Saudi Arabian Airlines Boeing 777-200 (SV7679)
I think this might be the largest airline I have done a livery of the week on. Normally I try to find smaller or unknown liveries (with special legacy liveries here and there). But seeing (online) a photo of a Saudi Arabian Airlines Boeing 747 just motivated me to share, I love it!
The simple tan up top and blue and gold tail. I don’t know why but I just really enjoy the over all look.
The airline was founded in 1945 with one DC-3 and now currently has a fleet of 114 aircraft. The original DC-3 was a gift from American President Franklin D Roosevelt to King Abdul Aziz. The airline flies to over 75 destinations around the world and is based in Saudi Arabia.
Some other aircraft types with the livery:
* Boeing 747SP
* Boeing 747-400
* MD-11
* Don’t think it looks as good on a smaller MD-90
* Check out this amazing E-170 at night with the tail lit
Image: Flyg
This is back in January when there were just two Eva Air Boeing 777-300ER's sitting at Paine Field. Photo by Kevin Frysinger
I am up at Paine Field quite a bit. This is where many of Boeing’s aircraft are made: the 777, 787, 747 and 767. For months I have seen two brand new Eva Air Boeing 777-300ER’s sitting by the control tower. The last time I went by, there were three. Why would Eva Air let three brand new planes worth about $800,000,000.00 just sit and not make revenue? Well, it turns out they have no seats and the problem extends beyond Eva Air.
The seat manufacturer Koito, based in Japan, falsified safety test results and in September of 2009, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) withdrew approval for the seats. EASA claimed that 16g, 9g and flammability test data were affected and the EASA stopped Airbus from installing any additional seats.
Flight Global and ATI reports that these falsified tests affected as many as 150,000 seats on 1,000 aircraft. How can this happen? Multiple sources have confirmed to Flight Global and ATI that Koito falsely indicated that some seats had been cleared by the Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) by illegally forging the JCAB’s stamp of approval.
Many airlines have had to deal with the delays of aircraft delivery due to Koito’s issues and yet there are even more airlines that already have the seats installed. Earlier, Boeing sent people to Japan to help Koito solve its quality issues. However, it seems that their help wasn’t enough and Boeing told me they will no longer offer Koito seats to customers.
I also asked Boeing if the seats already on airlines are safe and Bev Holland, Boeing Manufacturing & Quality Communications Specialist, explained, “Boeing has a comprehensive system in place to make sure seats conform to FAA specifications before being installed. While we are working to help those customers who have previously ordered Koito seats to make sure the seats are correctly installed and certified, Koito seats are no longer an option for new orders. ”
When I asked Boeing about the Eva Air Boeing 777’s, Holland stated, “we do not discuss our customers’ airplanes,” but she did confirm that, “seats are buyer-furnished equipment.”
I can respect Boeing not talking on behalf of an airline, so I went to talk to Eva Air. I was looking to see if Eva would confirm why the Boeing 777’s are not being used, what their game plans for the aircraft are and if they are paying parking fees to Paine Field (which is actually owned by Snohomish County). I heard back from Katherine Ko, Jr Vice President of Public Relations for Eva and she stated, “Our priorities are safety and quality service, and those aircraft are there for aircraft update.” I was hoping for a bit more information, but I can understand the airline not wanting to say too much publicly right now, especially if any legal action is taken in the future.
Since Boeing and Airbus are no longer providing the seats, are the ones currently flying safe? I am told they are safe and it has not proven that they are not, it has just been proven that Koito falsified records. Currently there is an advisory board made up of the JCAB, Airbus, Boeing, All Nippon Airways, Japan Airlines, and Koito determining if the seats are safe. The board is requesting airlines who currently fly with Koito seats to donate a few, so testing can be done to see if they are safe. I am not sure how well that will go. I know airlines care about the safety of their passengers but do they really want to donate seats that might help to determine if they are defective and need to be replaced?
I also wondered why the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) wasn’t more involved in this matter since there are quite a few Koito seats flying in the United States. Would the FAA issue an Airworthiness Directive (AD) requiring all US airlines to replace the seats? I contacted them to find out and got some surprising answers.
I communicated with Alison Duquette, who is with the FAA Office of Communications, about the certification of the seats and she told me, “The Koito seats were approved through the US/Japan bilateral agreements. The JCAB reviews and accepts all data and the FAA then accepts their test data via our bilateral agreement.” This means the FAA just rubber-stamps JCAB’s approval, which was falsely rubber-stamped by Koito. Pushing to see if the FAA might possibly issue an AD she explained, “Japan is the certifying authority so they would be the government to issue a directive and then the FAA could follow.”
I asked the FAA if any new rules have been put into place after this incident and Duquette told me, “The JCAB has a process in place to make sure to correct any problems.” When I asked what the FAA thought about the forged approval by Koito, in essence by-passing the JCAB approval, Duquette referred me to the JCAB. At this point, it seems the FAA is taking a very hands-off approach.
So, what now? I am not exactly sure. Do I want the industry to have to spend millions during a time when they really cannot afford it? Of course not. However, I don’t want it to take an accident and people needlessly getting injured or die because they were sitting in faulty seats. I am sure this will be an on-going story. At the time of publishing this blog, I have not been able to get in contact with the JCAB or Koito. I will continue to work with Mary Kirby with Flight International (she also writes the RunwayGirl blog) on finding more answers.
