EADS Sees US Airways Emerging As a Strong Buyer...

[exjetgurl]

The Vanity Fair piece was interesting, but extremely one-sided. I found it quite irresponsible of the editor (Graydon Carter) to state outright that no one should fly an Airbus Industrie aircraft. I guess he hasn't heard of a certain American-made aircraft that has a worse safety record since it can flip over at will - they failed to mention that little factoid. Oh heck, what's a balanced story anyway? I mean this is Vanity Fair where many of the readers own $5000 French-made handbags but think a $200 airline ticket to Florida is over-priced. C'est la Vie.

 

[757fixer]

The Airbus is designed to be a time limited airframe.So ,yes it truly is a throw away plane.I can't remember off the top of my head what those limits are.Boeings on the other hand are not a time limited design.You can fly it for as long as you want to keep overhauling it.Just different design philosophy.From a line mtc perspective the bus is more labor intensive for the routine work.But it is far easier to troubleshoot than anything else we have.It's light years ahead of the 757.When it breaks it tends to break big.We left one sitting this morning waiting for parts.

 

[exjetgurl]

WNjetdoc,
Unless you work for US Airways you couldn't possibly know what's going on. Go hang out in the LUV shack.

 

[BillLumbergh]

[P]Gee...This one started out so well.[/P]
[P]Let's all play nice now.[/P]

 

[JI Guy]

Jetgurl...I do not own a $5000 handbag NOR even a $25 wallet. I agree that there probably should have a sidebar on the 737 issues - which was addressed yesterday by the FAA. And BTW, I do think a $200 ticket to FLL is a great deal! Im avoiding 737s as Im avoiding A300s too...

 

[UAL777flyer]

While I cannot speak about the maintenance aspects of the Airbus, they are a great plane to have in your fleet from a unit cost and versatility perspective. The A319/320 unit costs are very good. You can fly them on short haul as well as transcon, large markets and thin markets. That gives you a considerable amount of network flexibility and efficiency. That also becomes part of the fleet planning equation.

 

[WNjetdoc]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/9/2002 10:08:30 AM exjetgurl wrote:

WNjetdoc,
Unless you work for US Airways you couldn't possibly know what's going on. Go hang out in the LUV shack.
----------------
[/blockquote]
What does me not working for U have to do with knowledge of the Airbusted a/c? If its any of your business I have many friends and a few family members who do work for U, so it is MY business and I do know whats going on. Your knowledge of a/c is humorous though....lmao.

 

[ITRADE]

Not to mention the passenger preference. Most everybody I talk to would rather be on a A-320 than on a 734.

 

[whatkindoffreshhell]

Good thread. I find this discussion very interesting given the recent flap regarding the Airbus advertising campaign four engines for long haul at Farnsworth.

Question: does anyone know where/what is the oldest Airbus plane still in revenue service? How could we find out?

Does Fedex operate any Airbus or will the 380 be the first?

 

[ITRADE]

[P][BR]The oldest A-300: Aircraft #19 was delivered on 11/16/75 and is now flown by MNG Cargo Airlines.[BR][BR]The oldest A-310: Aircraft #162 was delivered on 3/21/84 and is now flown by Federal Express (N450FE).[BR][BR]The oldest A-320 family: Aircraft #5 was delivered on 3/26/88 and is flown by Air France (F-GFKA).[/P]
[P]FedEx flies lots of A-300s and A-310s.[/P]

 

[AOG-N-IT]

A side note The American crash in NYC was in the latest variant of A300's. That would be the A300-600R. This is a big leap from the A300B4's that were flown by EAL and Pan Am during the late 70's and early 80's. I still have to laugh when people like Itrade make comments about passenger perceptions of this vs. that. Perceptions are equating to profits and lessor downtime how? Is the cost of doing business at greater distances going to become cheaper or less time restrictive as our Arbi Fleet ages? Simply put, He11 frigging NO. This is a business..and it's about how a business plan unfolds to maturity. Mark my words!! The Airbus is gpoing to bite us in the wallet beyond your wildest halucination. The present results are on my side....and time/age and cycles will only continue to prove my point. This reminds me of buying a discount table tool..and then the tool breaks while doing a task. This causes what? A work stoppage You then have to spend money, and additional time going to buy a quality tool to perform the task. This is equal to a missed opprotunity to make money. Fact of Life...Planes do not generate revenue sitting idle!! Parts from Seatle arrive faster than parts from France or Germany. Long term utilization favors the Boeing design over the composite comet. Where does anyone fail to see the flaws in this choice. Oh I forgot..it's your seat of the pants perception that invalidates fact.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

