AA A300-600 Dispatch Reliability...

I have heard that the A300-600R in AA's fleet have a lower dipatch
reliability than their fleet of Boeings (757,767,737,777) and MD-80's.

I was also told that the Fokkers were not very reliable either. The
727 fleet was more reliable than the Fokkers.

Also, how has UPS and FedEx A300's held up (dispatch reliability)
compared to the DC-8, 727, 767,757, and MD-11?

Many A&P mechanics have told me that the Boeing airframe is quite a
bit more durable and longer lasting than any other manufacturer. Look
at the 747's, 727's and even a few 707's still in service.

Pilots prefer to fly Boeings-one main reason is they prefer the yoke
in front of them as opposed to the side joystick that Airbus uses on
all it's planes, except for the A300 series.
_________________

Zoggin wrote:


Pilots prefer to fly Boeings-one main reason is they prefer the yoke
in front of them as opposed to the side joystick that Airbus uses on
all it's planes, except for the A300 series.

Most Americans dislike the metric system for the same reason, they are
used to the old way. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other,
just that most people tend to like things they are comfortable with,
like a child with a blankie.

"mtravelkay" wrote in message
m...
Zoggin wrote:


Pilots prefer to fly Boeings-one main reason is they prefer the yoke
in front of them as opposed to the side joystick that Airbus uses on
all it's planes, except for the A300 series.

Most Americans dislike the metric system for the same reason, they are
used to the old way. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other,
just that most people tend to like things they are comfortable with,
like a child with a blankie.

A BA Pilot sitting next to me on a BA flight recently - he was "deadheading"
back to NCL - said that he flew mainly A321s and they were a quantum leap
better in every respect than the 757 we were in at the time. I had previously
asked him about 330 v 777 as I had very recently flown BRU-ATL in a 330 but he
had no personal experience of flying a 777.

JohnT

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 22:16:28 GMT, mtravelkay wrote:

Zoggin wrote:


Pilots prefer to fly Boeings-one main reason is they prefer the yoke
in front of them as opposed to the side joystick that Airbus uses on
all it's planes, except for the A300 series.

Most Americans dislike the metric system for the same reason, they are
used to the old way. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other,
just that most people tend to like things they are comfortable with,
like a child with a blankie.


I don't know of many small aircraft with side joysticks either.
There's a few brand new models with them, but for all the classic
trainers there is a yoke in front of the pilot. This means that more
than likely, every pilot current flying for airlines learned from hour
1 how to fly a yoke, not a joystick. Commercial airlines are about the
passengers though, not the people flying them.

Pilots prefer to fly Boeings-one main reason is they prefer the yoke
in front of them as opposed to the side joystick that Airbus uses on
all it's planes, except for the A300 series.

Most Americans dislike the metric system for the same reason, they are
used to the old way. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other,
just that most people tend to like things they are comfortable with,
like a child with a blankie.


A BA Pilot sitting next to me on a BA flight recently - he was "deadheading"
back to NCL - said that he flew mainly A321s and they were a quantum leap
better in every respect than the 757 we were in at the time. I had previously
asked him about 330 v 777 as I had very recently flown BRU-ATL in a 330 but he
had no personal experience of flying a 777.

A few years ago I visited the cockpit of a brand new UA 777 while on a
ground stop at ORD. Both pilot and co-pilot had been flying A320's
before. They both said they very much preferred the sidestick, because
it gave them a clearer view of the displays and better access to the
instrument panel. They said it was silly of Boeing to stick to the yoke.
They also mentioned that it had taken them about 15' to get used to the
sidestick when they started flying Airbuses.

Ramon

"Zoggin" wrote in message
om...
I have heard that the A300-600R in AA's fleet have a lower dipatch
reliability than their fleet of Boeings (757,767,737,777) and MD-80's.

Several friends who are airframe engineers or mechanics have independently
told me that Boeings are like a Volvo or Mercedes- keep up with the
maintenance and they will last forever....Airbuses are more like a Kia or
Hyundai- inexpensive to acquire and operate, but they aren't as longevic.

