Airbus

[slakjaw]

After a nice long trip in an airbus, I have to say - they can suck it.

That is all.

[nzporsche944s2]

I fly quite a lot on commercial airlines. Probably around 150 flights a year - typically 3-4 hours in duration. The local airlines here have a mix of Boeing and Airbus and I have to admit that I am always more comfortable when I step on board a Boeing.

Most of the instances where planes drop out of the sky or have catastrpohic failures have involved Airbus in recent years.

The only positive things I have to say about Airbus is that the cabins seem roomier and the pressurisation in Airbus seems better (my ears don't pop as much on descent).

Give me a choice and it would be Boeing every time.

I flew back from Melbourne Australia last Friday in Row 2 (right up in the nose) of a 747 and for a 30 year old design they are still incredible. Safe and comfortable.

[slakjaw]

Yep. The airbus was so noisy! Of course when the pilot shut it down 1/4 way down the runway didn't help. He said we got an indicator light and need to have it checked out. Of course what I heard was "check engine light came on"

[stomachmonkey]

I don't like them, they always sound like they are running close to redline, working hard to stay in the air, the buzzing and noise makes me nuts.

[Normy]

Normy <----2 Boeing type ratings: 727 and 747.

Friends of mine that have flown the Airbus generally like it. Porsche designed the cockpit of the A300 and A320 series, which basically means they handled the ergonomics, and you can tell it is a FAR better work place than the Boeing product.

On the other hand, mechanics all call the Airbus a "disposable airplane" compared to the Boeing. Fedex still has a fleet of 50 727's flying around the western hemisphere, some of which were built during the late 1960's. That means they are now 40 years old, and still seeing 600 mph day in, day out....without problem. In fact, those 727's have the best reliabilty at that airline right now.

You can bet that that A320 that you'll ride on tomorrow on your Delta flight to Atlanta will get you there safe. But it WON'T be in service when it is 40 years old!

N!

[wdfifteen]

Normy - did you every fly to Wilmington, Ohio when it was an Airborne hub? I had a friend who maintained 727s whom I met there for coffee a couple times a year. He's arrive on his Airborne plane at about 1 AM. The place was amazing. It would be dark and quiet around 11:00 PM and about midnight the warehouse lights would come on and you could look up and see landing lights stacked up like stairsteps as far as the eye could see. It was complete chaos for 3 or 4 hours, flashing clearance lights, horns, screaming jet engines - then by 5 AM you could hear crickets again. I loved it.

[BRPORSCHE]

Originally Posted by Normy

blah, blah, blah....late 1960's. That means they are now 40 years old...blah, blah, blah
, N!

May want to check your math on that one Normy.

[Scuba Steve]

All personal bias aside, I'll take a 737 over an A320 any day. Especially if it's a Continental one because I know it'll have a power outlet that I can use. It amazes me that United's A320s don't even have any up in first class.

[john70t]

C.E.L. illuminating in airplanes is bad. So is Fly-By-Computer-Only (airbus).

That being said, what was the cause?
-Was it a "minor leak detected in storage compartment"?
or
-Was it "engine soon to be on fire"?

Seems like there should be two(2) warning systems...

[scottmandue]

I commute a couple times a month on either JetBlue (Airbus) and Alaska (Boeing) depending on who has the better price that fits our schedule.

The fact that the Airbus seems to have more accidents does bother me.

However from a passenger standpoint the Airbus is much more comfortable (to me) bigger seats, more leg room, don't bang my head on the compartments, XM radio and dish network are nice too.

Honestly must say I haven't noticed a big difference in the noise levels between the two planes. (737 Vs A320)

[Embraer]

Originally Posted by john70t

C.E.L. illuminating in airplanes is bad. So is Fly-By-Computer-Only (airbus).

That being said, what was the cause?
-Was it a "minor leak detected in storage compartment"?
or
-Was it "engine soon to be on fire"?

Seems like there should be two(2) warning systems...

there are. advisory, caution, and warning are three levels of alerting. depending on the software updates, certain messages can be programmed to be at different levels of alerting. some messages can be programmed to never trigger. others can be triggered for seemingly small instances, predicated on determined parameters.

[944Larry]

Boeing-if I have a choice!

[Normy]

Originally Posted by BRPORSCHE

May want to check your math on that one Normy.

Ok...

Year now: 2011

Year built: 1969

---------------------

Age: 42 years-

Hello?

N?

[Garp]

From a different perspective.

On 22 November 2003, shortly after takeoff from Baghdad, Iraq, an Airbus A300 cargo plane owned by European Air Transport ("DHL") was struck on the left wing tip by a surface-to-air missile. Severe wing damage resulted in a fire and complete loss of hydraulic flight control systems. Because outboard left wing fuel tank 1A was full at takeoff, there was no fuel-air vapour explosion. Liquid jet fuel dropped away as 1A disintegrated. Inboard fuel tank 1 was pierced and leaking.

Returning to Baghdad, the 3-man crew made an injury-free landing of the crippled aircraft, using differential engine thrust as the only pilot input.

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by 944Larry

Boeing-if I have a choice!

Not flying... if I have a choice. (thanks to TSA)

But driving from Lost Angeles to Portland OR is not an option (time wise).

[IROC]

Originally Posted by scottmandue

However from a passenger standpoint the Airbus is much more comfortable (to me) bigger seats, more leg room, don't bang my head on the compartments, XM radio and dish network are nice too.

If I'm not mistaken seat size, leg room, etc., is decided by the airline and is not a function of the plane design itself. At least that's the way it was when I was with McDonnell Douglas.

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by IROC

If I'm not mistaken seat size, leg room, etc., is decided by the airline and is not a function of the plane design itself. At least that's the way it was when I was with McDonnell Douglas.

Pretty sure you are right, this is just my limited experience.

On the other hand the OP didn't comment on why he is displeased with AirBus.

[Esel Mann]

Wow, that Airbus that lost all hydraulics because of a wing hit is scary!!!

I would've guessed there would be either some sort of redundancy in the hydraulics or a mechanism to prevent complete loss due to a single point failure. What's up with that?

Is the above weakness in other manufacturer's aircraft too?

I seem to recall a complete hydraulic failure happening back in the 80's or 70's. I think it was a DC-10? where the tail engine failed causing complete hydraulic loss forcing the pilots to throttle steer. Absolutely amazing. One would hope that the industry learned a lesson from this and applied solutions to future made aircraft?

Similarly, what ever happened with the Airbus which went down in the ocean off of South America? Did they ever conclude that the loss of the air-speed indicator(s) caused it? If so have they taken corrective action? If so that is scary too.

[944Larry]

Originally Posted by scottmandue

Not flying... if I have a choice. (thanks to TSA)

But driving from Lost Angeles to Portland OR is not an option (time wise).

Agreed!!!!

[teenerted1]

do you want your plane company named after a real person, or a land based transportation device used to transport children to school when it breaks through a bridge guardrail?


















William E. Boeing vs AIRBUS