When would you get on an A300-600?

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Nov 16, 2001 | 1:58 pm

#16

mdtony

Join Date: Apr 2001

Location: Bethesda, MD USA

Posts: 2,802

When would I get on an A300? Well, probably never, since I don't fly American very often and they are the only US carrier that uses them. And even if I did fly them a lot, they only have six of them.

Now, if I was to book a flight on American and they put me on and A300, would I care?

No more so than when I flew on 757s and 767s on United after the attacks. I even took United 185 from IAD to LAX, which is, as you know, one of the routes the terrorists hijacked and the number is just one different than one of the doomed planes.

In other words, I wouldn't sweat it.

Nov 16, 2001 | 2:19 pm

#17

askworldtraveler

Guest

Posts: n/a

AA has (had) 35 Airbus in their fleet, and other then UPS and FEDEX the only ones who fly them.

Nov 16, 2001 | 2:46 pm

#18

SEA-Flyer

Join Date: Feb 2001

Location: SEA once more (previously CDG and NRT)

Programs: Former DL DM and UA 1k, now a J class free agent (UA Plat, DL Plat, AS MVP Gold, Marriott Titanum)

Posts: 2,458

I wouldn't get on an A300 just because they are uncomfortable.

Arguably the B767 could be added to the list of safe planes - I can't recall a B767 hull loss that was definitely a mechanical problem - the cause of the EgyptAir crash is still not completely known.

Nov 16, 2001 | 2:51 pm

#19

whlinder

Join Date: May 2001

Location: IAD

Posts: 6,453

There was the Lauda Air 767 where the thrust reverser deployed in flight; I forget if it was entirely mechanical or if the pilots did something wrong that was supposed to keep it shut off. But that issue has long been fixed by Boeing.

I'd fly on an A300. This seems like a really weird accident, the way the tail and rudder are cleanly seperated.

Nov 16, 2001 | 3:23 pm

#20

skofarrell

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Aug 2001

Programs: DL GM, AA Gold, Hilton Diamond, Bonvoy Plat

Posts: 12,171

Quote:

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

And flew out of the Azores a few days later. I don't think TransAt's botching an engine replacement counts as an indictment of an airframe.

[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited 11-16-2001).]

Nov 16, 2001 | 3:57 pm

#21

Indurain

Join Date: Aug 1999

Location: SNA, LAX

Programs: UA 1K, SPG Plat, Hertz P Circle

Posts: 1,628

If you carry the thought to the extreme, I'd recommend not getting on any aircraft built by humans, flown by humans or maintained by humans. According to most statistical analysis I've seen, human error accounts for roughly 80% of all causes for aviation accidents.

Nov 16, 2001 | 3:59 pm

#22

KosherKimchee

Join Date: Sep 2000

Location: LAX/RSW

Programs: UA MM, Marriott Lifetime Titanium

Posts: 1,577

Quote:

Originally posted by mdtony:
[B]

No more so than when I flew on 757s and 767s on United after the attacks. I even took United 185 from IAD to LAX, which is, as you know, one of the routes the terrorists hijacked and the number is just one different than one of the doomed planes.
B]

Huh? The hijacked flights were:
An AA flight from BOS-LAX
An AA flight IAD-LAX
A UA flight BOS-LAX
A UA flight EWR-SFO

No UA flight hijacked out of IAD.

Nov 16, 2001 | 4:01 pm

#23

KosherKimchee

Join Date: Sep 2000

Location: LAX/RSW

Programs: UA MM, Marriott Lifetime Titanium

Posts: 1,577

Quote:

Originally posted by skofarrell:
[B] I don't think TransAt's botching an engine replacement counts as an indictment of an airframe.
B]

Well, so long as Airbus' insurers are holding a reserve on the loss, it's an indictment of the airframe.

[This message has been edited by paullevi (edited 11-16-2001).]

Nov 16, 2001 | 4:40 pm

#24

dogcanyon

Join Date: Oct 2000

Location: Dallas, TX USA

Posts: 2,257

Quote:

Originally posted by ender83:
just FYI, AS doesn't own any DC-9's. the aircraft involved was an MD-80.

The MD-80 family was designed by McDonnell Douglas as an improved version of the popular Douglas DC-9. Based on the DC-9 Series 50, the MD-80 was initially known as the DC-9 Super 80. It was not until 1983 that the design was christened the MD-80 to reflect the merger of Douglas into McDonnell Douglas.

Nov 16, 2001 | 5:04 pm

#25

mdtony

Join Date: Apr 2001

Location: Bethesda, MD USA

Posts: 2,802

Quote:

Originally posted by paullevi:
Huh? The hijacked flights were:
An AA flight from BOS-LAX
An AA flight IAD-LAX
A UA flight BOS-LAX
A UA flight EWR-SFO

No UA flight hijacked out of IAD.

My bad. The point is, though, that despite the fact that 757s and 767s were used in the attacks, and despite the fact that an IAD to LAX flight was hijacked, and despite the fact that United had two of its planes used, I still got on a UAL 757.

In other words, I didn't sweat it. Also, I was wrong on the number of A300s -- looks like AMR uses 35 of them.

Nov 16, 2001 | 5:25 pm

#26

ahrz

Join Date: Dec 2000

Location: CDG, FRA

Posts: 1,600

I fly at least 20 times/year on Lufthansa A300-600 between CDG and FRA .

No problem at all.

[This message has been edited by ahrz (edited 11-16-2001).]

Nov 16, 2001 | 5:36 pm

#27

skofarrell

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Aug 2001

Programs: DL GM, AA Gold, Hilton Diamond, Bonvoy Plat

Posts: 12,171

Quote:

Originally posted by paullevi:
Well, so long as Airbus' insurers are holding a reserve on the loss, it's an indictment of the airframe.

There was no hull loss. The aircraft in question had damage to the landing gear. My understanding is that the repair was completed and the plane in question is back in service.

[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited 11-16-2001).]

Nov 16, 2001 | 5:37 pm

#28

Scott the flier

In Memoriam

Join Date: Jun 1999

Location: San Jose, CALI

Programs: UA1K MM, HHonors Diamond + many more

Posts: 812

Just flew on a Lufthansa one yesterday BER to FRA. If you avoid one airplane type because it was in an accident then you'd never fly. As it turns out the AA a300 was in a very severe turbulance incident in South America in the past and the theory is that there was hidden structural damage that was undetected from that incident which attributed to the final failure. A +/- 3 degrees of slip couldn't cause that failure on it's own. My 2 cents worth.

------------------
Cheers Scott