Beefmoney From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1123 posts, RR: 3 Posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4400 times:
How do you guys think AA will hold up after this, after all this is their 3rd accident in 2 months! Does anyone think this will signal the end for AA? A horrendous drop in revenue came after 9/11 and just when people start feeling safe again, another AA plane goes down. How will they hold up?
COboeing777 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 693 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4117 times:
thank you CleCO...those were my exact thoughts when I first read this topic. Those 2 crashes on 9/11 were DELIBERATE. This is more than likely some sort of mechanical failure and therefore an ACCIDENT.
I'm tired of all the misinformation people spread around, especiallyon the news networks. My god what nonse they spew. It's a B767, no wait, its 727, no no, it was a Pan Am 747, no wait, now its an Airbus 380.
Co/ba From United States of America, joined May 2001, 399 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4048 times:
I don't know. AA is a large well respected airline. My question is will AA be held liable for all deaths and dammage on the ground if proven a mechanicle and what will that do when paired with the loss of 3 airliners and possibly consumer confidence. Not a stab a AA just a question.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4017 times:
After all the goofy guesses by the media, and the crap they take for making them, I'm shocked you guys are stooping...
AA had an awful crash in 79 in Chicago. Had a bad one in Little Rock when one of their top Super 80 drivers took his airplane into a thunderstorm.
Delta had a bad summer in '85 at DFW.
United had one fine DC-10 captain at Sioux City, but the video was pretty awful.
Continental lost a DC-9 in Denver awhile back. They also seem to have a knack for running things into parked airplanes, or vice-versa.
I'm not a fool, I understand that the market dynamic right now is pretty depressing. But you guys are bringing up 103 and 800 as examples of crashes killing the company. You ignore the fact that the crashes killed abysmally run companies, simply by pounding the last nail into the coffin. AA is NOT an abysmally run company.....and that's coming from a guy who has more than once had his ass stuck in a sweaty silver 727 at DFW, number 32 for takeoff cause of bad scheduling and summer thunderstorms.
American will be around for a long time to come. As awful as the day's events, and the season's, inevitably time is something that heals all wounds.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11739 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3983 times:
Whoa, pardnuh, slow your roll.
I'm assuming you're talking about me in that last post, but correct me if I'm wrong.
PA was certainly mismanaged, but its disease wasn't fatal until PA103. TW was becoming quite *well* managed right before 800.
AA isn't mismanaged, far from it. But, the circumstances pre-9/11 are leading to similar results. Different illness, same symptoms.
Regardless of what politicians doing the CYA had to say, the country was in recession, and the airlines were feeling it more than most. Now, throw in the fact that AA will be sued by a great many people as a result of three crashes in 60 days, and you have a severe problem. Thankfully, congress has stepped in to limit some of the WTC and Pentagon liability, so, they won't be charged the whole bill for the loss of the WTC. They will be billed for the whole of whatever losses are related to today's events. And, what happens if Americans begin to think of AA as marked? It might not be pretty.
BTW, the terrorist attacks are doing something very weird to this story. It seems like it's considered 'good news' if the plane only crashed, and wasn't a terrorist attack. While I too would feel much safer if it turns out that this was not a terrorist act, I would cringe to hear someone call this a 'run-of-the-mill' crash. This was as great a tragedy as PA103 and greater than TW800, in terms of loss of life and property.
Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8313 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3966 times:
D L X, I don't agree with you one bit about Pan Am - they made a loss every year but three since 1973, in the early 80s it was over $1m a day, day in day out, year in year out. In fact traffic (albeit the low yield crowd willing to tolerate ancient planes and nasty service) were returning in the wake of Lockerbie (103), it was the Gulf War that finished them off. But they would have unquestionably gone to the wall anyway. There was nothing that hadn't already been sold (Intercontinental Hotel chain in 82, the entire Pacific network in 85, NE shuttle late 80s, Internal German Service (IGS) in 89, finally most of the Atlantic in about 90).
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
HP737 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3881 times:
I just flew AA in September for the first time and I got the impression of a well-managed airline. I sure hope they pull through and I think they will, but it's certainly going to be a tough haul for them.
Trvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3796 times:
AA is going to get through this fine. It is a well-managed airline that knows what its doing, and will undoubtedly come through this entire 2001 mess shaken, but on its feet and not in any danger of collapse.
Flagship From United States of America, joined May 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3792 times:
American can and will survive. What concerns me is the "business" of commercial aviation.
If this was not a work of sabotage, could it be faulty maintenance? Can airlines strapped for cash slow down maintenace schedules? In business most companies do
"addition by subtraction". I have been involved with AA
most of my life and I am very proud of our accomplishments. My hope is that we continue to put passenger safety as the first concern....
Lowfareair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3719 times:
>>AA had an awful crash in 79 in Chicago. Had a bad one in Little Rock when one of their top Super 80 drivers took his airplane into a thunderstorm.<<
I'm wasn't around in '79, so I don't know what the economy was, but in the late 90's when Little Rock happened, the economy was in a boom. It would have been very hard not to survive as a major then. But its different now. We are in a recession, business travel is down, leisure travel is down, and more people than before are still scared to fly.
Contrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1841 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3703 times:
The terrorist attacks of 9/11/ were not "accidents". How can you say such a thing? And no, I don't think this marks the "beginning of the end" for AA. They will recover, as will the airline industry and the USA.