American Airlines :(

[Quad 2.5 G5 =)]

On August 25th, American Airlines retired their Airbus A300 aircraft from service, and they will be stored in Roswell, New Mexico. There are still 2-4 airplanes still around, and will be ferried to Roswell in the next few days.

[r.j.s]

Is that a problem? Are you a huge fan of the A300?

[yg17]

Hopefully the MD-80 deathtraps are next.

[r.j.s]

Hopefully the MD-80 deathtraps are next.

I hate those damn things.

[yg17]

I hate those damn things.

Me too. Despite STL being a "hub" for AA (I use the term loosely since we have no international service and not too many domestic routes) all they fly here are the MD-80s and regional jets. A 757 comes through every now and then, but that's it. I hate flying AA because of that. I don't expect them to bring 777s through here or anything, but a 737 would be nice.

[Quad 2.5 G5 =)]

Is that a problem? Are you a huge fan of the A300?

Yes, I am, they are one of my favorite planes made. (An odd combination, macs and planes) These planes were somewhat reliable, and had a variety of names, Repairbus, scarebus... (It had technical issues, and things went bang, bump, and crash in flight.)

Hopefully the MD-80 deathtraps are next.

They have 280+ of those, and they won't be all gone before at least 2025.
If you want a real "deathtrap", fly a Northwest Airlines DC-9, the oldest one is 40+ years old, but still going strong.

[eawmp1]

The A300 is actually an older airframe than the MD-80. It makes economic sense to retire the planes you have the fewest of. The MD-80 isn't a bad plane. American, however, is a bad airline. It has poor QC of maintenance,and has done a poor job at modernizing its fleet.

[Quad 2.5 G5 =)]

The A300 is actually an older airframe than the MD-80. It makes economic sense to retire the planes you have the fewest of. The MD-80 isn't a bad plane. American, however, is a bad airline. It has poor QC of maintenance,and has done a poor job at modernizing its fleet.

True, it would be like if you had 10 PowerMac Quads, and retired them in favor of doing the same tasks on 20" iMacs, because of the massive "power consumption" of the PM G5s...the MD-80s would be the 280 Mac Mini's that you have. Keep in mind, though, that the A300 could take 270 passengers, a full load of cargo, (even bigger than 2 757s or possibly 767s) on 1 flight, and it was a blast to be on when it was empty. American isn't the best airline, and does have big issues, but is a 8/10 to fly on, but Southwest and Austrian airlines rank 11/10 in my book.

[Les Kern]

WAY off. Hating a plane and that plane's actual accident stats are two VERY different things.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/accbymod.htm

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

[iShater]

MD-80 is a workhorse. I do hate it, but at least you know the layout very well after a few flights. :p

[sdsvtdriver]

the MD80s are so quiet up front!

[leomac08]

why is it so ironic they are heading to roswell, new mexico????

and why???? new mexico in roswell??? lol

[Quad 2.5 G5 =)]

why is it so ironic they are heading to roswell, new mexico????

and why???? new mexico in roswell??? lol

It isn't ironic, that is where AA stores their unused airplanes, as the planes does not rust there because of the lack of humidity.

[r.j.s]

There is also an aircraft boneyard in Tucson, Ariz.

http://googlesightseeing.com/2005/04/07/boneyard-tucson-az/

[Quad 2.5 G5 =)]

There is also an aircraft boneyard in Tucson, Ariz.

http://googlesightseeing.com/2005/04/07/boneyard-tucson-az/

Yes, Tucson has one, Yuma,AZ, Mohave, CA, and Marana, AZ also have them.
Speaking of planes, I found out that my flights have in-flight internet, so I will have fun on here. (Dallas-Chicago-Phoenix, yes, I know it is odd, but it is free)

[leomac08]

It isn't ironic, that is where AA stores their unused airplanes, as the planes does not rust there because of the lack of humidity.

no i meant roswell new mexico 1950's!, aliens and bodies, and an alien ship that crashed there!!!! lol :D and people say "what ships?" lol

[yg17]

the MD80s are so quiet up front!

