We are flying to Europe this weekend, and we needed to change our schedule - Seats were found - change made, and then I asked what was the equipment (expected a 777) and told an A-300. I gave a very polite no thank you and asked for a different routing that would not have us on that aircraft. The silence on their safty (and what the fix is ) is perplexing. This artical - borrowed from another Topic is excellent, and yet the industry remains silent? Any thoughts? http://www.aero-news.net/ (third story down)

------------------
Askworldtraveler, EXP,4 million AA miles+++Hilton Gold (thanks to EXP)

Even if it turns out that the theory about the vertical stabilizer is true, the thing you have to keep in mind is that these rare structural stress failures can happen on any type of aircraft at any time. If there was a known pattern of the same failure recurring on one model of aircraft, yes it would keep me off until the defect had been corrected, but if you start adding planes to the "won't fly" list because one particular aircraft had a structural fatigue problem, in addition to the A300, you can also add:

1.Boeing 737 - Top of the fuselage
sheared off on a Aloha or Hawaiian Air
flight in Hawaii.
2.Boeing 747 - The side of the fuselage blew
out on a United flight leaving HNL.
3.McDonnell-Douglas DC-9 - A rudder screw
malfunctioned due to structural fatigue on
an Alaska Airlines flight near LAX.

Id fly the airbus. I haven't been on it for longer than 90 min's however (intra-european), but safety would be a concern---comfort would...

If it gets me from point A to point B within the parameters of my schedule, I don't care what type of equipment is used.

News flash: Avoid the following types of aircraft as they have been involved in accidents: 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, DC8, DC9, DC10, MD80, L1011, A300, A320....you get my point.

------------------
Addicted to airline miles? Check out: Mileage Workshop

Quantas, definatley fly Quantas. Need toothpicks with my cheesballs, Uh-oh, 10 minutes to Wapner.

Don't want to tempt fate but one aircraft model in the above list hasn't suffered any hull losses or been involved in any serious incidents that's included fatalities (yet).

The 777, A330, A340, and the 717 are still hull loss free.

I think the proper qualification would be that no aircraft with as much flight time under its belt has not had an accident ...

God forbid, but lets face it, accidents do happen, and most of the planes in the list above will likely have an accident sooner or later ...

I would fly on an A300 with no problems. There's no arguing against the math on the probability of you being in and surviving from an accident. I will take those odds any day & every day.

Actually, there have been hull losses for one of the above. Crash on a pre-delivery flight while demonstrating some flying tricks. Another of the same type apparently has been written off (for insurance purposes) due to some chemical spill in its hold.

Re: the A330....
An Air Transat of Canada A330 landed in the Azores on 24 August without engine power and had extensive fuselage damage.

Don't think I've ever flown on one, but I don't think the original poster was really understood. I think they're just saying, fine, go ahead and check the fleet to be sure that the flutter, identified as a known problem, is not a potential catastrophe in waiting - when the planes have been checked over for this specific potential problem and cleared, THEN they wouldn't have a problem flying the plane.

To put it in perspective, if you were driving your family around on those recalled Goodyear tires, wouldn't it be prudent to have them checked or replaced once a known problem has been found? It's not an issue of being frightened to fly, or statistics showing how safe it is to fly versus driving, it's about using common sense. If AA and the NTSB are checking all the planes, what is so bad about waiting for the results, given that you have a choice to fly another plane? Maybe, just maybe they'll find a problem with one plane and prevent another accident.

For the record, I wouldn't have flown all the other planes you're mentioning either if within a few days they suspected a design flaw, until they had checked the planes. I love statistics as much as the next guy, but to blindly quote them as a defense against anything bad that happens with planes is not using a lot of common sense in a situation like this, at least when you're minimalizing the other person's reasonable caution in a situation like this.

Just for the record

The recalled tires are FIRESTONE

Geez - I replaced the wrong tires!!!

p.s. thanks for that correction!

3.McDonnell-Douglas DC-9 - A rudder screw
malfunctioned due to structural fatigue on
an Alaska Airlines flight near LAX.

just FYI, AS doesn't own any DC-9's. the aircraft involved was an MD-80.

and my two cents is that i've never felt safe aboard the A300 (going back several years). maybe that fact that Airbus is a government subsidized company has something to do with it?