EASA to flight test 737 MAX individually; strips FAA delegation

While Boeing prepares for the un-grounding of the MAX, the aviation agencies are also doing their homework ahead of the eventual green light for the 737 MAX to fly again. However, one of the agencies is going to approve the MAX themselves, rather than delegating the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) to do so.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) executive director, Patrick Ky, “exchanged views” before the European Parliament’s Committee on Transport and Tourism, which was just newly elected in May 2019. Ky shortly presented EASA’s role in the industry and of course, touched a very important topic – the Boeing 737 MAX and the type’s return to service.

During the presentation, Ky officially confirmed that the EASA will individually approve the MAX to fly only after Boeing has met four critical conditions. Firstly, the agency “insisted that any change proposed by Boeing on the resolution of these problems would need to be EASA approved”. Secondly, as the European Union and the United States have an agreement on air safety, the FAA approved parts that the EASA did not oversee. Thus, as the MAX re-enters service, the European agency will do a “broader review of the design of the critical safety systems on the MAX”, which the EASA delegated the FAA to certify back when the aircraft was approved for service in 2017 – a topic, “not very popular with our American colleagues”, according to Ky.

Thirdly, the EASA will have to have “a complete understanding of the two accidents” and finally, it will require that “flight crews are adequately trained” regarding the changes that Boeing made to the 737 MAX software. EASA’s executive director also noted that the agency is in “regular and in very strong contact” with the manufacturer and the FAA, as every party involved is trying to get the jet back up in the air.

Meanwhile, the FAA expects to conduct certification flights with the grounded jet in October 2019, as reported by the Seattle Times. Boeing stated that the company “assumes” that the 737 MAX will return to service “early in the fourth quarter 2019”. However, during his presentation, Ky noted that Boeing has not implemented changes that would provide “appropriate response to Angle Of Attack integrity issues”, questioning whether the assumption will come to fruition. MAX operators share the skepticism, as they look forward to for flights to resume in January 2020.

The changes to certification show how much the crisis has shaken up the industry, creating a rift between agencies. A recent example of how the agencies still worked together could be the Boeing 787 Dreamliner groundings back in 2013 when the aviation authorities grounded the type worldwide due to issues with batteries and electronic systems. The EASA followed the FAA’s directive and noted that the agency is “working closely with the FAA as the primary certification authority”.

But when the second 737 MAX suffered a fatal accident, the FAA was not seen as the “primary” agency anymore – Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) was, as it was the first aviation authority to ground the MAX. In contrast, the FAA had “not been provided data to draw any conclusions or take any actions”.

Two days later, the FAA joined the rest of the agencies and banned the narrow-body from operating commercial flights, one of the last agencies to do so. And, as Boeing aims to return the newest 737 family member to service as soon as possible, it seems like the FAA has lost its status as a leading agency, adding further complexity to the last chapter of the 737 MAX crisis.

 

Source: https://bit.ly/2kIrFtD

Image: Mark Van Scyoc

Boeing: 777X “exploding doors” issue not to affect test schedule

Boeing expects the “exploding door incident” to have no significant impact on the 777X design. The incident is unlikely to affect the overall test program schedule of the new widebody jet, the planemaker said in a statement on September 10, 2019.

The incident took place during the final structural testing of the 777X static test airplane at Boeing’s plant in Everett, Washington, on September 5, 2019, according to The Seattle Times, which first reported the incident. Subject to a high-pressure stress test on the ground, the cargo door of the airplane failed – exploding outward.

Without confirming or denying the “exploding doors” fact, Being now explains that the issue involved a depressurization of the aft fuselage. It occurred not only during the final test for the static test article, but also during the final minutes of the test, at around 99% of the final test loads. The 777X was undergoing static testing since June 2019.

While the manufacturer is now trying to determine what caused it, it claims that it will not have a drastic effect on the 777X testing program. “While our root cause assessment continues, at this time we do not expect that this will have a significant impact on aircraft design or on our overall test program schedule,” according to the statement.

