Airbus vs. Boeing: which is best, really ?
 

Not a tongue in cheek question, but it's really hard to get a straight answer... People tend to be divided along country lines, and this being a mostly US board, you tend to hear boeing is best without much argumentation...

I'd like to get some (as) unbiased (as possible) opinions from people who know airplane designs or flew both lines..

Which brand would you say is better and why ? Avionics, cockpit design, ease of flying, safety record, cost, cabin space, and if it'd be silly to generalize, which specific models are best in each line ?

Just curious....

I work for Boeing....subscribing. :>)

I have worked for Boeing, McDonnell Douglas and a couple of other aircraft makers, so have a bit of experience with airplanes.

Unless I have no other way of moving around the world, "if it aint a Boeing, I aint going"... and I am not kidding.

Airbus has a history of doing things to save weight (and thus fuel) that are not always the safest in the industry. 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.

Excuse me? You are supposed to be able to use ANY of the flight controls from lock lock but Airbus says "not to use the rudders at certain times" because it stresses the tail too much. WTF??? You will never see a flight restriction like that on a Boeing.

I'm a licenced AME on both type...For a mechanic stand point...the Boeing is better suitable to work on...No surprise...A/C always go out in time...For operational stand point...Airbus is better...cheaper to buy and to operate with one way cockpit for all A/C...all that in my IMHO.

Syl,

How far is your hangar from Shell Aerocenter/Innotech?

We are back in Montreal and flying out this afternoon.

Sorry not much time to talk with everyone last Sunday on Crescent Street!

Joe

Have you ever seen an A340 claw it's way slowly into the sky? An overloaded Cessna has a better rate of climb. IMO it's dangerously underpowered.

Airbus is an extraordinarily poorly run company plagued by political infighting and bad decision making. They bet on the A380- which is years behind schedule and selling poorly- and the cancellations are mounting. Boeing bet on the 787- which is proving to be the fastest selling airliner of all time.

What did Airbus answer with? First a reworked A330, then an a 350 when their customers balked- which is a copy of the 787 but light years away from production. Meanwhile the 777 is kicking their butts.

Without subsidies Airbus would have already gone bankrupt. A shame because the A319 is a nice airplane. It kicked Boeing's butt for awhile and is still cheaper to operate than a 737 from what I've heard.

But Boeing should adopt the one cockpit scheme. No harm in copying the competitor when they have a better idea.

Hi Joe...The Transport Canada hangar is located south side of the control tower...adress is 590 Albert De Niverville, Dorval Intl Airport
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&country=US&popflag=0&lati tude=&longitude=&name=&phone=&level=&addtohistory= &cat=&address=590+albert+de+niverville&city=dorval &state=qc&zipcode=

The Airbus 340 (330) got his certification from FAA on the same basis than the 777...he has to pass and demonstrate all the same parameters...may be look like that...but he got HUGE wings and may be that's why he seem to go slowly...It's an incredible low fuel consumption aircraft...very efficient.

I've always seen Airbus as planes designed by comittee primarily to satisfy political requirements.

I've seen Boeing as planes designed by engineers primarily to satisfy customers.

Does Boeing occasionally put a plant for some sub-assembly in a specific place out of political need? Yes.

Does Airbus occasionally let engineers design the parts of the planes? Yes...

As a frequent flyer (almost every week) I can say from my standpoint that the Boeing planes are more comfortable for the passenger, depending on the seat configuration! Every Airbus I have flown in seems to have a tail "wag" that is more pronounced in the rear of the plane hence I won't sit in the back of an Airbus. the Boeing planes seem to be more "solid" and stable in flight.

I have never flown a large plane but I do heve a few hours in small aircraft.

Just my humble opinion.

Some guys on Airliners.net like to joke that the A340-600 only gets off the ground because of the curvature of the earth.

Nah, they get off the ground because some of them are so ugly that the earth repels them! :)

Living in Minneapolis I have to fly Northwest most of the time. Their aging fleet is mostly Airbuses. I don't know about the rest of the issues, but I do everything I can to get on the flights they use Boeings on because they are so much more comfortable to be in. They just announced they are phasing out their ancient Airbus fleet and going with Boeing.

I understand that both the A340 and 777 have to meet FAA requirements. However, to my knowledge, the A340/200 has (by a big margin) the slowest rate of climb of any current large commercial aircraft- and the later variants aren't much better. The ROC isn't dependent on wing area, but on a number of factors of which wing area is only one (weight/power/drag etc.).

