AUSTIN | ABIA Updates - Page 82

Austin1971 · #**1621** Posted **Feb 18, 2015, 5:12 PM**

S

Jdawgboy · #**1622** Posted **Feb 20, 2015, 9:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austin1971

Staff Austin Business Journal

Virgin America airlines will launch new air service between Dallas and Austin, the company announced Wednesday.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...in-dallas.html

I'm assuming it's the low price that will make them competitive on this route. When I first read the headline I was a little surprised considering that both American and Southwest have several flights to Dallas then I thought about Southwest cutting back between Austin and Dallas as part of its expansion at Love Field and then it began to make sense.

GoldenBoot · #**1623** Posted **Feb 21, 2015, 9:56 PM**

Another BA B-788 had engine issues on Thursday, I guess. Mechanics were working on it (Gate 2), yesterday at 3 p.m. Gate 3 was in position to receive yesterday's inbound BA flight.

Jdawgboy · #**1624** Posted **Feb 22, 2015, 12:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Another BA B-788 had engine issues on Thursday, I guess. Mechanics were working on it (Gate 2), yesterday at 3 p.m. Gate 3 was in position to receive yesterday's inbound BA flight.

Why have there been issues with these planes breaking down? I wouldn't want to come off a plane from that long a distance to hear about it breaking down afterwards. As glad as I would be that the plane made it safely without incident it still would make me think twice about getting on one again.

the Genral · #**1625** Posted **Feb 22, 2015, 2:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Why have there been issues with these planes breaking down? I wouldn't want to come off a plane from that long a distance to hear about it breaking down afterwards. As glad as I would be that the plane made it safely without incident it still would make me think twice about getting on one again.

I did some light research and found there have been quite a few engine "issue" reports on just about all jet classes, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 788 for various reasons. Since these jets are designed to fly with one engine should one fail, I feel pretty safe, however, I'd feel even safer in a DC10, if only they were still around, loved that 3rd tail engine. I flew on DC10s on most of my trips over seas, and several times in and out of Robert Mueller to DFW. Those are still my favorite jets, and at least Federal Express still uses them so I can sometimes catch a glimpse of one flying over my house on route to ABIA. And an American Airlines DC10 had an engine fall off right after takeoff in Chicago a bunch of years ago which lead to a crash with no survivors...very rare.

DoubleC · #**1626** Posted **Feb 22, 2015, 2:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Why have there been issues with these planes breaking down? I wouldn't want to come off a plane from that long a distance to hear about it breaking down afterwards. As glad as I would be that the plane made it safely without incident it still would make me think twice about getting on one again.

This whole video explains a lot about the 787.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49EY6dOQzgw

TL;DW, safety is being sacrificed to meet deadlines, and the quality of the 787 is not as high as it should be.

The fact that engineers say they wouldn't fly that plane should raise a red flag.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

An American Airlines DC10 had an engine fall off right after takeoff in Chicago a bunch of years ago which lead to a crash with no survivors...very rare.

In which AA was to blame due to a faulty maintenance procedure, if you haven't seen the documentary. The engine took a chunk of the wing off and other..important things, so it became uncontrollable. Similar to the Concorde disaster.

Speculator · #**1627** Posted **Feb 22, 2015, 3:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoubleC

This whole video explains a lot about the 787.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49EY6dOQzgw

TL;DW, safety is being sacrificed to meet deadlines, and the quality of the 787 is not as high as it should be.

The fact that engineers say they wouldn't fly that plane should raise a red flag.

In which AA was to blame due to a faulty maintenance procedure, if you haven't seen the documentary. The engine took a chunk of the wing off and other..important things, so it became uncontrollable. Similar to the Concorde disaster.

That video has been disputed by many neutral parties. 787 seems as safe as any other plane. The results so far are that it's more efficient than expected. 787-9 looks to be an amazing bird.

The AA Chicago DC-10 led to a rework of the planes hydraulic system.

austlar1 · #**1628** Posted **Feb 22, 2015, 6:16 AM**

Early model DC10s had other safety issues. There was a problem with the design of an outward opening cargo door that caused a near crash of a DC10 in Detroit and an actual crash of a Turkish Airlines DC 10 that killed over 300 passengers. I think there were also concerns about engine mounts that caused the Chicago crash that killed 271 passengers. I am not sure what caused the deadly crash landing of a DC10 in Iowa that also killed 100 out of almost 300 on board passengers, but I think the hydraulic controls were severed by fan blades that flew off the engine. I remember being nervous about flying DC10s, but all plane travel used to make me nervous. I preferred the Lockheed 1011 and used to fly TWA and/or Delta on transcontinental trips when I lived in California. United and AA flew the DC10. The DC10 continued in service and became a very reliable and presumably safe aircraft over a long period of time. Hopefully the 787 will not have as many deadly safety issues during this initial phase of service.

