A380 Wings To Be Checked For Cracks Picture Image courtesy of & copyright Airbus

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) published Friday 20 January 2012 an Airworthiness Directive to mandate a prompt detailed visual inspection of the wings of 20 Airbus A380.

EASA continues to review the situation closely. As a result of the on-going investigation, further mandatory actions may be considered.

Picture of American Airlines Courtesy of AeronauticPictures.com - Used by Permission

On 4 October we said that “American Airlines Bankruptcy Rumors Premature,” but apparently they were nonetheless correct. The company issued a press release on 29 November 2011 which said, “AMR Corporation (“the Company”), the parent company of American Airlines, Inc. (“American”) and AMR Eagle Holding Corporation (“American Eagle”), announced that in order to achieve a cost and debt structure that is industry competitive and thereby assure its long-term viability and ability to continue delivering a world-class travel experience for its customers, the Company and certain of its U.S.-based subsidiaries (including American and American Eagle), today filed voluntary petitions for Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.”

The company says that despite the bankruptcy filing, it has $4.1 billion, that’s billion with a B, on hand to cover its operations during reorganization.

Further, according to the press release, American Airlines says that during the bankruptcy proceedings:

American and American Eagle expect to continue to:

• Provide safe and reliable service;
• Fly normal schedules;
• Honor tickets and reservations, and make exchanges and refunds as usual;
• Fully maintain AAdvantage frequent flyer and other customer service programs, and ensure all AAdvantage miles and elites status earned by members remain secure and intact;
• Provide Admirals Club access and similar amenities to members and eligible customers;
• Remain an integral member of the oneworld® alliance, of which American is a founding member, and continue its codeshare partnerships;
• Provide employee wages, healthcare coverage, vacation, and other benefits, without interruption; and
• Pay suppliers for goods and services received during the reorganization process.

Some analysts have already said the American Airlines bankruptcy will result in higher prices for airline tickets on routes they serve.

The problem began with rumors of AMR contemplating bankruptcy protection, possibly so-called Chapter 11. American Public Media’s excellent program Marketplace reports that trading in the AMR stock was halted not once but seven times. Not a good day.

While the AMR stock fell as low as 41% off its prior price, it recovered a little to a fall of 33% reported the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). Today the skies are starting to clear.

In that same blog post, the WSJ shares two analyst’s perspectives on the stock that, while not glowingly optimistic, could fairly be characterized as modestly confident AMR, and by extension, American Airlines, will have the cash to pay its bills, as long as the economy does not get much worse, for the foreseeable future.

So if you work for American Airlines or are considering buying airline tickets to fly AA, things look like smooth-ish flying ahead… for now.

ANA All Nippon Airways First Boeing 787 Dreamliner Delivery Picture

Celebrations to mark this historic milestone begin tomorrow in Everett with a delivery ceremony followed by flyaway of the airplane on Tuesday, said Boeing in a press release issued on 25 September. According to the company’s statement, Airplane 24, painted in ANA’s special livery, will join the display during the ceremony. Flyaway of the airplane to Tokyo is scheduled Tuesday morning at 6:35 a.m. from Paine Field.

By all accounts, perhaps save those from Airbus, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is a very advanced technology airplane. It is claimed to offer new levels of fuel efficiency coupled with advances in cabin comfort for passengers. The plane has proven very difficult for Boeing to build on time and budget. Delays and cost overruns have plagued the program. However, few planes, and even fewer airplanes that have pushed the technology leading edge farther like the Boeing 787, have stayed on cost and schedule during development.

Time will tell if it earns its keep in service.

The Boeing 747 that later crashed as TWA Flight 800. This picture was taken at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). See other images in this sequence to confirm the presence of "N" number of N93119 on the rear side of the aircraft. Published here with permission of copyright owner AeronauticPictures.com

The accident aircraft was registered as N93119. The flight departed John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) about 2019 (EDT), with 2 pilots, 2 flight engineers, 14 flight attendants, and 212 passengers on board. All 230 people on board were killed, and the airplane was destroyed. It was bound for Charles DeGaulle International Airport, Paris, France. The loss of the aircraft and all aboard took place at approximately 2031 EDT.

This plane crash was among the most controversial in aviation history. Theories offered by parties of variable credibility ranged from bombs on board to anti-aircraft missiles fired by US Navy ships.

Here is the official verdict of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB):

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the TWA flight 800 accident was an explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT), resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system.

Contributing factors to the accident were the design and certification concept that fuel tank explosions could be prevented solely by precluding all ignition sources and the design and certification of the Boeing 747 with heat sources located beneath the CWT with no means to reduce the heat transferred into the CWT or to render the fuel vapor in the tank nonflammable.

History of the Accident Airplane*

The accident airplane, N93119, a 747-100 series airplane (model 747-131), serial number (S/N) 20083, was manufactured by Boeing in July 1971 and purchased new by TWA. The airplane was added to TWA’s operating certificate on October 27, 1971, and, except for a 1-year period, was operated by TWA in commercial transport service until the accident occurred. According to TWA records, the accident airplane had 93,303 total hours of operation (16,869 flight cycles) at the time of the accident. The 747-100 is a low-wing, transport-category airplane that is about 225 feet long and 63 feet high (from the ground to the top of the vertical stabilizer), with a wingspan of about 195 feet. The 747-100 can carry about 430 passengers and cargo.

The accident airplane was equipped with four Pratt & Whitney (P&W) JT9D-7AH turbofan engines. Company maintenance records indicated that the No. 1 (outboard left) engine, S/N 662209, was installed on the accident airplane on December 31, 1995, and had operated about 47,989 hours since new; the No. 2 (inboard left) engine, S/N 662593, was installed on the accident airplane on December 6, 1995, and had operated about 80,884 hours since new; the No. 3 (inboard right) engine, S/N 662426, was installed on the accident airplane on June 18, 1996, and had operated about 80,336 hours since new; and the No. 4 (outboard right) engine, S/N 662463, was installed on the accident airplane on May 11, 1996, and had operated about 77,061 hours since new.

