Boeing or Airbus?

[flx757]

Well, I for one, have flown both. And even though I have nothing bad to say about the Airbus, it's a fine product and I enjoyed flying it, I still prefer Boeing.

BTW, "Boeing's latest creation" that you and I currently fly is hardly a Boeing creation at all. My certificate still says DC-9.

 

[Dieterly]

Flown both, prefer the big Bus over the big Boeing. Love the fly-by-wire system, cockpit sound level, and in general, it is a very pilot friendly aircraft (starting the engines, seats, sidesticks, etc).

 

[ProLine4]

Airbus is trash

Airbus is nothing more than socialist subsidized garbage made by baguette-eating anti-American Frenchys (at least at the Toulouse WB plant).

I'm particularly fond of such "quality" aircraft as the A340-300, with its amazing takeoff performance, blazing cruise speeds and 34k CFM 56-5C4 engines that have less thrust than a hairdryer. And now they're doing it all wrong again with the high wing loading and weight of the -500/600. Excellent!

The 777-200LR and 300ER are going to have a field day with these two, especially since the 300ER has just recieved a gross weight increase that appears to nullify the A346's initial range advantage. The 7E7's performance quotes at this point are going to take care of the A332 as well...a lighter aircraft available in at least two variants that has transpacific range and the ability to carry 88x108 pallets and side-by-side LD3's (correcting the bad mistake of the 767 family).
The notion that the 764 was Boeing's true response to the development of the 332 is garbage...the 764 has 800 NM less range than the 332 and was obviously designed with DL in mind for ATL-HNL nonstop range to replace the L10's. (Of course, they route it via LAX for crew rest purposes, which is an entirely different discussion.) The 737NG family is doing a pretty solid job against the A32x family.
And of course, how could we discuss Airbus without interesting financial deals that have occured on Leahy and Foelgard's watch. Easyjet, and South African's latest debacle of going A32x to 738 and now back to A32x, are two that come to mind. Also,just recently they won the Iberia A346 vs 772ER deal. Leahy and Foelgard flipped out when the CFO of IB proudly bragged to the press that Airbus was going to guarantee the residual value of both the 346, and their present 18 acft 343 fleet starting in 2005. So much for their little secret. I guess since they're gov't subsidized it won't matter if they lose their shirt on that deal when IB wants to get rid of the 343s. There was an great article about this deal in a recent Wall Street Journal.

So to answer the initial question, Fly Boeing Jets. Too bad I probably won't have an opportunity to fly a non-sim pax 727 though.

 

[Aerosmith]

[QUOTE

Airbus is nothing more than a big conglomerate operated by socialist governments. There is no incentive to create a lasting and quality product because they cannot go out of business, their socialist system will not allow them to. This is why you will see Boeing and McDonnell Douglas aircraft (I know they are the same company) operating much longer than their Airbus counterparts. Just look at the old Soviet system and the type of commercial aircraft they turned out (absolute crap), this is what Airbus is to a lesser extent.

Just my humble opinion. [/B][/QUOTE]

Get that needle out of your arm! Comparing Airbus to Tupolevs!!!
When will everybody realize that Boeing is state subsidized. Now that times are tough, all the airlines and industry are lined up with their big trunks down the government wallet. Quit the whining!
I fly a socalled NEXT generation 737, as well as a -500, and I have a hard time finding out of the improvement. Its an ok aircraft, but noisy and steamdriven.

 

[Tri-holer]

Currently fly a Canadian product (CRJ) and in the past, flew a 727. Don't have any experience flying Airbus equipment so can't talk with any real authority regarding which is a better product.

Loved flying the 72 so my vote naturally goes to Boeing. Steam gauges and underpowered (-7 engines in the summertime - what fun!) but it handled great. Seems like most of the people I fly with say that the 72 is one airplane they always wanted to fly. Nothing looks like it -- well except maybe the Tupolov or the trident - and they can't compare.

Like I said, no hard data. Just emotion but it seems like most of the earlier opinions were simply emotion too.

 

[JRSLim]

Looks like you were right...

Unfortunately....

I've been hearing stories/rumors of minimal......
minimal Airbus corrosion proofing. Mx nightmares
in a few years.
I would venture to say we won't see nearly the
same percentage of recent 3 series Busses flying in
30-35 years as we do the 727's and 737 today.
They won't last.

Bill O>

 

[Partridge]

Last I heard Boeing couldn't get their act together (again!) on the 787. Structural problems and such. Bit late to find out too, this far in the program.

