It's not me saying it, wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-cost_carrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-cost_carrier
15 airlines warned over high-altitude ice
- Thread starter Quattro Pete
- Start date
- Status
My two cents as a passenger who has butt in seat over 2 million miles, with 1.5 million on United. Last night I just flew my second 787 flight, this one from LAX to PVG (Pu Dong, Shanghai, China). It is a great airplane, light years ahead of the competition in passenger comfort (and yes, some of that is due to individual airlines set up of interiors), and both flights were trouble free.
Want trouble? Book a United Airbus flight. Doesn't matter what model. It isn't ever something major but usually you can count on a delay or cancel due to a simple perflugenhoffer light not working and we need to get the part sent from France. From a passenger point of view, getting to your destination relatively on time beats all else except safety. My comfort level with the safety of the 787 is higher then any Airbus around.
Want trouble? Book a United Airbus flight. Doesn't matter what model. It isn't ever something major but usually you can count on a delay or cancel due to a simple perflugenhoffer light not working and we need to get the part sent from France. From a passenger point of view, getting to your destination relatively on time beats all else except safety. My comfort level with the safety of the 787 is higher then any Airbus around.
Originally Posted By: c502cid
My two cents as a passenger who has butt in seat over 2 million miles, with 1.5 million on United. Last night I just flew my second 787 flight, this one from LAX to PVG (Pu Dong, Shanghai, China). It is a great airplane, light years ahead of the competition in passenger comfort (and yes, some of that is due to individual airlines set up of interiors), and both flights were trouble free.
Want trouble? Book a United Airbus flight. Doesn't matter what model. It isn't ever something major but usually you can count on a delay or cancel due to a simple perflugenhoffer light not working and we need to get the part sent from France. From a passenger point of view, getting to your destination relatively on time beats all else except safety. My comfort level with the safety of the 787 is higher then any Airbus around.
I am a Boeing fan. You could probably tell...and I am also a shareholder. I also have over 800,000 miles on UAL as a paying passenger, roughly half your experience (though my Space A travel gets me close).
I have to comment on your UAL A-320/319 observation, above, however. I currently fly the A-320/319 for UAL as a pilot. It did go through some maintenance "issues" right after the merger, but it's not the airplane's fault.
It was the fault of legacy CAL management that "thought" they knew how to save money on spare parts as well as on mechanics. Airbus spares and maintenance $$ were cut, but "Fifi" didn't like that, and she sure didn't like mechanics who only knew Boeing turning wrenches on her.
The maintenance reliability (dispatch availability) plummeted when the two maintenance systems (and mechanics) merged. After nearly two years of poor results, UAL has invested in better spares (not more expensive, just different than what typically fails on Boeings), their former CAL mechanics have gained experience, and the airplanes themselves got some upgrades in critical areas.
The A-320/319 reliability is now on a par with all fleets, including the newer 737 fleets, despite the older average age of each of the 153 Airbus at UAL. Your experience mirrors our statistics from over a year ago, but not our recent statistics...and the real point is this: airplanes perform well if they're treated well. Just like cars.
My two cents as a passenger who has butt in seat over 2 million miles, with 1.5 million on United. Last night I just flew my second 787 flight, this one from LAX to PVG (Pu Dong, Shanghai, China). It is a great airplane, light years ahead of the competition in passenger comfort (and yes, some of that is due to individual airlines set up of interiors), and both flights were trouble free.
Want trouble? Book a United Airbus flight. Doesn't matter what model. It isn't ever something major but usually you can count on a delay or cancel due to a simple perflugenhoffer light not working and we need to get the part sent from France. From a passenger point of view, getting to your destination relatively on time beats all else except safety. My comfort level with the safety of the 787 is higher then any Airbus around.
I am a Boeing fan. You could probably tell...and I am also a shareholder. I also have over 800,000 miles on UAL as a paying passenger, roughly half your experience (though my Space A travel gets me close).
I have to comment on your UAL A-320/319 observation, above, however. I currently fly the A-320/319 for UAL as a pilot. It did go through some maintenance "issues" right after the merger, but it's not the airplane's fault.
It was the fault of legacy CAL management that "thought" they knew how to save money on spare parts as well as on mechanics. Airbus spares and maintenance $$ were cut, but "Fifi" didn't like that, and she sure didn't like mechanics who only knew Boeing turning wrenches on her.
The maintenance reliability (dispatch availability) plummeted when the two maintenance systems (and mechanics) merged. After nearly two years of poor results, UAL has invested in better spares (not more expensive, just different than what typically fails on Boeings), their former CAL mechanics have gained experience, and the airplanes themselves got some upgrades in critical areas.
The A-320/319 reliability is now on a par with all fleets, including the newer 737 fleets, despite the older average age of each of the 153 Airbus at UAL. Your experience mirrors our statistics from over a year ago, but not our recent statistics...and the real point is this: airplanes perform well if they're treated well. Just like cars.
Our first Airbus flight was on a UAL A320 ORD-FLL.
This was back when United was in bankruptcy.
Other than having a really ratty interiror, which seemed understandable given United's position at the time for a route where nobody chooses an airline for anything other than price, the flight was okay.
OTOH, I flew a pair of United 737-300 aircraft GEG-ORD-CVG a couple of years later, and they were immaculate although older than any A320 in the airline's fleet.