No matter what happens, I really hope that those Eva Air Boeing 777’s can get into the sky soon; it is a shame seeing those beautiful birds stuck on the ground.
Image by @TxAgFlyer
GE's Boeing 747-100 testbed with GEnx engine (N747GE)
A while back to celebrate the Boeing 787 Dreamliner’s test flights, I posted Ten Interesting Facts about the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 Engines. Now that Boeing 787 ZA005 with GEnx engines are flying as well, I find it only fair to give 10 interesting facts about them:
#1 GE estimates the GEnx engines projected to be sold in the next 20 years will emit an about 77 million fewer tons of greenhouse gases than older comparable engines.
#2 The GEnx engine will remain on wing 30 percent longer and is 30% quieter than comparable engines in service today.
#3 The GEnx-1B for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner has a fan diameter of 111 inches and the GEnx-2B version for the Boeing 747-8 has a fan diameter of 105 inches.
#4 The GEnx engine has 18 fan blades, which is about half as many as GE’s CF6 engine.
#5 If an airline were to replace 20 of 200-to 300-passenger aircraft with next-generation jets powered by GEnx engines, it would save nearly $37 million in fuel costs annually, based on jet fuel costs of $2.50 per gallon.
#6 The GEnx engine has one of the highest pressure ratios ’“ 23:1 that sets the high pressure compressor apart from other engines.
#7 By using GEnx engines, that same fleet could save nearly 500 million gallons of jet fuel each year. Enough to fly more than 12 million people from New York City to London on Boeing 787 Dreamliner jets.
#8 The GEnx engine is the only choice on the Boeing 747-8 and is one of two choices on the Boeing 787.
#9 The engine has composite fan blades with titanium leading edges.
#10 The GEnx has a fan bypass ratio of 19:2, which also helps reduce noise.
Other cool stuff:
* Interactive page on the GEnx Engines
* Videos on the engine
* Video & pictures of Boeing 787 ZA005 with GEnx engines, first flight
Image: Rick Schlamp
Slim and light don't describe the Airbus A380, but sure do describe Qantas' carbon fiber seats on their A380.
The Airbus A380 is the largest commercial airline in the sky today. It is massive. When you think about this plane you don’t think about “light.” However there is something light about the seats on Qantas Airbus A380’s…they have carbon fiber.
What’s carbon fiber you ask? (if you don’t ask, skip this paragraph) In easy terms it is woven fiber material that is stronger and lighter than metals used in other airline seats. For a more complex answer, read this. While the carbon fiber on the seats is what got my attention about the Qantas’ seats, there are plenty of other cool things going on.
About a year ago, Mary Kirby, via her Runway Girl Blog, talked about the 2009 Australian International Design Award of the Year for their seats. Not only because of the high-tech materials used, but also the way the seats recline. Like a high-end movie theater, the bottom part of the seat moves forward when one reclines, taking away less room from the person behind you.
Qantas told me, ’œThe carbon fibre backshell on the Qantas A380 Economy seats is exclusive to Qantas and provides a unique natural element and visually stunning appearance. The material was selected for sleek design appeal and aircraft weight benefits.’
These carbon seats might be exclusive now, but I am sure we will be seeing seats like these on future flights. As carbon fiber gets cheaper and airlines are looking to cut costs and green house emissions I imagine more carbon fiber will be used. And as Kirby shows, you might be seeing this seat on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner as well.
Two more pictures: ONE & TWO
Thanks Dan for pointing this out!
Image: Jalopnik
I doubt these yellow Ryanair seats will be taken out for stand up seats anytime soon
I debated if I should even blog about this, but figured why not?
Ryanair is out there running its (genius) PR machine again. It doesn’t matter how many times Ryanair says something the media will pick it up and treat it like fact. I love Ryanair’s ability to consistently do this and especially with a topic that has already been picked up previously. They will talk about some radical money-saving scheme (ie paid toilets) and then it never happens. Yet passengers get the idea that Ryanair is willing to do almost anything to save passengers money and look to them for the cheapest ticket possible, while Ryanair gets tons of free publicity. Like their PR strategy or hate it, at least it works (and I know I am guilty of helping them out).
Anyhow, Ryanair is at it again saying they are looking to provide uber low fares on stand up seats, but Boeing is saying no way. Aubrey Cohen with the Seattle PI quotes Boeing as saying, “We are not considering standing-only accommodations, nor do we have any plans to do so. Among other things, stringent regulatory requirements — including seats capable of withstanding a force of 16 Gs — pretty much preclude such an arrangement.”
Even though I don’t think it is that crazy of an idea to offer stand-seating in the future, I doubt we will be seeing them anytime soon. Many short-hop flights from 30-90 minutes could be done standing up. Think of riding a full bus or train and seeing people having to stand for longer periods of time. Unlike a bus or train, an airplane under-goes much more force with take off and landing.
Even if standing seats did exist, would they make economical sense? Ryanair is saying they would charge as little as $6 for a standing seat. Adding extra seats, but reducing fares while having to haul around more weight doesn’t seem to make business sense. It would most likely be more cost effective just to keep the sitting seats and charge more.
Image: GetDown