Junky airplanes
 

More airfare questions! The prices to Italy for June are freaking me out and I don't trust that they will go down significantly and at this point I have booked all our hotels so flexibility has gone out the window. Anyhoo, the best prices I am finding are NYC to Rome via Iberia, AerLingus, and Eurofly. I don't care about food or smiley flight attendants but I do care about planes that are up to date and in good shape and some bit of legroom. I'm a shaky flier so I figure the newer, nicer planes have less chance of plunging into the Atlantic. (Don't argue this point, please!) So, which airline whould you choose? Eurofly is non-stop, Iberia through Madrid, and Aer Lingus through Dublin, which is what we took last year. Any opinions? Thanks!!!!

hi rbn,

>I'm a shaky flier ....Aer Lingus through Dublin, which is what we took last year. <

Since you have already been on AL and survived, I suggest that you use them again.

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

((I))

Someone on this board once said something like, "when are we going to get that flying coach is just a Greyhound bus with wings."
I agree- they all seem about the same.

Actually all three fly fairly new planes across the big pond. IE and IB fly A330s and A340s, I'm not sure what Eurofly uses.

Unwarranted fears. Do you really think that the people working for the airlines and doing these trips 2-3 times a week would still be flying if they thought the planes were unsafe. Modern jets have so many redundancy build into all the systems that even if something went wrong, the passenger hardly even knows about it.

2 or 3 days ago an AA B763 blew 2 tires during landing in Shannon, Ireland. Most passengers were unaware it even happened.

A BA B747 lost power in one engine during early stages of across the pond flight, yet it continued on.

Pick the best fare and enjoy your trip. Don't sweat the small stuff.

I'd take Eurofly given that option. First, it is the only nonstop, and that is worth a lot to me. Second, I think they have fairly new planes and they fly A330s, and I prefer Airbus planes.

AAFrequentFlyer,
Dad, is that you? There's no monster under my bed? Are you sure? Hahaha Thanks for the words of comfort. You sound like you know what you are talking about! I will take your advice into consideration. Thanks for the rest of the great advice, Ira, LSky, and Christina.

"Age" is often measured yet another way when it comes to airframes and that is by the number of take-offs and landings the equipment has undergone.

It may look pretty on the outside with new paint; it may have been refurbished on the inside with updated upholstery and seating.

You may THINK you know by the type of airfcraft how long ago it was manufactured but there are sometimes numerous "editions" of an aircraft with the same designator.

Now, which one of these "indicators" do you think you really measures the "age" and possible airworthiness of a plane? (Not to mention that pesky little detail known as maintenance).

I'd listen to Ira on this one if wer you.

Gee thanks,Dukey. I'll ignore AAFF's advice and get my will up to date! Just kidding. I'll take ALL the advice into consideration, including Ira's and yours.

Now if we are talking about scary "airlines" the old Honduran airline, SAHSA (Stay At Home Stay Alive) beat all them hands down.

DC3 with the captain driving (better description than flying) through mountains because the plane couldn't fly high enough to go over them. Right engine catches fire on landing, ground crew calmly tells everyone to please get off the plane before it blows up. Several goats are loaded into the "cargo area" (front of the plane). Brakes fail on landing, skid off into palm trees.

Ah, those were the days. And yes, those all happened on various flights. I never got to where I wanted to go the same day I left. I wonder if they are still going like that?

dave

It is amazing the number of DC-3's which are still flying.

Hey, no sweat, Rbnwdln..if you are comfortable telling the age and history of a plane from outward appearances go ahead.

If you are a shakey flier, consider Eurofly. The airbus 330 is a newer and decent plane and most importantly, as a non stop there is one fewer take off and landing - statistically, the most hazerdous part of the flight.

While the DC3s would technically get off the ground, I'm not sure I would call it "flying" :-)

AC consisted of 2 fans running in the front of the cabin. I always figured they liked to trick people, you'd fly into Tegu on a 737, then get transferred to the DC3s. Roatan was always a fun airport, then they paved it and ruined it for the adventurous.

I remember when they flew one into a wall in Utila (wasn't on that one), tore off the landing gear and had to belly land. They drove another one into the ocean off of Roatan when they couldn't stop. So, I guess the DC3 could also be consider a boat and a steeplechase horse.

God, how I miss those days...LIAT circling the airport in Castries while those of us that lived in the marina had to chase the cows off the runway as part of our slip rental.

Ah, to be young again...

Oops, please ignore the misspelled "shaky."

Have flown in and been at the controls of a DC3, I think that it is about the most forgiving aircraft ever built.

Those people who screwed up were trying really hard.

((I))

Oh, I wasn't putting down the DC3, possibly the greatest plane ever built. I was slamming how SAHSA took care of them. Yes, it was actually amazing that a 40 year old plane could still do what it was doing on a daily basis, in spite of that was being done to it.

I agree with IRA. That a plane first built in, I believe, 1935, is still in active use indicates that it is a quality plane. Even today, the DC3 and its military configuration can get to places that other planes cannot, and at famously reasonable cost.

As to picking an airline based on fleet age, I think there are other considerations, such as comfort and cleanliness, that should weigh more.

Airliners flying to and from the US have to meet high maintenance standards (and I don't doubt that most European countries have as high standards. They know when a part is likely to develop fatigue, for example, and replace it before that date. Its certainly possible that an older plane will be "newer" than a newer plane, depending on when the parts likely to break have been replaced.

A DC-3 is unpressurized, and flies at much lower speed and altitude than modern jets. If properly maintained, they can fly forever. It's definitely not the case for jets like the DC-10 and early 747s where metal fatique limits the number of take-off/landing cycles they can go through.

The main problem with DC-3 is the reliability of the original piston engines. However, many DC-3s still flying have been re-engined with turboprops, so that take care of that problem.

All things considered, I'd rather be in a plane with 40,000 hours on the airframe having hydraulic controls than one right off the assembly line with fly-by-wire. Just a personal prejudice based on 40 years of working with computers, plus an intimate knowledge of why systems fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Systems_Bible

Heck, Dukey, I wasn't suggesting that I could tell the age of a plane from its outward appearance. I can't tell a 747 from a 7 and 7! I'm getting an education.