AirTran going Airbus???

[mga707]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/10/2003 105 PM GrahamAT wrote:

Personally I hope they stick with Boeing or my business travel gets pulled completely from them and moved over to Delta or American.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Just curious: Why? Seems a bit drastic.
Besides, they're really not "all Boeing" (ex-McDD) anymore as it is, now that some cities (GSO/MKE/PNS/SAV--any others?) have been supplemented with or turned over completely to Air Wisconsin CRJs (AirTran JetConnect).

 

[lowfareair]

GrahamAT: remember, the engines on the 737NG are a joint venture between the US(GE) and France(Snecma). You support the French no matter which you buy.

 

[Manatee]

Regardless of what you think of the French, Airbus has a superior product. It was a mistake not going Airbus years back when they had a chance.

 

[GrahamAF]

It''s not about supporting the French but I have lost too many friends and family members to the Airbus 320. I do realize Boeing aircraft have crashed a lot more but there also was a whole lot more Boeing aircraft flying and Boeing is much older than Airbus. After the last crash in New York where I lost my closest Neighbor, I vowed I would never fly on any Airbus Aircraft no matter how expensive it got.

Yes, AirTran does have DC-9s but I at least I know they will be phased out soon.

No offense to Pro-Airbus but I can''t trust the planes.

 

[funguy2]

----------------
On 3/28/2003 1259 PM GrahamAT wrote:

It''s not about supporting the French but I have lost too many friends and family members to the Airbus 320. I do realize Boeing aircraft have crashed a lot more but there also was a whole lot more Boeing aircraft flying and Boeing is much older than Airbus. After the last crash in New York where I lost my closest Neighbor, I vowed I would never fly on any Airbus Aircraft no matter how expensive it got.

Yes, AirTran does have DC-9s but I at least I know they will be phased out soon.

No offense to Pro-Airbus but I can''t trust the planes.

----------------​

GrahamAT: I respect your opinion, and sympathize with your loss. However, if you are refering to the AA JFK-Santo Domingo flight which went down after departure, that was an A300, not an A320. That is akin to saying, I won''t fly on a B737-700 because some B727-200''s crashed.

In fact, I cannot think of an A320 crash in the US off the top of my head. The only incident I recall was one with Air France in the very early stages of production at an airshow in Europe. However, there have been a few incidents with A300''s and A310''s that come to mind.

Am I wrong? Have their been other A320 crashes that are slipping my mind.

 

[FrugalFlyer]

----------------
On 3/28/2003 402 PM funguy2 wrote:
Am I wrong? Have their been other A320 crashes that are slipping my mind.
----------------​

Wasn''t the Gulf Air crash in the Persian Gulf a few years ago (1-2) an A320?

 

[WO/drone]

Airbus is a nice pax oriented product. But even the newest Boings have mechanical backup. Yes the Airbus has a rat (ram air generator) but hey still rely on electrons. AA mechanics say, "you will love them for the first 4 years or so, then they are an electrical nightmare". If they get good enough they will need even less crew members, heck lets just aoutomate the whole thing!? Lufthansa would rather have an all Boing fleet but politics demand they have Airbuss, EU stuff. I have flown on all types, the DC-9/MD-80,717 family have the best on time performance, and 737s are the most prolific. Who can really say?

 

[mga707]

----------------
On 3/28/2003 402 PM funguy2 wrote:

Am I wrong? Have their been other A320 crashes that are slipping my mind.
----------------​

I can think of two others off the top of my head:

Indian Airlines (at Bangalore or Madras) some years back, and Gulf Air at Bahrain fairly recently (answering FrugalFlyer's post as well).

 

[a320av8r]

Didn't the 737 rudder cause UAL and USA to crash too...