Digatisdi · #**1629** Posted **Feb 22, 2015, 5:06 PM**

I definitely trust the B787-8, I trust it a lot more than anything with the design prefixes Il, Yak, An, or Tu.

On another note, I'm highly interested on seeing the numbers for this year with all the new routes, I'm especially interested in the numbers for Frontier, British, and Virgin this year.

Austin1971 · #**1630** Posted **Feb 22, 2015, 6:28 PM**

A

hookem · #**1631** Posted **Feb 23, 2015, 7:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

I feel pretty safe, however, I'd feel even safer in a DC10, if only they were still around, loved that 3rd tail engine. I flew on DC10s on most of my trips over seas, and several times in and out of Robert Mueller to DFW. Those are still my favorite jets, and at least Federal Express still uses them so I can sometimes catch a glimpse of one flying over my house on route to ABIA.

Not me. The DC-10 was from an era where 3 engines were required for TATL and similar routes, because engines would fail (sometimes catastrophically) on a more regular basis. Today's twins are MUCH safer. The type of engine "issues" that would ground a 787 can be incredibly minor, and not the type of thing that would ever endanger a flight. The engines are light years ahead of what would be standard on a DC-10. The failure rate is incredibly low. Give me a twin like the 787 or 777 with an engine that might fail 1 time out of 10K cycles vs. a 3-holer like the DC-10 with engines that would fail 1 out of 1K cycles anyday. Not to mention the extra danger of having an engine integrated with the tail; should a catastrophic failure happen on that particular engine, the potential to damage other flight-critical systems is far higher than something hanging off the wing.

That said, I did fly the DC-10 and L1011 quite a few times, and have fond memories of that type. They are iconic aircraft, no doubt. But they do not approach the reliability and safety of today's twins, even with a redundant engine.

GoldenBoot · #**1632** Posted **Feb 23, 2015, 4:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austin1971

ABIA Facebook Page

https://www.facebook.com/abia#!/abia...type=1&theater

Is that true...about BA building its own club in the office space near Gate 6?

Austin1971 · #**1633** Posted **Feb 23, 2015, 4:56 PM**

[q

Digatisdi · #**1634** Posted **Feb 24, 2015, 5:44 PM**

Allegiant to add nonstop Cincinnati route

Edit: Oh and January numbers

Austin1971 · #**1635** Posted **Feb 25, 2015, 6:07 PM**

A

DoubleC · #**1636** Posted **Feb 26, 2015, 2:32 AM**

I sure hope that South terminal is only temporary until they eventually finish the gate-expansion...that South terminal is no terminal.

Jdawgboy · #**1637** Posted **Feb 26, 2015, 3:07 AM**

Agreed, the city needs to start terminal expansion now!

Do you know which airlines would be using the south "Terminal"? Also are there any plans to upgrade or fix up the building?

LoneStarMike · #**1638** Posted **Feb 26, 2015, 4:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Do you know which airlines would be using the south "Terminal"?

Being that the terminal was designed to be used by ultra low-cost carriers, my guess is that the two airlines would be Frontier and Allegiant.

Another question I would have is who is going to operate it? Would it be operated by the City, or would it be operated by GECAS like it was before?

DoubleC · #**1639** Posted **Feb 26, 2015, 4:55 AM**

Hmm, Frontier, Allegiant...what about Virgin? I don't believe they operate that many flights a day, now do they? It would really liberate some space from the Barbara Jordan terminal for the bigger airlines meanwhile. Many times I've seen a Southwest 737 or Delta aircraft waiting in the taxiway for a gate to open up, which...is only a small delay, but...

Then again, I'm not sure how much traffic the South terminal could handle.

LoneStarMike · #**1640** Posted **Feb 26, 2015, 5:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoubleC

Hmm, Frontier, Allegiant...what about Virgin? I don't believe they operate that many flights a day, now do they?

Virgin operates 2 daily flights now, but will go up to 7 daily flights when they start the new AUS-DAL service. Virgin targets the chic hipster crowd. The South Terminal is anything but hip and chic. Virgin may be a low-fare carrier, but they're not an ultra-low fare carrier.

Frontier and Allegiant target the price-sensitive travelers much like VivaAerobus did when they flew out of the South Terminal, and Frontier and Allegiant are both considered to be ultra low cost carriers.