The 777X program has already taken several hits related to issues with the General Electric GE9X engine. While officially denying that 737 MAX grounding has affected 777X program, Boeing has also reportedly pushed back the entry into service of a smaller 777X variant, the 777-8.

 

Source: https://bit.ly/2kInAWl

Image: Dan Nevill, CC BY 2.0

Boeing 777X program takes another hit, door blows out during test

Boeing’s new wide-body jet program, the 777X, has taken another hit. Reports indicate that the manufacturer has had to suspend load tests of the new model after the cargo door of the airplane exploded outward during a recent ground stress test.

According to a report by The Seattle Times, the incident took place during the final structural testing of the 777X static test airplane at Boeing’s plant in Everett, Washington, on September 5, 2019. Subject to a high-pressure stress test on the ground, the cargo door of the airplane failed – exploding outward.

“During final load testing on the 777X static test airplane, the team encountered an issue that required suspension of the test,” Boeing spokesperson Paul Bergman said in a statement, as quoted by The Seattle Times.

The cargo door failure occurred during the final testing in 777X’s certification process by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the newspaper writes. Boeing stated it is reviewing the incident to find out what exactly happened during the test.

Static test airplanes are built for ground testing only and are not intended to be flown or enter commercial service. Flight testing is a whole new ball game.

The 777X program has already taken a hard hit from issues with the General Electric GE9X engine. In June 2019, pre-delivery testing glitches detected on the new GE9X necessitated fixes that are now expected to push back first flight and delivery of the 777X, the 777-9 variant, into 2020.

A fresh and disappointing delay was also announced in August 2019, when Boeing, strained by the ongoing 737 MAX crisis, pushed back the entry into service of its smaller, ultra-long-range variant of the 777X, the 777-8, Reuters reported at the time.

 

Source: https://bit.ly/2kduNO8

Image: Dan Nevill (Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 2.0)

Airbus deliveries fall to 42 aircraft per month in August 2019

Within the first eight months of the year, Airbus has delivered 66 more commercial aircraft than during the same period in 2018. In the first eight months of 2019, Airbus has delivered 500 commercial aircraft. But with the yearly delivery target set between 880 to 890, the effort seems to fall short of the goal.

To reach its goal, Airbus has four months and 380-390 aircraft to be delivered, which translates to approximately 96 aircraft per month. While in some months this year the company was rather close to the target (with delivery rate of 70+ planes/month and even 81 in May), the setbacks in others but the average rate at 62 aircraft per month.

Two months ago, presenting the first six months results, Airbus addressed delivery challenges, admitting that: “The second half of the year in terms of deliveries and in particular free cash flow continues to be challenging”. And challenging they so far are.

August was the second worst month this year in terms of deliveries. While in July the manufacturer delivered 69 aircraft, the rate fell to only 42 in August. In total, customers took three A220s, five A350XWBs, six A330-900s and 28 A320 Family aircraft.

 

Source: https://bit.ly/2lZiHsg

Image: Shutterstock.com

Embraer delivers first KC-390 to the Brazilian Air Force

Embraer delivered the first KC-390 to the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) at the military base in Anapolis, in west-central Brazil.

“The incorporation of the KC-390 into the Brazilian air force is a milestone in military aviation,” said Brazilian air force commander, Lieutenant-Brigadier Antonio Carlos Moretti Bermudez in a statement.

The first KC-390 will be operated from Anapolis Air Base by the First Troop Transport. Embraer has already started the training of the FAB personnel. In 2014, the Brazilian Air Force ordered a total of 28 KC-390s with logistic support from the Brazilian manufacturer. It should progressively replace the C-130 Hercules within the FAB.

The KC-390 is a tactical transport and inflight refueling aircraft. Powered by two specially designed Pratt and Whitney V2500-E5 engines, it can carry 26 tons of cargo, including vehicles like two M113 armored personnel carriers, or a UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter. The biggest aircraft produced in Latin America, it is designed to take off and land on semi-prepared and unpaved airfields.

