Airline Showdown at the CA Corral

[learob]

AOG-IN-T

So let me get this straight, you don't like A320?
Dont let that cloud your jugment on it because while the airbus has 0 AD's on it the 73's have quite a few such as the 270 kts climb/desend restriction(this is a fun one when you are slowed from 330kts because you are behind SWA, fuel pumps that can short out and spark in the tank, wing body over heating that causes the plane to expload, and the small fact that deice fluid can get into the elevator and freeze. Also you say that they dont hold up well. Again not true at AWA we have some of the original A320's, I think almost 15 years old now, and the only way I know it is an old one is when I check the engines that is it. They seem to be just as reliable as the new ones and when disbatch reliability is compared in our fleet to the 73 and 75 the 320 has the best i think 1 point better than the 73 and like 4 or 5 better than the 75. So as you see the 73 is not perfect and no the 320 aren't either, but the 320 is not inferior to the 73.

[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] going to jetblue

 

[Steiner]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/16/2002 12:30:23 PM learob wrote:

AOG-IN-T

So let me get this straight, you don't like A320?
Dont let that cloud your jugment on it because while the airbus has 0 AD's on it the 73's have quite a few such as the 270 kts climb/desend restriction(this is a fun one when you are slowed from 330kts because you are behind SWA, fuel pumps that can short out and spark in the tank, wing body over heating that causes the plane to expload, and the small fact that deice fluid can get into the elevator and freeze. Also you say that they dont hold up well. Again not true at AWA we have some of the original A320's, I think almost 15 years old now, and the only way I know it is an old one is when I check the engines that is it. They seem to be just as reliable as the new ones and when disbatch reliability is compared in our fleet to the 73 and 75 the 320 has the best i think 1 point better than the 73 and like 4 or 5 better than the 75. So as you see the 73 is not perfect and no the 320 aren't either, but the 320 is not inferior to the 73.

[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] going to jetblue
----------------
[/blockquote]

Got a reference you care to qoute about no AD's?

 

[enilria]

Speaking as an airline person who is not in maintenance, I agree the Airbus has a reputation for aging poorly and expensively. They are often called the plastic airplane and parts problems (both expense and availability) are well-known. In the final days of the A300 at CO it was known as the A360 (although the A180 would be more appropriate) because as soon as it came out of the hanger it went right back in.

 

[KCFlyer]

[P]The 320 has zero AD's? What about this one:[/P]
[P][STRONG]2001-15-22 Airbus Industrie:[/STRONG] Amendment 39-12357. Docket 2000-NM-383-AD. [BR][BR]Applicability: Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes; certificated in any category; except those on which Airbus Industrie Modification 28289 has been installed. [BR][BR]Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (B) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it. [BR][BR]Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously. [BR][BR]To prevent injection of 115 volt alternating current (VAC) into 28 volt direct current (VDC) wire bundles, which could result in high voltage conditions within the fuel tank and the potential for damage to equipment, electrical arcing, and fuel vapor ignition...[/P]
[P]----------[/P]
[P]There were more (lots more). See for yourself at [A href=http://www.faa.gov]www.faa.gov[/A][/P]

 

[KCFlyer]

Farley - There are AD's out there for Luscombes. To say that there are zero AD's for Airbus, then cite the exploding fuel tanks on Boeings, one should have reviewed the FAA site to see that a remarkably similar AD exists for the Airbus

 

[Farley]

I'm glad some of you can get all fired up about this stuff.

 

[eagleflip]

It appears this thread has taken a 90 right into Boeing vs Airbus oblivion, never to be seen again...

 

[will fix for food]

RE: The Sixty Minutes II piece

Anybody else notice that when Neelman was doing his walkthru of the cubicles he stopped to glad hand a guy who was playing solitaire on his computer? That guy looked a little surprised...I guess nobody warned him!

 

[AOG-N-IT]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/16/2002 12:30:23 PM learob wrote:

AOG-IN-T

So let me get this straight, you don't like A320?
Dont let that cloud your jugment on it because while the airbus has 0 AD's on it the 73's have quite a few such as the 270 kts climb/desend restriction(this is a fun one when you are slowed from 330kts because you are behind SWA, fuel pumps that can short out and spark in the tank, wing body over heating that causes the plane to expload, and the small fact that deice fluid can get into the elevator and freeze. Also you say that they dont hold up well. Again not true at AWA we have some of the original A320's, I think almost 15 years old now, and the only way I know it is an old one is when I check the engines that is it. They seem to be just as reliable as the new ones and when disbatch reliability is compared in our fleet to the 73 and 75 the 320 has the best i think 1 point better than the 73 and like 4 or 5 better than the 75. So as you see the 73 is not perfect and no the 320 aren't either, but the 320 is not inferior to the 73.

