia on a US Airways Dash 8-100 last week:

Another Embraer E190 Overshoots Runway in China

Hardly anyone in the West even heard about this news: Within 24 hours of the Embraer E190 accident in Yichun, China, another E190 overshot the runway on Wednesday, this time in Nanning, in the southern Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region of China. The Tianjin Airlines aircraft was en route from Xi'an in the northwestern Shaanxi Province to Nanning and was about to head for Haikou in the southern island province of Hainan.

Though authorities have published no investigation results, Chinese aviation experts have taken the accidents as an alarm for the country's rapidly expanding, yet immature, regional aviation market.

To read the news.cn story, please click here.

U.S. Justice Department Clears United-Continental Merger

Good news for all fans of the United-Continental merger - the U.S. Department of Justice today cleared one of the last obstacles in the way to an on-time merger in early October of this year. The antitrust probe was closed after Continental and United agreed to transfer take-off and landing rights as well as other assets at Newark Liberty Airport to Southwest Airlines, the Justice Department said in a statement

The combined company, which will fly under the United name and the Continental logo (see picture on above), would be larger than Delta Air Lines, which became the country's largest airline when it merged with Northwest Airlines in 2008. The new United is expected to serve more than 144 million passengers per year and fly to 370 destinations in 59 countries.

Now, only the two airlines' shareholders will need to approve the merger. The vote will take place next month.

To read the CNN Money story, please click here.

JetBlue A320 Hard Landing in Sacramento

Passengers of a JetBlue A320 experienced a pretty hard landing yesterday when the plane blew four tires while landing at Sacramento airport. Four people suffered minor injuries during landing and about a dozen were injured while leaving the plane. JetBlue flight 262 was en route from Long Beach in south California to the state's capital with 86 passengers and five crew members on board when the cockpit crew reported problems with the plane's brakes.

What happened? Apparently, the brakes of the A320 were locked and wouldn't release. This means that the tires did not move/roll when the plane touched down on the runway. In turn, that caused the tires, and the air within, to heat up very quickly (because of friction) and, eventually, lead to the bursting of the tires (since air expands when it gets hot). The friction also caused minor flames on the tires and the brakes, so all passengers left the plane through emergency slides before the fire could spread to other parts of the plane (which would have been unlikely though).

The Aviation Insider will keep you posted on what the mechanical problem here was.

To read the CNN story, please click here. The followings is a video from a local FOX station:

Old, But Amazing Video

My brother just sent me this amazing (probably very old) video. What a crazy-a** pilot! Look how close the wingtip is to the ground. Either a very stupid pilot or an amazingly good one. Just wow!

Embraer E190 Crashes in China

For the first time ever, an Embraer E190 crashed at Yichun Lindu Airport in China today. The crash occurred at 10 pm local time. Henan Airlines flight 8387 departed from Harbin in northern China and was en route to Yichun (only approx. 360 km away) when the plane crashed upon approach into Yichun airport.

The plane had 91 passengers and 5 crew members on board. At this point, at least 47 people have been rescued. Why the fairly new plane crashed is not yet clear. CNN reports the Embraer 190 jet overshot the runway and caught fire when it was landing. However, heavy fog may have contributed to the crash. Yichun Lindu Airport is not equipped with ILS, making it even harder for pilots to land in foggy conditions.

The Aviation Insider will keep you posted on further developments.

To read the CNN story, please click here.

Did Lightning Really Bring Down a 737 in Colombia?

An AIRES 737-700 broke apart upon hitting the ground in San Andres, Colombia, yesterday night around 1.49 am local time. Flight 8250, which departed Bogotá's El Dorado International Airport at 0.07 am, did not report any problems during the flight.

The Boeing 737-700 with the tail number HK-4682, was built in 2003 and was originally delivered to European low-cost carrier EasyJet. AIRES took over the plane in March of this year. This is the first time ever a 737-700 needs to be written off because of an accident. Contrary to some reports, the plane did not "crash" into the runway. It made contact with the ground a few dozen meters before the runway started, but it later broke apart on the runway.