It has obtained the type certificate from the Brazilian Civil Aviation Authority (ANAC) in 2018. In July 2019, Portugal placed a firm order for five KC-390 transport aircraft, becoming the first international customer for the plane. Embraer has also received letters of intent from the Czech Republic (another partner in the program), as well as Argentina, Chile, and Colombia, for a total backlog of 35 aircraft.

 

Source: https://bit.ly/2lzTlkA

Image : Jason Wells

Inside the eye of Dorian, the Hurricane Hunters [Video]

Weather services from all around the world have their eyes set on Hurricane Dorian. To predict its trajectory and intensity, a varied array of data is collected in real-time. In the United States, some of those measures are taken by planes. The daring pilots, known as Hurricane Hunters, belong to two units: the U.S. Air Force 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron, and pilots from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Hurricane Dorian, a category 5 tropical cyclone with 325 km/h winds, has been dubbed the most powerful storm to ever hit the Bahamas. In order to measure its temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, and wind speed, satellites from NASA are not enough. Enter the specialists of the NOAA: aboard their two Lockheed WP-3D Orion (“Kermit” and “Miss Piggy”), they are able to fly directly into the eye of the hurricane for several hours and collect useful data using radiometers and probes, called “dropwindsondes”. To gather high-altitude information, the NOAA can also rely on a Gulfstream IV-SP jet.

On September 1, 2019, the NOAA released footage of the moment when the WP-3D Orion “Kermit reached the eye of Dorian.

 

 

Working in rotation with the NOAA pilots, the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the 403rd Wing of the Air Force Reserve Command uses a specialized aircraft, the Lockheed WC-130J “Weatherbird”. This version of Lockheed’s bestseller features a reinforced structure to withstand conditions more extreme than any warzone and a vast array of meteorological equipment.

 

While onboard one of those planes, Jordan Sun recorded eerie footage of the tranquility that reigns inside the eye of the hurricane.

The data collected by those two units, along with the satellite imagery provided by NASA allow the National Hurricane Center to publish a detailed report on Hurricane Dorian every three hours, allowing the decision-makers to anticipate.

 

Source: https://bit.ly/2lUoaR7

Image : NOAA

Russian company sues Boeing to cancel MAX order

Less than a month ago, Boeing CEO thanked customers for their understanding during the MAX grounding crisis, stating that there were “no order cancellations”. Now, the situation is changing as Russian company is reportedly seeking to not only cancel MAX order, but also to get a lengthy compensation.

Avia Capital Services, aircraft leasing company subsidiary of Russian state-owned conglomerate Rostec, has 35 Boeing MAX aircraft on order. The company has filed a lawsuit in the United States claiming over $225 million from Boeing, Financial Times reports. The sum includes a $35 million deposit for the planes, as well as interest, compensation for damages and punitive damages.

AeroTime has reached out to Boeing regarding the lawsuit. However, the company’s spokesperson declined to comment, stating that that due pending litigation “we do not have any comment at this time”.

Back on August 7, 2019, Boeing Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg said that airlines remained the company’s “firm partners” despite months long MAX grounding and the perspective of receiving their future MAX orders with lengthy delays. Muilenburg also added that the U.S. plane maker “had no order cancellations”.

Boeing is currently facing multiple lawsuits, ranging from Lion Air flight JT610 and Ethiopian Air ET302 victims’ families, to 737 MAX pilots. Several airlines have also threatened to claim compensation from the manufacturer, starting with Norwegian. In fact, the company’s spokesperson Lasse Sandaker-Nielsen mentioned the idea to “send the bill” to Boeing as soon as the aircraft was grounded worldwide, on March 13, 2019.

 

Source: https://bit.ly/2Lhfc9J

Image : VDB Photos / Shutterstock.com

Why is reducing noise pollution crucial for aviation?

There is no denying that aviation has come very far technology-wise. In its early infancy, commercial aviation was an expensive and rather uncomfortable endeavor, as the turboprops that powered aircraft were loud, produced a ton of vibration and were limited in power, making passengers travel onboard an aircraft for a very long time.

