Emirates : EK : UAE

Jeannot a écrit:3. Le super grand frère, le 10 ou 10X est loin de sortir des cartons et Airbus a de la marge avec le 350-1000. Cela expliquerait peut être les rumeurs de commandes complémentaires d’A380 ainsi que les commandes massives de 777-300ER d’Emirates pour bloquer les créneaux.Quelques simples petites réflexions depuis mon petit Vexin Français dans cette période un peu creuse.

• réclamer l'abandon de la version A350-XWB-1000, annoncée au Salon du Bourget, équipé du RR Trent XWB-1000 (à MTOW accru) à 97,000 lbs de poussée, et le retour à la config. de l'A350-XWB-1000, avec le moteur à 93,000 lbs. de poussée (il sait que RR ne va pas faire les deux versions, à "core" différencié, avec des réglages respectivement à 93,000 lbs. et à 97,00lbs de poussée ; et il lui serait dit, "in no uncertain terms", à, quel point il serait ridicule pour Emirates de vouloir une version de la nouvelle variante proposée (à 97,000 lbs. de poussée) avec "derate", pour ramener la poussée maximale à 93,000 lbs, ...... compte tenu du poids supplémentaire du moteur, dû au "rescaling" du core ; on lui démontrerait ses lacunes en matière de la conception et du "design" des moteurs d'avion ) ;
  
• dire que l'A350-XWB-1000 perd son intérêt par rapport à l'actuel B777-300ER, alors que, même avant cette 'commande ferme' de 50 x B777-300ER à Dubai, il sait, comme toute la planète, qu'Emirates a déjà trop de ces appareils en exploitation et en carnet de commandes (à recevloir) ;
  
• chanter l'éloge du B787-10 /-10X de nouveau, comme "Entertainer" Tim l'a fait, surtout dans une version articulée autour d'une motorisation GEnx, quand on voit à quel point celle-ci est à la peine, par rapport à celle assurée par les RR Trent 1000 (lorsque Tim CLARK essayait de nous impressionner, en disant qu'il faudrait une poussée de 83,5000 lbs., au moins, pour bien propulser cette variante B787-10 / -10X, RR disait déjà qu'une version RR Trent à 80,000 lbs. de poussée pourrait sans doute faire l'affaire ! Bien évidemment, TC basait son chiffre de 83, 500 lbs. sur le besoin apparent du GEnx de pousser à 78,000 lbs. pour la version B787-9 -- se souvenir de nos remarques à ce sujet -- , alors que le RR Trent 1000 se contentera, selon les informations actuellement publiées, de 74,000 lbs. ; pauvre Tim n'y est pas ; et pourquoi focaliser sur GE, ... soit une solution non RR ? On verra !).
  

• (i) il n'arrive pas encore à produire un GEnx exempté de doutes ;
  
• (ii) le GEnx -2B, "bleed-air", du B747-8 réalise des performances vraiment médiocres et décevantes par rapport à celles promises dans la phase marketing ;
  
• (iii) même le GEnx sur lequel GE s'était engagé pour l'A350 d'origine (quand il était allé pleurer chez Airbus, craignant d'être "down-selected out" (battu par P&W) dans le concours triangulaire entre GE, P&W et RR pour la motorisation du B787) n'a même pas été construit, et n'a aucune crédibilité à stade pour les versions -800 et -900 de l'A350-XWB (et les responsables d'AF / KLM, par exemple, le savent, comme ils savent que les problèmes du GEnx -1B pour le B787 ne sont pas encore résolus .....) ?
  

• se remettre, tant que faire se peut, sur les rails et dans le séquencement des vrais avions de toute nouvelle génération à concevoir, "designer" et construire, et se sortir de cette distraction imbécile qu'est l'opération B737-MAX (et la rivailité ridicule de cette opération avec celle du NEO chez Airbus) ;
  
• remplacer à brève échéance , avec un seul avion 'superbe', dit chez nous 'Superbi' (Super-biréacteur), quasi simultanément, les B777-300ER et le B747-8I (Superbi-, 'tout composite', de 400 à 420 places, en config. cabine 3 classes std., selon les normes modernes de confort spacieux, avec la possibilité de faire un "stretch" vers les 475-480 places).
  

