Now Singapore Airlines is forced to change Rolls-Royce engines on three superjumbos

[scroobal]

Re: Now Singapore Airlines is forced to change Rolls-Royce engines on three superjumb

It sure took you a long while to figure out that it was serious.

Anyway, why do you think that Qantas acted in that manner despite being a public listed company? Do you think they are trying to sabotage their own company. What was their motivation? Why didn't they follow the "industry protocol". Do you think they were sticking it up to their shareholders?

Pray tell.

Dear Scroobal

Yes it might be as you put it a matter of public perception versus the technical details. Why Quantas found it first might be due to the fact that Quantas was willing to go beyond the regulators and Rolls Royce advice , take the engines, planes out of service and do a complete check which involves a strip down of the engine in a hanger whereas SQ just did a quick check on the flight line.





Locke

 

[heartlander]

Re: Now Singapore Airlines is forced to change Rolls-Royce engines on three superjumb

Dear Scroobal

Yes it might be as you put it a matter of public perception versus the technical details. Why Quantas found it first might be due to the fact that Quantas was willing to go beyond the regulators and Rolls Royce advice , take the engines, planes out of service and do a complete check which involves a strip down of the engine in a hanger whereas SQ just did a quick check on the flight line.

As the causes and details became clearer and as Rolls Royce advice became more definite , SQ followed with more detailed overnite checks taking the aircraft out of service.

Seeing the damage and understanding what caused the damage are two seperate issues. The ones who will understand what caused the damage and can trace the sequence of events are Rolls Royce and the Authorities. SQ Engineering are in no position to investigate and conclude what caused the incident.

Some detailed checks cannot be done on the flight line and any strip down involves taking the plane out of service and into a hanger.



Locke

You could tell from day one how Qantas was overzealous in protecting their safety reputation. Tons of newspaper articles pointed out the Rain Man reference. Having such a safety reputation is both a good and bad thing - when shit happens, you're under even more pressure to protect yourself. This is exactly what happened. Qantas CEO covered his butt better than a Singaporean in the civil service. He pushed all responsibility to RR/Airbus, insisted it was not maintenance problem, totally did it like a pro. The grounding of ALL A380s - specifically A380s - was an ingenious way of suggesting to the customer that A380s were at fault, not Qantas. It also generates fear in the public's mind about A380 as a plane, which also hurt airlines who continue to fly their A380s - like SIA. No engineer involved here. Just good PR and political skills.

In summary, Qantas said:
1) Your safety is first.
2) RR/Airbus were to blame.
3) Other airlines don't care if you died.