As jet engines gained traction commercially, passenger comfort and airline operations improved dramatically. The first turbojets were more efficient, faster and most importantly – less noisy, thus providing a much more comfortable journey on board. Yet, aviation authorities and governments worldwide now seek to reduce how much noise aircraft produce with manufacturing limits, operational restrictions and regulations.

To counter aircraft noise pollution, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has issued the Annex 16, which includes several chapters with noise restrictions. ICAO measures sound levels in Effective Perceived Noise (EPNdB), which relies on human annoyance, rather than general loudness.

Why is reducing aircraft noise pollution important?

Noise pollution can significantly impact the experience onboard. Airlines today aim to deliver the best product possible, including top of the line in-flight entertainment (IFE), catering, cabin layout changes and even lightning inside the aircraft are crafted in a way to make passengers as comfortable as if they were in their own home.

But one aspect of comfort for airlines is hard to control – noise. It puts carriers in a difficult position, as configuring a cabin in various ways can help to reduce the noise inside, but at the same time increase the weight of the aircraft and subsequently, boost operational costs.

According to a report by the Federal Aviation Administration of the United States (FAA), exposing a person to loud noise (higher than 90dB) for a prolonged period of time (eight or more hours per day) for several years “may cause permanent hearing loss”. A 2006 study highlighted that even at 65 dB(A), “humans become irritated from noise”. The same study tested sound levels on two Airbus A321 flights and the average noise levels in-flight were between 80-85 dB(A), just below the 90dB threshold, but way above the human annoyance sound level of 65 dB(A).

Furthermore, studies like the one by The University of New South Wales (UNSW Sydney) have shown that continuous exposure to noise can reduce the recognition of memory and cause a person to be more fatigued. A recent example of how fatigue can cause issues inside the cockpit is Air Canada Flight 759. the National Trasnportation Safety Board (NTSB), which investigated the horrofing close-call, concluded that fatigue most likely contributed to the crews’ decision making.

However, the A321 is a fairly new aircraft and is categorized under Chapter 4 in ICAO’s Annex 16, which allows for a maximum of 92.8 EPNdB for the aircraft. On average, it emits 88.3 EPNdB during a flyover. Newer aircraft are even under stricter noise restrictions and manufacturers have to comply with Chapter 14 regulations released in 2013. As a result, newer aircraft like the Airbus A321neo emits 83.7 EPNdB, while Boeing 737 MAX generates 82.6 EPNdB.

Yet people on board aren‘t the only ones affected by noise pollution – residents that live under busy flight paths experience a lot more issues related to sound pollution.

“It may be beautiful to look at, but not to live near”

Said one New York resident, as Concorde took off for the last time from New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport (JFK). While supersonic speeds, due to sonic booms, exaggerate the effect of sound pollution, the general consensus amongst residents living near airports is similar.

One study, which researched how aircraft noise affects a person’s health, concluded that continuous noise exposure may lead to “heart disease and hypertension”. Both consequences are exaggerated if the noise exposure is during the night, but “similar daytime exposure effects have also been identified”. Another study concluded that aircraft noise can also impact a child’s ability to learn, as “aircraft noise exposure at school or at home is associated with children having poorer reading and memory skills” – so much so, that even 5 dB can delay the average reading age by 2 months.

Aviation authorities are trying to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise pollution. The previously mentioned ICAO Annex 16 and its newest Chapter 14 are written with hopes to reduce the people living under “Day Night average sound Level of 55 dB” areas by 1 million between 2020 and 2036. World Health Organization (WHO) indicates that noise levels above 55 dB during the night affect the population, as it becomes “highly annoyed and sleep-disturbed” and is more prone to cardiovascular diseases.

FAA has also launched a project called Noise Quest, which includes educational material and research about the effects of aircraft noise pollution. The agency even helps airports to acquire land near their facilities if the acquisitions are done under “noise compatibility programs”, as noise regulations also restrict operations.