The question - as always - now is: What caused the accident? The two most prominent theories at this point are: A severe downdraft "pushed" the plane onto the ground or a lightning strike caused the accident. As usual, reporters and experts are cautious to blame the pilots. However, all signs point to the downdraft theory, together with poor reactions by the two pilots. A lightning strike as the cause of the accident can totally be ruled out in my opinion. And experts agree with that. To read why lightning cannot possible have caused the crash, please read this CNN interview with an expert. It is almost ridiculous that reporters over and over again claim that an airplane crashed because of lightning. They said that about the Air France A330 that crashed into the Atlantic last year, they said it about the Ethiopian 737 that crashed off of the coast of Lebanon in January and they are saying it again now. However, no commercial plane has crashed because of a lightning strike since the 1960s. Planes are built to withstand lightning strikes. Period!

In my opinion, this 737 crashed because of a very strong downdraft right in front of the runway and the pilots were not prepared to handle such a situation. The weather was pretty bad during the approach and changing wind directions make it hard to land in situations like these. However, pilots should be well trained to handle these tough approaches. But the pilots of this AIRES 737 apparently weren't. Severe downdrafts are not extremely rare events. They happen quite frequently and I have experienced them myself during landings several times. Whenever pilots need to land in stormy conditions they need to take possible downdrafts into consideration. And it's not like a plane is totally uncontrollable when it flies through downdrafts. The laws of aerodynamics still apply, the pilots just need to react quickly. And when they are only a couple of meters from the ground they need to react even more quickly. Sadly, the AIRES pilots did not do that.

According to a CNN story, at least one of the pilots still does not know what happened. He said: "We were caught in a great sinking as we reached the runway, as our wheels touched down. It threw us out. It threw us out. Nature is very strong. It grabbed us with everything it had. I said, 'Landing' and cut, and when I was cutting, I started to level off, and I felt that the plane was going straight (down). I pulled [on the yolk]. I pulled. I pulled. And the plane kept on going, kept on going. It was when we said, 'Landing.' When there's nothing left to do."

As tragic as this accident is, it shows us that pilots need better training. Planes are built to withstand the forces of nature pretty well. If a 737 can fly through a storm of more than 300 km/h (as several did during hurricane Kyrill in Europe a couple of years ago) without any damage, it can very well endure severe downdraft. However, the pilots need to be trained to handle that. If the pilots don't even know what's going on, how can they react properly?

Should Airbus and Boeing Update their Narrowbody Planes or Develop Completely New Aircraft?

It is a hard decision to make. But by the end of this year, Airbus and Boeing will have to make up their minds: Will they update their A320 series and 737 planes with more fuel-efficient engines and add-ons (such as winglets, better wings, etc.) or will they stop investing in those planes and rather pursue the launch of completely new narrowbody aircraft? With rising competition, such as Embraer's E jets and Bombardier's upcoming C series, the two plane manufacturers have to keep up with rising (fuel) efficiencies to remain competitive.

According to reports in Aviation Week, both plane makers are not sure yet, what to do. It almost looks like one is waiting for the other to make the first move. And it is indeed a tricky game. The A320 series and the 737 are already fairly fuel-efficient planes. They can, however, not compete with lighter and, thus, even more fuel efficient models, such as the upcoming Bombardier C series. And with more players in the narrowbody market, it will be harder for Airbus as well as Boeing to stay at the top of the game. Just look at the success of Embraer's E jets - since the launch of the plane in 2002, more than 600 craft of that type have been sold. Hardly anyone would have predicted that.

But what are the options at this point? The idea is to keep the A320 models and the 737 basically as they are, but make some changes so they become more fuel efficient. This means: changing the structure of the wings (to increase lift and reduce weight), use more fuel efficient engines (to be outsourced to third-party manufacturers, such as Rolls Royce or Pratt & Whitney) and add certain fly-by-wire systems (for the 737). This is basically it. The goal is to reduce fuel consumption by 6 to 12 percent.

That was option 1. Option 2 is to not pursue the updates at all but rather come up with completely new narrowbody models. Say, an Airbus A360 or a Boeing 797. Those planes would not be based off of the A320 series or the 737, but engineers at Airbus and Boeing would start from scratch, maybe using completely new light materials, totally different shapes for the fuselages and so on. Obviously, this would be the more time-consuming option and would cost a lot of money. A LOT of money! The question though is: Will airlines want new models at this point? Looking at the orders for the A320 series and the 737, you can argue if there is a need for new models in the short run as both Airbus and Boeing are currently boosting their production rates for the A320 and the 737 to cope with increased demand.