[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] going to jetblue
----------------
[/blockquote]
learob, How can anyone be as mis-informed as you..and be in this business? No Sir, I do not like the A320...No Sir, I do not like anything with the Airbus Logo affixed to it!! Using the example of AWA...They have more than thier fair share of problems with Airbus. They are suffering in some cases from the Logistics Lag that time and distance causes...and in many cases it's due in part to the aging process. To paraphrase your own CEO from tonights edition of 60 Minutes II He said that the increasing costs of maintenance with time and age...happened to be one of his biggest Long Term Concerns I happen to admire B6's CEO. He's a man of vision...and he doesn't mind getting out there among the troops. You won't see this happening in too many businesses...much less airlines these days. I hope before you start an attack on the B737's again. You fully make yourself aware of what your choice has in regards to shortcomings. Beyond that , Thanks for the Comic Relief. [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif']

 

[AOG-N-IT]

I did notice that too...I wonder if his career dissapation light is flashing?

 

[learob]

Ok guys here we go again with the, if it's not a boeing im not going storys.
Yes the 320 has had AD's on it but I was not refering to all AD's ever done on an AC just the ones currently out that would impede my ability to operate it. So far the only people who are bashing the 320 here seem to be people who have no experience flying the plane. As for misinformed I have flown both 73 and 320 and I am typed on both so yes I think I know just a little about the 2 AC. But if you look at a airline like AWA which has both types 9.9 times out of 10 once someone has gone to the 320 they never and I do meen NEVER want to fly a 73 again. As for MX costs going up with age, well duuuuuuu but I guess that does not happen on the gods gift to the airlines 737, so there must be some other reason that everyone including SWA is getting rid of their 737-200s.

 

[jbu320]

I also took strong note of the age on the faces on the ramp too. I wonder what thier individual needs will be in the future? Neeleman is most aware that things are not always going to operate as cheaply as they are currently.
----------------
[/blockquote]

While the latter part of the statement is obviously correct, I would like to address the initial statement regarding the age of the ramp employees. For what it is worth, I have observed the faces of ramp personnel from the windows of several US and a foreign carrier (during the interim), and have never enjoyed such enthusiastic and professional service as is provided by those children of JBLU's ramp. They are delightful to work with as are all of the employee groups in B6. There is a level of enthusiasm and commitment to get things done in a timely fashion which I haven't seen in a couple of decades. Not that this is right or wrong, but I think we all enjoy working in an environment of knowing that the 'other guy' is doing his part in an equally professional manner as we are endeavoring to do. New company doesn't equate to 'new to the profession' or inept with no needs or expectations. As Americans, we are used to expecting more and believing our basic needs include excesses. In regards to what the individual needs of these young faces on the ramp or other employee groups in B6 corporate culture are concerned, they may be different from what employees at other carriers feel is necessary. Many of us feel this way because we have already been there, had those things, lost them through no fault of our own and come to grips with the present day economics and are fine with an above average compensation. Just a point of view not intended as anything other than an opinion. Opinions are like A--holes, everyone has one.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

My observation was based not based on a Slam on B6's people. It was based on age..and the complexities that tend to come with it. Health issues tend to increase with age...Family issues tend to increase with age (Marriage and Parenthood)..and what goes with that. I rememebr my commuter days...pay was low..and so were the the responsibilities of life. Most of my co-workers were single....Not so with the aging Mainline types.

 

[N628AU]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/17/2002 12:44:28 AM learob wrote:

So far the only people who are bashing the 320 here seem to be people who have no experience flying the plane. As for misinformed I have flown both 73 and 320 and I am typed on both so yes I think I know just a little about the 2 AC. But if you look at a airline like AWA which has both types 9.9 times out of 10 once someone has gone to the 320 they never and I do meen NEVER want to fly a 73 again. As for MX costs going up with age, well duuuuuuu but I guess that does not happen on the gods gift to the airlines 737, so there must be some other reason that everyone including SWA is getting rid of their 737-200s.



----------------
[/blockquote]


No, we are just the ones supporting the aircraft to keep your fanny in the air!

As for the 737-200, there is nothing wrong with the airframe that is causing them to be retired. The JT-8 engines just eat too much fuel compared to what the alternatives out there are now.

 

[Steiner]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/15/2002 841 PM AOG-N-IT wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
Very True...but the part that really amazes me is this. They are burning up the phone lines calling us for this , that and the other thing in thier own backyard (JFK)..but if we should happen to call them? The excuses range from "We Don't Recognize that part number"...all the way to "I'm sorry, the computer shows stock..but the shelf is empty! We do tend to remember those that help..and those that are just parasitic. As the old saying goes.."What comes around , Goes around!! These folks can boast about thier over-inflated stock prices till hell and half of Georgia freezes solid...but the reality of business...and Airbus support is going to make believers out of these folks in due time. Then another old saying comes to mind..."I Told You So"!!
----------------
[/blockquote]

AOG-N-IT, is there any requirement that airlines share parts? It seems strange to assist a competitor that doesn't reciprocate the favor. Is Airbus twisting some arms?