• le développement du quadri-réacteur A380-900,
  
• et de ses propres "Superbi" (qu'il ne devrait pas négliger, pour que ce soit Boeing qui se trouve davantage 'en mode rattrapage' qu'Airbus, dont l'A350-XWB-1000 est le vrai précurseur des Superbi-, .... ayant 'pondu' les technologies, ... mais ....
  
• simplement sans aller dans les 'dimensions supérieures', ... que Boeing doit viser pour être crédible sur ce créneau des (super-)biréacteurs à 400 à 475 / 480 places.
  

• de (au moins) 400-420 places, en config. cabine 3 classes std., selon les normes modernes de confort spacieux, selon les "normes Emirates", quoi (il faut que Tim CLARK se sente exister et créer quelque chose),
  
• avec un "payload" / 'charge marchande' de 50 tonnes,
  
• capable de faire, contre le vent, et sans escale, le trajet Dubai-Los Angeles (marché de niche, et fétiche pour "Entertainer" Tim), en y transportant les "high-rollers" de Dubai vers les Casinos de Las Vegas.
  

Emirates sera / serait Client de Lancement. Cette compagnie n'a aucune intention de prendre encore des B777-300ER. Quand Tim CLARK dit qu'il a passé cette commande pour être sûr d'avoir une solution de PUC prête, au cas où il y aurait des retards importants sur le programme A350-XWB , il est plus qu'économe avec la vérité !

Ainsi, Boeing arriverait à se remettre sur les 'bons rails', et Emirates pourrait faire construire un monument à l'ego de "Entertainer" Tim !

Et si Boeing exclut RR, il vendra à peine la moitié des avions qu'il pourrait espérer de vendre et livrer !

• le MoU pourrait être réajusté, pour s'appliquer à, par exemple, une commande de 12 à 15 ou 15 à 18 x A380 (avec la flexibilité intrinsèque à l'accord, offrant la conversion d'A380-800 en A380-900 (en optant pour une motorisation RR) ;
  
• 
  
• ensuite, Emirates pourrait s'engager sur une acquisition de B787-10 ou -10X, toujours avec RR comme motoriste avec son RR Trent 1000 dans la version "évoluée", évoquée par Mark KING, et dont nous pourrions avoir des nouvelles, après le vol du RR Trent XWB-900 sur FTB A380-800 ; si, si, .... RR, parce que, si Tim CLARK est constant dans ses pleurs pour la "engine commonality" / 'communauté-moteurs' (le pauvre "Entertainer" reste scotché, hélas -- notamment, quand ça lui convient -- , dans ses idées anti-diluviennes sur les moteurs), c'est surtout RR qui pourra continuer à observer les notions de "design" et de construction d'un moteur à partir d'un "same bill of material", et avec "commonality" à travers toute la famille des moteurs concernés, en observant les réglages de poussée stipulés par le(s) cahier(s) des charges ; contrairement à la facilité avec laquelle il est plutôt largement dit que RR pourrait répondre à toutes les demandes et stipulations de Boeing, dans ce contexte (dès que Boeing les publiera), des personnes proches du 'dossier' restent dubitatifs au sujet des solutions que GE pourra offrir avec son GEnx actuel, et se demandent même si GE n'aura pas à faire un nouveau moteur du type GEnx, doté d'un "core" plus grand, et, sans doute, avec un système de soufflante modifié.
  

Australian investigators have catalogued a series of missed opportunities to catch the weight data error which led to the serious Emirates Airbus A340-500 tail-strike at Melbourne.

During the flight preparations, the base weight from the flight-management system, 361.9t, was augmented with a 1t allowance for last-minute changes, to produce a figure of 362.9t.

Probably through a simple miskeying, the first officer inadvertently entered the incorrect take-off weight for the aircraft - using the figure 262.9t rather than 362.9t - when calculating the take-off performance data through the A340's electronic flightbag.

This incorrect weight, 100t below the actual figure, was transcribed on to the flightplan, along with the associated performance parameters.

While the single electronic flightbag was handed to the captain so he could check the figures, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said: "There was a lot of activity in the cockpit at that time and it is likely that the associated distractions degraded the captain's checks, and the weight error remained undetected."

The pilots' procedures were also supposed to include a verbal check between them to compare the take-off weight in the flight-management system with that entered into the electronic flightbag.

However the "various distractions", including the first officer discussing departure clearance with air traffic control, meant this check was "omitted", said the ATSB.

The loadsheet confirmation procedure provided two more chances to pick up the error - the first when the first officer read the take-off weight from the flight-management system and then from calculations on the flightplan.

