After all the bad publicity the other day about the Lima flight returning to Miami twice another A-300 to Peru is delayed 12 hours. The flight to GYE that was suppose to leave Miami yesterday at 658p was delayed until 721a today. We know why you fly - just not the A300.
More A-300 Problems
- Thread starter MiAAmi
- Start date
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
MiAAmi said:
Trouble is, there is no apt replacement for the A300 with respect to the cargo it holds. Even though it is showing signs of age, it serves AA well when you consider its payload and the fact that is one of the biggest puddle jumpers out there getting about 3-4 cycles a day.
Hopeful said:
Problem is we are a passenger carrier not a cargo company. If AA wants to keep the 300 for cargo only , fine but for passengers arriving at least the same day as scheduled is somewhat important. How bad of sevice to expect passengers to put up with for the excuse that we make money on cargo?
I love the A300. Just finished a month of it. Only 1 mechanical delay out of 24 flights. The A300 is a work horse and will be with us for sometime to come.
I am sure the biggest story for low ball wsvn7. I dont see anything on it in either SFLA paper.
I am sure the biggest story for low ball wsvn7. I dont see anything on it in either SFLA paper.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
We're not just a passenger carrier -- we're a passenger carrier who also carries cargo. Mail revenue might suck, but cargo still helps us make money in places where we'd have a hard time breaking even.
With all the fleet simplification, I'm just as surprised as anyone else that they're still around, but 24 of the 34 aircraft are leased, so we'd have to find someone to sublease them or find a way of getting the lessor to let us out early. Unless there's some AD which kills off the economics (think F100's), I guess we're stuck with the Airpig for another five to ten years.
Now, if we could find some non-ER 777's with Trents on the used market, they'd make a decent replacement cargo-wise. Too bad that UA doesn't believe in Rolls power...
With all the fleet simplification, I'm just as surprised as anyone else that they're still around, but 24 of the 34 aircraft are leased, so we'd have to find someone to sublease them or find a way of getting the lessor to let us out early. Unless there's some AD which kills off the economics (think F100's), I guess we're stuck with the Airpig for another five to ten years.
Now, if we could find some non-ER 777's with Trents on the used market, they'd make a decent replacement cargo-wise. Too bad that UA doesn't believe in Rolls power...
FA Mikey said:
With all due respect Mikey you are lucky to have only 1 delay. I try and avoid the plane as much as possible. I've had a riot on board a flight delayed 8 hrs to SDQ and more MX delays on the A300 than any other airplane. The only way I work the plane is on Reserve when I don't have a choice.
A point to consider is that wh3en we flew the A-300 across the pond, the dispatch reliability was among the best we had experienced. The answer to the problem is not the aircraft but the maintenance interval needed to aquire the dispatch reliability sought: when flying the A-300 across the pond, we increased the frequency of the maintenance intervals against the hours flown.
We could use that performance benchmark as a marker against which other current aircraft are flown over the same types of routes to determine the best maintenance practices so that our dispatch reliability would reach a point whereby we could drive the higher premium.
We could use that performance benchmark as a marker against which other current aircraft are flown over the same types of routes to determine the best maintenance practices so that our dispatch reliability would reach a point whereby we could drive the higher premium.
I can appreciate the need for cargo revenue, may be it doesn't have to be on passenger aircraft. I think the answer to this problem will come in a few years when AA buys 787. AA will buy them to replace 767 and A300, since the 787 is 8 seats acrossin coach I am assuming it can handle large bulk cargo as the A300 can, why would Boeing make an airplane in today market that couldn't? Until 2010 or so people traveling to South America will just have to fly the A300 plane from hell.
MiAAmi said:
Due to SJO's configuration, High and Mountainous, I believe there are some restrictions on landing times, either that or customs/immigration could be closed if the flight is delayed too long. Also could be that the original crew went illegal.
Well it was suppose to leave at 700a but didnt leave until 1139a making the flight 17 hours late. It doesnt take 17 hours to find a new crew. Also today 1100am A300 to SJU cancelled. The planes need some real work done on them.
You know I hope they get more of them-its like having a tree with ripe fruit out there for whenever you want to pick at it.
You need OT, just take a close look at an Airbus and you will find it.
The Airbus is our best option when it comes to earning back some of the $20K/yr the company took from us.
You need OT, just take a close look at an Airbus and you will find it.
The Airbus is our best option when it comes to earning back some of the $20K/yr the company took from us.
