American In Talks for 100 Airbus Planes

[marmar]

(Bloomberg) AMR Corp. (AMR)’s American Airlines, the operator of an all-Boeing Co. (BA) jet fleet, is in talks with Airbus SAS about buying at least 100 narrow-body planes, two people familiar with the matter said.

A decision by the board of the third-largest U.S. carrier may come as soon as July, said one of the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions aren’t public. The jets from Airbus’s A320 series would replace less-efficient aircraft such as Boeing 757s and MD-80s, the people said.

An order from American would boost Airbus as it tries to crack Boeing’s hold on new single-aisle plane purchases by the biggest U.S. airlines. It would also add to the pressure on Boeing as it decides between following Airbus in offering new engines on its narrow-body 737 or waiting to develop a new plane by 2020 with more fuel savings.

“We’ll do everything we can to retain American Airlines as a Boeing customer,” Marlin Dailey, Chicago-based Boeing’s sales chief, said in an interview today at the Paris Air Show. “I wouldn’t say they’re drawn more to Airbus. They obviously are seriously evaluating their options.” ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-22/american-said-to-be-in-talks-for-100-airbus-single-aisle-planes.html

[Springer9]

1. It would serve Boeing right for trying to bust the unions.

Screw 'em and the plane they flew in on.

[IamK]

2. that won't help the people on the assembly lines in either state....

The people at the top will just get another job making as much if not more cash....

[sufrommich]

9. Boeing employs almost 165,000 people. I'm sure they

appreciate your concern.

[Springer9]

14. So you're ok with them trying to bust the Unions

by moving production to a "right to work state" in violation of labor law? And taking tax payer funded government contracts to do it?

[FreakinDJ]

3. You won't catch me on a "Fly by Wire" aircraft

[Tesha]

5. So in the future, when they're all "fly by wire", you'll be walking? (NT)

[FreakinDJ]

20. "Fly by Wire" Airbus jets have been crashing for 20 years now

in fact Airbus sued NPR to stop them from airing a documentary about it

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

22. What the hell are you talking about?

I suspect you are referring to Flight Envelope Protection, in which case you are still wrong. No future civil aircraft should be certified without Airbus style flight envelope protection. The issue with Flight Envelope Protection and computerized cockpits in general is it will perform exactly as told by the crew - tell the computer to fly into the side of a mountain and the computer will comply. It is just a different type of pilot error.

[WinkyDink]

28. HAHA! Yeah, right.

http://feww.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/airbus-catastrophic-failure-a-fatal-design-flaw/

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

33. That is garbage,

Iced over pitot tubes would report incorrect airspeed in any cockpit. A DC-9 and two 757's have crashed for more or less the same reason. Pilot error resulting from incorrect airspeed information caused by incapacitated pitot tubes.

[amborin]

49. except

the A340's design may make it inherently unrecoverable during a high altitude stall

[FreakinDJ]

31. You should really do your homework

Airbus has spent astronomical amounts of money suppressing media, influencing air crash investigation and threatening lawsuits against anyone who speaks out about the failures associated with the Airbus flight envelope systems.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

34. Please list in detail any or all Airbus crashes where flight envelope protection performed...

in any way other than as the crew explicitly instructed.

Had the Bombardier Q400 been equipped with Airbus style flight envelope protection the Continental Buffalo crash would have been impossible, if the Airbus A300 had the flight envelope protection found in modern Airbus aircraft the crash of American Airlines 587 would have been impossible. That is why Airbus gives the computer the final word. The same goes for dozens of other accidents when the crew forced the aircraft into suicidal maneuvers that either resulted in structural failure (AA587) or an uncontrolled spiral into the ground. (CO3047)

[FreakinDJ]

42. EPIC Airbus Flight Systems FAILURE

Airbus computer bug is main suspect in crash of Flight 447
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6523467.ece


