Hawaiian commits to A321neo: Hawaiian Airlines has committed to the Airbus A321neo, contingent on new employees contracts setting rates for staffing the aircraft. The A321neos will be used on Hawaii-mainland services. This validates Airbus’ design of the 321neo to give it better range than the 321ceo for just such service. Bloomberg has this story. Since this order is contingent, we wonder if it will be included in the final Airbus tally for orders, to be announced January 17.
Emirates could use 30 more A380s: It’s not especially new news but here’s a story about Emirates Airlines saying it could use 30 more A380s. Airbus’ John Leahy said there was a significant order for A380s pending. We wonder if this is it, to be announced January 17.
Japan Air Lines 787: A JAL 787 parked at Boston Logan Airport has an smoke/fire related incident today. The plane had completed a flight from Tokyo and had disembarked all passengers. Here is a detailed story.
Just a bit of electric smoke, no fire for sure 😉
try not to celebrate too much. Schadenfreude is a nasty trait.
would you know the difference?
I referenced the hijacking if the “787 electrical issues” thread by the “This is not a fire” horde on A.net.
The FAA will let know soon enough if further action is required.
It’s just arcing, no fire for sure:)
The Hawaiian order should NOT be included. It’s an MOU, and even if the initial agreement was made in 2012, the final Firm order wouldn’t be until later this month… there’s no way it could honestly be termed a 2012 order… it’s a 2013.
I have to say I’m rather disappointed in Boeing for letting Hawaiian slip away like this. When HA ordered the A330s that was a logical move. If you’ve ever sat on one of the HA 767s while it’s loading, you’ll see why. The A350s were candy topping, and we’ll see where they go. I expect it’s going to be interesting, as HA doesn’t need something the size of the 900.
Concur on when it should be booked as an order.
Paying no attention (as we don’t) to Boeing or Airbus on performance, but with customers we talk to who do their own analysis, the A321neo has better range and payload than the 737-9.
It is by far the biggest beneficiary of the NEO package, that is true. It’s going from a total piece of crap to something marginally usable. Neither really fits the bill of a 757 replacement, no matter how much Boeing or Airbus tries to push these two as that.
It’s pretty telling when even zee Germans are acknowledging zat zee A380 was a prestige project:
Spiegel International: Boeing Soars Past Airbus in Deliveries
“”There was a lot of testosterone at play in the conception of the A380,” Grossbongardt said. “Politicians wanted to prove a point to the United States and show that the Europeans were capable of building the world’s largest aircraft.”
“Der Spiegel” is not known for printing anything positive about Airbus ever 😉
They have retreated from their 4th column of democracy job ( see Spiegel Affäre, 1962 )
and streamlined themselves towards unknown interests.
LOL, lame excuse. It’s Airbus’ hometown newspaper, and you cry that they won’t waive the flag. Of course the fact that Airbus stole land from the senior editors for the runway expansion probably didn’t help matters much. Land snatching does have a way of irritating people though.
Seen the Sunday Times / Murdoch apology for badmouthing Ryan Air ?
As Scott mentions the A321 carries more further. Take 20t payload and you see that at 737-900ER range the A321 still has room for an additional 3-4t payload. While it has smaller fuel tanks. Then there’s pallet/containers, airfield performance, noise and comfort.
The 757, 762 and A300/310 left open a rather large niche and the A321 doesn’t have to be a perfect replacement /steeply discounted to get orders.
UA/Co and DL/NWA ordered a large number of 900ER’s and -9s, that no doubt will do good service later his decade but I believe there will be fleet consideration where it will be hard to ignore the A321 or even a bigger version if the trend towards bigger NBs continues.
Well, IIRC HA has never been a Boeing customer, except for the B-717s. Yes, they did fly the B-763 and B-763ER, but those were used airplanes when they were aquired.
I’ll wait, for now to comment of the JL B-787 smoke/fire incident at BOS today.
Happy new year Kc135 topboomer it seams a battery exploded in the electric bay when the aircrarft on a turn a round it took about 1 hour to put out injuring one fireman i hope he is alright?
Anything known about the battery technology used in that place ? ( advertised as Lithium based, but there is more than one type of lithium accumulator around all with varying failure modes and associated risks )
Lithium-Ion has been identified. King 5 (NBC) Seattle.
787 fire pictures
– NTSB dispatched personal to investige
– probably not avionics bay
so it could e.g. very well be batteries in the payload
KC, starting in 2001 Hawaiian bought ten new 767’s; at the time they were teetering financially and Boeing bailed them out. For Hawaiian’s present-day 767 fleet, go to http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/search.php?manufacturer=Boeing&type=767&fleet=5811&fleetStatus=1. Planespotters list HA as now operating sixteen 767’s; the last eight on the list were delivered new between 2001 and 2003; HA has sold off three 767’s; two of those were also delivered new from Boeing. (BTW, HA’s new 767’s were among the first to get the “new-look interior” that had bins and ceilings similar to the 777.)
Howard, what’s so bad about sitting in a 767 while it’s loading, Hawaiian’s or anyone else’s? The major downer is having to walk thru the first class cabin enroute to the cheap seats, So, when HA needed something bigger, why did they get A330’s instead of 777’s? “If you want gratitude get a dog” also known as “so what have you done for me lately?”.
Howard and Keesje, the A321NEO’s challenge on the mainland-Hawaii routes is not just the range. It is entirely overwater without any en-route alternates. All twins [actually all aircraft with 2, 3 or 4 engines] must meet 180-minute ETOPS rules. Airbus of course knows that. Today, no A320-series aircraft operate mainland-Hawaii. The NEO’s SNECMA engine is a derivative of engines already used on Alaska Airlines’ Seattle-Hawaii 737NG routes, so it may not be much a challenge to get 180-minute qualification. Does anyone know if Pratt’s geared fan will get 180-minutes ETOPS “out-of-the-box” or will the FAA require some in-service reliability data?