I have flown and am type rated on the 727/737-200/-300/-400/757/767/Fk100/A319/320/321.
They are all good aircraft. My favorite is the Airbus. It is 7 inches wider/taller, quieter, more comfortable than the boeing and has a HUGE cockpit. Since we have dual GPS we only do ILS and RNAV (GPS) approaches. The RNAV(GPS) approach is essentially a GPS generated ILS. Much, much safer than non-precision approaches. I hear all of these stories from people who no nothing about Airbus aircraft and either speculate or pass on rumors. Airbus has a bulletin board titled Stuff Heard In Training (read the acronym).
What about the "one type of aircraft" concept at AT???

 

[Manatee]

Based on my experience in the industry, it seems that those who have "problems" with Airbus AC are those who have never worked abord them. I know many pilots who trained A320 to fly it for a couple of years and return to a Boeing AC, only to regret it later. Most all of them have returned or are soon to return back to Airbus. Most flight crews tend to agree that it is not just a pax friendly AC but crew friendly also.

 

[funguy2]

Well... Like I said, I could not think of a single A320 crash in the USA. The only incidents reported here were elsewhere in the world. Meanwhile, I can think of two Boeing 737-300 incidents, in relation to the rudder problem. This is not meant to bash either Boeing or Airbus... But it would seem to me that 2 major incidents over 10 years or so and 2,395 delivered aircraft. world-wide, is an excellent safety record for the A320. I am sure the B737 types have similar numbers, since the type has over 30 years and 4,402 airframes delivered.

While this has driven this thread off topic... Its important to note the excellent safety record of the A320, since it was challenged.

BTW... If anyone finds any 'official' stats, from some agency that keeps track, please post 'em. I haven't found those stats yet in the NTSB nor FAA web sites.

 

[Ch. 12]

----------------
On 3/31/2003 11:32:48 AM funguy2 wrote:

Well... Like I said, I could not think of a single A320 crash in the USA. The only incidents reported here were elsewhere in the world. ----------------​

It seems more like "nit-picking" to show that the incidents reported didn''t occur in the US. I don''t understand how by only looking at the US one can effectively determine the overall safety of various equipment.

 

[AAG2000]

----------------
On 3/31/2003 1:15:50 PM Ch. 12 wrote:

It seems more like "nit-picking" to show that the incidents reported didn't occur in the US. I don't understand how by only looking at the US one can effectively determine the overall safety of various equipment.

----------------​

One can't, but at the same time, it's not quite that simple. Indian Airlines, for example, has a horrible safety record, and in fact that crash at Bangalore was attributed to pilot error. So, that particular crash has little bearing on how safe I feel on an A320 operated by, say, US Airways. It's not that all overseas crashes are irrelevant--in fact, a lesson can be learned from virtually every accident and incident. However, some are more relevant than others.

I think the point is that, statistically speaking, the large fleet of U.S.-based A320-series aircraft has amassed an excellent safety record to the extent that the type can't justifiably be called "unsafe."

Note that I am not "pro-Airbus," nor do I wish to see this turn into an Airbus vs. Boeing argument. There's enough of that over at airliners.net. I think the more interesting topic here is the original one, i.e. whether AirTran will order any Airbuses as it expands west and adds additional capacity on existing routes. Personally I wouldn't read much into the fact that they are wet-leasing A320's for the new LAX/LAS service. I think the equipment was probably just available at the right price, but who knows.

 

[anothernumber]

GrahamAT,
Airbus sent a letter to AA years before the crash, telling them they should not kick the rudders back and forth stop to stop. This proceedure produces stresses well beyond the FAA structural requirements for the rudder assembly.
If it is the technique and not the aircraft that is flawed, I guess it is still easier to blame the Airbus.

----------------
On 3/28/2003 1259 PM GrahamAT wrote:

It''s not about supporting the French but I have lost too many friends and family members to the Airbus 320. I do realize Boeing aircraft have crashed a lot more but there also was a whole lot more Boeing aircraft flying and Boeing is much older than Airbus. After the last crash in New York where I lost my closest Neighbor, I vowed I would never fly on any Airbus Aircraft no matter how expensive it got.

Yes, AirTran does have DC-9s but I at least I know they will be phased out soon.

No offense to Pro-Airbus but I can''t trust the planes.

----------------​