Comment: July 2012 Archives

That was right up until Airbus sprung its surprise package, as Cathay Pacific gave the A350-1000's naysayers a moment to reflect as it catapulted itself into prime position on the programme.

Cathay's credibility turns the airline into a much-needed ally for the redesigned -1000, the revamp of which - unveiled a year ago at the Paris air show - drew sharp criticism from the Middle Eastern customers who had signed up to its predecessor.

Barbed comments from the Gulf and a dearth of orders, in part linked to a two-year postponement to the development schedule, hardly helped support Airbus's conviction that its overhaul decision had been a good one.

But the Cathay agreement puts Airbus back on the offensive and sales supremo John Leahy insisted, in a dry-as-a-desert comment at Farnborough, that the airframer would build that "less capable" version for any customers who still wanted it.

His boss, Fabrice Brégier, also issued a defiant statement that the all-new aircraft would outperform current competitors and "any future derivatives", lobbing a provocative challenge at Boeing, which - amid the flurry of Max dealing - talked up the proposed 787-10X while keeping everyone guessing over the timetable of the 777X, even as prospective customers urged the US airframer not to dawdle on the decision. All of this means it is probably still too early to declare "game on" for the big-twin race.

The building momentum of the 787, particularly now that it is in service, is gradually turning up the pressure on Airbus, which warmed up its venerable A330 with a range increase, although the changes were more modest than Leahy might have wanted after his surprise - and ultimately premature - declaration earlier this year that the type might evolve sharklet wing-tips.

Max declarations, and the 787's display, helped to lift Boeing's profile at the show, even if it didn't stir up a whirlwind, while Airbus managed to avoid being left out in the rain. Farnborough week, then, pretty much reflected the weather: not particularly hot, fairly humdrum, with spells of brightness. Anyone feel brave enough to venture a forecast for Paris?

(This article first appeared as the main leading article in the 17 July issue of Flight International

Pilot fatigue is a hot topic right now because of the ongoing deliberations at the European Aviation Safety Agency, which looks as if it will allow airlines to increase pilot duty hours under certain circumstances. All the pilot unions are opposed to this.

The Air Berlin incident, where the crew of an Airbus A330 requested priority landing because of fatigue, is likely to muddy the waters because of the strong feelings on both sides of the argument.

This was certainly an unusual - possibly unique - event, but there is a heightened awareness now of fatigue risks, and that cannot be a bad thing at a time when pilots are working harder than they have ever done. Because fatigue really does create risk.

If these pilots were fatigued to the point where they could see their performance was being affected, they did the right thing. The very least the "pan" call would have done for them is to ensure that controllers kept the procedures simple. In 2001, a Crossair Avro RJ100 crashed fatally on approach to Zurich when the crew were given a runway change during the descent, and the official report ruled that fatigue was a causal factor in that accident.

Ultimately, pilots have to make the decisions about how to mitigate the effects of tiredness. This is one way of doing it. Air Berlin, in its statements, has been diplomatic and responsible. Let's keep it that way.

(This first appeared as the second leading article in 3 July issue of Flight International)