Every time I'm on one I somehow get stuck in the back by the engines and lavs :p

[dmr727]

Every time I'm on one I somehow get stuck in the back by the engines and lavs :p

Yeah, that's kind of the roll of the dice with the MD-80. And they're getting old enough that the sync for the fans rarely works, making it that much worse.

But I still love the MD-80. Would have been nice to have flown one.

[yg17]

Yeah, that's kind of the roll of the dice with the MD-80. And they're getting old enough that the sync for the fans rarely works, making it that much worse.

But I still love the MD-80. Would have been nice to have flown one.

What does that mean?

[dmr727]

Keeping it simple - if the RPM of the two engines isn't exactly matched, the slight difference in frequencies will create beats - kind of a 'wah wah wah' sound that's especially noticeable way in the back (where your head is essentially sitting between the two engines).

Like I said before, I've never flown an MD-80, but every jet I've ever been around has a sync function that'll match the RPMs, and thus minimize the beats. And in my experience, the older the airplane, the less well that sync function tends to work. :)

[Kamera RAWr]

Maybe this is going to sound like a dumb question, but why does the MD-80 have a particularly "bad reputation"? I know they've had their fair share of problems, in particular the crash of the Alaska Airlines flight off the coast of California. I suppose the "deathtrap" comment above inspired me to ask.

Is its record all that much worse than say the 737? Both planes have had some "high profile" incidents and are widely used.

[Quad 2.5 G5 =)]

Keeping it simple - if the RPM of the two engines isn't exactly matched, the slight difference in frequencies will create beats - kind of a 'wah wah wah' sound that's especially noticeable way in the back (where your head is essentially sitting between the two engines).

Like I said before, I've never flown an MD-80, but every jet I've ever been around has a sync function that'll match the RPMs, and thus minimize the beats. And in my experience, the older the airplane, the less well that sync function tends to work. :)

I have never heard of this (pun not intended), and I will have to listen for this synchronization function when I am on an MD-83 tomorrow.

[dmr727]

I have never heard of this (pun not intended), and I will have to listen for this synchronization function when I am on an MD-83 tomorrow.

If the sync is doing its job, you shouldn't hear anything at all. :)

[Apple Hobo]

Perhaps I'm odd, but I love the buzz-saw sound of the MD's P&W JT8Ds. I also like the GE TF39, CF6, and PW4000, to name a few. Nothing like that deep, throaty growl of raw power. :D

[mkrishnan]

Is its record all that much worse than say the 737? Both planes have had some "high profile" incidents and are widely used.

Actually, it's exceptionally good (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/the-long-checkered-career-of-the-md-80/), although the planes are getting old and there have been some more high-profile cock-ups in the past years.

I've heard the sync problem before on them... it can be pretty nasty.

What I kind of wonder about is...are there ever going to be new, better plane designs in the rough size class of the MD80/xx, the A300s, and the 737? I mean, more than light refreshes? It seems like now both Boeing and Airbus are talking a lot about gigantic flying casino boats now.... but the reality is that most of us spend most of our time flying in these smaller planes.

[yg17]

Actually, it's exceptionally good (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/the-long-checkered-career-of-the-md-80/), although the planes are getting old and there have been some more high-profile cock-ups in the past years.

I've heard the sync problem before on them... it can be pretty nasty.

What I kind of wonder about is...are there ever going to be new, better plane designs in the rough size class of the MD80/xx, the A300s, and the 737? I mean, more than light refreshes? It seems like now both Boeing and Airbus are talking a lot about gigantic flying casino boats now.... but the reality is that most of us spend most of our time flying in these smaller planes.

The Embraer E-190 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jets#E-190.2F195) is a close competitor and I think a couple US airlines are starting to fly those. They're bigger than a regional jet but a bit smaller than a 737. That's really about it though.

[Quad 2.5 G5 =)]

Actually, it's exceptionally good (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/the-long-checkered-career-of-the-md-80/), although the planes are getting old and there have been some more high-profile cock-ups in the past years.

I've heard the sync problem before on them... it can be pretty nasty.