One of the best flights we've ever had was sitting up front in a US A330.
We've rarely had mechanical delays with any equipment operated by any airline.
What I'm trying to say is that Airbus aircraft are no less reliable than anything else in service.
Boeings do have longer cycle and hour lives in general, while the old Douglas designs trump both.
This was back when United was in bankruptcy.
Other than having a really ratty interiror, which seemed understandable given United's position at the time for a route where nobody chooses an airline for anything other than price, the flight was okay.
OTOH, I flew a pair of United 737-300 aircraft GEG-ORD-CVG a couple of years later, and they were immaculate although older than any A320 in the airline's fleet.
One of the best flights we've ever had was sitting up front in a US A330.
We've rarely had mechanical delays with any equipment operated by any airline.
What I'm trying to say is that Airbus aircraft are no less reliable than anything else in service.
Boeings do have longer cycle and hour lives in general, while the old Douglas designs trump both.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: c502cid
My two cents as a passenger who has butt in seat over 2 million miles, with 1.5 million on United. Last night I just flew my second 787 flight, this one from LAX to PVG (Pu Dong, Shanghai, China). It is a great airplane, light years ahead of the competition in passenger comfort (and yes, some of that is due to individual airlines set up of interiors), and both flights were trouble free.
Want trouble? Book a United Airbus flight. Doesn't matter what model. It isn't ever something major but usually you can count on a delay or cancel due to a simple perflugenhoffer light not working and we need to get the part sent from France. From a passenger point of view, getting to your destination relatively on time beats all else except safety. My comfort level with the safety of the 787 is higher then any Airbus around.
I am a Boeing fan. You could probably tell...and I am also a shareholder. I also have over 800,000 miles on UAL as a paying passenger, roughly half your experience (though my Space A travel gets me close).
I have to comment on your UAL A-320/319 observation, above, however. I currently fly the A-320/319 for UAL as a pilot. It did go through some maintenance "issues" right after the merger, but it's not the airplane's fault.
It was the fault of legacy CAL management that "thought" they knew how to save money on spare parts as well as on mechanics. Airbus spares and maintenance $$ were cut, but "Fifi" didn't like that, and she sure didn't like mechanics who only knew Boeing turning wrenches on her.
The maintenance reliability (dispatch availability) plummeted when the two maintenance systems (and mechanics) merged. After nearly two years of poor results, UAL has invested in better spares (not more expensive, just different than what typically fails on Boeings), their former CAL mechanics have gained experience, and the airplanes themselves got some upgrades in critical areas.
The A-320/319 reliability is now on a par with all fleets, including the newer 737 fleets, despite the older average age of each of the 153 Airbus at UAL. Your experience mirrors our statistics from over a year ago, but not our recent statistics...and the real point is this: airplanes perform well if they're treated well. Just like cars.
Astro..fair enough. I typically avoid booking any Airbus flights because of this. I tried to get home early last week, jumped on an earlier flight, an A320, boarded, sat for 1 1/2 hours, then cancelled. I laughed. However, I know much of United is all Jeff'ed up and can see how easily your point would be valid.
Originally Posted By: c502cid
My two cents as a passenger who has butt in seat over 2 million miles, with 1.5 million on United. Last night I just flew my second 787 flight, this one from LAX to PVG (Pu Dong, Shanghai, China). It is a great airplane, light years ahead of the competition in passenger comfort (and yes, some of that is due to individual airlines set up of interiors), and both flights were trouble free.
Want trouble? Book a United Airbus flight. Doesn't matter what model. It isn't ever something major but usually you can count on a delay or cancel due to a simple perflugenhoffer light not working and we need to get the part sent from France. From a passenger point of view, getting to your destination relatively on time beats all else except safety. My comfort level with the safety of the 787 is higher then any Airbus around.
I am a Boeing fan. You could probably tell...and I am also a shareholder. I also have over 800,000 miles on UAL as a paying passenger, roughly half your experience (though my Space A travel gets me close).
I have to comment on your UAL A-320/319 observation, above, however. I currently fly the A-320/319 for UAL as a pilot. It did go through some maintenance "issues" right after the merger, but it's not the airplane's fault.
It was the fault of legacy CAL management that "thought" they knew how to save money on spare parts as well as on mechanics. Airbus spares and maintenance $$ were cut, but "Fifi" didn't like that, and she sure didn't like mechanics who only knew Boeing turning wrenches on her.
The maintenance reliability (dispatch availability) plummeted when the two maintenance systems (and mechanics) merged. After nearly two years of poor results, UAL has invested in better spares (not more expensive, just different than what typically fails on Boeings), their former CAL mechanics have gained experience, and the airplanes themselves got some upgrades in critical areas.
The A-320/319 reliability is now on a par with all fleets, including the newer 737 fleets, despite the older average age of each of the 153 Airbus at UAL. Your experience mirrors our statistics from over a year ago, but not our recent statistics...and the real point is this: airplanes perform well if they're treated well. Just like cars.
Astro..fair enough. I typically avoid booking any Airbus flights because of this. I tried to get home early last week, jumped on an earlier flight, an A320, boarded, sat for 1 1/2 hours, then cancelled. I laughed. However, I know much of United is all Jeff'ed up and can see how easily your point would be valid.
- Status
