css8100

Don't you think that the FAA or an other authority will ground the Engine Alliance powered A380 until the cause of the incident is known (and solved if needed)? I think that it is what occurred when the Rolls-Royce engine of the Quantas A380 exploded.

vibrex

That's a possibility. If I remember correctly there were already concerns with the RR engines before the Qantas event. There were Airworthiness Directives raised against the RR engines, I'm not sure if this is the case here though?

txp

Thanks very much for taking the time to provide this detailed explanation. It makes more sense now. I would have thought (naively, perhaps), because they land "big jets" at SFJ (mostly 777s from CPH), that SFJ could accommodate the A380. I did not realize how many other factors need to be taken into account!

Thanks again!

seenitall

The use of the term "parfaitement" in the French press release describing the pilots' handling of the situation better translates into the English word of "correctly." This term in French really doesn't have the connotation of something being beautiful as the English term "perfectly" does.

txp

[QUOTE=seenitall;28881248]The use of the term "parfaitement" in the French press release describing the pilots' handling of the situation better translates into the English word of "correctly." This term in French really doesn't have the connotation of something being beautiful as the English term "perfectly" does.[/QUOTE

I agree.

Perhaps the most appropriate English translation, taking into account the nuances of each language, would be to say that the crew has "correctly handled the situation," or that it has "handled the situation in the appropriate manner."

Good point.

Guava

That's not true. It still has a connotation of something very well done or more precisely in this case, "showing high level of professionalism" or "done professionally". If AF Corporate had meant to say the crew had "correctly" followed the procedures, they wouldn't have used "parfaitement". It's quite clear they are patting themselves on the back.

Is that so?

http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires...aitement#57835

Voici les synonymes:

admirablement
divinement
excellemment
exceptionnellement
extraordinairement
idéalement
impeccablement
merveilleusement
splendidement
supérieurement

Do any of these words sound like "correctement" to you?

Justin026 is right, this press release sounds tone deaf, even in French. An investigation may yet still find that the crew is at fault so start singing in the praise of the crew is premature and inconsiderate.

NickB

Your list of adjectives fails to exhaust the variability of meanings of "parfaitement.
For instance, try to use any of these adjectives to replace "parfaitement" in the very common phrase "oui, parfaitement" and you will see that not a single one of them would be suitable.

The meaning that they wanted to convey was that the operation was fully mastered so something like the pilots "had this serious incident under control" would be reasonably close to the meaning in the original version, imo.

It does not sound to me like patting oneself on the back but rather conveying the message that it was not a case of headless chicken running around once the incident occurred but that correct procedures were followed and the pilots were not overtaken by the events.

You also seem to forget the pervasive (excessive, some might say) use of "parfaitement" in contemporary French usage. Just try taking the "parfaitement" out of the sentence: while it still more or less "works", it sounds slightly less natural to me.

sltlyamusd

I disagree. At the very least, the crew deserves credit for maintaining calm aboard the aircraft and safely landing at the nearest suitable diversion airport.

bodory

Let's praise the cockpit and cabin crew for having handled without any casualties what is a major incident: all the front part of the GP7200 engine (blowing + cowling) has disintegrated in flight. It is a miracle no fan part hit the fuselage. Investigations will tell us more.

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

'Armchair experts' can have a role. They often ask the questions the industry isn't going to openly ask themselves or each other. Should we leave everything to 'the professionals'? Look at the work of Kevin and Sue Campbell in relation to UA811. A car dealer had a sense that something wasn't right and had the fortitude to see that through. You don't need to work in the industry to know whether something sounds right or not (I'm speaking in a general sense here, not necessarily in relation to AF66).

If I was ever involved in an incident I'd sure want everyone - armchair experts, bloggers, media, FTers - asking whatever questions they want. There's no harm in asking questions. And airlines shouldn't have a problem with it either.

shaner82

The Qantas situation resulted in severe damage to the wing and internal components. I would say there was far more damage in that case than this one

Ansel

I'm sorry, but no to the chorus of AF doing a good job!. Air France did an awful job with rescuing the pax!. They wisked away F and J passengers on the 733 to LAX via a Winnipeg stop for fuel. Y passengers were left to wait a few more hours for a 77W from YUL (IIRC) which then takes them down to ATL where they board a DL jet over to LAX. Obvs, they had to clear customs in ATL. I can't even begin to imagine how tired they were, poor things.

I'm also surprised that DL did not have at least ONE extra widebody sitting around at DTW or MSP that AF could chartered, or was AF being cheap? :-)

It's not like AF likes to make profits anyway! :-)))

Have Y passengers not been through enough!! In AF's haste to reposition that 77W on the East Coast ASAP to op back to CDG, what these passengers had been through clearly did not register with them back at CDG ops. They should have flown that 773 to LAX! (I did not check the update, so not sure if it still went to ATL or elsewhere). Actually, there was easily enough time to fly the 77W to LAX and turn it back to the East Coast for an evening departure, no sweat.

The PR fallout (once everyone gets past the fact that everyone lived) :-) ...is not going to be pretty in the US tomorrow.

I think AF is disgraceful!

bodory

Would AF have wanted to rescue all pax properly they should have sent another of their A380, which was not possible for obvious reasons.

I am not that shocked at difference between P/J and W/Y: after all premium pax are already better handled in case of regular irrops (e.g. missed connection, weather) and that is the case with every airline.

That certainly have been a terribly uncomfortable situation for Y pax but that is on par with a major event: the largest civil airliner, full of pax, being stuck in the middle of nowhere - sorry Canadian friends - after an unprecedented engine failure.

Speaking of sending the 77W to LAX then back to YUL to fly it, it is one thing to have a ship, it is another thing to have an available crew.

Speaking of bad communication: sure they have their views on the incident at AF HQ but at the very least they communicated!

I am not saying AF did a tremendous job, simply they are not disgraceful.

1353513636

AF ops really leaves me scratching my head. So they sent a 77W from YUL to YYR, cancelling a regularly scheduled flight, to rescue the passengers. The passengers were flown to Atlanta, where they flew Delta to their final destination (and who knows how long they had to wait before a seat became available). Then they flew that 77W back to Paris empty. It seems like today's AF348/349 were also affected, as 348 was delayed 5 hours and 349 by a whole day (why don't they just leave now since the plane is already sitting on the ground)?

css8100

Yes and on top of that, the F-GZNO 777 sent sent from YUL to YYR was scheduled for a YUL to CDG flight that has been canceled for that purpose. So in addition a lot of passengers stranded in Montreal.