XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Jun 13, 2014 15:44:00 GMT 1
Maybe they discovered the issue after the cabin parts arrived in XFW?
|
|
|
|
Post by FabienA380 on Jun 13, 2014 15:45:13 GMT 1
Yes, that's probable... but still wouldn't tell us why it was so long before ferrying to XFW,......  |
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Jun 13, 2014 16:18:36 GMT 1
Maybe they discovered the issue after the cabin parts arrived in XFW? Well, in any case, the manufacturer worked with the wrong dimensions. |
|
spotterxfw
in service - 2 years
Hometown XFW
Posts: 3,902
|
Post by spotterxfw on Jun 13, 2014 16:44:54 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by FabienA380 on Jun 13, 2014 18:07:49 GMT 1
I was thinking in fact (indeed?) that MSN162 might go to storage somewhere and have its engines removed, just like did happen to MSN047 and MN050 4 years ago... could MSN162 even be flown back to TLS to be stored there, and have its engines removed there?...
|
|
|
|
Post by a380fanclub on Jun 13, 2014 18:23:29 GMT 1
In this updated report Skymark's CFO explains the problem, that might result in a delay of 2,5 to 6 months. t.co/OIEZvBXk6X |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jun 16, 2014 1:13:01 GMT 1
In this updated report Skymark's CFO explains the problem, that might result in a delay of 2,5 to 6 months. t.co/OIEZvBXk6XThis apparently means the first delivery to Skymark is now expected to take place in February. "[Arimori] estimated a delay of between 2.5 and six months to the delivery to Skymark of the first aircraft, which had been expected around the end of the year". |
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Jun 20, 2014 2:25:37 GMT 1
Might be that individual facts are accurate, but the whole jigsaw isn't necessarily so.
As you say, moving 162 seems unnecessary if it's just standing idle.
My point about cost being related to 167's engineless stance at TLS seems to be supported more and more.
|
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Jun 20, 2014 6:35:01 GMT 1
Yes, that's probable... but still wouldn't tell us why it was so long before ferrying to XFW,...... Any idea of when parts arrive for outfitting? I was wondering how far in advance things were planned. Things can surely be anticipated, at least to a certain degree, by convoy dates and any known urgency issues. I had visions of the innards of 162 sitting in store, cluttering up the place, while other frames arrived and were worked on. Still doesn't answer why it was ferried. If outfitting is organized in step with assembly, it makes you wonder why 162 isn't in the same state as 167. |
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Jun 20, 2014 10:37:14 GMT 1
Might be that individual facts are accurate, but the whole jigsaw isn't necessarily so. As you say, moving 162 seems unnecessary if it's just standing idle. My point about cost being related to 167's engineless stance at TLS seems to be supported more and more. I assume that MSN162 was ferried to be outfitted. At the start of outfitting it was discovered that some parts would not fit and is now waiting for the new parts. MSN167 has finished FAL and is also waiting for the new parts to arrive in XFW and will than get her engines and will be ferried. |
|
