Stuff happens, but I can definitely understand how this incident leaves a lot of people feeling uneasy, as reported by 2PAXfly…
In this post:
Qantas Airbus A380 has a very rough return to service
At the beginning of the pandemic, Qantas grounded all of its Airbus A380s. At the time, it was anyone’s guess how much of the fleet would fly again. Fortunately over the past few years, these planes have progressively returned to service.
Just last week, Qantas highlighted how its final Airbus A380 returned to the skies, after being grounded for around six years. The roughly 17-year-old whale jet with the registration code VH-OQC had undergone heavy maintenance in Abu Dhabi (AUH), prior to returning to Australia to carry passengers again.
Specifically, the plane had more than 100,000 hours of work completed on it, over a period of nearly seven months, to get it “service ready.” Qantas even specifically highlighted how “this is the largest maintenance check completed in Qantas’ 105-year history, representing a significant milestone for its engineering and fleet renewal programs.”
On Sunday, December 7, 2025, the plane performed its first passenger flight in many years, operating QF11 from Sydney (SYD) to Los Angeles (LAX). Well, that flight didn’t exactly go off without a hitch.
The most significant thing that happened is that on approach to California, a section of the slat on the left wing became damaged, so the plane lost part of its wing.
That’s not all, though — according to a passenger onboard, the plane also had all kinds of electrical issues — reportedly many TVs weren’t working, many seats wouldn’t recline, and some of the toilets were overflowing. At least this is what was shared by Lynn Gilmartin on Instagram, who was on the flight.
As you’d expect, the return flight, QF12, was canceled. The plane has now been grounded in Los Angeles since its landing on Sunday. Maintenance personnel are working on addressing these issues, including fixing the wing, of course.
I’m not sure what to make of these Qantas Airbus A380 issues
On the most basic level, this incident is kind of embarrassing for the airline. Just days before the flight, Qantas put out a press release about the amazing work that was performed for this Airbus A380 to reenter service, only for there to then be major issues on the first flight. That’s never a good look.
What’s my take on the issue with the aircraft as such? Broadly speaking, the work that goes into aircraft maintenance is incredibly impressive, and it’s one of the reasons that aviation is as safe as it is. People don’t realize how much money and labor goes into maintaining aircraft, and just how much work is performed when there are heavy maintenance checks. Many part of planes are basically taken apart and put back together.
Beyond that, though, I’m not sure what to make of this incident, and it’s beyond my area of expertise. Did the maintenance team mess something up in Abu Dhabi? Was there no way this could’ve been anticipated? Or was this somehow just a really unlucky coincidence?
In theory, I can’t help but find it a bit eery when a plane reenters service after being grounded for years. But then I also remind myself of how often planes are grounded, and how they consistently reenter service without a hitch. The whole reason this story is newsworthy is because of how rare situations like this are…
Bottom line
Qantas recently boasted how its final Airbus A380 has returned to service after being grounded for six years, only for the first flight with passengers to be a disaster. The plane lost a section of the slat of the wing while enroute, and also had major electrical issues, impacting entertainment, seat recline, and more.
The plane has now been grounded for a few days, and it’s anyone’s guess when it reenters service. So much for that 100,000 hours worth of work that went into putting the plane back into service!
What do you make of this Qantas Airbus A380 mess?
Well, you said it yourself, several times. You don't know what to make of it. You sure don't. Perhaps if you get some input from the technical division at QA, it'll help. In the meantime, reclining seats and video screens are NOT "major electrical problems". The wing section is a concern and clearly arises from the 7 month maintenance project and has nothing intrinsically to do with the Airbus A380.
You may find an excuse for the wing, but for the rest ? So many coincidences you say？
Help Request ….
I have been told of a study paper, written on the subject of laminated aircraft components. Evidently it is believed that as a result of aircraft being subjected to extreme hot weather conditions, over a prolonged period, when parked up due to the Chinese virus, delamination can occur.
I cannot find this paper, can anyone help please?
The question has to be asked if extensive maintenance has been carried out then why were checks not carried out that everything works. Looks like Abu Dabi engineers screwed up the wing work!
While of course I prefer seats not reclining rather than the wing falling apart, it shouldn't be too complicated, in a 7-month maintenance check, to appoint a newly-join intern checking that all seats recline correctly, or am I missing something?
There was another Qantas A380 issue back on October 1st - apologies, Ben, if you've written about this one, too. A flight from Sydney to Johannesburg ended up being a 9-hour flight to nowhere after an issue with the aircraft's satellite communications system. https://simpleflying.com/9-hour-flight-to-nowhere-satellite-issue-forced-south-africa-bound-qantas-a380-to-divert-back-to-sydney/
Oh boy, the peeps over at r/fearofflying are going to make quite a kerfuffle over this I bet.
Everone should remember Qantas still has the worlds best aviation history of ALL current & past airline companies, in maitenence and flying.
They must be doing something right.
P.S. I have never flown, just proud Aussie.
Just another reason - as if any were needed - to avoid flying with Qantas.
Geez you love rapping Qantas. Cover the facts and leave off the "I don't know what to make of this" comments.
I was on that flight in seat 20A and can confirm everything that was posted about flight is correct.
Point being that
1. Qantas has massively underinvested in its fleet over the past 20 years
2. Qantas’s PR machine is well ahead of where Qantas is actually at (eg announcing new flights / fleet / cabins / services are coming in 5-10 years. (We’re sh!t now but will be better in the future, we promise))
=> This episode conflates the two issues. Underinvestment and BS PR.
Just lucky no one got injured.
Grow up, you know nothing about either. Qantas is one of - if not THE safest airline in the skies - your uninformed rant is embassing.
Thanks for your view, Rain Man. We didn't ask for it, so schtum.
Sorry fanboy, but Qantas' reputation has been in the toilet for some time now.
Lasloy - are you Australian? Do you fly Qantas regularly? Do you follow the Australian aviation or business media? You seem very certain of your opinion.
Qantas's reputation here in its Australian home market has been badly damaged in recent years. It's now widely acknowledged that former CEO Alan Joyce underinvested in the fleet for too long, and the effects of that on service standards are apparent, albeit there doesn't yet appear to be any...
Lasloy - are you Australian? Do you fly Qantas regularly? Do you follow the Australian aviation or business media? You seem very certain of your opinion.
Qantas's reputation here in its Australian home market has been badly damaged in recent years. It's now widely acknowledged that former CEO Alan Joyce underinvested in the fleet for too long, and the effects of that on service standards are apparent, albeit there doesn't yet appear to be any measurable effect on safety
Qantas has also been scrutinised by the Australian Parliament and regulatory authorities over various questionnable conduct - see its claim that it sells a "bundle of rights" not flights!
So SSS's points are far from an uninformed rant.
Do D checks typically include cabin/comfort features? Or do they only inspect the parts of the plane required to get it up in the air?
A little bit of delamination. Nothing to be overly concerned about. I'll wager that both Airbus and the component manufacturer will be keen to discover exactly how and why this failure occurred when it did.
When a situation turns to ‘rats’ one has to ask:
“Was anyone killed” or “Was anyone injured”.
As the answer to both questions is an emphatic NO! Furthermore, QF, are not attempting to hide anything, then one should be thankful for great mercies, yes?
At least Global landed without parts going missing...
Too fat to fly. Get rid of the Cochon.
Not part of the 'wing'. Part of a slat.
@ rebel -- As I view it, planes have wings and fuselages. The slats are attached to the wings, and therefore they're part of the wings. I see where you're coming from, but for the purposes of keeping it simple, I think it's fair to say slats make up part of the wing.
Might be technically correct. Though upon first reading I also thought that a part of the actual wing was damaged. Given how minor the damage is, I think the title is misleading
PART OF THE WING WAS DAMAGED! :-)
Moving along!
A slat is a movable part on the leading edge of a wing, which pilots can lower to increase lift and low-speed performance.
"A380 LOSES (part of) WING!!!" OMG!!! AHH!!!
Oh, 'part of,' got it. Nevermind.
Are you ok? Why do you reply to yourself half of the time?
You can type out your thoughts in a single comment.
Is this is real Eskimo, or the impersonator?
Sometimes I do reply to myself, because I want to add something; other times, it's our impersonators (the guy behind formerly @Penile, who enjoys doing that. Eh, oh well.)