So what should they do? My opinion is that - at this point - there is no need for completely new narrowbody planes. The demand for the A320 planes and the 737 is still there and I am convinced it is a wiser choice to update the current models than to come up with new models. Also, engineers are already swamped with Boeing's 787 and the 747-8, as well as with Airbus's A350. It would be very hard to make time to start new models from scratch right now. Updating current models wouldn't be that much of an effort and is way more efficient at this stage.

I also believe that Boeing should make the first move here (even though they appear to be more reluctant than Airbus). The simple reason is - the technology of the 737 is already outdated. Even the "Next Generation" 737s do not have fly-by-wire (fbw) systems. So just comparing the current models of the 737 with the A320 shows that there is a greater need for an update of the 737 than there is for the A320 aircraft (which all have fbw). Additionally, it has been a better year for the A320 series so far than for the 737. Airlines around the world slightly prefer the A320 over the 737 already, maybe because of its more advanced technology.

As mentioned above though, Boeing seems to be more reluctant to start with the updates of its 737. Experts hypothesize that Boeing is waiting for Airbus to make the next move. If the European aircraft manufacturer announced sometime this year they would start updating the A320 series, then Boeing could just say: Hey, we will not be updating the 737, but come out with a totally new, state-of-the-art plane in 5 years! The rationale is: Why would an airline buy updated versions of the A320 series planes when Boeing is coming out with a brand new, better and even more fuel efficient plane five years later? The hopes are that nobody would order the next-generation A320 planes, but wait for the new Boeing aircraft.

Still, I believe the best thing to do now is update the A320 series and the 737. Airlines haven't really voiced their demand for new narrowbodies yet. With the E jets already on the market, the C series coming out soon and the continued demand for the A320 and the 737, it is just smarter to update current models than create new ones. And if the updated versions are really 6 to 12 percent more fuel efficient, then it will be hard to come up with all-new models that can top this. In my opinion, Airbus and Boeing should listen to what the market wants and I honestly do not see a high demand for all-new narrowbody planes right now.

Great Tour of the A380 Cockpit

I just watched this great video, in which a Lufthansa A380 pilot explains the cockpit of the super jumbo. If you're interested in cockpits and don't mind German accents, then you should watch this!

Airblue Airbus A321 Crashes in Pakistan

An Airblue Airbus A321 crashed this morning while approaching Islamabad airport in Pakistan. Airblue flight 202 took off from Karachi airport at 7.50 am local time and did not report any troubles until it crashed. The plane was carrying 146 passengers and six crew members.

The A321, registered as AP-BJB, was built in 2000, flew for German charter airline Aero Lloyd before and was delivered to Airblue in 2006. According to CNN, the plane had accumulated about 34,000 flight hours in some 13,500 flights. This is the first crash of an A321 in the history of the plane, which has been manufactured more than 600 times and is a very popular model of Airbus's A320 series.

So far, the reasons for the crash have not been determined. Bad weather has been mentioned several times. According to reports, there was dense fog and heavy rain. In my opinion, this is a bit contradictory - have you ever seen dense fog and heavy rain at the same time? I haven't! Also, eyewitnesses report that the plane "lost balance" before it crashed. I wonder how that happened. The A321 is a fly-by-wire plane and it is pretty much impossible to make it "lose balance." The Airbus's avionics prevent a stall or the loss of lift. What is clear, though, is the fact that the plane crashed into a mountain.

The New York Times reports that the pilot did not follow the air control's instructions. The pilot received a warning that he was flying away from the runway. The pilot responded, “I can see the runway.” In a second exchange, the dispatcher advised, “Immediately turn left, Margalla [Hills] are ahead.” The pilot responded, “we can see it [the runway].” Shortly after, the plane crashed into the mountain.

It looks like this is another crash caused by pilot error. And it shows again that a plane can be state-of-the-art and equipped with great fly-by-wire systems, but it cannot prevent a bad pilot from making a poor or wrong decision. A wrong decision that, in this case, caused the deaths of 152 people.

To read the CNN story, please click here.

To read the New York Times article, please click here.

Lufthansa Cargo MD-11 Crash-Lands in Riyadh

I was shocked this morning to read that a Lufthansa Cargo MD-11 crash-landed in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, earlier today.