Restricting operations

Airlines are very strict regarding their costs, especially low-cost carriers. While one of the reasons that they do not operate the night is to conclude maintenance on their aircraft, airports also charge a lot more for flights that land or depart during the night.

For example, London-Gatwick Airport (LGW) imposes charges upon every aircraft that lands at the airport. One of the charges is related to noise. An aircraft, compliant with ICAO Annex 16 Chapter 14 base noise emissions has to pay $26.23 (£21.65) during a summer’s (April 1 – October 31) day (5 AM – 10:29 PM), but at night (10:30 PM – 4:59 AM) that sum increases to $460.52 (£378.69). Considering the fact that low-cost carriers operate under tight margins and try to avoid every cost as much as possible, airlines try to avoid landing during the night as much as possible.

To illustrate, an easyJet Airbus A19 registered G-EZIV completed six flights from and to London-Gatwick (LGW) on August 21, 2019, according to FlightRadar24 data. The aircraft started its day at 5:50 AM, avoiding the night time noise charges, but its last flight was late to depart from Bordeaux (BOD) by 11 minutes and it landed at 10:30 PM. As a result, easyJet was forced to pay nightly fees for the flight. Considering the fact that the airline has to pay for fuel, emission taxes, parking fees, service fees and many other costs imposed on aircraft, and keeping in mind that easyJet average revenue per seat is $61.65 (£50.71), those 11 minutes can be the crucial difference between a profitable flight and a loss-making flight.

Numerous airports around the world limit their operations during the night due to noise restrictions – according to ICAO, the number of international airports who restrict night time flying in some shape or form is 161, of which 107 are located in Europe. As a result, landing and departure slot times are becoming a valuable asset that can be worth almost as much as an aircraft – in early 2016, Oman Air paid $75 million for a pair of take-off and landing slots at London-Heathrow (LHR). Thus, airlines pay extra attention to schedule planning, as profitability can depend on minutes. Increasing capacity on routes can also be very difficult, if the route is congested by other airlines – if slots are limited, the initial costs of purchasing a landing slot can determine whether the airline is able to increase Available Seat Kilometers (ASK) in their network.

Nevertheless, aircraft manufacturers try to reduce the noise that aircraft emit as much as possible.

Help of the manufacturer

But noise reduction comes back to the manufacturers like Airbus or Boeing. Fuel efficiency is by far the most important aspect of a new aircraft, but noise reduction has become increasingly influential when airlines do decide to purchase an aircraft.

Lufthansa estimates that a new Airbus A350-900 produces between 40 and 50% less noise contour compared to its quad engine cousin, the A340. The aerodynamic shape of an aircraft can help reduce the noise on an aircraft as wind bypasses it, rather than hitting the aircraft. For example, a retracted landing gear during an approach or a landing can create noise, as the wind hits it. One more case is the Airbus A320 family – the aircraft emitted a “squeaky” sound during the approach. But a vortex generator under the wings can reduce the noise by up to 6 dB, which airlines began to retrofit on their A320s back in 2014.

However, engines are one of the major contributors to overall noise emitted by an aircraft and manufacturers use an array of ways to reduce the sound. Modern engines have higher bypass ratios, thus the engine itself consumes less air and produces less noise. Also, the air that bypasses the core of the engine is muffled by the air that has passed the engine fan and due to the high bypass ratio, a lot more air passes by the fan. Engine chevrons also help, as they smooth out the mixture of the hot air from the engine core and the cold air from the engine fan, creating a turbulence-free environment around the engine.

Airlines also retrofit their engines with hush kits, but these are mostly used on older, low bypass engines like on the Boeing 737-200, which still sees active service in Northern Canada.
Health concerns

All in all, the number one reason to reduce noise pollution is to improve the quality of life of the communities that live near airports or busy flight paths. As noise pollution is proven to have detrimental effects on health and the ability to work even in the cockpit, further reducing noise emissions is crucial. However, as the general public is still largely unaware of the harm that aircraft noise can cause, according to PARTNER, education is as important as advancements in technology.

