At this stage AIR tells me the Dreamliner is scheduled for that flight. They could replace it with the 777-200 which they used on this route before the Dreamliners.
Printable View
correct.
for those that are interested. One of the wet lease aircrafts is en-route...crew and all.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...h-fox/#fcae5f1
http://www.hifly.aero/en/a340/9h-fox.html
I really wish AIR would disclose some more information? Who is paying for this AIR or RR?
p.s good analysis Roger...
Interesting that tonight they cancelled a flight to Houston which is a 777-200 route..
Thanks Brend. Like you I wish AIR were more forthcoming but I doubt we'll ever be told. I am sure the exact details of who is paying for what will be commercially sensitive and RR will ensure any deal they agree to is subject to a confidentiality agreement. Even if RR do agree to pick up the tab for the lease of these aircraft those fuel hungry 4 engine A340's are not cheap to run by any means, one wonders who picks up the tab for the substantial extra fuel it'll burn over the ensuing months. Plenty of fodder here for the new general legal counsel of AIR to get her teeth stuck into...
More concerning however is I feel AIR are not being forthcoming on exactly what happened to those two engines and any collateral damage to the aircraft so as not to scare the travelling public nor do I feel they being scrupulously honest about the risk of another engine failure. Bad luck happens in 3's ?
Good point Civil aviation could feasibly make this call at any stage given the well known issues with this engine and the two failures last week or worse, ground the entire older version RR powered 787 fleet. How it affected ANA https://www.theguardian.com/business...t-entire-fleet
If my facts are incorrect, let me know. When I read the article it said that maintenance on the engines would have to be done earlier than expected. It clearly means it’s a question of “when” or “if”. They knew the engines had a problem but surely not enough for safety issues...but it concerns me, feels like ignorance.
it would be a big blow if this aircraft lost its 330 min Etops
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...e-etops-flight
http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/d...%2010%20v9.pdf
Links for those interested
Jet fuel approaching US$80 can’t be helping profits
ANA who were an early adopters have 100 of these engines and experienced 3 engine failures last year, (3% failure rate). RR are claiming this issue can be managed through maintenance and claimed ANA experienced early failures were due to the number of shorter cycles on the engines. RR and AIR are supposed to have learned something from this YET AIR have just 18 of these engines used predominantly on longer flights and Captain David Morgan confirmed in the print article of the N.Z. Herald on Saturday they had been following RR's technical service bulletins stringently and yet they have had two engine failures (11.1% failure rate). Hmmmm.
You're most welcome mate. PPH being added to the NZX50 this Friday and for what its worth that's where I reinvested my AIR funds.
Just found my Air New Zealand Airpoints card snuggling in the back of a draw with his mates from Qantas & Virgin Oz!
Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence (and thrice is enemy action!).
Even given this Trent 1000 fault, known about for over a year, results in the odd engine occasionally and unexpectedly throwing a wobbly or worse a blade it still seems that AIR have been particularly unlucky having two engines go in two days.
So they join the growing ranks of airlines that have some of their Dreamliners sitting around waiting for better engine bits.
They reckon it is a 3 year program (so 2 to go ?) to fix all these dodgy engines, but where AIR are in the queue I know not.
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
It has been for quite some time, its all a question of materiality. For example Summerset restricted persons can still trade shares right up to half way through the final month in a quarter even though they have a pretty good idea how the sales will go for that quarter to be released to the stock exchange in the first week or so of the following quarter. The rules are not as black and white as some investors would like to think. FYI I formed my own opinion on the seriousness of the engine issue from a variety of sources and posted that more or less in real time as I was selling. The additional information is from a poster on here and may or may not be reliable and is unsubstantiated. I believe he knows what he's talking about but doesn't want to go on record with it and neither do I. I have invested a lot of time sharing my thoughts on this company over the years and have posted all known information from verifiable sources as quickly as I can. You can't ask more than that from anyone on here. Good luck to holders and I look forward to being a shareholder again when this issue has been de-risked.
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/6...r-nz-fallshtml
P.S.My take on the monthly operating stat's. YTD RASK excl FX is up 2.6%.
Last month YTD RASK was up 2.8% which was a nice increase from the month before that at 2.1%.
If I was a holder I would like to have seen ongoing improvement in the YTD RASK to somewhere 3% plus as you'd really want to see this against a backdrop of especially low yields this time last year when ten new entrants were badly affecting yields with their uneconomic opening specials and the much higher prevailing fuel prices this year. I think given this the YTD RASK improvement latest data is a little lower than I would like it to be and clearly the market seems a little underwhelmed today. Sure they have good forward cover on the exchange rate and oil prices for the rest of this year but we're almost half way through the year now and yields haven't materially recovered from the fiercely completive level's prevailing this time last year. That sad the monthly operating stat's are not too bad and I would have remained a holder were it not for other (in my view), more pertinent issues.