But having correctly read the former as 361.9t, the first officer initially misread the flightplan as 326.9t, then re-read it as 362.9t - the correct figure, even though this was not the one written on the plan. The first officer thought he had simply written the wrong figure, and corrected it, but this left the miscalculated performance data unchanged.

The second chance to capture the error came with a check of the "green dot" speed from the flight-management system and electronic flightbag.

While the check is intended to ensure these speeds are within 2kt (4km/h), the pilots failed to notice the two systems were displaying "green dot" speeds differing by 40kt.

The flight-management system read 265kt and the flightbag 225kt. "Because they both ended in a '5', the captain may not have noticed the difference in the values," the ATSB said.

During the take-off roll on 20 March 2009, the aircraft failed to accelerate sufficiently, using almost the entire runway before over-rotating and suffering a tail-strike 265m from the runway end, followed by two more strikes at 173m and 110m. The A340 overran, hitting infrastructure, before becoming airborne and eventually returning to land safely.

Investigators pointed out that the variations in parameters experienced by the crew during normal mixed-fleet operations "increased the difficulty" of the pilots to recognise suspect outputs from the electronic flightbag.

In the two months prior to the accident, the crew had been exposed to take-off weights varying from 150-370t, and the erroneous take-off weight of 262.9t "would not have been sufficiently conspicuous" to alert them, said the ATSB.

"This problem is not unique to this accident," it stated. "Previous investigations into similar data entry error and tail-strike occurrences have highlighted the inability of flightcrew to conduct a 'rule of thumb' or reasonableness check of speeds when moving between aircraft types.

"An unintended consequence of mixed-fleet flying appears to be a reduction in a flightcrew's ability to build a model in long-term memory to facilitate recognition of 'orders of magnitude', or a 'rule of thumb', in respect of take-off performance data."

Jeannot a écrit:Conviasa va ajouer 6 Embraer et 4 A340-500 à sa flotte

Chavez: Venezuela to buy Embraer, Airbus jets
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that his government plans to buy new Embraer jets from Brazil as well as used Airbus jets to expand his country's state airline Conviasa.

Chavez said Venezuela will negotiate credit with the Brazilian Development Bank to buy up to 20 Embraer jets from Brazil.

Chavez thanked Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff "for the credit they're going to give us." He said the estimated cost of 20 jets would be $814 million.

The Venezuelan government had said earlier this month that Chavez approved plans to buy six Embraer jets. But during Chavez's Sunday television and radio program, Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez laid out the options of buying either 10 or 20 Embraer jets.

"It's enough to see Venezuela's location on the map to conclude on the pressing need for us to have a very powerful airline," Chavez said.

Chavez's government has subsidized Conviasa since its launch in 2004. The president on Sunday did not provide information about how much the government has spent on the airline in recent years.

According to Conviasa's website, it currently has a fleet of 18 planes. In addition to domestic routes, Conviasa has international flights to cities including Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Damascus, Syria, among others.

Chavez also said Venezuela will buy four used Airbus 340-500 jets from an airline in the United Arab Emirates at a cost of about $60 million per plane.

Bolivian President Evo Morales, a Chavez ally, has announced similar plans to expand his country's state airline, Boliviana de Aviacion, or BoA.

Morales last month proposed to buy six Embraer 190 jets during a meeting with Rousseff in Caracas.

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

Intéressant.

On peut imaginer que les 4 x A340-500 viendront d'EMIRATES.

A voir.

Il faut bien qu'Emirates fasses parler de lui, qu'il occupe le terrrain. "Entertainer" Tim, .....ne sait-il pas dire à son patron qu'il y a des moments où la discrétion est plus productive ? !

Emirates is to seek compensation from Airbus for the disruption to its operation caused by the discovery of cracks in wing-rib feet on A380 aircraft.

The carrier is the largest operator of the type with 21 in its fleet. It estimates the grounding of the aircraft - six at a time - to effect temporary repairs will cost it $90 million in lost revenue by the end of March.

As a result, it wil look for compensation from the airframer.

Emirates says the cracks have been discovered in 10 of its A380s, but believes it is likely that all 21 will require remedial work.

It is also concerned over the likelihood of future groundings in order to apply a long-term solution for the problem.

On 8 March EADS, Airbus's parent, said it had made a €105 million ($138 million) provision to cover the cost of repairs to the initial 67 in-service A380s.