 

Source: https://bit.ly/2MBBp5i

Image : Ceri Breeze

Air Force One: how Boeing 747 became the VC-25A

Just recently, the United States Air Force chose between two viable contestants to replace the VC-25A – surprisingly, the Airbus A380 and the home favorite, Boeing 747-8. Ultimately, and probably to nobody’s huge surprise, the Air Force chose the 747 – on January 28, 2015, the service branch officially announced their decision, designated the program as the VC-25B and set the deadline for Boeing to deliver the new Air Force One aircraft in 2024. The final price of the two new 747s is set to be at $3.9 billion.

The new Air Force One will continue the dynasty of Boeing jets serving the United States president. But that dynasty almost came to an end when the time came to replace the two aging VC-137C, which served as Air Force One aircraft since 1962.

On August 23, 1990, the United States Air Force officially accepted the first out of two new Air Force One aircraft – a modified Boeing 747-200B, specifically catered to the needs of the United States president. The Queen captured the throne and Boeing delivered two VC-25A to the Air Force, tail numbers 28000 and 29000.

This is the story of how, with the VC-25A, Boeing almost lost the spot to its competitors.

Unlikely contenders

Back in 1985, during Ronald Reagan’s term, the 707 were already aging – while the tail number 26000 Boeing 707 was just over 20 years old and tail number 27000 just hit 13 years of service, the technology used on both jets was outdated. Thus, the United States Air Force began to look for options to replace the VC-137C.

A United States Air Force spokesman, Maj. Michael Perini said that the Air Force is looking “to replace both aircraft [VC-137C – ed. note] by late 1988” and that the branch has sent out “request for proposals” towards various aircraft manufacturers. The basic requirements were that the jet was a commercial airliner and had “at least two years’ operational service with a scheduled airline”. Three front runners emerged – Boeing with the 747-200B, McDonnell Douglas with the DC-10-30 and Lockheed with the L-1011 TriStar. Airbus had no place at the competition at that time – the only possible option was the A310, but even then the twin-engine did not have enough range to have a chance.

Comparing the three aircraft models, Lockheed was very far behind the other two. Lockheed’s TriStar was smaller in cabin width and overall length. In addition, a questionable reliability record due to the problems with its Rolls-Royce engines put the L-1011’s entry into jeopardy.

McDonnell Douglas had a huge advantage – the United States Air Force operated the KC-10 Extender, military transport and mid-air refueling aircraft, thus it had an abundance of spare parts and experience, including maintenance procedures, of using the jet. The DC-10 would have saved a lot of money for the United States taxpayer.

What Boeing lacked in operating costs, the Queen more than made up in other specifications – the 747-200B had more range and was bigger in every aspect than the other two.

Sealing the deal

But the specifications laid out by the United States Air Force indicated that the aircraft needed to be brand spanking new. This was the final straw for Lockheed, as the manufacturer just ended the production of the TriStar in 1984, a year before the U.S.A.F. decided to replace the 707.

Both Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas had another issue – the Air Force wanted a quad jet, rather than a trijet. Jeff Rhodes, a Communications Specialist at Lockheed Martin recalled that the “Air Force called for a four-engined aircraft”. Even then, Lockheed did not give up, even if their only entry did not completely fit the requirements. The company had a few TriStars “with relatively few flying hours” that could be refurbished to compete for the Air Force One spot. Lockheed, while knowing that they were unlikely to win it, decided not to “concede the playing field to the Boeing 747 without some effort on our part”.

And as mentioned before, the Air Force already operated a military variant of the DC-10, the KC-10 Extender. While it would have saved costs, the DC-10 carried a huge elephant in the fuselage – its reputation. With three high profile crashes during the 1970s, the flying public was not very fond of the aircraft, which even had several nicknames depicting its tendency to crash. Picking the DC-10 to carry the president around the world would have potentially resulted in a PR nightmare, which McDonnell Douglas itself failed to resolve when the FAA grounded the DC-10 in 1979.

