They are full so the pax don't mind? Are you kidding me? Like they have a choice? I'm sure pax say: damn, can I book this flight or is it an airbus?
Cheers,
777 / 767 / 757
What US aircraft will AMR keep ?
- Thread starter NewHampshire Black Bears
- Start date
They are full so the pax don't mind? Are you kidding me? Like they have a choice? I'm sure pax say: damn, can I book this flight or is it an airbus?
Cheers,
777 / 767 / 757
robbedagain
Veteran
i could be wrong on this.. but as far as the rudder coming off like that on aa 587 just after it had come out of the hangar and on the heels of 9/11 something just does not add up to me... how can one airbus rudder just snap off by the pilots but not on any of the other airbus planes before and since then.... personelly ive loved the 727 and the L-1011 Tristar
If I recall the accident investigation reports, the plane's airspeed was a little too high for the amount of rudder the first officer commanded. There was evidence that other captains had noticed his aggressiveness on the rudder in previous flights. If I remember right, the FO was applying rudder input with as much force as he could muster. The fault of the AB6 was that there were no limits on the rudder, permitting the pilot to snap off the tail.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 587
FWAAA------ Your not listoning to the man! And I agree! ------- Under no circumstances should the Horiz. Stab. fail due to anything the pilot should do as to input!!!! ----- I'll repeat that!------ Under no circumstances should the Horiz.Stab. fail due to "ANYTHING" the pilot should do as to input. So were those limits installed? I guess what I'm asking is was there anything done to correct this, after the crash?
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Apr 30, 2012
- 4,825
- 4,428
You are uninformed. Get a few hundred hours in type before you repeat what uninformed others have said. I guess that neither you nor yours will ride on an Airbus. I can think of at least two rudder related accidents on the Boeing while you refer to AB accidents attributable to pilot error. BTW, pax have been providing positive feedback on the Airbus for decades.
Cheers
robbedagain
Veteran
I think the combined carriers would keep both types around for a long time... as for the boeing rudder related it was 3 well known eastwind air actually helped to solve the 2 737 accidents with the help of 2 us and a boeing personell
Assuming the 787 gets back in the air without any major mods. Airbus just announced they were ditching Lithium Ion batteries. Apparently Airbus saw a potential problem and drew up plans to use NiCad batteries in parralel so that they could go with either power storage and no redesign expence.
I think Boeing went wild Cowboy with the 787 design. This might not be the only problem it has. So dont discount Airbus, and dont bet the farm on the 787
quote name='MCI transplant' timestamp='1360711513' post='976280']
FWAAA------ Your not listoning to the man! And I agree! ------- Under no circumstances should the Horiz. Stab. fail due to anything the pilot should do as to input!!!! ----- I'll repeat that!------ Under no circumstances should the Horiz.Stab. fail due to "ANYTHING" the pilot should do as to input. So were those limits installed? I guess what I'm asking is was there anything done to correct this, after the crash?
Look up maneuvering speed and how aircraft manufacturers come to set the maneuvering speed. paraephrasing "maneuvering speed is the speed at which the flight controls can be fully deflected without structural damage to the aircraft" Been a long time since pilot training but that is the jist of it. Same reason we have turbulent air penetration speeds.
I agree that in the digital age no air transport aircraft should be without protections for this. but that is a fairly new thing for aircraft. Prior to electronics we had rudder limiters that were triggered by certian speeds and or aircraft configurations...but they were not catch all.
The 737 as we all know had its fatal rudder flaw as well. We changed airspeeds and flight profiles to guard against it but it took nearly 10 years to come up with a "fix" other than pilot training and increased flap deploy speeds.
You can pull the tail off a cessna 172 if you get it out of limits and do something stupid. No airplane is immune to that....yet.
FWAAA------ Your not listoning to the man! And I agree! ------- Under no circumstances should the Horiz. Stab. fail due to anything the pilot should do as to input!!!! ----- I'll repeat that!------ Under no circumstances should the Horiz.Stab. fail due to "ANYTHING" the pilot should do as to input. So were those limits installed? I guess what I'm asking is was there anything done to correct this, after the crash?
Look up maneuvering speed and how aircraft manufacturers come to set the maneuvering speed. paraephrasing "maneuvering speed is the speed at which the flight controls can be fully deflected without structural damage to the aircraft" Been a long time since pilot training but that is the jist of it. Same reason we have turbulent air penetration speeds.
I agree that in the digital age no air transport aircraft should be without protections for this. but that is a fairly new thing for aircraft. Prior to electronics we had rudder limiters that were triggered by certian speeds and or aircraft configurations...but they were not catch all.
The 737 as we all know had its fatal rudder flaw as well. We changed airspeeds and flight profiles to guard against it but it took nearly 10 years to come up with a "fix" other than pilot training and increased flap deploy speeds.
You can pull the tail off a cessna 172 if you get it out of limits and do something stupid. No airplane is immune to that....yet.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
The only way that any of the big 3 airlines can improve their fleet commonality after the mergers they have done is if they start trading large fleets of aircraft between themselves or with other carriers, or perhaps manufacturers. There might be some basis for arguing that doing that would be cost effective for some of the widebody fleets but it is doubtful that the justification could be made for the 737 and 320 family fleets; they are large enough at all of the carriers for there to be limited additional costs, esp. if the fleets are isolated to specific parts of each carriers' networks; for years, AA has segregated its narrowbody fleet types to different parts of its network (or at least shown a preference for one type over another in specific hubs).
Many of the widebody types are fairly young so they will be around for awhile, including the 330s at US. The question is if other carriers are equally motivated to reduce their costs in order to enter into fleet swaps.
The principle also remains that if everyone has a complex fleet (at least among US carriers), then whatever cost disadvantage might exist is likely similar at one's competitors.
robbedagain
Veteran
what about all of the current boeing/airbus orders which i believe are actually confirmed and i think aa is to take delivery of some planes this year but not 100% sure what types and as for the us orders are they taking the 330s this yr or what types are they taking
Including planes already delivered so far this year, AA will take delivery of a total of 8 77Ws, 31 738s, 15 A319s and 5 3-class A321s, for a total of 59 new deliveries in 2013. In 2014, a bunch more 738s, a lot more A319s and A321s, a bunch more 77Ws and perhaps some 787-8s toward the end of 2014.
US is scheduled to get 8 A330s by the end of 2014 and those will be used to retire the 762s. I think there are also some A321s on the way at US.
robbedagain
Veteran
the 321 if im not mistaken are replacement planes for the 734 and the 330 are the 762 replaced but after the merger it seems the combined airlines will have more planes which could open new routes to say china and asia....
It didn't take a merger for that to happen, as AA will have 15-20 new 77Ws by the end of 2014 and is not retiring any existing 772s, so yes, there are a lot of new planes for routes to Japan, China, Korea and any other destination that makes sense as a nonstop. That growth was happening even before the merger.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
The problem is you don't get to open up routes without authority, and right now, there's no additional authority to mainland China, and only limited opportunities to Japan.
The only destinations left which can be added freely in that corner of the globe are TPE and HKG, and HKG doesn't make sense given the existing partnership with CX. Maybe KUL once Malaysian is in oneworld.
The only destinations left which can be added freely in that corner of the globe are TPE and HKG, and HKG doesn't make sense given the existing partnership with CX. Maybe KUL once Malaysian is in oneworld.
Similar threads
