Why not just buy an A330?
A "failure" to evaluate the new A350 properly , says Airbus of the Japan Airlines Boeing 7E7 order (Flight International, 4-10 January). Airbus says it is "disappointed". Why?
The 7E7 is newer, sleeker, tailored to its niche, will fly sooner and, like the old Vickers VC10, could build enduring passenger appeal.
Yet so marginal was the "paper" A350 that has been floating in the ether for months, that it managed only a 2.5t weight saving, and a mere 1% cruise drag improvement over the A330.
That is why Airbus is to spend €4 billion ($5.31 billion) on a new wing and a reskin to give an 8t advantage. But each aircraft will cost $4-5 million more than an A330 and, says Airbus commercial officer John Leahy, is a -900 model, a 777-200ER competitor, not the 7E7 rival touted so far (Flight International, 21 December 2004-3 January).
This is badge-engineering gone mad: the answer is simple, just buy the A330 off the shelf and spend the cost saving on fuel. Or buy a 7E7.
Lance Cole
Swindon. Wiltshire, UK
AA587: spread the blame
The US National Transportation Board (NTSB) blames the American Airlines flight AA587 crash in 2001 on excessive rudder input by the first officer and the sensitivity of the Airbus A300-600R rudder system (Flight International, 2-8 November 2004).
I think that if a primary flight control system can cause primary flight structure to fail when manually correcting for instability the airframe should not have been certificated. I also think training crews not to completely stabilise an unstable aircraft is absurd.
Other factors were involved in the AA587 crash. Unless the original equipment manufacturer chooses not to design out forces that can be manually applied, be assured you and I will apply this force to prevent instability. Consider further the notion the incipient fracture existed, thus thwarting attempts to control yaw. Have you ever applied a car's brake and had the seat release? Just imagine moving the vertical stabiliser with the rudder pedals.
Another troubling factor is the wide range of thrust available for this model airframe without concurrent major primary structure changes. Single engine take-off is routinely practised. One wonders how often on this airframe?
I think whitewashing the manufacturer, NTSB, Federal Aviation Administration and faulting flightcrew proficiency is not constructive. Proficient flightcrews will deviate from the manual to save the aircraft. To wit, the remarkable airmanship of the DLH crew after a missile strike at Baghdad.
Meanwhile, a UK taxi company quotes a charge of £34 ($60) to take a passenger 40km (25 miles). More than three times the supposedly unsubsidised $18 Mr Taylor paid to fly from Geneva to London.
I am obliged to assume that the taxi fare is a commercially viable one, although of course the taxi operator will also throw in the odd extra seat place or two, either free, or heavily discounted, if required.
John Dugan
Lahaina, Hawaii, USA
Confused over rail fares?
Peter Taylor (Flight International, 21 December 2004-3 January) appears to be confusing promotional fares with commercially viable fares. There is a big difference.
Travellers by rail, in any major European country, are heavily subsidised (running into billions annually) by the general taxpayer, however much (or little) they pay for the ticket.
It must therefore be particularly galling for the low-cost airlines to find that the taxpayer is funding this particular attack on them.
Turning to the airlines themselves, I know there are some people, like Peter Taylor, who believe that the low-cost airlines can make money by filling an aircraft with $18 ticket holders only on board, from Geneva to London.
Nevertheless, that $18 fare is promotional, restricted in number and availability per flight, and no different in principle to the odd million or two Ryanair free tickets which are periodically given away.
The few free, or discounted, passengers on each flight (filling seats that would otherwise be empty) are being subsidised by the many passengers paying the full (ie commercially viable) fare.
John Kendal
Wokingham, Berkshire, UK
Enjoyable escape
I thoroughly enjoyed the account of the DHL crew's survival ("Great escape", Flight International, 21 December 2004-3 January). It was an amazing piece of flying and teamwork.
The The Australian Society of Air Safety Investigators website has a superb technical presentation by Yannick Malinge, vice-president flight safety of Airbus - engineering that pays tribute to the crew (www.asasi.org/isasi2004_ppts.htm).
It is understood that before the Baghdad missile incident Capt Eric Grennotte attended a seminar in which one of the speakers was retired United Air Lines captain Al Haynes. He was the pilot who crashlanded a McDonnell Douglas DC-10 at Sioux City, Iowa in 1989 on engine thrust alone after an engine failure took out the hydraulics.
Peter Burton
Singapore
Source: Flight International