Thus, the winner was clear and Boeing 747-200B claimed the throne to be the Air Force One. The deal was sealed in June 1986. Both the United States Air Force and Boeing indicated that the first aircraft would be delivered in November 1988, with the second VC-25A coming in May 1989. If all went according to plan, Ronald Reagan would still be able to fly on the newest Air Force One, as his term was scheduled to end in January 1989.

Unfortunately, Boeing ran into severe delays. After initially delaying the first delivery of the VC-25A to January 1989, the American manufacturer pushed the delivery further to January 1990, due to issues while installing specialized communications equipment onboard.

This meant that Reagan never had a chance to ride on the newest 747 as a president, as Boeing finally handed over the VC-25A on August 23, 1990, almost two years after the initial plan.

 

Source: https://bit.ly/33U9W4k

Image: Conny Sjostrom

Air New Zealand awaits Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engine return soon

Air New Zealand is awaiting its last remaining out-of-service Rolls-Royce engines to return to operation in the upcoming months, the airline has revealed announcing its latest financial results. The flag carrier has been hit by several rounds of Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 problems that continue to affect its operations.

“Another important milestone will be the return of our remaining Rolls-Royce engines back into service, which we are expecting to happen in the coming months,” the airline has revealed in a statement. “This will enable us to bring further reliability back to our flying schedule and to utilise our most efficient aircraft in the optimum way”.

The Air New Zealand’s “most efficient” aircraft are 13 Boeing 787-9 Dreamliners that the carrier has in its fleet of 64 airliners. The airliners, while preferred by the airline for their fuel efficiency, have been plagued by engine problems.

In early 2016, the launch customer of the Boeing 787, All Nippon Airways (ANA), detected unusual corrosion in blades of intermediate-pressure turbine (IPT), resulting in early wear and cracking on Trent 1000 Package C engines. At the time, the company estimated that it would take roughly three years to replace the blades in all the affected engines.

Air New Zealand was among the affected airlines. It had to cancel flights, make scheduling changes and resort to leasing wide-body aircraft as maintenance issues with the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines resulted in grounding of some of its Boeing 787-9 aircraft. However, the problems did not stop here.

In January 2019, early wear of the high-pressure turbine (HPT) blade of Trent 1000 TEN was also detected, prompting for more inspections. Some of the airline’s Dreamliners were already fitted with Trent 1000 TEN engines too. Moreover, “at least seven of Air New Zealand’s Trent 1000 TEN engines are replacements for the earlier model Trent 1000 “Package C” engines”, Australian Aviation estimates.

In August 2018, the airline already accounted $30 million to $40 million hit resulting from schedule changes prompted by the global Rolls-Royce engine issues. This year, it does not reveal the exact numbers, instead vaguely mentioning “a temporary increase in operating costs” in the face of the global Rolls-Royce engine issues.

In August 2019, Rolls-Royce announced it was getting close to fixing problems that affect its Trent 1000 engines. “We have made good progress on resolving the Trent 1000 compressor issue, though regretfully, customer disruption remains,” was written in a statement by the company.

Engines problems have not discouraged Air New Zealand from buying Dreamliners. In May 2019, the airline signed a firm agreement to purchase eight Boeing 787-10s with an option to increase the order up to 20 aircraft, as well as, rights that allow to switch from the larger 787-10 aircraft to smaller 787-9s. The deal is valued at $2.7 billion (at list prices) and the first airliners are expected to arrive in 2022.

But this time, instead of Rolls-Royce, the airline opted for GE Aviation’s GEnx-1B engines to power its new long-haulers.

At the moment, Air New Zealand website (last update three days ago) still warns passengers about possible schedule or aircraft changes due to Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 Package C engine problems on a “number of” their Boeing 787-9s.

The airline explains that earlier than expected maintenance checks on a specific part of the engine compressor are required as advised by Rolls-Royce, in conjunction with European regulator EASA. To solve the issue, it is leasing one Boeing 777-300 aircraft from EVA Air.

 

Source: https://bit.ly/2zdr5Yr

Image: Stanislav Fosenbauer / Shutterstock.com