UAL Flyer, I happen to believe that metal is always a stronger material than laminants. Composites are a fact of life however. The avaition industry is going this route in every known discipline. This holds true from the smallest Ultra-light all the way to a 1 Billion dollar plus B-2 (Spirit) Strategic Bomber. Here's the divide from my point of view. Niether an Ultra-Light nor a B-2 are designed for High-Cycle revenue generating purposes. IMHO..The Composite Materials used in the tail of an A300-600R , especially at a stresed mating point of a flight control surface..is a mistake. This is just an opinion...and I eagerly await the final findings of the NASA investigation team that is aidng the NTSB and FAA in regard to the AA crash. Composites as body fillers and aerodynamic fairings are just fine. They save weight in non-load bearing areas. In theory they should be easier to repair. The theory fails , when you do not have access to a composite repair shop or the proper equipment on site for the inspection and repair process...and a typical sheet metal repair could have been utilized on another type of aircraft using aluminum. Here's an example of a material design flaw we are seeing on the Airbus. It's becoming almost a weekly , sometimes nightly issue too. Blowout panels in the forward and aft bag bays are breaking down. DCA is noting this routinely during thier scheduled C-Checks. This panel cannot be repaired at present..we have no engineering relief to date on this. The plane sits until we can obtain a replacement panel. This would not be an issue on a Boeing. We have been rather fortunate in obtaining these panels. The key factor has been location.(refer to previous observations) The location of the aircraft (DCA)...the parts happen to be located at Airbus in Ashburn Va. (2 miles from IAD) Here's another kicker...Airbus does not have thier parts QA'ed before placing them on the shelf...The QA and Shipping people do not arrive until 0500 in the AM...Then you have to bridge the distance from IAD to DCA with hired courier service. This is cost plus cost and then installation time. You can see what a mess this becomes , in just a very short distance. Keep in mind the short time we have owned these crates. What if this aircraft had a scheduled 0600 departure? What if this Airbus was a dedicated Shuttle bird. Remember the lofty guarantee's we have made to our customers regarding the Shuttle? Lets look at this same scenario in regard to an aircraft doing a 2 day Check in TPA...or an overnight in LAX. Does this not spell economic problems to anyone with an average IQ?

 

[UAL777flyer]

AOG-N-IT,

With your obvious maintenance background, I was would like your opinion on something. Do you think the Airbus composite materials hold up well once an aircraft has accumulated a few years of service? I remember taking the UA behind the scenes tour of Boeing's Everett widebody factory a couple of years ago and they went into a long explanation of why they feel that composites are not the way to go for aircraft that will have a long service life.

 

[WNjetdoc]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/9/2002 4:08:39 PM PHL wrote:

My, oh my, what will Jet Blue do when all those brand new A320's come up for the D checks??? Will we see a big burp in their profits as each wave of planes goes through their overhauls? I find it unfathomable that Mr. Neeleman hasn't considered this in his long term financial planning....

Someone please enlighten me to the frequency and significant differences/FAA maintenance requirements between the various 'checks' (i.e. A, B, C, D). IIRC, the D is the full monty overhaul.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Good point PHL, I've wondered the same. There are a few posters here who talk up the airbusted jets as so great to fly in, etc. Sometimes you have to add more than just what SOME passengers may want when you pick your fleet. Long term thinking is the way to go......And AOG, you know I don't always agree with you friend but IMO you are dead-on in your stand about the AB. You make good points.

 

[PHL]

My, oh my, what will Jet Blue do when all those brand new A320's come up for the D checks??? Will we see a big burp in their profits as each wave of planes goes through their overhauls? I find it unfathomable that Mr. Neeleman hasn't considered this in his long term financial planning....

Someone please enlighten me to the frequency and significant differences/FAA maintenance requirements between the various 'checks' (i.e. A, B, C, D). IIRC, the D is the full monty overhaul.