noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Jun 20, 2014 11:44:59 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. Earlier in the thread it quotes 162 on 12th June as not moving on the flight line since arrival on 16th May. Followed by a move on the flight line on 13th June, coincidently the date of the Reuters press release - woe Friday 13th Do they do anything specific enough before outfitting starts in earnest? If the specs were slightly off, would lugging hardware across to the flight line and manhandling it into the frame, actually achieve anything? Logically, the interior for HOV would be closely checked, but on the flight line?? |
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Jun 20, 2014 13:14:49 GMT 1
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. Earlier in the thread it quotes 162 on 12th June as not moving on the flight line since arrival on 16th May. Followed by a move on the flight line on 13th June, coincidently the date of the Reuters press release - woe Friday 13th Do they do anything specific enough before outfitting starts in earnest? If the specs were slightly off, would lugging hardware across to the flight line and manhandling it into the frame, actually achieve anything? Logically, the interior for HOV would be closely checked, but on the flight line?? How far do you have to move the bird to take measurements? Or it could be that if you do a HOV, that you measure the stuff coming from the suppliers before you try to install it, than you do not even need to look at the frame. |
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Jun 20, 2014 13:36:45 GMT 1
Earlier in the thread it quotes 162 on 12th June as not moving on the flight line since arrival on 16th May. Followed by a move on the flight line on 13th June, coincidently the date of the Reuters press release - woe Friday 13th Do they do anything specific enough before outfitting starts in earnest? If the specs were slightly off, would lugging hardware across to the flight line and manhandling it into the frame, actually achieve anything? Logically, the interior for HOV would be closely checked, but on the flight line?? How far do you have to move the bird to take measurements? Or it could be that if you do a HOV, that you measure the stuff coming from the suppliers before you try to install it, than you do not even need to look at the frame. The forum continually confirms our lack of knowledge, but abundance of conjecture. Do we have no members who are actually on the ground? |
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Jun 20, 2014 15:50:44 GMT 1
How far do you have to move the bird to take measurements? Or it could be that if you do a HOV, that you measure the stuff coming from the suppliers before you try to install it, than you do not even need to look at the frame. The forum continually confirms our lack of knowledge, but abundance of conjecture. Do we have no members who are actually on the ground? Most of the things we talk about are guesses and conjecture, trying to read into the information we have. But regarding the MSN162 we have got the information that parts produced for outfitting the cabin had the wrong measurements, that is a fact. MSN162 was ferried to XFW for outfitting. Logic tells me that sometime after the ferry flight somebody realized that the parts delivered for said frame would not fit. The outfitting was stopped and the process is waiting for new parts. If your logic tells you something different, all the power to you. |
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Jun 21, 2014 1:54:32 GMT 1
I have no axe to grind re logic.
It is things like this which puzzle me (extract from the Reuters press release):
Finance Director Masakazu Arimori said the sizes of the interior fittings were slightly off and needed to be redone, meaning delivery for Airbus to fit them had been delayed.
Arimori blamed the cabin interior supplier, which Skymark declined to identify.
He 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.
"We could squeeze the parts to fit, but it is a safety issue. We are in talks with Airbus about getting the work finished," he said.
A spokeswoman for Airbus declined to comment.
1- slightly off. How slightly? How would the lack of a physical fit identify this?
2- legal issues re not naming the supplier? Skymark are confident enough to blame them, so why not name them?
3- seems a hell of a large delay estimate - difference of 3.5 months in a 6 month span.
4- the 'fit' was not physical so how would a tape measure have identified this?
5- perhaps the most telling point - why did Airbus decline to comment on something which is apparently not their fault?
If Airbus did, in fact, identify the issue I am surprised they aren't praising their teams for identifying a safety issue.
Following previous bad press re the A380, such a success would be a real 'feather in the cap'.
I offer no logic.
I make no conjecture
I merely raise questions.
In the absence of categoric answers I believe further comment is futile
The first point 'sizes of the interior fittings were slightly off' states a fact, but doesn't indicate at what stage this was identified.
Conjecture would depend on whether the interior fittings were ever delivered to Airbus, or whether Skymark identified the problem post-manufacture.
Does anybody know where the interior fittings are stored and what the lead time is?
|
|
|
|
Post by helios91 on Jul 4, 2014 13:27:23 GMT 1
In the air also this Friday afternoon but what for ? fr24.com/AIB02SLIt has a Toulouse flight #; would it be going back to TLS for storage even if it does not make sense ? |
|
|
|
Post by a380admirer on Jul 4, 2014 13:30:05 GMT 1
Maybe for tranfer and storage in Toulouse! All other make no sense
|
|
|
|
Post by a380admirer on Jul 4, 2014 13:46:27 GMT 1
flightpath looks that it is a transfer to Toulouse
|
|
|
|
Post by helios91 on Jul 4, 2014 14:06:33 GMT 1
In the air also this Friday afternoon but what for ? fr24.com/AIB02SLIt has a Toulouse flight #; would it be going back to TLS for storage even if it does not make sense ? Like all of you, I read the delay reason being linked to some parts not fitting in the cabin. However with now this "return" to Toulouse, is there not another reason behind all this being that Skymark no longer wants A380 in its fleet for economic reasons ? In such case, it would not be a delay of 2,5 to 6 months but much longer which in turns explain why MSN 162 would be sent back to TLS |
|
|
|
Post by helios91 on Jul 4, 2014 15:18:56 GMT 1
In the air also this Friday afternoon but what for ? fr24.com/AIB02SLIt has a Toulouse flight #; would it be going back to TLS for storage even if it does not make sense ? MSN 162 just landed in TLS; here is her flight path. So I guess this thread can be moved back in the A380 Production - Toulouse board  AIB02SL - 20140704 par helios91_fr, sur Flickr |
|
