Airbus vs. Boeing: which is best, really ?

[450knotOffice]

beepbeep said

I would welcome somebody who actually flys busses and some people who work in industry.

Many of us in this thread do work in this industry and have quite literally thousands of hours in jets, both airline and corporate, however, you're right - none of us has any appreciable A-320 time, as far as I can tell.

One of my good friends flies Airbuses for United and has also spent years in the Boeing 737, 757, and 767. I'll see if I can get him to sign on to this forum and add his perspective to this discussion.

[Zef]

Airbus construction video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8lNrepJXi8

[Dottore]

Originally posted by edgemar
How does this aircraft compare? Would you get on one for a flight?

I flew on these regularly in the 1980's between Singapore and Moscow (long story). They were exceptionally loud. What I really loved though - was that they had five (count em) different classes - which I always though rather funny given that the Soviet Union was supposed to be a classless society.

The front consisted of these huge leather armchairs. Dinner was served on large linen covered tables, the glasses were all heavy crystal and the cutlery silver - and the food was absolutely sensational. It was incredibly decadent really - and usually reserved for party members or tourists paying with hard foreign currency.

Second class was not nearly as good, and in fifth class they has this kind of flexi seating were wooden seats could be added if the flight was over booked. Very, very basic in the back

But first class on Aeroflot in the 1980's was a damn fine way to fly.

[beepbeep]

Originally posted by 450knotOffice
beepbeep said


Many of us in this thread do work in this industry and have quite literally thousands of hours in jets, both airline and corporate, however, you're right - none of us has any appreciable A-320 time, as far as I can tell.

One of my good friends flies Airbuses for United and has also spent years in the Boeing 737, 757, and 767. I'll see if I can get him to sign on to this forum and add his perspective to this discussion.

Yepp, I understand there are many fine pilots on this forum. What I meant when I said "in industry" was beancounters. You know, people who decide to buy 320's instead of 738's and their resoning behind.

There are plethora of reasons extending waaay beyond whatpilots feel about the metal.

It's turnaround times, cockpit comonality, pricing, engine reliability/serviceability, CASM, RASM, politics, bickering, cockpit comfort, fleet comonality and everything else far away from pilot egos.

First 20 posts only scratched the surface. I like diesel nines. And 1011's. They are sturdy and likable. I'm also a beancounter. Things are complicated. It's money and statistics.

There are reasons why Airbusses are bought.

[Jeff Alton]

I agree with a lot of what you said. Maintenance and fleet comminality are big deals for airlines. All of your points could be said about any aircraft manufacturer when an airline is condidering adding to its fleet. Or, for that matter, when a new airline is looking at what they are going to buy.

However, your last statement is a curious one. There are reasons that Chinese and Korean cars are bought too...... Not saying there is a parallel at all, but you could substitute "busses" with "Boeings" or "Embrarears" or "______" and the same holds true.

Cheers

[swa911]

Boeing.....It's all I've ever worked on. Damn good jet.

I think there is a reason they call them ScareBus.

[Jeff Alton]

Going full fleet RNP as well I understand! We do a fair amount of RNP work (design and such) up here. Amazing technologie.

Cheers

[Deschodt]

>Boeing.....It's all I've ever worked on

No offense but that statement right there kinda disqualifies your from an unbiased opinion ;-)

Anyway, all very interesting, thanks for the input guys !

[beepbeep]

Similar thread, from pilots perspective:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/211313/

[stevepaa]

bring back Douglas. Please. DC-8 was a gem. Just a little late to the party.

[thedge]

Theyre the same thing to me, I look more at who owns the aircraft. Eg, US Air could have the best jets in the world and I STILL wouldnt fly with them. The airline matters more than the plane IMHO.

[DanL911sc]

Originally Posted by beepbeep

Similar thread, from pilots perspective:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/211313/

There's some Airbus perspective (from pilots) on that thread. It seems like the difference is,:Boeing treats the pilot more like he's flying the plane, whereas Airbus treats the pilot like he is managing the plane's systems. Over-generalization, I'm sure.

[Jeff Alton]

In the last few months I have flown the aircraft simulators for the B737-800, B767-300, A320 and A340. Now I am no pro pilot, but as much as I hate to say, I found the Airbus product, especially the 340, easier to fly. I know it is down on performance compared to the B767, but I had a much easier time with it, even going into Hong Kong in a storm!!

I actually preffered the joystick style control over the yoke, even though the yoke is much more traditional.

Gotta love getting to play in 50 million dollar video games with full motion!

Cheers

[Hendog]

Originally Posted by Jim727

Airbus uses computers to back up the computers. Lightning strike or electronics bay fire, anyone? I asked a friend who is a Captain on an A-320 what he would do in the event of full computer failure. After dancing around the "it's unlikely" responses and facing the reality that if it can happen eventually it will happen he said: "it will be a hell of an airshow". Yep, that's what the passengers paid for.


~~~~~

I couldn't help but think of this thread as I flew to Halifax and back last week. Then this incident with an A319 enroute to Toronto from Victoria battered its' passengers fairly good. It's still not clear what caused the aircraft to veer and dive. This thread and the impression it left me with regarding Airbus along wwith this story makes me leery of that product.

Here's a quote from the first story link: "They came on the intercom and explained they were flying manually and that the computer had been knocked out. And I don't know if it was knocked out before, and that caused the lurch, or it was knocked out after, because of the plane lurching back and forth."

http://www.mytelus.com/ncp_news/article.en.do?pn=home&articleID=2851000

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=b19634dd-79a8-4302-95b3-3759b47e1225

I'm not afraid of flying at all and this doesn't change that. I just prefer Boeing now based on this thread. I tried out this question (prior to this incident) on a pilot regarding which hardware he would trust over the other? "Boeing" was the answer.

[beepbeep]

They flew over Rockies, encountered severe mountain wave, dropped.
Autopilot tried to correct, found out that it couldn't and disengaged (as it should). Pilot made announcment of "computer being knocked out" and "him being in control" but in the end he just tried to calm down the passengers. Exactly same thing would happend in a Boeing.

Unfortunately, there are heaps of FUD and national pride around.

I find A320, B777 and A380 to be best general choices in their own categories. It might be different when 787 comes online though.

[JCF]

Originally Posted by Joeaksa

The American Airlines airplane that crashed in NYC just after 9/11 had the entire tail come off of the airplane because the pilot used the rudders to dampen some choppy air he was flying through.

.

Joe, I remember a while back a couple of 737's dove into the ground (one flew out of Denver I believe?) and there was speculation that it was caused by the same scenario. Following another plane.
Do you recall those ?

I am not asking re whether A is better than B , just curious.