I was in old Air NZ Boeing 737 last night and it felt reassuring.

The last Airbus I was in 2 weeks ago (an A320) had this real high pitch drone on take off.

AA just ordered 260 A320's with option for 365 more:

American Airlines buys Airbus, stings Boeing - seattlepi.com

Go figure...


P.S. You might want to check the statistics regarding accident rate.

One thing that perturbs me is that Airbus has done away with their gaspers, the vents that blow air towards the passengers. We still have them in the cockpit but not in back.

I like air blowing in my direction and you are not going to get it there. Boeings still have them.

"If it aint Boeing, I aint going!"

The widebody Boeings do not, Joe. Check it out next time you're on a 777. No Gaspers.

beepbeep - you are right stastically. I just checked it on airdisaster.com and airfleets.net but this would be skewed by the number in service and the length of service (age of the airframe). It may just be my perception?....

The commentator is correct: the order was just too large for one manufacturer to fill on a timely basis.

I currently live across the river from the Airbus plant in Hamburg, where the AA order gave rise to celebrations, as 11,000 jobs here are now secured for the foreseeable future. Below is a pic. This factory produces parts of the fuselage and the wings, and these are then shipped by boat and specially constructed aircraft (on left in photo) to the south of France for final assembly.


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1311408739.jpg

Here's a better picture of the "Beluga" transporter:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1311410057.jpg

No civilian plane is designed with SAM's in mind.
Yet this one took the hit and it came down in one piece (eg it did not blow up or disintegrate in the air) with no human loss of life.

You cannot call it a single point of failure when the wing was busted up with a fragmenting warhead, causing a full tank of fuel to burn out and through the wing.

That's not even a failure mode of the plane/design, it's a multipoint impact/explosion by an external factor + major fire.

So i really do not see this example as an argument of a design weakness, the plane kept flying and with an oustanding effort by the pilots, a method of flying and landing the plane was found..

That is a jolly good show as the English would say.

I agree. Airbus 1 Terrorists 0.

Airbus 380 pod strike in Tokyo

I'm thinking it was probably not the airplanes fault.....
Incident: Korean A388 at Tokyo on Jul 21st 2011, engine pod strike
Also this.. ‪Airbus A380 - ** Terrible Landing ** - Pilot Error‬‏ - YouTube
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1311792858.jpg

Epic choke landing there at Oshkosh. Looks like a stout airframe, though.

I wonder how much it will cost them long term having to deal with 2 different brands vs. if they had patience with Boeing.

Boeing for me if I have a choice.

I really don't even notice the plane anymore. Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier . . .

Is it on time? . . . is my biggest concern.

I think a wee bit of national bias is influencing some here. ;)

Ian

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1311818720.jpg

Boeing F'ed up. Who would think an airline would want a plane that burns 15-20% less fuel with no other performance degradation.

Guess the execs are in the swamp with the 787