All commerical aircraft have to maintain similar flight profiles but their ability to meet them varies greatly. The rate of climb makes a huge difference in an aircraft's ability to maintain separation (which impacts air traffic delays), the overall flight time, fuel consumption and safety.

The UA flight 828 SFO to SYD incident a few years ago really highlights the latter. (I'm very aware of this as I was due to take that flight). The aircraft was a fully loaded 747 which lost an engine on takeoff. The pilot countered the loss with both aileron and rudder. As a result of using the aileron the plane lost altitude and nearly slammed into south SFO. The FAA and Boeing revised the 747's engine out procedures and training requirements as a result of the incident.

I also believe that Singapore's decision to switch from A340s to 777 was in part based on the former's poor climbing ability. The 777 climbed faster, got there faster and required less maintenance.

I'm not the pro from Dover on this stuff but I can't believe there's a pilot out there who would prefer a slower rate of climb over a faster one. I personally avoid A340s whenever possible (but Virgin's IAD to LHR is pretty darned nice).

MRM when the last A319 is parked a DC9 will be there to ferry the crew home.

The old "Diesel 9" is an industry workhorse and only thing better than it is the DC-3, which will be hauling parts to keep the DC-9 in the air for many years to come

I have some old DC 9/Chuck Norris jokes which I'll relay:

Q: If a DC-9 throttles up and there's nobody around to hear it, does it still make a sound?
A: Yes, because whenever a DC-9 throttles up, the earth itself trembles in fear.

A DC-9s engine does not mimic the sound of thunder; thunder mimics the sound of a DC-9’s engines at takeoff power.

The DC-9 gave birth to the modern regional jet, which it promptly disowned after the regional jet failed to aspire to its father's standards.

That little feeling of joy you get when you wake up on a bright summer morning is there because a DC-9 just took off somewhere.

On the 7th day, God went on vacation. He flew a DC-9.

Little known fact: The DC-9 is the only thing on earth rated for Chuck Norris.

Northwest will not retire the DC-9. The DC-9 will retire Northwest.

A DC-9 does not lift off, it actually pushes the earth down.

Another little known fact: The DC-9 is the only object known to be able to withstand a roundhouse kick from Chuck Norris.

Q: What are DC-9's control cables made from?
A: Chuck Norris' hair.



DC-9s don't get pushed back, they pull the tug with them.

When an A-380 grows up it wants to be a DC-9.

The DC-9 was not built to FAA safety standards. The FAA wrote the standards after examining the DC-9.

Indeed, the MD-80's are the noisiest airplanes that visit Sea-Tac International Airport. No question. And they're beautiful to look at. But they are a Cattle Car, frankly. Moooooooooo........

One thing I've noticed is that Boeing is just good at anticipating opportunity. They'be been doing it for years. Their spec-building of the venerable Dash-80 (707) is legendary. The military did everything they could do to reject Boeing and favor MD, but Boeing knew the military was going to need a large jet.......for refueling if nothing else. Eventually, the military caved.

Lately, as pointed out above, Boeing gambled on the 777. A shrewd and successful gamble. Today, Boeing is betting the farm on the 787. And winning again. The 747 is still the world's favorite Jumbo, and the 737 still has more flight time than any aircraft in history. Boeing is simply the heavyweight champion of the world, and the reason is simple. They know what they're doing and they work hard.

BTW, I recall seeing a special on testing the 777. One test was to clamp the fueselage down and bend the wings upward until they snap. Pretty frickin' impressive. A human would NOT survive a turn so sharp as to bend the wings like that.

From an ATC point of view, it is hard to beat the Boeing.

When the A340 came out it was nicknamed "babe" the pig that thought it could fly....

In the approach control end (both departure and arrival) we like aircraft that respond. Good rates of climb/descent, the ability to slow or accelerate etc make for easier work and quicker trip to the on course.

Over the years the entire fleet has changed it performance characteristics, but it seems even the new 777 can deliver what we need. Now some of the performance end is based around fuel burn, SOP's, deck angle and the need to keep passengers happy (or so the execs tell me) but it appears on the radar screen like the Boieng is just a better perfroming aircraft.

As for the DC 3, out here we have sadly seen 3 crashed (faltaly) and written off. I can't even remember the last time I talked to one. Not many DC-9's around here either.

When all is said and done about the debate, I will always just point to the press demo flight at the Paris Airshow when the Chief Pilot made a perfect landing in the A320, only it touched down in the forest instead of the concrete............

Cheers

A cousin used to work in Northwest's maintenance facility at MSP.

His opinion is that the construction methods of the Airbus line are downright scary. The Boeings are far better built airplanes.