The pilot of Lufthansa Cargo flight LH8460 reported a fire in the cargo bay of the McDonnell Douglas MD-11 as he approached King Khaled International Airport in Riyadh. Witnesses report black smoke coming from the plane prior to touch down. The plane was scheduled to continue to Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates after leaving Riyadh. At the time of the crash it was carrying 80 tons of freight. Both, the pilot and the co-pilot survived and were brought to a hospital. Both are in "good" condition. There have been no deaths caused by the crash.

In the history of Lufthansa Cargo, this is the first accident that totally destroyed a plane. At this point, pilot error can be ruled out as the cause and the cause of the fire will have to be determined. Over the last year and a half, three MD-11s were totally destroyed in accidents, all of them freighters.

To read the Bloomberg piece, please click here.

Airbus Expects U.S. Order in Coming Days

Reuters yesterday quoted Airbus's CEO Tom Enders saying in a German newspaper that the European aircraft manufacturer expects a significant order by a U.S. airlines in the next couple of days. According to Enders, the order will be for 20 to 30 new aircraft. Enders, however, did not give any specifics on which airline the planes will be for and which types will be ordered.

I have been thinking about this a lot and there are a couple of airlines that can easily be dismissed because of several reasons: Continental (all-Boeing fleet), American (all-Boeing fleet), United (unlikely to order planes at this point, due to merger with Continental), JetBlue (already has several Airbus planes on order and pushed back on deliveries lately). So my best guess is US Airways and I think the orders will be either for the A320 series or Airbus's brand-new A350.

To read the German piece in BILD, please click here.

Virgin America Orders 40 Airbus A320

It has been a great Farnborough air show for Airbus so far and the orders just keep coming in. Virgin America today announced it will add 40 Airbus A320s to its fleet. The list price for the planes is around $81 million, but Virgin probably got a decent discount.

The U.S. airline, which is partly owned by UK billionaire Richard Branson, has an Airbus-only fleet and, at this point, only serves cities in the U.S. from its California hubs Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego. With the additional aircraft, Virgin Atlantic is planning to extend its routes. New destinations in the U.S. will likely be Austin, Chicago and Dallas. The airline also plans on flying to its first ex-U.S. destinations by year's end. Those international destinations will likely be Cancun and San Jose del Cabo, both in Mexico.

To read the Bloomberg piece, please click here.

Again United 777 Hits Severe Turbulence, Injures Passengers

Again, a United 777-200 hit severe turbulence, injuring 30 passengers on Tuesday. The long-haul aircraft was en route from Dulles to Los Angeles when it flew into sudden turbulence over the Rocky Mountains. Flight UA 967 was eventually diverted to Denver, Colorado, where injured people were treated.

The turbulence came out of nowhere, sending items such as laptops flying around the cabin. What flight 967 encountered was so-called mountain wave turbulence, which is very common while flying over mountainous areas. Because of the uneven surface of the Earth in those areas, wind gets diverted up and down quickly, which causes rough air. While it is highly recommended to always wear seat belts on a plane, it is even more recommended to do so while flying over mountains.

To read the CNN story, please click here.

AF A380 Missed Approach JFK

And another nice video of a missed approach at JFK. I wonder why? The A380 almost touched down on the runway already. Oh, and I just love the sound of the A380's flaps being retracted. So futuristic...

Beautiful Thunderstorm Take-Off

I just saw this beautiful video of take-off in a thunderstorm. Wow! It's quite astonishing what planes can endure...

Further Delays with Boeing's 747-8

Boeing appears to be focusing all its attention on the rollout of its 787. Originally they planned to present a first version of the 747-8 at this year's Farnborough Air Show. But all those excited to see the 747-8 live will be disappointed. The 747-8 did not make it across the Atlantic. And it doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon.

For the fourth time, Boeing had to announce delays with its 747-8 program. Right now it looks like the updated jumbo jet will not be delivered to the first customer until next year. Apparently, Boeing does not have enough capacity to work on too many projects at the same time. The 787 has been a huge success so far while the 747-8 has been, well, more of a disappointment. Only three airlines have ordered the passenger version so far. In addition, Boeing will have to make urgent decisions on what to do with its 737. Will they redesign it, adding more efficient engines, or start developing a brand new single-aisle plane? Airbus is in a similar situation - the European plane maker will need to decide soon on whether it wants to revamp the A320 series or come up with a completely new plane. The competition is set to steal some thunder here - just look at Embraer's E series or Bombardier's C series...