No mention was made of any provision for compensation and the airframer could not immediately indicate whether there would be additional costs arising from manufacturing changes.

On 8 February the European Aviation Safety Agency ordered inspections of wing-rib feet on all A380s. Emirates has a further 69 A380s on order.

Airbus was not immediately available to comment on the potential Emirates claim.

Dubai's flagship carrier Emirates reported a 72 percent drop in 2011 profits on Thursday as high fuel prices accounted for 40 percent of the Gulf carrier's costs.

Emirates made a profit of AED1.5 billion dirhams (USD$409 million) for the fiscal year ended March 31, compared to a profit of AED5.4 billion in 2010.

Revenue at the Dubai government-owned airline was AED62.3 billion dirhams in 2011, up 14.9 percent.

The airline's fuel bill rose 44.4 percent in the 2011/2012 financial year to AED24.3 billion dirhams, or 40 percent of total costs, it said.

The Arab world's largest airline said in March that it might restart fuel hedging to help guard against the high costs.

"In addition to the cost of fuel, Emirates had an operationally challenging year with the political unrest across the Middle East and North Africa affecting flight schedules," the airline said in a statement on Thursday.

Rising fuel costs and the financial turmoil in Europe are expected to impact earnings of most global carriers, the International Air Transport Association said last month.

The airline's passenger seat factor was 80 percent, in line with the prior year.

Profits for the wider Emirates Group were AED2.3 billion dirhams, including airline services arm, Dnata. Emirates paid a AED500 million dirham dividend to the Dubai government while Dnata paid AED350 million. In 2010, Emirates' dividend payout was AED2.3 billion dirhams.

Dubai has long touted its position as a travel hub and rapidly expanded Emirates.

It competes with Abu Dhabi's Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways, as the state-backed carriers look to transform the Gulf region into the new hub for global aviation.

Emirates' drop in profits is in line with competitors such as Air France-KLM, Lufthansa and Cathay Pacific.

Air France-KLM's first-quarter losses widened and Cathay posted a 61 percent drop in 2011 profit -- both hit by high fuel costs and the slowing global economy. .

(Reuters)

Emirates has urged Boeing to make up its mind quickly on plans for an enhanced version of the wide-body 777, predicting it would be a success in the market.

Emirates' president Tim Clark also warned Boeing rival Airbus not to let the A350 jet run up three years of development delays, similar to those seen on Boeing's 787 Dreamliner.

"The 777 and its derivative is of great interest to us because we started taking the 777-300ERs in 2005 and they will start retiring in a 12 year period," Clark said.

Pourquoi Boeing éviterait-il ce qui est arrivé à Airbus ? Surtout quand on voit le bide commercial qu'est le B747-8I ? !

Boeing is considering a refresh of its 777 with new wings and new engines to enter service near the end of the decade.

Clark said Boeing was "nearly there" in terms of what Emirates expected from the revamped 777.

"We've been working with them for quite a long time and are a little bit exasperated by the time it’s taking".

"My view is that a significant number of carriers will sign up for this airplane."

Mais Boeing se fiche pas mal du point de vue personnel de Tim CLARK !

He said Boeing was having difficulties in trying to work out the recurring costs.

"I believe the demand is there. Anybody who has a 777 today of size of ER will be automatically interested in its derivative."

Clark gave a lukewarm response to Airbus's decision last year to beef up the A350-1000 variant with bigger engines and more range, while pushing its development back two years.

"Well, I'm just saying we are watching it very closely. We don't want to get caught in the same way as the 787s... we can't afford a three year delay on this," said Clark.

"We went to the A350 because they sized it to the level we needed it to be."

Emirates has 20 A350-1000s on order.

Airbus pushed back development of the stretched A350-1000 by two years when it decided to overhaul the design last year. The USD$320 million jet is now due to enter service in mid-2017.

Airbus suffered a setback last week when Abu Dhabi-based Etihad Airways halved its order for the A350-1000 over four months, dropping to 12 in April from 25 in November.

Airbus has not sold any of the largest variant of its next-generation A350 since updating the design with bigger Rolls-Royce engines last June, while Boeing has been notching up orders for the wide-body 777.

Airbus says it is confident a market will flourish for the long-distance jet and has said its only difficulty is the shortage of available delivery slots before 2018 or 2019.

"It's up to them (Airbus) to deliver the airplane to the specification that we have contracted... and that's what we continue to watch," said Clark.

(Reuters)