Following an uneventful flight from Lyons the crew prepared for a descent and approach to Strasbourg. At first the crew asked for an ILS approach to runway 26 followed by a visual circuit to land on runway 05. This was not possible because of departing traffic from runway 26. The Strasbourg controllers then gave flight 148 radar guidance to ANDLO at 11DME from the Strasbourg VORTAC. Altitude over ANDLO was 5000 feet. After ANDLO the VOR/DME approach profile calls for a 5.5% slope (3.3deg angle of descent) to the Strasbourg VORTAC. While trying to program the angle of descent, "-3.3", into the Flight Control Unit (FCU) the crew did not notice that it was in HDG/V/S (heading/vertical speed) mode. In vertical speed mode "-3.3" means a descent rate of 3300 feet/min. In TRK/FPA (track/flight path angle) mode this would have meant a (correct) -3.3deg descent angle. A -3.3deg descent angle corresponds with an 800 feet/min rate of descent. The Vosges mountains near Strasbourg were in clouds above 2000 feet, with tops of the layer reaching about 6400 feet when flight 148 started descending from ANDLO. At about 3nm from ANDLO the aircraft struck trees and impacted a 2710 feet high ridge at the 2620 feet level near Mt. Saint-Odile. Because the aircraft was not GPWS-equipped, the crew were not warned.
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Publications/Legal_Issues/Strasbourg-crash.html


Sensitive Airbus controls contributed to US crash
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Sensitive+Airbus+controls+contributed+to+US+crash.-a0123738085

Air New Zealand test flight crashes into Mediterranean
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/3531844/Air-New-Zealand-test-flight-crashes-into-Mediterranean.html

Experts said a report by the Australian Transportation Safety Bureau showed that the incident was the result of a design fault on the aircraft's computer system.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1082761/1/.html

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

46. None of these help your case,

Air France 447: Boeing and McDonnell Douglas aircraft with analog cockpits have also crashed as a result of disorientation due to faulty pitot tubes.

AirInter 148: Pilot Error, crew instructed aircraft to fly into the side of a mountain.

American 587: The A300 is not a fly-by-wire aircraft and has no flight envelope protection. However flight envelope protection could have prevented the crash. The crash was caused by a panicking first officer kicking the shit out of the rudder peddles and imposing a catastrophic load on the tail.

NZ Test Flight: Faulty Maintenance

Qantas 72: Faulty Northrop ADIRS subsystem, same device is also used on the Boeing 777.

[amborin]

51. actually,

while I basically agree with you, the jury is really out on why it crashed

pilots, themselves, argue over this, including those who fly the A340;

they were probably flying in direct law by the time it stalled, and probably did not notice their attitude/aoa

[WinkyDink]

27. That would be me! About a dozen Euro vacations; not any more.

[amborin]

6. American has Boeing 777, which are fly by wire

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. They are all fly-by-wire now. Including the Boeing aircraft.

Fly-by-wire means only that there are electrical rather than mechanical connections to the hydraulic servos that move the flight control surfaces. Just about any airplane manufactured within the last 20 years is partly or completely fly-by-wire.

[Angleae]

12. Not quite all. The 737, 747, and 767 are still cable controlled.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

19. The 747-8 has several fly-by-wire systems,

Including the ailerons and spoilers.

[FreakinDJ]

21. Yes but they still use a hydrualic activated yoke

so the pilot knows when he is fighting the flight programs

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

23. True - but they are all versions of older aircraft.

I should have said that any aircraft that has been designed in the last 20 years is fly-by-wire. These newer models of older Boeings are not, with the exception of the newest 747 model.

[Angleae]

48. And the newest 737 models

[MicaelS]

40. What about "drive by wire" cars?

You going to quit driving new cars when that's all this is made?

[FreakinDJ]

43. Let the Lawsuits begin

you'll see

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

4. Airlines are losing patience with their incompetent bullshit

The 787 fiasco has destroyed their credibility with the wider market and their refusal to address the 737 and its looming obsolescence is alienating even their most loyal customers.

Boeing is in a very scary place, the 737 is obsolete and with their comfortable duopoly with Airbus being shattered by Embraer and Bombardier every order will be hard fought, credible entrants are also on the horizon from China and Japan. Even if the 787 program can be salvaged it may never dig itself out of its financial hole as it is billions over budget and billions more are owed in compensation for delayed deliveries. And the new Airbus A350 that is only four years away will stomp out of 777 the way the A330 stomped out the 767. The ~600 odd A350's that have been ordered by the worlds airlines are 777's that were not ordered.

So where does that leave Boeing?

737: Obsolete
747: The new-build freighter market is very small and very few will be build for passengers.
767: Obsolete and nobody else on earth wants the 767 tanker.
777: Obsolete
787: Financial Radioactive Crater

States should be climbing over each other trying to get Airbus or Bombardier to build a plant in their backyard, 'cause I don't think Boeing is going to be with us a decade from now.

