THE WAY TO SAVE THE AIR LINE INDUSTRY IS TO:

[darthrider]

Replace all female flight attendants with good-lookin' strippers! What the hell? The attendants have gotten old and haggard-looking. They don't even serve food anymore, so what's the loss? The strippers would double, triple, perhaps quadruple the alcohol consumption and get a "party atmosphere" going in the cabin.

Muslims would be afraid to get on the planes for fear of seeing naked women. And, of course, every heterosexual businessman in this country would start flying again, hoping to see naked women. Hijackings would come to a screeching halt and the airline industry would see record revenues.

Why the hell didn't Bush think of this? Why do I still have to do everything myself?

Sincerely,
Bill Clinton

[xaque]

Hooters Air

-Xaque-

[wncbmw]

It is a different approach to airline security!

[DJ Downunder]

And if it did happen...what a way to go...

DJ

[new2BMW]

The attendants have gotten old and haggard-looking.

Dave, I am embarrassed to say that this is mostly true for US airlines only. Other countries aren't afraid to tell the older ladies to go home and let the younger girls do the job.

I swear my great aunt Vivian was serving on my last American Airlines flight. (I guess the reason she didn't recognize me is because she's been dead for 20 years!)

[BobFV1]

I think what is killing the airlines is that they are insisting on "old economy" amenities in the new economy. For example, on a flight from Phoenix to Washington DC last week, they gave me a small, gold foil packet with some pretzels, peanuts, and sesame sticks in it, and a half a can of club soda. If they would get serious about cost cuts, the flight attendants could just take a couple of boxes of dry Wheat Chex, and in the lounge before the flight they could put about 15 each into little wax paper bags and then hand them to you as you get on the plane.

The airlines just need to learn a little fiscal restraint, that's all.

[NoRRmad]

...or they could just hand you a snausage and a sleeping pill...

[jonothan]

I like the idea of Hooter Airways.

On a more serious note, maybe they should all buy Airbuses. A riding buddy of mine is an engineer for British Midland Airways. They are replacing their entire fleet of 737s with Airbuses and it's saving them millions in running costs. They're not the only airline doing this, either.

Jonothan

[new2BMW]

On a more serious note, maybe they should all buy Airbuses. A riding buddy of mine is an engineer for British Midland Airways. They are replacing their entire fleet of 737s with Airbuses and it's saving them millions in running costs. They're not the only airline doing this, either.

Jonothan;
This is indeed a strategy that some airlines are using.

Generally speaking, an Airbus aircraft is cheaper to purchase, but the maintenance throughout the life of the aircraft, especially after the 6 - 8 year mark. is more expensive that a Boeing. Secondly, Airbus aftermarket support has been dismal for many years, although they have shown signs of improvement.

What these airlines are doing is trying to take their profits early and hope they can dump the aircraft before the maintenance costs get too high. It works for some, but not for others.

Although vast improvements have been made over the last several years, Boeing still builds a higher quality aircraft while Airbus builds a lower initial cost aircraft. There are advantages to both and it really depends on how you manage your airline and how many fleet types you need for your routes.

[big papa]

Secondly, Airbus aftermarket support has been dismal for many years, although they have shown signs of improvement.

Aftermarket??? Like chrome wheels and slip-ons??

[new2BMW]

Aftermarket??? Like chrome wheels and slip-ons??

No, that's kind of what my company does.

Airbus has a problem supplying regular spare parts in a timely manner.

Also, their engineering support is very close to the edge of the world, because every time I send them a fax, I think it falls off because I don't get answers back for a long time. Boeing on the other hand sends a message that they received my request and will responde by such-and-such date.

In the last ten years, Airbus has improved in these areas, but they have a long way to go.

[Paper]

Edited, and moved on...

[JCsman]

Hooters Air? Why do we consider these half-way measures?

Here's to Mile-High Club-Med Airlines!

The down side may be the cost of additional "moist towelettes" needed.

[scottybooj]

Didn't one of those great, cheap Euro AirBuses just make an emergency landing in LA due to non-retractable nose gear?


Keep it American boys.

But if you're in Europe, by all means, use AirBus.

[Guest]

Didn't one of those great, cheap Euro AirBuses just make an emergency landing in LA due to non-retractable nose gear?

An interesting news on that was the report that (at least this model of )Airbus could not dump fuel in case of an emergency. That meant the poor souls on the flight found out:
- there was a landing gear malfunction,
- they had to make an emeregency landing,
- and (oh, by the way) you'll have several HOURS to think about that while we circle to burn off fuel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JCsman]

Sorry, that was me. Thought i'd loged in.

[jonothan]

Although vast improvements have been made over the last several years, Boeing still builds a higher quality aircraft while Airbus builds a lower initial cost aircraft. There are advantages to both and it really depends on how you manage your airline and how many fleet types you need for your routes.

That interested me and I shall take your comments back to Ian who, as I said, works for British Midland. He's an aircraft engineer at their maintenance facility at Kegworth (East Midlands) Airport.

This is what he said to me. Remember, I'm not an aircraft engineer myself but have always been interested in aviation. I bow to his twenty years experience in the job.

Airbuses are designed for ease of maintenance. Ian cites the difficulty of accessing the GPU turbine in the 737 which has been shoehorned into a very small space when compared to that of the Airbus. Also he said that the quality of the fasteners on the Airbus was noticeably better and whereas the Boeing fasteners on the outside of the aircraft corrode and often need drilling out and retapping, those on the Airbus seldom do. He cited other quality differences too though I cannot recall these but, to be honest, they were pretty minor and I'd happily fly in either a Boeing or an Airbus. They both do the job well. It was just interesting to hear the view of someone who spends all his working life working on both marques.

Paper's comments about seat pitch and legroom are really down to the airline because those are dictated by the airline's specifications and operating requirements and not by the manufacturer. We flew economy on Qatar Airlines recently (Airbus) and found there was a huge amount of room, but that was how Qatar have specified the interior. We also flew EasyJet (Boeing) and found there was less room. But that was just down to how those airlines had specced their aircraft.

An interesting news on that was the report that (at least this model of) Airbus could not dump fuel in case of an emergency.

I'll ask Ian about this one, gauge his views. It's a very valid point.

Also, their engineering support is very close to the edge of the world, because every time I send them a fax, I think it falls off because I don't get answers back for a long time. Boeing on the other hand sends a message that they received my request and will responde by such-and-such date.

In the last ten years, Airbus has improved in these areas, but they have a long way to go.

Yes, they are getting better. BMA currently operate 737s and a variety of Airbuses, and the comment Ian made was that Boeing's engineering query response times - normally as you say very timely - suddenly dropped off when they found out BMA had ordered more of the European aircraft. That is probably political.

Neither manufacturer supplies topless cabin staff. That is a shame.

Jonothan

[MidlifeMark]

Not since that Aloha Airlines 737, anyway.

[12bar1]

I fly about 3 times a month and as far as I can tell the only difference between a Greyhound bus and commercial aviation is the wings . But that's just my jaded perspective

[gelbe Kulter]

as far as I can tell the only difference between a Greyhound bus and commercial aviation is the wings

Well, the bus doesn't take you from Columbus, OH to Minneapolis, MN via Charlotte, NC.