CactusA319 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2918 posts, RR: 24 Posted (13 years 4 months 20 hours ago) and read 4150 times:
AMR clips Airbus' wings
January 30, 2002: 8:07 a.m. ET
Carrier removes A300 from its trans-Atlantic routes in favor of larger planes.
BOSTON (CNN) - American Airlines is taking its Airbus A300 off its trans-Atlantic routes, and several senior Airbus pilots have decided to switch to flying other jumbo jets.
The scheduling change comes in the wake of the Airbus crash that took 265 lives in New York Nov. 12 when the tail snapped off that plane less than two minutes after takeoff.
The last Airbus to London was scheduled to depart Boston at 9 a.m. ET Wednesday. The last flight back to the United States arrives in Newark, N.J., Thursday afternoon.
With fewer pilots needed, 10 of American's most experienced A300 pilots have exercised their seniority to switch to other planes. Some did so for personal convenience; others expressed safety concerns.
One captain switching to a different plane wrote to American's president a few weeks ago to suggest the tail be removed from an Airbus and taken apart to check for any hidden problems in light of the New York crash.
An American Airlines official said the Airbus is being replaced on trans-Atlantic routes because larger planes are now available, and that the switch was planned before the November accident. But pilot sources said they were told business travelers were hesitant to fly the Airbus and were booking on other airlines.
American Airlines is taking 10 of its remaining 34 A300 Airbus planes out of service while it changes the seating to use them on its flights to the Caribbean. Five will return to the air soon, the other five may be idle until the fall.
American continues to fly the Airbus to San Juan, Santo Domingo, Caracas and Lima, among other destinations. Many of those flights originate in Miami.
The plane that crashed in New York had just departed Kennedy International Airport bound for Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic.
Shares of American parent AMR Corp. (AMR: Research, Estimates) lost $1.12 to $25.07 in trading Wednesday.
ChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4247 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (13 years 4 months 20 hours ago) and read 3798 times:
On the one hand, 777s would be nice. On the other hand, I think (for the way the market is now, especially) that there is enough capacity between Boston-Heathrow. UA and AA have 3x 767-300s between them; BA is bringing back their triple-daily service with 2x 777s and 1 747-400; and Virgin has a lone 747-400 on the run (soon to be an A340). My math tells me that this is close to 2,000 daily seats. So, while the AA 777 might be a nice sight here in Boston (a UA one too), I'm not sure the market is there to support it. Bottom line: the UK carriers have the decided edge in aircraft selection between the two cities...by far.
Hoffa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 4 months 19 hours ago) and read 3741 times:
CNN in its infinite wisdom is putting together two completely unrelated events. The retirement of the A300 for the North Atlantic routes was announced almost a year ago, well before 9/11 or the Queens crash.
I think if the A300 had been made with a longer range variant, it might have met with more success and orders on the USA-Europe routes. The bean counters love that thing!
Parra From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 4 months 19 hours ago) and read 3730 times:
I've been planning a trip to London for a while and every time I check out the available fares one week ahead I also look at the seat selection and usually only 5 or 6 seats are available. Does this mean that only 5 or 6 are available or that they are only available at that fare?
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5086 posts, RR: 43
Reply 13, posted (13 years 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 3654 times:
Gathering by your statement you'll be one happy person the day an airline grounds their 737s (rudder problem) and / or 747s (center fuel tank). BTW, not sure, but I think the 767-300ER and 777-200ER also have such a center fuel tank. Following your logic, should we ground them as well?
My point? There's no serious reason to be grounding these things, and the decision had been taken more than a year ago, as was pointed out. No proof has been found of any problem with the A300 stabilizer, and until that has happened, keep 'em flying. I mean, no-one grounded their 737s after the rudder issue came up, or their 747s after the center fuel tank problems, so why should this be any different?
Captaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (13 years 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 3613 times:
let's not mention the MD11's. They are unstable on landing apparantly, and then there was the Swissair disaster. Or the MD-80's with their problems too (aka Alaska Airlines). And going back in history, the American manufacturers have a much worse record for structure failure, as with the DC-10's and their cargo doors, and the Boeing 737 over Hawaii, and even the United 747 also over Hawaii.
What's my point? Let's be realistic. Any human made machine is only as good as the humans themselves, and we all know, believe it or not, humans aren't perfect! Not the Americans, the Europeans, or anybody else. The A300, as well as any of the American aircraft mentioned above have served humans extremely well, if not always perfectly. Faults are to be expected, especially with something complex such as building a passenger airplane flying at 500 mph at high altitudes.
Also, how do we know that the accident was not totally the fault of something American Airlines did? It is possible that something AA did with regards to maintenance was done wrong. Remember the DC-10 in Chicago??? That was purely a maintenance problem.
So let's not ground the A300's because some whiny saps think they should be grouned. Let's learn from what happened, and see if it does not happen again, to an A300, or the 777, or any other aircraft!
"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33673 posts, RR: 71
Reply 16, posted (13 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 3592 times:
This is pretty sad the way CNN compiled the story. AA announced all A300s will be put into running Latin American and Caribbean flights out of MIA and JFK more than six months ago. Anyone know what the 3-class A300s are doing right now? Will they still fly 3-class to Latin America awaiting conversion? Will the PTVs in coach remain even when the business class is removed? Or will they keep 3-class versions and use them to Latin America (some places like Caracas could use the business class)?
Boeingfan From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 385 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (13 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 3570 times:
Winey sap here...
Scorpio and Capt. Gomes,
Personally I just do not like the A300 aircraft, I flew them all the time with EA, ATL west coast US, and AA, MIA SJU, JFK SJU. They just are not a "personal" favorite and I would choose (no one else) to avoid an A300 at length.
