Flight 587 - aftershocks echo round the world

By SCOTT MACLEOD

Two jet engines screamed at full power as the packed airliner heaved into the sky over New York and banked slowly towards the Dominican Republic.

But as the Airbus A300-600 passed over the borough of Queens at 3.17 am (NZ time), something went wrong.

One middle-aged man who glanced up at that moment saw a small orange fireball near the left engine, quickly followed by a shower of debris as the wing snapped off.

"Then it just fell," he said.

A young girl sitting at home nearby heard a thunderous boom as the 170-tonne Airbus slammed into the ground, smashing houses and killing an unknown number of residents. "The glasses were falling off the table and shattering," she said.

It took 15 seconds to wipe out 260 people and millions of dollars worth of aircraft.

The shockwaves spread far beyond New York.

The first wave hit an aviation industry already grappling with rocketing fuel prices, cut-throat competition and terrorism fears. Most of the airlines that have survived bankruptcy this year watched helplessly as their value slumped on world sharemarkets.

The second wave struck a fragile tourism industry already rocked by the fear of flying that has gripped many Americans since the September 11 terror attacks.

A third shockwave hit American Airlines, which operated the crashed aircraft, and Airbus Industrie, which built it.

Everyone had two questions: What went wrong? And what will happen next?

What did go wrong?

Firefighters had barely unrolled their hoses before news agencies debated the most obvious theory - terrorism. After all, Flight 587 crashed in the same city where terrorists razed the famed Twin Towers just two months and one day earlier.

But comments from witnesses, investigators and air traffic controllers suggest the most likely cause was an accident, or a mechanical fault in the left engine which witnesses said fell off before the crash.

Terrorists would need a bomb or missile to destroy a big airliner in flight.

Bombs are usually smuggled into an airliner's fuselage, either in the cabin or freight hold. But witnesses said the explosion was on the left wing or engine.

A missile could do that, but New York is densely populated and nobody saw a rocket.

New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said the main part of the plane crashed into houses, part of an engine hit a petrol station and part of a wing fell into a nearby bay.

National Transportation Safety Board chairwoman Marion Blakey said it was too early to know what caused the crash or made the engine fall off.

How safe is an Airbus?

One Airbus passenger jet crashes every year, on average. That sounds scary until it is pointed out that an Airbus takes off or lands somewhere in the world every 10 seconds - over 1.5 million flights a year.

Airbus has sold more than 2600 aircraft in 25 years, and about 1600 are still flying. All models have good safety records and are highly sophisticated. For instance, onboard computers will refuse to let a pilot make dangerous moves like stalls or steep banks.

A300s like the one that crashed yesterday are short to medium-range aircraft that seat between 250 and 300 passengers.

Some experts worried about the A300 when it first came out in 1972 because it was a big aircraft with only two engines. They thought that if one broke down then the aircraft would be unstable.

But Airbus said the A300 could fly easily on one engine, and it has an excellent safety record. Unofficial figures give 0.8 deaths on an A300 for every million flights, compared with 1.0 for the Boeing 747 jumbo jet and 1.6 for the Airbus A310.

The European aircraft-builder suffered less than its United States rival Boeing from the September 11 attacks because none of its aircraft was involved.

But yesterday's crash could change that. Questions are already being raised about the type of engine mounted on the crashed A300 - similar to those used on other Airbuses and Boeings.

What are the engine worries?

The crashed A300 was fitted with an engine that is part of a family called CF6, made by General Electric.

Britain's Independent newspaper reports that the type has suffered a string of dramatic failures - more than six in the past two years. All the jets landed safely.

General Electric's website says 1700 aircraft have been fitted with the CF6 family of engine, including many different types of Airbus and Boeing. They power 4000 flights a day, and have racked up 220 million flight hours since entering service 30 years ago.

Crash investigators are looking at the possibility that a spinning blade came loose inside the engine and punched into a fuel tank in the wing.

And American Airlines?

American Airlines is the world's largest carrier. It was in big trouble even before yesterday's crash.

Passenger numbers fell 28 per cent in the year to October 31, and its parent company has lost $1 billion in the past three months.

American lost two aircraft in the September hijackings, and many of its passengers have changed to airlines they believe are less likely to be terrorist targets. Yesterday's crash will worsen that trend.

An analyst with Salomon Smith Barney, Brian Harris, said the crash would probably make passengers avoid American for six months.

Should we be worried?

Aviation experts are quick to point out that driving to an airport is still more dangerous than flying - even after the terror attacks and yesterday's crash.

And any New Zealander worried about American Airlines and Airbus can take solace from the fact that the airline does not fly here and none of our airlines use Airbuses.

Air New Zealand, Freedom Air and Qantas use Boeings, which have a safety record similar to the Airbus. Ansett Australia does use the Airbus A320, which is half the weight of the A300 that crashed yesterday, and has a good safety record.

The fact is that big airliners crash every year, and the world was due for another one. But having an American Airlines jet fall on New York was awful luck for sharemarkets and the travel industry - it refocused the eyes of travellers on to the scene of the world's worst terrorist attacks.

How will this affect tourism?

One equity strategist at a major European bank said airlines - and passenger numbers - would take a hit whether terrorists were involved or not.

"It just destroys confidence in flying."

However, Americans have been scared more easily than travellers in other parts of the globe, perhaps because they were the ones hit by terrorism and yesterday's crash.

Air New Zealand and Qantas were both forced to slash flights to the United States after September 11 as Americans opted to stay home. But both airlines made only slight cuts to other routes, and will suffer less than the US-based carriers.

The president of the Inbound Tour Operators Council, Don Gunn, said on Monday that New Zealand was suffering much less from the terror attacks than many analysts had predicted. Asians and Britons were still willing to come here.

Yesterday's crash was less devastating than September 11, so it seems New Zealand will lose some American tourists but few from elsewhere.

And the wider implications?

Some predict that the crash could worsen a global economic slowdown partly sparked by the terror attacks. Much of the slump has been caused by losses to airline, tourism and insurance firms.

United States airlines lost $6 billion in the third quarter and shed 100,000 staff. They have lost 40 per cent of their value on the sharemarket since September 11.

The latest crash will worsen that trend. Within hours of the crash, British Airways, Air France and Lufthansa lost between 3.1 per cent and 5.5 per cent of their value on world sharemarkets.

The US slump has spread beyond airlines into hotel, cruise line, casino and other leisure and travel firms, showing the broad importance of the aviation industry tothe other parts of an economy.

One problem for airlines is that the downed aircraft yesterday and on September 11 were all on medium-haul flights - which are the staple of the aviation industry.

Since September 11, New Zealand share values have held up well compared with markets overseas. However, our exports could be affected if foreign economies suffer.

Will anything good come out of this?

Strange as it may seem, motorists could end up paying less for petrol.

It works like this: fewer air passengers mean fewer flights. Airlines will burn less oil, leaving more on the market. Prices drop when the market is oversupplied.

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries has been trying to slash oil output, but yesterday's crash will make it hard to cut back enough to stop prices plunging.

Crude oil for December delivery dropped from $21.38 a barrel to $20.25 within hours of the crash.

And maybe the economic fallout will not be so bad. Many American citizens are vowing to continue their lives as normal.

As New Yorker Michael Couturier said: "It won't stop us from flying - we'll just have to tighten our seatbelts a little."

Complete coverage

Map: crash area

American Airlines information (from within NZ):
Tel: 0168 1 800 245 0999