What I kind of wonder about is...are there ever going to be new, better plane designs in the rough size class of the MD80/xx, the A300s, and the 737? I mean, more than light refreshes? It seems like now both Boeing and Airbus are talking a lot about gigantic flying casino boats now.... but the reality is that most of us spend most of our time flying in these smaller planes.

I do not like the bigger jets (exception:767-300ER, A330-300) and I do not like the very small planes...My MBP does not fit on the tray tables..

I do like the MD-80, it is my favorite, especially in first class, and is silent up front, but I do like the Embraer 190-195, they are very comfortable too.
I will take those any day over a 777 or a A380. (especially an E190).

[mkrishnan]

I think now that I think about it, I have been on that Embraer before, and I was impressed also. :)

[yg17]

I do not like the bigger jets (exception:767-300ER, A330-300) and I do not like the very small planes...My MBP does not fit on the tray tables..

I do like the MD-80, it is my favorite, especially in first class, and is silent up front, but I do like the Embraer 190-195, they are very comfortable too.
I will take those any day over a 777 or a A380. (especially an E190).

What do you have against the bigger jets?

I wouldn't dare cross the pond on anything smaller than a 767. Some airlines are now doing transatlantic service on 757s, you couldn't pay me enough to get on that flight.

[Quad 2.5 G5 =)]

What do you have against the bigger jets?

I wouldn't dare cross the pond on anything smaller than a 767. Some airlines are now doing transatlantic service on 757s, you couldn't pay me enough to get on that flight.

The bigger jets are not "bad", it is just that I like more medium sized planes.
The 757 is a great jet to cross the pond on, if the service is good enough. Having a first class seat is good too.

[aethelbert]

The bigger jets are not "bad", it is just that I like more medium sized planes.
The 757 is a great jet to cross the pond on, if the service is good enough. Having a first class seat is good too.
Larger ceilings and storage compartments, quieter, etc... I'll take the 777 over 757 any day. Heck, fly in F or C and you basically get a huge storage bin to yourself.

[Kamera RAWr]

What do you have against the bigger jets?

I wouldn't dare cross the pond on anything smaller than a 767. Some airlines are now doing transatlantic service on 757s, you couldn't pay me enough to get on that flight.

Whats wrong with the 757? They're fine planes. I have flown them many times as IcelandAir operates a fleet of them. Now they have the upgraded interiors and its even better.

[aethelbert]

Whats wrong with the 757? They're fine planes. I have flown them many times as IcelandAir operates a fleet of them. Now they have the upgraded interiors and its even better.
There's nothing wrong with them, but when you can compare the cabin atmosphere of a 757 with a triple seven for a ten hour flight, I would be confused as to how the 777 could possibly lose. It's completely a matter of personal preference, though.

[yg17]

There's nothing wrong with them, but when you can compare the cabin atmosphere of a 757 with a triple seven for a ten hour flight, I would be confused as to how the 777 could possibly lose. It's completely a matter of personal preference, though.

What he said. The 757s just get cramped after awhile, while the widebodies offer more room to walk around.

Plus, if a 757 hits a strong enough headwind coming back to the US from Europe, you may be making an unscheduled fuel stop in Newfoundland.

[dmr727]

The Embraer E-190 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jets#E-190.2F195) is a close competitor and I think a couple US airlines are starting to fly those. They're bigger than a regional jet but a bit smaller than a 737. That's really about it though.

It's causing some labor issues, that's for sure! The airlines want to pay 190 drivers as if it's a regional jet, and the thing is practically the size of a small 737.

[Kamera RAWr]

There's nothing wrong with them, but when you can compare the cabin atmosphere of a 757 with a triple seven for a ten hour flight, I would be confused as to how the 777 could possibly lose. It's completely a matter of personal preference, though.

Fair enough as it is all down to personal preference. To be honest though I've never done a 10 hour flight on a 757. The longest was 6 hours and its not bad at all. Although on the old IcelandAir interior you didn't have AVOD which was the killer. At least with the upgraded interiors the seats seem a tad more comfortable and AVOD takes the edge off.

[Medium Skil]

Hopefully the MD-80 deathtraps are next.

This. Although like another forum member said, it won't happen soon seeing its like 90% of their fleet.