Air Transat A310's & LCC?

[Byrna]

Hello all,

I'm wondering if this issue is an example of the potential dangers of flying with companies which operate low-cost commercial flights like Air Transat?

As an example: I checked the ticket prices of Air Transat, Air Canada and Air France from Montreal to Paris return and Air Transat beats Air Canada by about $200 Cdn. and Air France by about $300 Cdn. So, my point is - doesn't this low fare also translate eventually to cutting maintenance costs and also prevent the airline from upgrading their older planes as the A310 surely is. Besides, according to the IASA site, the A300 and A310 have known problems with its rudders.

Curious to know what you in the airline industry will say about my point.

John

[billy34-kit]

Byrna,....that incident is linked to the conception of the aircraft, and had nothing to see with the price of your ticket.(they don't cut on the maintenance don't worry!!)

Have a good flight, seat back and relax!

[Byrna]

Hi bill34-kit,

Actually, I was perhaps not clear about my intent: I know that the A300/310 series has issues with their rudders. My point is why are such old planes still being used by Air Transat, especially knowing their conceptual/design problems with their rudders?

John

[catchup]

@Byrna

1. Many international airlines whos reputation is not in doubt still use the A300/310

2. Who says, there are "conceptual/design problems with their (A300/310) rudders"?

Regards

[Byrna]

Here's an Airworthiness Directive (AD) which shows issues with this rudder and hydraulics system:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/B64BB946C7F1B50486256FB7005527C6?OpenDocument

As for many companies using the A310/A300 - good for them! I guess they'll wait until a serious accident occurs and then sadly pretend to the press that they made a mistake keeping such old aircraft in service instead of upgrading to, say an A320 series.

John

[Globaliser]

Byrna: As for many companies using the A310/A300 - good for them! I guess they'll wait until a serious accident occurs and then sadly pretend to the press that they made a mistake keeping such old aircraft in service instead of upgrading to, say an A320 series.How is going from an A300/A310 family aircraft to an A320 family aircraft an "upgrade"? They're completely different classes of aircraft, not least in size. And both families are still in production, so it's not exactly as if one has become obsolete.

[lomapaseo]

Well I read the AD material in the link and fail to see that any rudder issues were specifically named. Sounds more like a braking issue to me.

[Krueger]

Hey Byrna,

You blew it all up with your last statement, when you said that a A320 was an upgrade from the A300/A310 series.
As said before, many international airlines use this type without problems. Of course, every type of aircraft has its own flaws that with time are detected and, hopefully, corrected. With the rudder of the A300/A310 there is no problem at all, if you don't go over the limit, as it came on the investigation from the American A300.
However, composite materials are now coming of age and that could be one issue to consider. Anyway, this issue is not a private cottage of the A300/A310.
Check Six Krueger...

[Byrna]

Sorry about the misuse of the term "upgrade". I meant the A320 or even the larger A321 more as an upgrade of newer design, not necessarily in the same class.

As for the AD, best you look at the IASA site as per link below - http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/menu/index.htm and select the latest additions link on the left, then scroll to 13-Mar-05 for the heading "The Air Transat A310 Rudder Loss".


John

[Globaliser]

Byrna: Sorry about the misuse of the term "upgrade". I meant the A320 or even the larger A321 more as an upgrade of newer design, not necessarily in the same class.There's a very good saying involving holes and digging.

You suggested that these airlines were compromising safety by keeping their older and less safe A300/A310s instead of changing to newer and safer A320 family aircraft.

A quick check on the Airbus website shows the following soundbite figures:-A300: up to 298 seats, range 4,150 nm/7,700 km with full passenger payload
A310: up to 247 seats, range 5,200 nm/9,600 km with full passenger payload
------
A320: up to 164 seats, range 3,000 nm/5,550 km with full passenger payload
A321: up to 199 seats, range 3,000 nm/5,550 km with full passenger payloadQuite a difference, isn't it? Might explain why these trans-Atlantic operators aren't exactly falling over themselves to do what you suggest.

[Byrna]

Globaliser,

You sound like a businessman and nothing else - i.e. you're thinking of nothing but profits so you'd do well to work for Air Transat - go for it!

You missed my point - as is common with business-minded dudes like yourself. Of course the "major" trans-Atlantic carriers are not falling over themselves, their main concern is profits, not safety!

As for the range/passenger issue - ever heard of the A330? My point being, when there is a will there's a way!

John

[gumbi]

Byrna said: "I'm wondering if this issue is an example of the potential dangers of flying with companies which operate low-cost commercial flights like Air Transat?

As an example: I checked the ticket prices of Air Transat, Air Canada and Air France from Montreal to Paris return and Air Transat beats Air Canada by about $200 Cdn. and Air France by about $300 Cdn. So, my point is - doesn't this low fare also translate eventually to cutting maintenance costs and also prevent the airline from upgrading their older planes as the A310 surely is. Besides, according to the IASA site, the A300 and A310 have known problems with its rudders."




Hi Byrna! I think you're mixing up LCCs and charter ops, as is Air Transat... If you continue on that subject, I'll suspect you're stirring the pot...


Byrna also said: As for the range/passenger issue - ever heard of the A330? My point being, when there is a will there's a way!



If you would do a little research, you'd learn that AT also operates 4 A330s

[Globaliser]

Byrna: You missed my point - as is common with business-minded dudes like yourself. Of course the "major" trans-Atlantic carriers are not falling over themselves, their main concern is profits, not safety!