To read more about Boeing's current problems, please read this Bloomberg piece.

British Airways Orders 24 Boeing 787

More aircraft-order news have come out of this year's Farnborough Air Show. British Airways yesterday announced an order of 24 Boeing 787, with deliveries starting as early as next year.

The 787s will be used to replace BA's fleet of Boeing 767s. Experts have been curious about BA's next move, considering the limited capacity at the airline's home base at Heathrow airport. BA has mentioned in the past that it is also considering buying more Airbus A380s (the airline already ordered 12 super jumbos) to use its slots at Heathrow more efficiently and to replace the airline's huge but aging 747-400 fleet.

Boeing's "Dreamliner" made a first appearance in Europe at the air show over the weekend. Europe has not been a great market for the 787 yet and Boeing is trying to boost orders at the show.

To read more about BA's 787 order, please click here.

Emirates to Order 20 More 777s

A bit more than a month ago Dubai-based Emirates ordered 32 additional A380s and everybody thought "Wow, what are they going to do with all those planes???". Today, Reuters reports that Emirates is about to order an additional 20 Boeing 777-300. Already the largest airlines in the Arab world, Emirates is set to become the largest airline in Asia if they continue to grow with this speed.

The order could be a key feature of the opening day of the July 19-25 Farnborough air show in England on Monday, when the Dubai-based airline is expecteded to hold a news conference.

To read the Reuters story, please click here.

Alitalia Takes Delivery of First A330-200

I have to admit, I am not the biggest fan of Alitalia, Italy's flagship carrier. I have been on five Alitalia flights in my life and they were absolute average. Service was okay (on a flight from EWR to Rome, all flight attendants completely disappeared for three hours), the planes were fairly old (the 767-300 that I was on to and from Dubai looked older than pretty much every plane I have ever been on) and the prices were not really cheap. So far, I would not have really recommended Alitalia to anyone.

However, Alitalia has made some pretty good decisions lately when it comes to the long-haul aircraft they ordered. Alitalia has placed an order for 12 Airbus A330-200 and another order for 12 A350-800. On July 15, Alitalia received its first A330-200, which will replace the airline's 767-300s. At this point, Alitalia does not have any outstanding orders with Boeing and it looks like the A350s will be used to replace Alitalia's 777-200s. Alitalia looks set to become an airline with an Airbus-only fleet soon. Italy's largest airlines is also currently replacing its MD-82s with aircraft of the A320 series. Maybe I should give Alitalia another chance...

To read the Airbus press release, please click here.

Continental Express - A Terrible Ride

I was flying back from Frankfurt to Newark the other day with a stopover at Montreal's Trudeau airport. My flight from Frankfurt to Montreal, on an Air Canada 777-300ER, was beautiful. The plane was awesome, the entertainment system and the service were great, and it was a very, very smooth ride, so I even slept for two hours. One of the nicest plane rides I have ever had in my life. Unfortunately, I had to wait for five-and-a-half hours at Trudeau for my connection flight to Newark and I was not allowed to leave the airport, which sucked.

My flight from Montreal to Newark, Continental Express flight CO 2701, was on an Embraer RJ 145. Those are actually very nice planes. During take-off you can really feel the acceleration from your seat. I just love these small planes. On the other hand, turbulence is very nasty on those Embraers as you can feel every slight bump. Still, I was excited to fly the RJ 145. But when I entered the plane and sat down, I just wanted to get up again and run away. I have flown a lot in my life but I have NEVER EVER seen a plane in such a bad condition. It was terrible. There were spots all over the ceiling (some looked like chocolate, some more like puke). It was disgusting. The plane looked like no one had cleaned it in at least half a year. The next moment, the light bulb for the row in front of me came falling down. When I inspected my window (which I always do), I could hardly look outside. It was unbelievably dirty. And the window looked like someone temporarily installed it and "glued" it in there with silicone. The worst thing, however, was the fact that pieces of the emergency exit broke off and there were cracks in the emergency exit door. For the first time in years I was terrified on board a plane. This was the worst condition of a plane I have every seen. I was surprised that nobody really left the aircraft.