Hope they sort things out, both companies make really nice aircraft. We could use a big third player though, such as MCD. Perhaps Embraer or Canadair will step up.

 

[waka]

Airbus= government subsidized. Next aircraft they design will have a glass wall behind the panel where a pilot attendant and his poodle will sit. There will be a crash axe available just in case the aircraft decides to crash rather than fly, just like the French do when confronted with war.

Boeing= American enginuity from airliners to bombers, and now fighters. Shame on those U.S. airline executives caving in to pie in the sky Airbus deals.

That's my opinion. Take it or leave it.

CC

Wrong. Boeing is government subsidized too. Although, not in the way you might think. Why don't you do some research on Boeing, corruption, ex-Pentagon staff/now with Boeing and military contracts?

 

[BornAgainPagan]

That is because they make military products. The government gets something in return for their money. Airbus gives nothing in the form of a physical object back to their subsidizing govt's.

Airbus is nothing more than a big conglomerate operated by socialist governments. There is no incentive to create a lasting and quality product because they cannot go out of business, their socialist system will not allow them to. This is why you will see Boeing and McDonnell Douglas aircraft (I know they are the same company) operating much longer than their Airbus counterparts. Just look at the old Soviet system and the type of commercial aircraft they turned out (absolute crap), this is what Airbus is to a lesser extent.

Just my humble opinion.

Let's assume for a minute that you're correct about the part about Airbus and socialist governments.You comparing Soviet airliners to Airbus is abject nonsense. They don't compare. The economic system behind their design/engineering/manufacturing doesn't compare. You're not even close.

I have had jobs flying both and I prefer Boeing. However, Airbus makes a fine products in their own rite. Hell, I have even ridden in an Antonov and yes, they don't compare to Airbus/Boeing. How do you know that they're "absolute crap"? Is it because you're just talking out of your ass?

 

[g4800xp]

Boeing/Airbus

Company's like Frontier, Spirit and the majors bought Airbus because the US would not employ or enforce trade restrictions and we allowed them to sell airframes for millions less than Boeing. Two identical planes but one is $5million less. They could sell at a loss because they have several govts and industry to cover the loss. We protect shimp fisherman, steel, and many other business from preditory pricing from other countries and they have them against us. Japan restricts US drugs and adds tarrifs because we can produce and sell them cheaper than Japan can. Airbus sold many planes in sales that should not have been allowed. I am not bashing Airbus, just saying they would never have passed Boeing and we may still have MD or Lockheed had we leveled the playing field. The only Boeing product I have flown is the B-17, designed to survive @ 15 missions or 200 hours during WWII yet it is flying 64 years and nearly 10000 hours later. The B-52 will have 4th generation pilots of the same families flying the same airframes when they are retired. You won't see that from an Airbus. my 2cents

 

[seerickyfly]

Had to taxi back to the gate in DEN to get a hail inspection. T-storm got us while taxing. Continental mechanic shows up and say's "Thank goodness ur in a Boeing" I asked why and he said Airbus's are built like tin can's. Tops of their wings and tails could dent from a leaf falling on them. I will take his word and happily stay in my 737.

 

[NEDude]

The 757 has my vote for passenger comfort and it is hands down the best looking airliner out there. Hopefully someday I'll have the chance to fly one.

Seriously?! The 757 has to be the most passenger unfriendly aircraft in the world. Everything behind the front two seats is horrendous, including the jumpseats. In fact I rate the Boeing narrow-bodies as my least favorite aircraft to ride on. Given the choice between a Southwest 737, and a USAirways Airbus (a choice have have every time I go to/from work), I'll take the Airbus all the time - more comfortable ride in back, more comfortable jumpseats. As for looks, the 757 can't hold a candle to the 727.

From a pilot perspective I cannot really comment on the Boeing other than to say that from a comfort standpoint, Airbus wins hands down. Bigger cockpit, quieter, more pilot friendly features (eg. tray table). I know a lot of people who have flown Boeings and it sounds like the FMS on the Boeing is far more pilot friendly (although I have no issues with the Airbus - I never learned the Boeing FMS so there was no unlearning for me) and it seems clear that from a pure old fashioned, hand-flying perspective, the Boeing is far nicer. But if you ask me what flight deck do I want to spend hours in, I'll take the larger, quieter one that was designed with my comfort in mind - the A320.

 

[GogglesPisano]

If you hand-fly a lot (as in 5 legs a day) fly a Boeing. If you spent 6 hrs at a time lounging about in cruise, fly a bus.