As for the range/passenger issue - ever heard of the A330? My point being, when there is a will there's a way!So is the A300/310 family obsolete, then? History?

Care to suggest why Airbus is still making new ones?

[Byrna]

Hi Gumbi,

When you said "Hi Byrna! I think you're mixing up LCCs and charter ops, as is Air Transat... If you continue on that subject, I'll suspect you're stirring the pot..." - what do you mean by stirring the pot? If you mean comparing charters versus LCCs, then that was my idea when I posted my original reply.

I was interested in knowing the objective opinions of those in the commercial airline industry, particularly those in the aviation safety field, if there has been a trend in the number of incidents from large carriers versus those from charter (low-cost) carriers. Just curious. That was why my posting was in the form of a question. I did not mean to start a "flame", just a civilized discussion. ... and YES I do know AT operates A330's but that was NOT my point.

As for Globaliser asking why Airbus is still making new A300/310's - I don't know the reason except perhaps cost benefits (cheaper to build and operate an A300/A310 versus an A330 perhaps?). Would YOU care to suggest a reason?


John

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

I thought all new-build A300s/310s today were only for the freight market and no longer passenger versions, eg. UPS - and these are mostly A300-600Fs.

[gumbi]

Hi Byrna!

You have to understand that charter carriers are not LCCs. LCCs are scheduled carriers operating at low cost. So in that sense, AT does not qualify as a LCC. Actually, in Canada, AT is the carrier who provides the best working conditions of its category (thus not necessarily the lowest cost operator), compared to Skyservice, Zoom and HMY.

As for your question regarding cutting corners on maintenance, the record speaks for itself... AT is now 18 years old and has a pretty good maintenance record if you're asking me, so does the other charter carriers in Canada, apart from the very few heavily mediatized "incidents" that you might be tempted to refer to.. ;)

[Globaliser]

Byrna: As for Globaliser asking why Airbus is still making new A300/310's - I don't know the reason except perhaps cost benefits (cheaper to build and operate an A300/A310 versus an A330 perhaps?). Would YOU care to suggest a reason?Because they're not obsolete and they're not unsafe. And certainly not enough of either to warrant a passenger carrier throwing them out like last night's takeaway curry, as you'd seem to want them to do. That's all.

[Byrna]

Thank-you for your answers Globaliser and Gumbi.

Well, I stand corrected then. I'm just curious as to what these issues or AD's are referring to regarding the rudder/hydraulics of the a300/a310?


John

[MarkD]

Bryna

First you assert the reason Transat is cheaper is maintenance. So not fuel hedging, or aircraft commonality, or pilot/staff salaries, or anything like that.

Then you wonder why Transat doesn't use 320s instead.

In fact Transat have 330s (the evolved 300/310) but have acquired more 310s because they suit their business model better, which means they can make money and offer cheaper fares. 310s are in service with the CF and are still being ordered.

Let's hope you never have to depend on Transat to get a family member home in a hurry when Air Canada (the original ticketed airline) would not get it done. I have had that experience and am grateful they were flying (a 310) that day.

[tiermonde]

About the cost of the tickets.
The way Air Transat keeps fares low is not by cutting corners on anything but by putting more seats in the aircraft. Air Canada has just 274 seats on the Airbus 330-300 (Air Transat had 228 seats on their B-757 while Air Canada has between 198 and 207 seats on their B-767-200, a larger aircraft). In addition, while scheduled companies have seat occupancies of 75%, charter companies have seat occupancies of about 95%. So when you combine 32% more seats and 20% more seat occupancy (of those 32% more seats), it comes out to 67% more paying passengers in the same aircraft on the same trip (on an Airbus 330-300, it means that Air Canada will have 205 passengers while Air Transat will have 343 passengers to pay for the same trip). That is the main reason it is cheaper. What is sacrificed is not safety, or maintenance but a couple inches of legroom.

About size, performance and cost.
The brand new A330-200s and A-330-300 that Air Transat operate have 362 seats, too big for certain markets. Air Transat used smaller B-757-200ER for a few years on trans-Atlantic operations but customers did not really like spending such long hours in a tube-like narrow body aircraft that had no first class. The aircrafts' range was limited which required it to sometimes make unscheduled fuel stops in eastern Canada on westbound flights, such as Nice-Montreal or Warsaw-Toronto even though the airplane would take-off with all fuel tanks full. In addition, the 757s were unable to take much cargo, if any at all. The wide-body A-310-300, with its 259 seats, has only 31 seats more than the B757-200 but has a 20 seat first class section, and a longer range that makes unscheduled fuel stops very rare. They were cheaper to buy/lease than the smaller, shorter range 757. In the post 9/11 era, Air Transat found comfort in having lower lease payments, a survival trump card if terrorists were ever to do an encore. One of the reasons AT survived 9/11 was that it had in its fleet 14 L-1011s that were paid for, that is could painlessly ground while competitors that had high leases on all-new fleets such as Canada 3000, went under.
The A-310s’ cavernous holds, high ZFW and MTOW permit it often to haul several tons of freight, with all seats filled, something its closest competitor (size wise), the B767-200 with its narrower fuselage and smaller holds (and higher lease payments) could not do. Yes the A-310 is a bit older technology but it does well what is required of it by AT and my opinion was that it was and is the right and smart choice.

The future
Boeing and Airbus are both working on a soon to be released B-787 and A-350, both of which Air Transat is looking at for a A-310 replacement. Air Transats’ choice of the A310-300 was a stopgap measure while waiting for such an airplane.