As a frequent flier I am well aware that it doesn't really matter what a plane looks like from the inside, but this plane was an absolute disaster. It was old, dirty and temporarily fixed several times. I also know the RJ145s don't really fly long distances and usually not at a very high altitude, but still I want to sit on a plane that looks like it will make it to my destination. That plane didn't look like it. And like this was not enough, the flight attendant (who was among the nicest I have every had in my life) told us that the fasten seat belt sign would remain on during the entire flight, since they were expecting severe turbulence. She literally said "It was veeeeeery, veeeeeeery bumpy on our way up here!". Not a very smart thing to say in general, but not smart at all on board this crappy plane. Argh! I was already convinced my puke (out of fear) would also stick to the ceiling when I exit, but it didn't happen. Contrary to the crew's predictions, it turned out to be a very nice flight. No bumps whatsoever. Still, sitting on board this terrible, terrible plane turned this otherwise nice flight into a flying nightmare... My advice: Don't fly Continental Express!!!

Landing on a Continental RJ 145 in Newark

Lovely landing on an ERJ in Newark with slight winds.

Bruce Dickinson Flying the A320

Beautiful video on the fly-by-wire system of the A320.

Air France 447 - One Year Later

June 1 marked the first anniversary of the crash of Air France flight 447. One year later we still don't have any answers whatsoever on why the Airbus A330 crashed into the Atlantic. Still, pretty much all scenarios are possible. Most journalists, and some experts, blame the crash on faulty pitot tubes or a bug in the A330's fly-by-wire system/avionics. None of this is confirmed. All is speculation. Even if the pitot tubes were not working correctly - that is not a good reason for a plane to crash. As mentioned several times before, all airplanes are equipped with GPS and still receive above-ground speed information even if the pitot tubes fail. A bug in the fbw system could potentially be the cause, but this has never happened before and would still not explain why no "mayday" signals were sent.

The search for the black boxes is still ongoing and the area where those boxes can be have been narrowed down to twenty-five square kilometers. Still, that is like finding two shoe boxes in an area half the size of Manhattan. However, I am still positive that the black boxes will be found and the mystery will be solved. I still don't really believe any of the current scenarios. Fingers crossed we will know more a year from now.

If you want to read more about the search and a documentary that is currently being produces, please click here.

Emirates to Order More A380s

I have to start this post with a big WOW! I couldn't believe what I read today: Dubai's official airline Emirates will commit to more than 30 additional A380s, according to Bloomberg. The airline already owns 10 A380s, has 48 additional orders and now - 30 more! Emirates is becoming one of Airbus's most important clients. When all of the planes are delivered, the carrier from the UAE will own 88 A380s and will be, by far, the largest operator of the Airbus. But the Dubai-based airline does not only like this super jumbo. Emirates also firmly ordered 50 A350-900 and 20 A350-1000. The patriotic American might ask: How many 787s has Emirates ordered? The answer: None! This further underlines the impact of Asia and the Middle East on airplane manufacturers. So far, not a single airline from America has ordered the A380...

To read the Bloomberg piece, please click here.

Woman Falls Asleep, Sues United

My lovely colleague Valerie forwarded me this story. It is hilarious: A woman apparently fell asleep on a United Express flight from DC to Philly. Even after landing she wouldn't wake up. The crew wasn't too interested in her either and let her sleep. No one woke her up until a cleaning crew found her four hours later. Now the lady is suing - filing a lawsuit for false imprisonment, emotional distress and negligence.

To read the Yahoo! News story, please click here.

Again Passengers Injured as Jet Hits Severe Turbulence

In general, turbulence is harmless. In 99.9 percent of all cases, nothing happens and nobody is injured. Turbulence to an airplane is pretty much what waves are to a boat - harmless. However, sometimes severe turbulence occurs unexpectedly and then it can cause severe injuries; like today when a United 777 en route from London to LA encountered severe and unexpected turbulence over the Atlantic.

As a matter of fact, only those people who do not have their seat belts fastened suffer injuries whenever planes hit turbulence. When a plane drops (sometimes incorrectly called "air pockets"), they get pulled out of their seats, hit the ceiling and are sometimes even thrown against other passengers. Every year, dozens of people are injured because they don't wear their seat belts while on a plane. So it is extremely important to wear seat belts whenever seated and throughout the entire flight. Even pilots can sometimes not tell if they are about to hit rough air. In contrast to clouds or thunderstorms, wind in clear air (so-called clear-air turbulence) cannot be detected, not even by state-of-the art instruments. You just never know. And exactly that happened on the United flight today. Ten people on board were injured and the Boeing 777-200 had to make an emergency landing in Montreal.

