Engine Problem Forces Qantas Jet Back To Bangkok

[BrianCR]

Rolls Royce, the maker of the engines.

Well, that certainly explains everything.

When do they switch to Pratt & Whitney?

They can't, Whitney has taken up singing and that just leaves the Pratt who is concentrating on using his engines to put the first American on the sun!

[BrianCR]

Do airlines other than Qantas have problems with Rolls Royce engines? If not, I wonder why that is.

American Carriers never have problems with engines, they run on hot air!

[BrianCR]

It's what they get for buying RR's.

Agreed, much better to buy American stuff made in Mexico!

[rakman]

Do airlines other than Qantas have problems with Rolls Royce engines? If not, I wonder why that is.

Forty Rolls Royce Airbus A380 engines 'need replacing'

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-11782579

That "recall" was due to inspections carried out after the turbine hub explosion of the number 2 engine on Qantas' A380. All due to a 5cm oil pipe that was incorrectly machined and inspection didn't catch the flaw. Investigation will show if it was systemic in RR production or just a bad run.

It was unfortunate for Qantas to have it happen, but they ran the engines at 105% of rated thrust which apparently hastened the failure. It was not because of a maintenance issue.

The engine failures on their 747's have been on a different engine model for different reasons. And other airlines have had engine failures with different brands.

It is just unfortunate that Qantas has been in the spotlight for having the first major A380 incident, so anything make the news.

It is also amazing that the mean time between failures is very high, and engines can run for years before major rebuilding.

[rakman]

Just to add the 747.400 has a different R.R. engine than the new A380. so I would very much doubt that it's a related problem.

As for a U.S.A. poster(that's a guess) who is promoting his own Pratt and Whitney engines, he will have to look at their safety record before suggesting -switching- Sorry Rolls Royce are the best, and the most reliable,and more economical, sour grapes sir, same as the Concord was the best but U.S.A. was jealous again, didn't buy ?? but most business men were Americans who wanted the 3 hour-rather than 7 hour flight.

I would think it's more accurate to say Rolls-Royce used to be the best but like so many things in the world perhaps cost-cutting is forcing them to cut corners also.The bottom line is their refusal to discuss any of these matters in public must have seriously tainted the Rolls-Royce reputation?

Qantas cannot possibly switch to another manufacturer just like that even if they wanted to because they have already invested so much money in the Rolls-Royce engines they already have on their existing fleet. But I have to say I think it's disgraceful that Rolls-Royce refused to comment on a problem that related solely to them thereby leaving questions in the minds of passengers and potentially damaging the reputation of Qantas which is totally unjustifiable.

It is no wonder that both Qantas and Qantas insurers both sued Rolls-Royce separately and if these kinds of incidents continue perhaps it will be necessary when booking your ticket to ask if the aircraft is fitted with Rolls-Royce engines or not?

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Jx3MQQcACRU

Changing to a different manufacturers engines on an airplane isn't as simple as a car. The mounting structure, control systems and certifications would be prohibitively expensive. When you order the plane, you pick the engines, and that's what you're sticking with.

RR and the other manufacturers make exceptionally good products. If you use just the news as a source, Qantas has the world's engine failures, which isn't true.

RR does Qantas' engine maintenance, and Qantas does operate the engines a bit harder than other airlines, to avoid revenue load reductions or diversions to refuel. Maybe this has something to do with some of the failures. Maybe it's just a series of unfortunate events. I'm sure Qantas, RR, and the appropriate government regulators are checking on it.

I wouldn't hesitate to fly with either Qantas or RR engines, the odds of failure are still pretty slim. That's why they put 4 engines on the planes. All the aircraft landed safely, nobody injured, just an inconvenience of one more day before getting to where you're going.

We never hear of the hundreds of flights of normal operation. If the media gets to the point of only printing "Qantas had a successful flight for a change", then I'll worry.

[Gonsalviz]

Rolls Royce, the maker of the engines.

Well, that certainly explains everything.

When do they switch to Pratt & Whitney?

They can't, Whitney has taken up singing and that just leaves the Pratt who is concentrating on using his engines to put the first American on the sun!

GE makes the real engines.

[Gonsalviz]

Do airlines other than Qantas have problems with Rolls Royce engines? If not, I wonder why that is.

American Carriers never have problems with engines, they run on hot air!

Mostly jet fuel and GE

[Gonsalviz]

It's what they get for buying RR's.

Agreed, much better to buy American stuff made in Mexico!

They don't shell out.

[shunima]

Oh my dear friends... what moves will fail at one point or another. Basic rule of mechanics. And no maintenance in the world will make it go away. And Qantas doesn't fail more often than others do.

Have a look:

http://avherald.com/

use the search tool if you feel the urge to bash other carriers. Loads of incidents pop up to fire up this wonderful forum.

[Rinrada]

Couple of these should do the job...beat anyone...

