Boeing or Airbus?

[pavelump]

Which aircraft mfr. do you like to fly better? Or, which aircraft would you rather be a passenger on?

Personally, I like Boeing, but I really don't know why. Probably because they're in Chicago now and a U.S. company. Pretty retarded reason really. (meaning that my decision doesn't really have anything to do with the actual plane)

Dave

 

[pavelump]

ooops... I meant to put this in the general section.

 

[Goffer]

Whichever one gets me a job.

 

[JRSLim]

Boeing

I can answer the passenger part of this question:

For no 'good' reason, other than I like 'em and love their 'products.
And even with Boeing I've got my preferences. 747 all the way baby! I was talking to my instructor who told me that if I go to England I should go on a 777 -- telling me about all the neat features. I told her no way, gotta be a 747. And I would just as gladly take a -100 as a -400 at that.
Just my predjudice, no logic to it.
Other reasons I'm a Boeing fan:
The B-52 - 50 years and still bringing the oposition to the negotiating table. Power has never looked so Beeyoutiful
The B-17 and B-29 - Europe, Asia and the world thank you.
KC-135, C-135, VC-137, E-3, et all. 'nuff said.
The 707 which launched air tavel into the jet age, the quintessencial airliner.
The 747. Ahhhhhhh. of the pinacles of modern aviation. I can't get enough of looking at these planes.
And the line goes on and on.
Those are my reasons

Shaun

 

[typhoonpilot]

I've got to say Boeing, because McDonnell Douglas is now part of them. The MD-80 is a pure joy to fly as is the MD-90, especially the all glass version that Saudi Arabian has. They are both great airplanes for passengers as well, if you are sitting near the front anyway.

The 737 is okay, the 777 is awesome. I'm not yet rated on it, just going through a transition as I write this. What a machine though. A complete joy to fly.

I have to agree with JRSlim on the 747. It is a joy to ride in, the best in the air. The A-330 isn't bad where that is concerned, but I still have a problem with the lack of control the pilot has in the Airbus philosophy of design.

Typhoonpilot

 

[JRSLim]

Update -Boeing

Well, I now have the oportuinity to confirm my Boeing vote. Took a trip to Las Vegas last week - Frontier A-319 from Denver and a Boeing 737 back. The 737 didn't have the fancy real time map display and was a little (I stress just a little) more cramped, but it was an older plane and didn't make the strange noises the Airbus did. When the Airbus powered up before engine start (fuel pumps?), it sounded like a duck was being stepped on in the hold. Maybe it was the British and French parts having a quarrel!

The Airbus was nice, but I enjoyed the Boeing a bit more.

Yeah I'm predjudiced.

Shaun

 

[PennEagle]

Smike and Mirrors

I've got to say Boeing, because McDonnell Douglas is now part of them.

And there's me thinking all along that McDonald Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money.....

 

[CitationCapt]

Boeing hands down

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

 

[MvnAlumn]

Boeing vs Airbus --longevity

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>

 

[mobs]

I have to go with the Bus,although I loved the 727 and 767 the automation on the big Bus has them beat.

 

[TurboS7]

I guess Airtran like Airbus. Wait until summer when they are on approach in ATL and totally in St. Elmo's, then the airplane starts turning left instead of right. Why should we choose anything French right now anyway.

 

[Fly-By-Cable]

CitationCapt,

You watch too many news channels...who cares about the French and the war...Airbus makes better product at competitive price.
I've never flown Airbus and may soon have that opportunity, but from pilot stand point I know that Airbus is more automated and more pilot comfort oriented than Boeing. I fly Boeing's latest creation and I'm not impressed with their attention to detail and overall quality.
I'm an American consumer and I demand highest quality at competitive price. And that's why I drive Honda after having countless problems with Taurus and Dodge. If we can't create product that can compete with overseas companies then we need to improve it and not cry about US job loss. After all US Airlines that fly Airbus are looking for better deal so they can create more US jobs.

 

[Iceman21]

WOW 34 to 4 in favor of Boeing. That's the American way.

 

[dogg]

If it ain't BOEING I ain't going end of story. Besides, almost every airline that gets the airbus eventually goesout of business

 

[jdru25]

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.

 

[TurboS7]

All Airbus's and Airbus products should be banned from the American skies. You Airbus lovers can all move to France where they make love not war.

 

[JayDub]

I'd be happy to comply. Just one caveat; make sure all scabs go back to whatever rock they crawled out from under first.

JayDub

 

[metrodriver]

I like the airbus seats better. The A320 series is assembled in Germany out of parts from all over the world. Boeing is subsidized by the US government through militairy projects. And the 777? assembled in Seattle out of parts from all over the world. tail for example comes from Japan or korea.
Most Honda's and Toyota's qualify as an American car. More than 75% of the parts are US made and put together in the US, whereas most 'US' cars have lots of parts out of Mexico and Canada or are assembled there. It's just that the Japanese sense for quality makes a superior product. An American (GM) car is designed to fall apart after 100kmiles or 10 years

 

[chawbein]

Boeing is subsidized by the US government through militairy projects

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.

 

[Fly-By-Cable]

Is't it funny that people who never flew Boeing vote for it, and majority of those people who did, vote for 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