[amborin]

7. nonsense; this sounds like an ad for EAD

those models are not all obsolete at all

do you work for EAD?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

18. What the hell is "EAD"?

But no I don't work for EADS, I just won't salute shitty corporations with a tear in my eye just because they are theoretically an American company.

[Romulox]

32. This guy gets his jollies by trashing American workers. Don't take the bait. nt

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

38. Right... it was some machinist on the 767 line who came up with their failed outsourcing strategy

I don't blame workers for the shitty decisions their employers make, but i'm not going to deify shitty American companies just by virtue of being American (when it is convenient to them).

[Romulox]

39. I invite anyone to search for your UAW bashing. nt

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

41. When did GM management join the UAW?

Must have been a Friday news dump,

[amborin]

53. pilots themselves say: "if it isn't Boeing, I ain't going"

[amborin]

55. wow, I get it! Sen. Sobchak, you have a slew of anti-union posts

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

57. Not all of them.

I work for an airline that has both Boeing and Airbus planes. Many pilots that I know prefer Airbus because they are very easy to fly and have some automatic safety features Boeing does not have. Others like the Boeings. It's sort of like the PC vs. Apple argument. But both are very good, safe aircraft.

[amborin]

61. agree

though a growing number of prof pilots feel
it's easy for pilots to lose their actual
flying skills due to easy reliance on flight computers,
especially in airbus jets.

when there's a real emergency, airbus converts from
"normal law," where the computers are guiding, to
"alternate law," with some protections but less
computer control, finally, in dire straits, to "direct law," where the pilots must
essentially take over and fly the plane. to some, this is counter-intuitive; when
one needs the computers most, they turn the craft back over to
the pilots.

this doesn't militate against airbus, but just argues for better
sim training

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

63. Direct law isn't dangerous - it just turns your Airbus into a DC-9.

You lose the flight regime protections (alpha prot, alpha max, alpha floor) that older airplanes never had in the first place. So don't roll it or stall it and you'll be fine. In alternate law you lose some of these (the A330 has two versions of this, Alt-1 and Alt-2) but the airplane still flies just fine. All of these conditions are rigorously trained in simulators, and they are very recognizable.

[amborin]

68. yes

except, according to prof pilots, it's a bit more complicated than that, and these are not
rigorously trained in sim on some carriers

as for "don't stall it," of course, but one can find oneself in a stall, as the AF440 pilots did, a high
alt stall, and suddenly thrown into direct law where attitude info was possibly not immediately easily
visible.....

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

69. I think the Air France A330 only went to Alt-2, not direct law.

The problem, as far as I've been able to figure out, was that they had no airspeed information because of the blocked pitot tubes; once this happened the autopilot disengaged; the flight control system degraded to Alt-2; and the pilots held the stick back, not recognizing the stall - and also not noticing engine output (since alpha floor would have been deactivated as well).

Most major airlines that fly the Airbus do extensive sim training involving degraded flight control laws. AF was an odd situation, the immediate cause of which has probably been remedied since most airlines that have 330s have replaced the allegedly inadequate pitot tubes.

[amborin]

70. yes,

though there have been other cases of high alt loss of airspeed data, due to rime
ice, with honeywell pitots.....

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

60. I have never met one

[amborin]

52. i'm

gullible and do tend to take the bait

but clearly has stock in EADS

[octothorpe]

10. Why is the 777 considered obsolete but not the A330?

Are they not about the same age?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

16. The 777 should be compared to the A340 - which is obsolete

The A330 has found itself in a comfortable position because the larger 787 variants have all but been forgotten in the collapse of the program and may never be built. The larger 787-9 was supposed be flying in 2009 - I think their now aiming for 2013?

[Angleae]

13. And yet, Boeing has more orders than Airbus.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

17. Their backlogs or more or less equal and more or less meaningless

Since both Airbus and Boeing have thousands of orders for aircraft from less than stable customers who are unlikely to ever take delivery.

[Blue_Tires]

29. The 737 is obsolete??

I agree the platform is old and has a lot of design band-aids slapped on over the years, but I think the 737 still is too versatile and relatively cheap to operate for it not to have a home in most of the world's airlines...

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

36. Airbus and Bombardier are both offering new and far more fuel efficient designs

Boeing has thus far refused to offer a comparable 737 or even commit to developing one. American is flirting with Airbus, Southwest is flirting with Bombardier. Any Boeing entree is probably a decade away.