CNN reported that the plane is also being checked for possible damage. This is highly unlikely. Airlines usually do those checks, just to be on the safe side, but turbulence is generally not strong enough to cause real damage to a plane. Planes are built to withstand the worst of all possible circumstances. It is impossible for wind, or even storms, that occur in reality to cause damage to a plane. Damage is, however, caused by people falling around the cabin and hitting the cabin ceiling. For a plane to be allowed to take off again with passengers, this damage needs to be corrected.

To read the CNN story, please click here.

Air India Express Crash Kills 158

One really wonders if the recent series of plane crashes will ever end. This morning at 6.10 am local time, an Air India Express Boeing 737-800 overshot the runway at Mangalore airport in the south of India, killing all but eight of the passengers on board.

The two-year old plane was on the way back from Dubai, carrying mostly Indian guest workers from the Emirate, when it crashed into a valley at the end of the runway. The weather at Mangalore airport was decent: good visibility, calm winds and no rain. The pilot, a British citizen, did not report any technical difficulties with the fairly new 737 on approach. The surviving passengers report they heard the tires of the plane burst, then the plane hit something and it caught fire. A survivor told Reuters: "[The plane] caught fire and we fell out. We looked up and saw some opening and came out through that route."

The cause of the accident has not been determined yet, but there can only be a couple of realistic reasons: The 737 might have had technical difficulties, so that the pilots could not brake (but then the tires would not have burst). Another possibility is that the plane touched down too late on the runway and the cockpit crew could not bring the 737 to a halt before hitting trees (this theory is supported by the bursting tires) - which would be a pilot error. Another reason is that the 737 hit the runway too hard, causing the tires to burst and then the brakes were, consequently, not fully functional. Whatever the reason, we will know it soon. There were, luckily, survivors and the black boxes have been found. The Aviation Insider will keep you posted!

To read the Reuters story, please click here. Click here for the The Hindu article.

Investigators: Polish Plane Carrying President Crashed Due to Pilot Error

I was not surprised at all to read what the cause of the April 10 crash that killed Polish president Lech Kaczynski was. Apparently, the cockpit crew of the Tu-154 was inexperienced, did not have up-to-date information on the weather in Smolensk, Russia - where the plane crashed - and there were people in the cockpit who were not crew members and who might have urged the pilots to land in dense fog.

CNN reports that air traffic controllers at Smolensk airport warned the crew on two occasions that there was fog at the airport, visibility was just 400 meters, and the conditions did not allow the airport to receive the plane. However, the crew still tried to land four times and crashed on the fourth attempt. Smolensk airport is not equipped with Western-style ILS, making it almost impossible to land there without sufficient visibility.

The reason for flying too low was an axial depression a few hundred meters ahead of the runway. So the plane's altimeter indicated the plane was flying too high for landing at Smolensk and the cockpit crew decided to go lower. When the depression ended, the plane was only a few meters above ground, hitting trees, which eventually caused the crash. It also looks like Andrzej Blasik, commander of the Polish Air Force, was in the cockpit and urged the pilots to land at Smolensk airport despite current fog conditions.

All in all, extremely dumb decisions and an inexperienced cockpit crew caused this crash; not so much the sometimes obsolete Russian aircraft technology.

To read the entire CNN story, please click here.

Lufthansa Receives First A380

Thursday was a very exciting day for Europe's second largest airline Lufthansa: It finally received its first A380, nicknamed "Lady Bee" (I still hate that name) and officially titled "Frankfurt am Main." Lufthansa is only the second European airline to receive the A380, after Air France, which is using the super jumbo on its route from Paris to JFK.

Lufthansa has announced it will be flying the first three A380s being delivered this year on routes to Tokyo, Beijing and Johannesburg. The first flight with passengers will bring Germany's national soccer team to South Africa in early June for the World Cup. Regular A380 flights can already be booked through Lufthansa's Web site. Unfortunately for me, LH does not plan to use the A380 on routes to North America until mid of 2011 earliest.