In my opinion it is time to retire the ol' gal (A300.) RIP.
Pilots love the aircraft. The problem with the center fuel tanks on the 747 (and 737-200) were identified and corrected. There has never been a cause for concern on the A300 center fuel cells. I guess what I do not care for is the after market augmentation of anything (out side of the factory. FAA sanctioned or not.)
As far as the A300 vertical stabilizer they (FAA) have not identified the cause for the tail to separate from the aircraft. AA pilots have expressed a concern for the safety of the aircraft publicly. (I do not condone that public action either...another topic.)
The 737 300 and MD 80 tail plane issues were identified and corrective action taken. I am unaware of any corrective action taken with the A300 vert. stabilizer? Or even if the problem has been identified, if there is an issue?
The DC 10 fleet was grounded at all US carriers, until a solution was provided for the engine pylon bolts, and forward flap retraction mechanism.
Once the appropriate solution is identified and corrective action is FAA published, then the A300 should be endeared by everyone. I do admit they are fuel efficient, and have an operation reliability of 99% which is great for an airliner.
Airliners are built for 500 mph speed and high altitudes by humans, computer modeling, wind tunel tests. They are built to excessive "G" force specifications. Not only the tail separated from the aircraft, the engines did too? Which is another issue, 'g' forces? Why? CAT, vortex from the JL 744 ahead? Pilot or maintenance error? Too many ???'s remain.
In the end I still would choose to fly on different equipment if given a choice.
Magyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (13 years 4 months 16 hours ago) and read 3536 times:
Boeingfan, I suppose the root of your problem
with the A300 is that her name starts with an
A and not B as your username would suggest
anyway. That is OK though, you do not have
to really rationalize your opinion and preferences.
I noticed, for example, that the preference between
A320 and B737 is strongly correlates with
national origin and previously expressed preference
of manufacturer (I mean on this list not in the
general public). It is not surprising but still
Boeingfan From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 385 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (13 years 4 months 16 hours ago) and read 3487 times:
Magyar, Gaut and Blueshamu330's,
You are right I guess it is national origin that is why one aircraft is preferred over the other? Hmmm?
Why so defensive? I prefer an A321,320,319 or 318 to the next generation 737. I wish boeing had gone to a shortened fuselage 757 to compete vs. the old 737.
This post was about the A300 ... no other aircraft. It is time for them to "sunset, in my opinion, no one elses." I do not represent the airlines nor the USA in an opinion.
Airbus actually designs, builds and delivers a very competitive product. At the time 70's-80's the A300 was far a more efficient and reliable aircraft then the DC 10 and L1011 (hanger princess), it was designed to compete with them.
Believe me a long haul on the 767-300 is no picnic in coach. That "tube" gets narrower with every passing hour until you reminice of an MD80. What were they thinking at Boeing? And now to strech it to a 400 series, it has become an over streched MD80.
I do like Boeing aircraft. Their history in aviation, the 707, 727, 747, 777.
I do not think they should ground the aircraft, just maybe think about replacement equipment? If that is the A330, so be it. It is the bottom line that determines aircraft selection by an airline. Efficiency, duty and terms.
USA carriers, NW, HP, AA, US and UA are happy with their Airbus fleets and terms.
My comment was strictly an opinion that is not shared. So be it.
Mah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33673 posts, RR: 71
Reply 24, posted (13 years 4 months 15 hours ago) and read 3455 times:
Rlwynn, they would loose a lot, because the A300 has a huge cargo hold and can carrier a lot of people, more than thier 777-200 Atlantics. It is one of American Airline's most profitable (probably 2nd after the 777-200 Atlantic) aircrafts. It is able to operate high-density short and medium-haul routes with strong passenger and cargo design at a profit that many other aircraft could not make, such as JFK-SJU, MIA-POP, and MIA-GYE.
: Boeingfan don't take it personally, I did not want to bash on you. I just wanted to point out that attitudes toward airliners strongly correlates with
: I flew on AA's A300s several times and they were very comfortable planes. Certainly my best experience on any Airbus widebody! AA announced their reti
: Why would AA start a fear campaign against its own product? AA didn't acquire the A300-600 because they didn't like them. Just to play devils advocate
: You can't compare the concorde with any other airliner, it's something very special.
: FDXmech, it wasn't AA that made up the story, it was CNN, there is another thread about that. Racko, why can't you compare the Concorde with any other
: If AA is indeed going to use some of their A300's on Carribbean routes, they will most likely turn them into sardine cans. A lot of airlines that fly
: Well I for one will be delighted with the AA decision to replace the A300-600 with the B777. The B777 has the nicest interiors of any aircraft. I have
: AA already flies the A300 extensively throughout the Caribbean. It is configured for 16F/235Y. The A300 has been used in the Caribbean since we reciev
: Wow it's funny you mention that about the A300 and turbulance. I feel the same exact way. For some reason when I fly to SDQ on the A300 it ALWAYS is a
: It is well known that AA was planning to remove these aircraft from transatlantic service a long time ago. However, will it not be percieved as an adm
: Simple solution on this site! Europeans fly Airbus,Americans fly Boeing! Everbodys happy,no more arguments!
: Thumper, unlike some others on this site, I'm happy to fly on both!
: Somebody should whap CNN for getting the story WRONG. After all, AA had announced a long time ago that they were going to phase out their AB6 fleet fr
: I wonder if the crash of AA Flt 587 was caused by installing defective A300 aircraft parts that were discovered in a hanger in Italy.