737 or Airbus 320

[F/O]

Holy crap, people. The bus is a jet like any other. If you don't like "managed descent", whatever the reason, then work a 3 to 1 in your head and pull for open descent and selected speed.

 

[vetrider]

Two clicks with each thumb, and in the blink of an eye the boeing is ALL yours, thats what I like. And your hands never left the controls to do that. It requires so little thought even I can do it.

 

[AV80R]

... Learning to 'fly' the bus well is a process of surrender...

That's very appropriate for an airplane manufactured in France... :laugh:

So, I must ask, do Airbuses have rearview mirrors? - like the French tanks do?

 

[Cardinal]

So, I must ask, do Airbuses have rearview mirrors? - like the French tanks do?

Ya need 'em with a .82 Mmo.

 

[ableone]

On the subject of flight directors; In a perfect world each aircraft would have both. The dual cue is more accurate and I would use it to shoot an approach. The V bar is better in the enroute phase because the pilot instantly knows the full command (i.e ten degrees up and thirty degrees left.) while on a dual cue display the pilot has know idea what the final command will be until the aircraft is there. With the V bar the pilot can start turning/pitching while still looking outside/elsewhere. With the dual cue your attention must be fully on the flight director.

With respect to the 320/73S; I went from the 73 to the bus to the 73 and back to the bus. (no NG experience though)

I like the 73 FMS and VNAV better than the bus. The start down feature is better and the fact that the VNAV remains engaged when the aircraft goes into heading mode is nice. The glass in the 73 is easier to see than the bus glass. (300, though I assume the NG is even better.) You can always read the 73 displays while the bus display more often than not gives you an excellent indication on the condition of your shirt and tie.

The bus is much more comfortable. For airconditioning comfort from best to worst the fleet looks like this; NG737, bus, 737-200, 737-300. (I have jumped on the NG enough times to rate the cooling as best of the four.)

The bus, especially if you are in a newer one, is the most quiet. After three hours in the 73 you feel much more beat up than you do after five in the bus. I think the noise is the biggest fatigue factor. As an aside, after a 73 trip my shirt was usually dirty and lots of black stuff came off of my hands when I washed them. Your hands and shirt stay clean on the bus.

The size of the flight deck is another comfort factor. One reason I made the last move off of the 73 was because I was afraid my company would order the NG and I did not want to be in a 73 for five hour legs. The room and the tray table are vastly superior to the small space of the 73 and I am relatively short. I can't imagine six footers and higher wanting to wedge into the 73 over the bus.

I prefer thrust levers that move but I never saw anyone use the autothrottles on the 73 unless it was an auto land. I prefer manual thrust to autothrust on the bus but my company wants us to use it so oh well.

One of the biggest factors is how your company makes you fly airplanes. In my world the 73 department is like a completely different and much better run airline. The bus flight standards department is terrible with lots of technique as proceedure instruction from the check airman.

Bottom line is schedules but assuming everything is equal I would choose the bus. The boeing is not built any better than the bus. (just look at all those vortex generators on the 73 tail and tell me that it is a superior design.)

No one would buy a car that had the fit and finish of either a boeing or a bus. Any lexus is put together whith much tighter tollerances.

 

[Fred Rogers]

Airbus is the lazy man's plane. You can cut your grass with a push mower....the 737 you can have the grass cut with an automatic cutter...the 320.

My 2 cents is the Airbus does not need to be flown, it needs to be managed. The 737 2/3/5 need to be flown.


I appreciate the bus very much and when you learn the methodology you will not have 20-40 kt variations in managed speed.

Other than the flying part it is QOL and pay is what you should look at for your decision.

I would fly a 152 over a 787 if I only worked one hour on Tuesdays paying 50k per month.

I agree totally with the QOL / Pay comment. I'd be perfectly happy flying an airbus with a roomy cockpit and room to spread out my newspaper I mean Flight manual. Then I'll use all the fat cash I'm making to buy a piper cub when I want to fly an airplane.

Now all we gotta do is make some fat cash and have some time to spend it.

 

[AV80R]

Great post ableone.

 

[gangdev]

Just out of curiosity, how does the 757 compare to the bus?

 

[Quimby]

never flown the 'bus, but the 757 was a blast to fly, roomy cockpit...plenty of power.....really everything you would want.

 

[Hair-on-Fire]

never flown the 'bus, but the 757 was a blast to fly, roomy cockpit...plenty of power.....really everything you would want.

Except a tray table

 

[Quimby]

Except a tray table

logbook = tray table

problem solved...:beer:

 

[gangdev]

I heard the 757 is quieter than a 737 as well.

 

[stillflyn]

I've flown both of them at UAL. Take the bus!

 

[FLYBOYMATTHEW]

Could someone please explain to me how, as previous posters have mentioned, "the Airbus tries to get you violated"?

Also, other than to feed your ego, does it matter how fast or how high the airplane can fly? Last I checked, you actually got paid more (at most airlines) the slower you flew and the more weather you had to circumnavigate.

 

[Fred Rogers]

other than to feed your ego,

That is mostly what this debate is about isn't it?
:blush:

 

[reepicheep]

Just out of curiosity, how does the 757 compare to the bus?

About the same as a BMW compares to a Kia.

 

[vetrider]

About the same as a BMW compares to a Kia.

A 57 captain I flew with a bunch several years ago went to the bus and he called it a cheesy little airplane. Another called it a Yugo. And yet another was a little more charitable when he said his impression of the bus was that they built it to just barely get the job done and nothing more.

 

[jonjuan]

A 57 captain I flew with a bunch several years ago went to the bus and his description of the bus went like this "its a cheesy little airplane....". Another called it a Yugo. And yet another was a little more charitable when he said his impression of the bus was that they built it to just barely get the job done and nothing more.

Wait until oil hits $130+ a bbl. 57s will be relics while the bus' will be flying all over this mo fo.

 

[Say Again Over]

Wait until oil hits $130+ a bbl. 57s will be relics while the bus' will be flying all over this mo fo

Yes, a true dinosaur.

 

[Patriot328]

Wait until oil hits $130+ a bbl. 57s will be relics while the bus' will be flying all over this mo fo.

I doubt it. The 757 walks all over the bus series for the designed mission. Try comparing a 321 for a 757 for transcon and longer flying.

Man this place has turned into airliners.net...


As far as flying the two planes, having a bit of time in both, the 757 is a superior plane in all regards. The bus has a superior cockpit. It's more comfortable and ergonomic than the 757, hands down. It's also a different generation of aircraft/avionics, so not a fair comparison.

Both airplanes have FMS/programming quirks that require you to keep an eye on it, just like any other airplane (757 dropping out of VNAV PATH and into VNAV SPEED with no warning, anyone?)