[Shagbark Hickory]

11. Planes are so passe.

[burrowowl]

15. Why not?

Boeing isn't really American it is Corpatist!

[blueamy66]

24. That's great.

I love American Airlines and this means more business for my company.

:-)

[Blue_Tires]

25. To be fair to AA, Boeing is taking an eternity developing a proper 757 successor

You can only string along potential buyers with vaporware for so many years before they go elsewhere...

[WinkyDink]

26. The Airbus is a failure of epic proportions (almost literally).

[marmar]

35. The A320 and A330 are enormously successful.

nt

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

37. Yeah, overtaking all their competitors from nothing in less than thirty years

is clearly the ultimate of failures.

Airbus isn't looking over their shoulder for Boeing, their looking over their shoulder for Bombardier and Embraer.

[WinkyDink]

45. You fly on a 300, then.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

47. I have flown on the A300 and A310 no less than a hundred times

Not even old Soviet airlines could be considered to have a poor safety record.

[itsrobert]

30. Airbus, cheaply made planes. Not for my family.

Safety first.

[TBF]

44. Well it's not like American flies that much anyway - lately they've been known more

for cancelling flights than completing them.

[itsrobert]

54. American Airlines have hubs in St Louis and Dallas

Maybe the Tornadoes/Weather has something to with it, not the plane.

[marmar]

58. Chicago, Miami and Dallas.....St. Louis hasn't been a hub for them for a while now.

nt

[itsrobert]

62. Well, Chicago has been taking a hit

with weather this year too.

[Taverner]

50. I may not be popular for saying this, but I think its high time to rebuild our aircraft

From scratch

Planes are built on 50s technology - using the jet engine instead of props

There are so many directions we could go, but one thing is certain: Aviation as it is today is unprofitable, costly and dangerous

[MicaelS]

56. Are you seriously suggesting...

We should revert to piston engine aircraft? Or turboprops? Or just what?

[Taverner]

65. No - but as someone mentioned, maybe pressurized tubes is not the best way to go

Maybe it is - I don't know.

But there are some serious inefficiencies in the way we burn fuel for air travel. Maybe it is the only way, but until you take a deconstructionist look at things, and consider other possibilities, you'll never know.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

59. Bullpucky.

Commercial aviation is safer now than it has ever been. If you don't believe me look up the NTSB's statistics.

The reason the jet engine is still in use is because it works. The engines in use now, however, are much different from the ones that were developed in the '50s - they are made of different materials, use high-bypass designs (much more efficient than the old straight turbojet of the '50s), they use computer technology - something called FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) - to regulate fuel flow and performance, instead of the old hydromechanical fuel controls. Some have variable pitch compressor blades, a design that didn't exist in the '50s. Pratt & Whitney has developed a geared turbofan that it claims is more efficient even than the conventional turbofans now in use. The B-787 (if they ever get it into production) is designed to use electrical pressurization systems rather than engine bleed air, also substantially increasing efficiency.

To the extent aviation is unprofitable and costly -- the problem is, in one word, fuel. Fuel is by far the biggest cost for the airlines, and it's one they can't control, except to a limited extent by hedging. But the speculators have been making efficient hedging impossible. Jet engines can burn almost anything, but right now Jet-A (kerosene) provides the most bang for the buck. Alternative fuels are being developed, and if something as efficient as conventional jet fuel ever appears, aviation will become profitable again.

To say aviation is dangerous is pure crap. It's the safest form of transportation in the world - your trip to the airport in your car is much more likely to get you killed than your flight to anywhere.

And if you have any actual ideas for safer, better, cheaper, more efficient travel, I'm sure the whole world would love to hear them.

[Taverner]

64. Don't get me wrong, its much safer than driving

But its not 100% fool proof

And I think we can do better

Jet Engines - maybe we should keep them. Maybe not. When you take apart something and rebuild it from the ground up, you get to throw all assumptions in the garbage.

Fuel is expensive, and they're not making much more of it. There has to be a better solution. Sure, we can go with the Internal Combusion Engine (I know the jet engine is not exactly that, but humor me) or maybe try something altogether different.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

66. No system will ever be 100% safe. Commercial aviation is about 99.9% safe

which is pretty damn good.

[Taverner]

67. Yes but its very expensive

And it's very fossil fuel intensive

I'm not saying we abandon jets, but that we take a hard look at the other options out there.

The fact that they are redesigning commercial supersonic aircraft gives me hope. I've always felt the Concorde was extremely inefficient.