Compared to other airlines, especially those from the Persian Gulf and Asia (Emirates, Singapore Airlines, etc.), Lufthansa has been reluctant to buy a lot of A380s. Right now, only 15 A380s have been ordered by Germany's biggest airline, compared to 20 Boeing 747-8s. This is contrary to LH's overall strategy to replace fuel-consuming Boeing aircraft with more fuel-efficient Airbuses, especially for short-haul planes. Obviously, Lufthansa does not want to become too dependent on only one manufacturer when it comes to long-haul aircraft and similar approaches can be observed for most other big airlines. Interestingly, Lufthansa has neither placed orders for the 787 nor the A350. But the German airline has always been very picky when it comes to aircraft orders. In contrast to most other airlines, Lufthansa never owned the extremely popular 777. It also refused to order the 757 and the 767, which it only used for its former subsidiary Condor.

To read Lufthansa's press release on the A380 delivery, please click here.

To see more pictures of the new Lufthansa flagship, please click here.

CNN: A330 Crashed Because of Pilot Error

As I predicted, a pilot error likely caused the crash of an A330 in Tripoli, Libya, on Wednesday. Apparently - and contrary to what had been reported before - the visibility at Tripoli airport was not very good, caused by mist and sand. The pilot turned off the autopilot and tried to land the plane himself (as mentioned before, Tripoli airport is not equipped with ILS), but could not align the Airbus with the runway. He tried to switch on the autopilot again when he noticed he was in trouble. But before the A330 could gain enough thrust to pull up again, the plane crashed into the ground.

This is another example of the poor flying skills of African pilots in general. The continent has been hampered by accidents due to pilot error for a while. The crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 409 in January off the coast of Lebanon was also caused by pilot error. I can only recommend it again and again - whenever you book a flight, pick an airline whose pilots you trust. Not even a state-of-the-art Airbus equipped with world-class fly-by-wire can save you when your pilot doesn't know how to handle the plane in difficult circumstances.

To read the full CNN story, please click here.

Another A330-200 Crash within Less than One Year

It hasn't been a good year for Airbus. Within less than one year, two Airbus A330-200 crashed. The first one on July 1, 2009, on the way from Rio to Paris (I have written a lot about that crash; to read more about the Air France crash from June of last year, please click here) and the other one today, on approach to Tripoli airport in Libya. For both accidents, we don't know yet what really caused them. Those are the only two times the A330 ever crashed. And both times it was the 200 version of this wide-body plane.

Afriqiyah Airways flight 771 was en route from Johannesburg, South Africa, to Tripoli, Libya, when it crashed into the runway area of Tripoli's international airport in the early morning of May 12, 2010. During the more than nine hours of the flight, no incidents have been reported and the weather at Tripoli airport was excellent. So what caused the crash and could it be related to AF 447 last year?

I believe there is absolutely no link between the Air France crash last year and today's crash. Yes, it was the same plane, but I really believe this is a coincidence. The circumstances are just too different. AF 447 was in flight mode when it crashed; at an altitude of around 10 km. Afriqiyah Airways flight 771 was approaching the airport in flare mode already and didn't have any issues at its cruising altitude. According to recent reports, flight 8U 771 crashed parallel to the runway, missing it by around 900 meters. The question here is: How could the pilot miss the runway during good weather, no winds and with great visibility? True, the airport is not equipped with state-of-the-art ILS, but under those circumstances, every pilot should have been able to land.

First reports mentioned technical difficulties. This has not been confirmed, but it is possible. Later reports mentioned that the pilots radioed for ambulances to be ready and a passenger allegedly twittered that something was wrong with the plane's wing. None of this has been confirmed. In the end, there are only three possible reasons for the crash: pilot error, technical difficulties or a combination of both. After all, it is very confusing that the pilot made it to the airport (so he must have been in control of the plane), but crashed while missing the runway.

I am really not sure what caused this crash, but let me offer my personal opinion: I think it was a pilot error. The A330 is equipped with a state-of-the-art fly-by-wire system, but if the airport doesn't have ILS, then the A330's autopilot is not able to automatically land the plane. So maybe the pilots were tired? Fell asleep for a few seconds (well, it happens in cars all the time)? I really don't know. It is highly unlikely though that a technical error occurred only during landing and so short of the airport. If flaps don't work or engines are broken, pilots notice that fairly quickly into the flight, not during the last 30 seconds of a flight. It is also unlikely that the fly-by-wire system failed at such a late stage. This has never happened before.

I think we should not draw false parallels here to AF 447. I am convinced the causes of those crashes are very different. With flight 8U 771 I am, however, certain we'll have all answers soon, since the black boxes have already been found. I will keep you posted...