According to TWA’s dispatch documents for the accident flight, the airplane’’s takeoff weight was calculated to be 590,441 pounds, including 19,751 pounds of cargo (6,062 pounds of cargo in the forward cargo compartment and 13,689 pounds of cargo in the aft and bulk cargo compartments) and 176,600 pounds of fuel. TWA dispatch records and load information recorded by the CVR indicated that there were 29 passengers in the first-class cabin, 183 passengers in the coach cabin, and 18 crewmembers (4 flight crewmembers and 14 cabin crewmembers) on board the airplane. The dispatch documents indicated that the airplane’s takeoff center of gravity (c.g.) was calculated to be 18.4 percent of the mean aerodynamic chord (MAC), and the takeoff horizontal stabilizer trim setting was 6.1 units nose up.

*Source: NTSB

Stock photos courtesy AeronauticPictures.com: Airplane Stock Photos

The ASA CRJ900 was number three in line on taxiway M waiting for departure on runway 09, says the NTSB.

A brief narrative provided by the agency said that as the B767 approached and passed the intersection with taxiway M, the left winglet of the B767 struck the horizontal tail of the CRJ900.

The CRJ900 sustained substantial damage, which included damage to the horizontal tail and vertical tail. The ASA CRJ900 regional jet also lost fluid in all three hydraulic systems. Pieces of the B767 winglet were sheared off and found embedded in the tail of the CRJ900. The passengers on the CRJ900 were deplaned on the taxiway, and the B767 taxied back to the terminal, according to the NTSB.

“Giving our team a chance to work with the airplane prior to entry into service was very valuable,” said Katsunori Shimazaki, ANA corporate planning senior manager and the airline’s leader of the validation. “Our crews are excited to begin operating the first 787 revenue flights later this year.”

The Boeing statement said that teams from ANA and Boeing validated more than a hundred procedures, including towing the airplane, conducting fit checks of ground support equipment, staging electronic flight bag data and completing maintenance actions.

Boeing says that at each airport, hundreds of enthusiasts and reporters gathered to witness the 787′s arrival from Tokyo. Combined, several thousand people celebrated the Dreamliner’s presence in Japan. Given the enthusiasm in Japan for aviation the turnout is not surprising.

According to Boeing, ANA’s first scheduled service with the 787 will be either the Tokyo Haneda-Okayama or Tokyo Haneda-Hiroshima route when deliveries begin later this year.

ANA has 55 Boeing 787 Dreamliners on order.

In one article, Jim McAuslan, general secretary of pilot union Balpa is quoted as saying, “Pilots have never wished to inconvenience the travelling public, especially those looking forward to summer holidays. We have therefore lifted the threat of strike action.”

Travelers are still cautioned to carefully check any airline’s status pertaining to labor actions before committing to inflexible (non-change/non-refundable) summer travel planning and airline ticket purchases.

While there is no silver bullet anyone can offer you in your search for airline tickets, here are some tips to help you save money if you don’t mind some inconveniences.

Shop for and buy your cheap airline tickets on Tuesday mornings between the hours of 6 and 9 am.

If your trip is not time critical, you can roll the dice and wait until the last moment to purchase your airline tickets, but be prepared to find all the seats, at any price, are gone. Deals can be found if the flight is not sold out – no airline wants to fly any plane with any empty seats!

We typically also think that cheap airline tickets are only found on so called “red eye” flights. Well, that thinking is not wrong, just not complete. You can also find great air fare deals on flights that leave really really early in the morning. Fewer people want to fly then so the airlines work harder to put butts in those seats. That means better prices for you. Oh, as an added bonus, generally those flights tend to be on time more often too.

Heading to Europe? You’ll save money by waiting until August or September when demand slackens and the airlines on both sides of the Atlantic need your money more than you need them. Got tips on finding cheap tickets? Post them in the comments below – just no spam please.

Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) at sunset offers a silhouette of a Boeing B-747 in a classic air-travel picture. Aviation stock photo copyright and courtesy of AeronauticPictures.com

The penalties were imposed for violations of the DOT’s regulations covering disclosure of code-sharing flight operators – the actual airline flying a code share leg – not just the mainline air carrier – when airline tickets are purchased online.

“When passengers buy an airline ticket, they have a right to know which airline will be operating their flight,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, in a prepared statement. “I hope these fines serve as a warning to airlines and ticket agents that we will continue to take enforcement action when we find violations of our code-sharing rules.”

Online Ticket Agents Fined 6 May 2011*

Online Ticket Agents Fined April 2011*

*Source: US DOT

According to the DOT, code-sharing is when an airline will sell tickets on flights that use its designator code (such as UA for United Airlines), but are operated by a separate airline like an international partner or smaller regional.

However, DOT rules require airlines and ticket agents to disclose to consumers, before they book a flight, if the flight is operated under a code-sharing arrangement, allowing the airline passenger to decide if they want to fly on that airline. According to the agency, the disclosure must include the corporate name of the transporting carrier and any other name under which the flight is offered to the public. Under a new law, when tickets are purchased online (internet), code-share information must be easily viewable on the first display of a website following a search for flights corresponding to a desired itinerary.

According to the DOT, investigations by their Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings revealed that the ticket agents, at least during the latter half of 2010, violated the code-share disclosure rules by failing to disclose that certain flights listed on their websites were being operated by a regional carrier on behalf of a major airline. The listings did not display the corporate names of the operating carriers and other names under which the carriers operating the flights do business. And that is a no no. Hence the fines.