A320 receives ETOPS approval from EASA in 2004:
Airbus A320 Family approved for 180 minute ETOPS by the FAA in 2006:
Uwe, thanks for the update. Do you [or does anyone] know of any A320-family routes that need 180-minute etops?
Does anyone know Pratt’s etops intent for their NEO engine?
One of the nicest aspects of Leeham’s comments is how we are all able to learn from each other
It is the APU Battery that Melted !
This rear Electric board is also damaged !
May be a battery defect, or a regulation failure too, or both !
In French, between arcing, and burning, we may use the popular “Kramé” term widely used in case of cooking disasters.
Fire is the new F word in all matters Boeing!
It seems like there is no fire extenguisher or fire sensors in that bay. If that is the case then Boeing made a big blunder. Wherever there is a concentration of electrical systems, heat is inevitable and with heat comes fire. Hence fire control mechanism should be a no brainer.
I wonder if the fire would have continued unabatted had the cleaners not detected the smoke.
One more thing that begs the question is whether there is enough fire resistant material used in that bay. The worst case scenario is a fire starting in the electrical bay and propagating to other systems and set the entire aircraft on fire.
Boeing must get their acts together of close down and let Airbus build airplanes.
To add insult to injury, I see the chinese CAA using this incident to scrutinise the Dreamliner further and further delay the certification.
Keep Boeing in your prayers.
The aft cargo compartment is seperate from the compartment that holds the APU battery and associated electrical equipment. The cargo bay has fire detection and extienguisher equipment, as mandated by the FAA after the Value Jet DC-9 fire and crash in Florida in the mid 1990s.
A battery will catch fire if shorted out, over heated, over charged, poorly assembled, or other causes. I lost a car because of a fire started due to the battery being shorted out..
To pronounce that Boeing somehow “blundered” and did not design sensors and fre fighting equipment into the airplane as required is premature. Let’s just wait to find out from the NTSB just what caused this event, and be thankful that no one in Boston got hurt because of it.
“It seems like there is no fire extenguisher or fire sensors in that bay.”
Is that correct? Any source?
found on A.net:
the following special conditions apply. Lithium ion batteries on the Boeing Model 787-8 airplane must be designed and installed as follows:
going by that scrit “burning LiPo with releases into the environment” just can’t happen 😉
I scanned the document and wonder what heatdetection would be required if the battery is not being recharged.
(Especially) With LiPo tech faults can be delayed action or even spontaneous.
Good design practise would imho be to have protective circuitry/measures “always on” .
Are you suggesting that the protective circuits, if any, were not “on” at the time? If you are, how would you know that?
(Especially) With Li-* tech faults can be delayed action or even spontaneous.
Good design practise would imho be to have protective circuitry/measures “always on” .
You will find “always on” management in automotive applications ( like forex the Tesla Roadster which only uses benign NiMH tech ) GM Volt had similar delayed fault incidents.
The GM Chevy Volt has been know to begin burning, weeks after a collision. Not many people can afford the Tesla vehicles.
Yes, keesje, it was the cleaning crew that first detected the smoke while cleaning the cabin after the flight arrived. My guess is the systems that monitor the batteries and charging systems are in the cockpit. The cleaning crew, even if they were in the cockpit may not know which systems are operating and which are not, they are normally not trained to monitor aircraft systems like the flight crew or maintenance crew is. But, in any case, they did the right thing, leave the aircraft and call the Airport Fire Department.
“Not many people can afford the Tesla vehicles.”
Very few people can afford a Dreamliner 😉
This was more about peer solutions.
KCT I have no idea.
– Reading the FAA document it seems all special safety requirements are focused on detection and safety of the Lithium Ion batteries during operation, (de)charging. Not when they are out of operation.
– The news we heard sofar is that people were alarmed by smoke, not by a central detection/ warning signal. If people were in the aircraft, usually there’s power, its a pretty dark cabin without it.
I would imagine that even if the cleaning crew had any knowledge of aircraft systems, they would be rather quickly chastized for touching anything they are not authourized to do in their normal routine.
What are the implications for this had the cleaning crew not smelled the smoke, or had it started an hour or two later?
Boeing should not let the sale of the A321neo go unanswered. Time to leapfrog it with a new small airplane having a larger 140′ wingspan. Also, twin aisles so that people can travel to Hawaii and coast to coast with dignity.
The last time Boeing leapfrogged Airbus they landed in hot water so to speak 😉
Lithium ion batteries have been linked to previous incidents of fire on the aircraft even when transported as cargo. Remember the chinese 747 cargo plane that went down due to fire which was apparently caused by its batteries cargo. I guess if this somoke was not detected, it was going to progress throughout the entire aircraft unabbated due to lack of fire containment measures in the Electrical bay. And that, I INSIST is a blunder.
do you know what this is?
in SPIEGEL terms the thing that Germany should invest in, instead of supporting the French A300 back in the 1970s. Sadly, it is true what Uwe said, Spiegel never ever writes anything positive about Airbus. It is easier to find a hurra-Airbus on Seatle Times than in Spiegel. check their archives!
HFW is an interesting place. As a kid i watched Noratlas, C160 and the rather noisy HansaJet operate from the runway ( after the grazing herd of sheep had been shooed away ;-).
“Of course the fact that Airbus stole land from the senior editors for the runway expansion probably didn’t help matters much.”
Der Spiegel under Augstein and later was and is political. Technological implications are lost on them.
The Augstein family never had any territorial skin in the XFW expansion but afaik they have property that overlooks the area from the nothern side of the river ( Elbchaussee, Blankenese )