![]() To add to Gerry's answer (and this will be slightly too long for a comment), there is a huge disadvantage to drastically changing the cockpit when going from an A320 to the A320 NEO or from a B737-300 to the B737-700, or 737 NG to 737 Max, and that has to do with the existing fleets. And you probably won't make enough margin to recoup the new flight deck costs. If the competition can offer a 7 to 9% reduction in fuel burn for approximately current prices, spending an extra 2 or 3 years to match that with a new flight deck means a lot of lost sales in the interim. Prices for the A320neo and B737MAX are not significantly higher than the current/older versions. They also have to deal with the fact that airlines don't want to see a big price increase. Since the avionics architecture is quite different between the A320/A330 and the A350, moving to it would add huge costs and a couple years delay in entry into service. They're trying to sell airplanes and they have to compete with Boeing. The FAA (or other regulatory agency) mandates that they have it.Īside from that, you should consider Airbus' side.In my experience in 20 years dealing with this market, airlines only spend money for two reasons: And if it drives a need for new type ratings, that would mean more training costs and making sure you have the crews with the right rating at the right time. With a new flight deck you'll have a huge increase in maintenance and spares costs due to the need for stocking more parts with new part numbers (just adding a part number to a logistics system costs significant money.) You'll also need new crew training simulators due to the different displays and controls, whereas the neo option can be handled with software upgrades. In fact, all it's likely to do is add costs. There's no cost benefit to a new flight deck, especially when (as others noted) you have a huge investment in an existing fleet. Putting in a new flight deck is a huge expense for the manufacturers which would drive costs up and the airlines won't pay extra for something that doesn't save them money. ![]() The airlines made it clear that any new aircraft purchases would be based on operational savings and that's primarily driven by fuel burn and the resulting costs. That's why the Airbus is the 'neo' new engine option. In this case both Boeing and Airbus came to the same decision - the airlines were being driven by one single factor to replace their A320 or B737 fleets, they just wanted to reduce fuel expenses. ![]() There is always a lot of discussions between the airlines and manufacturer's before Airbus or Boeing commits to building a new aircraft. The new rule makes the A350’s cockpit a “liquid prohibited zone.” Pragmatic “procedures to be followed in the case of inadvertent liquid spillage” will also be implemented.The short answer is that it's what the market wanted. According to EASA, this could “lead to a dual engine, possibly resulting in a forced landing with consequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.” If liquid comes into contact with the controls in the A350 cockpit, it could cause the master engine switches to short out, leading to numerous “engine on/engine off” commands in rapid succession. The first incident involved Delta Air Lines, and the second happened on an Asiana flight. There have been two incidents involving spilled liquids leading to engines shutting down mid-flight “after inconsistent output” from control panels. The ban comes after previous requests to Airbus pilots to keep coffees and other liquids away from airplane control panels. The decision is intended to reduce the risk of spilling liquids on sensitive cockpit electronics. ![]() New safety precautions from the EU Aviation Safety Agency led to the banning of coffee in the cockpits of Airbus A350 planes.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |