On the retail side that’s $10 million (US) per engine times 40. Ouch.
That made me laugh out loud. It’s like finding out the revised ship designs for water tight compartments went down with the Titanic.
The reality of it is that most airlines going to Australia are using electronic Jepps so it shouldn’t cause too much trouble.
Yep, that’s the figure I heard quoted. Ouch indeed.
I don’t think the electronic Jepps are used by many Australian airlines. Qantas might but certainly the others don’t and these changes are all focussed around smaller regional airfields that only have domestic flights. It’s not the end of the world or anything but annoying none the less. Mine arrived today apparently but I’m away till next week and have to make do with the Australian ones I printed off the net.
Qantas is saying two of their A380s will be back in service this Saturday and two more in a couple of weeks after that. Said they believe they’ve fixed the problem. Doesn’t sound like they were actually replaced, but BBC didn’t give the exact details of the repair work.
I think the exact quote was, “We’re about 80% sure.” 
An article in the Australian newspaper said the engines were being removed for modification rather than replacement, but it’s quite possible that the engines will be removed from the aircraft and new engines installed while the old engines are modified. The old engines would then be put into aircraft at a later date as engine changes became due.
A nitpick:
When dealing with gas turbines, the blades at the front that draw in fresh air are referred to as the compressor, compressor disc, compressor fan, or compressor section. The blades at the rear of the engine that extract mechanical power from the hot exhaust gases (so as to drive the compressor fan) are referred to as the turbine.
In the case of the damaged Qantas A-380, it appears that the turbine disc (at the back of the engine) disintegrated. The claim is that an oil fire caused the disc to come apart, but there must be more to the story: afterall, the turbine is already exposed to high-temperature combustion products. 
More troubling is the fact that this is a double failure. Engines aren’t supposed to disintegrate, but it’s expected that they will from time to time, and so the cowling has to be designed to contain the chunks when that happens. This is serious business, serious enough that during the design/testing phase, at least one engine gets deliberately destroyed during a full-scale, full-power test to make sure that the cowling will hold it all in. In the Qantas case, the cowling did not contain the pieces: large parts of the cowling are gone, and the wing sustained some damage. They were lucky: uncontained engine failures have brought down a number of aircraft, including (probably most famously) United 232.
The turbine blades are but the entire turbine disc wouldn’t be, e.g., where the turbine attaches to the shaft would not be subject to ultra high temps and anywhere there is oil would be relatively cool (compared to the 700 degree C of the combustion chamber.) As I understand it the whole disc separated and although the cowling is designed to contain pieces of turbine blade, it is not designed to contain the entire disc, so it’s not really a double failure, just a single failure that is outside the design specs for the aircraft.
Breaking News on BBC TV: Qantas investigators have just announced they’ve found a “serious manufacturing fault” in the engines fitted to the A380s that could lead to a “catastrophic failure and shurdown.” However, they don’t plan to ground their A380s again – I think all of them are back in service now – because they believe those particular engines are now safe.
I think I’ll stay off the A380s for a while myself.
It’s British. It was designed by teams of England’s finest engineers to leak.
Ask any British car owner about oil leaks.
Correction: Only two of Qantas’ A380s are back in service. No plans to ground them again.
What’s the difference between a British engine and an American engine?
The American engine has the oil on the inside.
It’s just now coming to light that Bangkok almost had its own Qantas disaster nearly three years ago, although it did not involve a superjumbo. Story here.
Dustin Hoffman’s faith in Qantas in Rain Main may be wearing thin.
That incident was reported in Australian media at the time it occurred. It is normal for these stories to get aired again once the investigation is complete.
BTW, I read somewhere that the Qantas A380 that suffered the engine failure may be written off. I’ll see if I can find a cite.
Somehow it missed the news here.
Unfounded rumour and speculation only regarding the write off. There’s some discussion here at PPRuNe, but nothing concrete.
QANTAS spent $100 million to get a 747 back into service just so they didn’t have a “hull loss” on the record as a result of a 1999 crash at Bangkok. I believe the official account (PDF warning) does list it as a crash.
Rainman, 1988 - Rain Man (1988) - Quotes - IMDb
The historical record lists 10 fatal crashes between 1927 and 1951.
I think the official line from Qantas is that they have not had a hull loss in the jet era. That tends to be exaggerated to “have never had a crash” by the public.
From what I remember Qantas at the time said it was bullshit that they made the decision so as not to have a hull loss. It was the Insurance company.