From personal experience, I have never been stranded somewhere due to
mechanical issues on a Boeing product. It's happened to me twice with
Airbus.

Ken Ishiguro

"Ken Ishiguro" wrote in message
news:_nA1c.27657$aZ3.22865@fed1read04...

"Zoggin" wrote in message
om...
I have heard that the A300-600R in AA's fleet have a lower dipatch
reliability than their fleet of Boeings (757,767,737,777) and MD-80's.

Several friends who are airframe engineers or mechanics have independently
told me that Boeings are like a Volvo or Mercedes- keep up with the
maintenance and they will last forever....Airbuses are more like a Kia or
Hyundai- inexpensive to acquire and operate, but they aren't as longevic.

From personal experience, I have never been stranded somewhere due to
mechanical issues on a Boeing product. It's happened to me twice with
Airbus.

Ken Ishiguro



Well - I have several times on 747's...

Never on an Airbus though.

Perhaps just a matter of bad luck for both of us.

Nik.

In article ,
"Nik" wrote:


Well - I have several times on 747's...

except for engine issues, never happened to me on a Boeing or
NcDonnell-Douglas product

Never on an Airbus though.

For me, it's Airbus electronics. On a NW flight (A320), electronics
gave out (one of the computers wasn't working) so the mechanics had to
reboot the aircraft. It took some voodoo work which involved playing
with some switches/fuses/circuit breakers in the panel above the forward
galley and they managed to restart only after an hour's delay.

Perhaps just a matter of bad luck for both of us.

Nik.

Not the Karl Orff wrote:

"Nik" wrote:

Well - I have several times on 747's...

except for engine issues, never happened to me on a Boeing or
NcDonnell-Douglas product

For me -

CP 727 - Flight returned to origin shortly after takeoff account outflow
valve had to be operated manually.
US 737 - Flight canceled at gate after boarding account landing gear
indicator light bracket broken.
NW DC-9 - Flight canceled at gate after boarding account brakes would
not release.
UA 747 - Flight delayed two hours because of an undefined problem with
the engine management computers.

Never on an Airbus though.

For me, it's Airbus electronics.

The electronics on either brand can give problems. Remember that it was
an electronics failure on the Air Canada 767 that led to the dead stick
landing north of Winnipeg.

On a NW flight (A320), electronics
gave out (one of the computers wasn't working) so the mechanics had to
reboot the aircraft. It took some voodoo work which involved playing
with some switches/fuses/circuit breakers in the panel above the forward
galley and they managed to restart only after an hour's delay.

I've had the same thing happen on a 777. They had to shut everything
down, and restart. The pilot warned us that the process would take some
time to go through.

In article ,
James Robinson wrote:

Not the Karl Orff wrote:

"Nik" wrote:

Well - I have several times on 747's...

except for engine issues, never happened to me on a Boeing or
NcDonnell-Douglas product

For me -

CP 727 - Flight returned to origin shortly after takeoff account outflow
valve had to be operated manually.
US 737 - Flight canceled at gate after boarding account landing gear
indicator light bracket broken.
NW DC-9 - Flight canceled at gate after boarding account brakes would
not release.
UA 747 - Flight delayed two hours because of an undefined problem with
the engine management computers.

Never on an Airbus though.

For me, it's Airbus electronics.

The electronics on either brand can give problems. Remember that it was
an electronics failure on the Air Canada 767 that led to the dead stick
landing north of Winnipeg.

You mean total lack of fuel?

On a NW flight (A320), electronics
gave out (one of the computers wasn't working) so the mechanics had to
reboot the aircraft. It took some voodoo work which involved playing
with some switches/fuses/circuit breakers in the panel above the forward
galley and they managed to restart only after an hour's delay.

I've had the same thing happen on a 777. They had to shut everything
down, and restart. The pilot warned us that the process would take some
time to go through.