A320 with MX issue

cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/06 … index.html

Hot off cnn dot com. Not a good month for Airbus in the press.

Airbus doesn’t make the engines, and Airbus doesn’t do the maintenance…

I understand that…not my point…the flying public who doesn’t know any better understands the total package as an Airbus product…is my point. I being in the business understand your point :wink:

And now I understand your point.

Typical media… :unamused: preying on the hypersensitivity of the sheeple after a major incident by making an issue out of a non-issue situation.

so the engines are made by one company, and all the other bits and pieces by another, so who really is to blame for a failure, if it’s caused by like a computer error? Perhaps a program didn’t send a signal to the engine, or what ever. It’s obvious that I am not mechanical, but I just wonder who you put blame on? The company that put all the pieces together or the individual companies that made specific pieces? Sorry if this is kinda off topic… :blush:

Sometimes they blame the airplane manufacturer, sometimes the engine manufacturer, sometimes both. Just depends on what the investigation turn up. Most likely they will all get sued.

Why must there be “blame”?

These are complex machines that are designed to operate at extremes that most people can’t comprehend. And they do so quite reliably. In this case we may never know what “technical problem” was experienced to intelligently discuss it.

I find it rather disheartening that people are so quick to have to assess “blame” in a situation that was determined to be abnormal and for which reasonable and prudent precautions were taken, resulting in an inconvenience.

I wouldn’t call crashing an inconvenience. As for blame, there is always a reason, for perhaps a better word, for something going awry. I know this flight didn’t crash. There are people, policies, politics, etc that can contribute to a cause for something failing. I am not naive enough to trust big business blindly, and that in some instances the bottom line does come into play. That being said, I still get on a jet every every 3 months and put some trust in the system as whole…

That’s not what was implied, so please keep my words in context.


And this has what to do with what?

Does Iberworld fly CFM or IAE?

I’ll bet dami can answer this one.

On a lighter note, I’ll tell you when I worked for one contract ground handler at IAD back in the early 90’s our blanket statement as to what caused any problem, delay or otherwise…it was all “Drug related” :stuck_out_tongue: :smiling_imp: Got that term from the nightly news discussing issues in our Nations Capitol…ok I digress… :smiling_imp: :stuck_out_tongue:

According to their website, CFM.


Isn’t CFM the “Preferred” engine on the 320? I feel like every 'bus I’ve worked had them. TACA, USA / Canada 3000, Frontier jump into my mind…

I like that! Working in computer support, that can work to describe a problem where the user is at fault doing something wrong.

There are only two industries that refer to their clients as “users”… :laughing:

Interesting question… There are a lot of IAE powered A320’s out there too. UAL, HP, Jet Blue, to name a few.


Looked it up…I THINK (use term lightly) it depends on year off assembly…BUT I always thought it was customer requested… :confused:

If you look at that list you’ll note that it identifies the engine variant installed on which airframe dash no. and the year that the engine variant was introduced on that airframe.

And you are correct in that operator engages in a separate agreement with a manufacturer to supply engines and spares.