[sawadeeken]

Just a thought......... Wouldn't this be an absolute nightmare for the smuggler who had just successfully smuggled some contraband onto the flight and was just relaxing thinking "now, at least, the hard part is over" - AND THEN - have to go back and clear customs once again............ KARMA? or what?

[jackdawson]

Another one.

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/qantas-aircraft-in-emergency-landing-20111019-1m7l5.html

What's up w/ these guys?

[WarpSpeed]

It's what they get for buying RR's.

Agreed, much better to buy American stuff made in Mexico!

Since when has Florida become Mexico? Cuba maybe but not Mexico..

[ginjag]

Just to add the 747.400 has a different R.R. engine than the new A380. so I would very much doubt that it's a related problem.

As for a U.S.A. poster(that's a guess) who is promoting his own Pratt and Whitney engines, he will have to look at their safety record before suggesting -switching- Sorry Rolls Royce are the best, and the most reliable,and more economical, sour grapes sir, same as the Concord was the best but U.S.A. was jealous again, didn't buy ?? but most business men were Americans who wanted the 3 hour-rather than 7 hour flight.

I would think it's more accurate to say Rolls-Royce used to be the best but like so many things in the world perhaps cost-cutting is forcing them to cut corners also.The bottom line is their refusal to discuss any of these matters in public must have seriously tainted the Rolls-Royce reputation?

Qantas cannot possibly switch to another manufacturer just like that even if they wanted to because they have already invested so much money in the Rolls-Royce engines they already have on their existing fleet. But I have to say I think it's disgraceful that Rolls-Royce refused to comment on a problem that related solely to them thereby leaving questions in the minds of passengers and potentially damaging the reputation of Qantas which is totally unjustifiable.

It is no wonder that both Qantas and Qantas insurers both sued Rolls-Royce separately and if these kinds of incidents continue perhaps it will be necessary when booking your ticket to ask if the aircraft is fitted with Rolls-Royce engines or not?

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Jx3MQQcACRU

I am sticking to my instincts and would still say they are the best. Maybe i'm a patriotic Brit.

I did interestingly watch the Aussie programme, and found it a bit one sided but WITH REASON, I would think there is too much at stake for them to comment fully or even comment at all, as the whole thing is being dragged through the liable process. I did note that the problem seems to be a piece of oil pipe Thumb length that has been lathed (not straight) and maybe made by a specialist supplier, that will also have to be accounted for in the court process, so there will be many claims and counter claims.

R.R. it appears have been told NOT to comment until the right time. don't forget this 747-400 is using a different engine, and we do not know what caused this incident. Further than that, we have to understand how many engines are in use with Qantas + all other airlines. and to say that before booking a plane ticket a passenger to ask if the engines are R.Royce ? HaHa....absolute hilarious remark. GET REAL. Better ask the tour company who is the pilot and how long has he been flying

And I as a patriotic Australian who has flown Qantas around the world too many times to remember, am sticking to my instincts too.

How can you honestly suggest that the Australian presentation was one sided when one of the two parties to what is essentially a vital partnership keeps totally quiet and refuses to communicate on any aspect leaving the other partner in this business relationship i.e the airline to muddle through the public relations disaster entirely on their own.

Like I said earlier it is disgraceful. And when you say Rolls-Royce were told not to comment regarding this incident, then how do you explain four other incidents that affected its family of aircraft engines in little more than a three month period as analysed in a Financial Times article dated November 7 2010 ( link provided below ).

http://www.ft.com/in...l#axzz1b82ZWcap

One sided cause MAYBE it was an Aussie documentary on the prob., causes and the glorifying of Qantas and crew, I think they (the crew)did a good job in a fine fashion, as you saw the part that was most probably to blame will be replaced on all the engines, So Do not rubbish R.Royce, look at Qantas, poor subsidised Qantas, and it's unions and failures.

We have a million planes flying and R.Royce engines have a second to non record compared with others. Does Australia make planes, or engines for????...If you are not satisfied try making some

and then everyone else will pick at your hickups ,,,I -or you are NOT in any position to explain the other non related small probs with R.R. engines, If you really want to compare R.R. with others I suggest you search all the engine manufacturers, and report on their engine hickups in recent times. And suggest you travel with an airline that doesn't sport R.Royce, it will then give you peace of mind, but then you will be none patriotic.

[Crushdepth]

If you think Qantas is dangerous, feel free to book a ticket with a budget Asian carrier

[Bagwan]

Couple of these should do the job...beat anyone...

Agreed. The Mustang was a heap of crap before the RAF fitted theirs out with Merlins. The 8th USAF were saved many casualties after the Brits had ironed the wrinkles out of the Mustang which could then escort bombers all the way to the targets - and back.

[bigbamboo]

The most frequent question that I get from nervous passengers is "Do big airliners like this crash very often?"

"Usually, only once." seems to re-assure them.

Yep, that's right!....... and in the business we were often asked what the name QANTAS stood for? As we all know it's Queens And Nymphomaniacs Travelling As Stewards..... which also went down well with some.

Edited October 20, 2011 by bigbamboo