Why airlines should buy 777's over A340's

[ADF_Fixed]

who cares

when something goes down. The lawyer is doing all the explaination and point figuresss. Remember MD and the AA. When one of it enginee dismounted off its wing on takeoff. Maintain procedure and dispatching on time. "When an airplane is on the ground, its not making money". Pick your side and only one survive. Now you know why MD is out of business. Joker laughhihihih.. as for the 747 that crash after decomphresion somewhere in Japan that had it tail skip the runway and was fix. the engineer who in charge of the repaired kill himself. hihihihihhi now that is responsibilities.....

 

[vc10]

No, it's the A320 "Lumberjack"

Ah yes, the A-320 "Chainsaw" (STILL one of the best aircraft nicknames around)

 

[Dog Driver]

It takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin' ...
Who has the sign off; "Is this old plane safe ? Well how to you think it got this old." I can't decide which is best ... build it like a rock and keep it forever or throw it away every few years and get a new one that has the latest gadgits. Both are valid ideas. In Japan the taxes go up on you car as it gets older ... to keep junk off the road ... So now I drive a KIA ?!? Guess I can't miss what I've never had ...

 

[stadik_kling]

Maybe all the airlines should have stopped buying the 737 when they were having that rudder problem!? You do know it was a faulty design of the hydraulic actuator engineered by Boeing... C'mon!!!

Technically, the actuator in question was engineered by Parker Hanifin.

 

[lymanm]

...

What's the difference between a beaver and an A320?


About 2000 trees per hour.

 

[sstearns2]

Global economy is a fact of life. However, it is arguably unethical when airbus undercuts their prices to a level that no manufacturer (that is not underwritten by several govt. economies) can compete. The financial strain to accomplish these tactics can only be absorbed by a manufacturer that has several economies underwriting these low-ball prices. It is no different than the kid on the block who cannot fight without his brothers hiding behind the fence.

Being a patriot involves a great deal more than a sticker of Old Glory.

Boeing is the largest defense contractor in the world, to the tune of billions of dollars per year. Our government underwrites what Boeing does on the commercial side by way of massive defense contracts on the military side. Europe's assistace to Airbus is just a little more direct.

Being a patriot involves realizing that we are going to be part of an increasingly global economy and preparing for that fact.

Scott

 

[B6Busdriver]

Post a link to that quote. Oh you cannot find it ... because they never said it. Stop spouting absolute BS dude.

You may not like it but it is fact. I read it several years ago. Don't get so defensive.

 

[oldxfr8dog]

Well its not like the 737 crashed into a forest tree line in front of a crowd of Airshow Spectators???? Good thing they tested the A320 there before putting paying pax onboard.

If a 737 had done a low pass down the runway dirty, with the engines unspooled, the result would have been similar.
Except the FBW on the 320 kept it mushing straight ahead with wings level as the engines were spooling up, even though the stick was all the way back.
737 probably would have stalled and rolled over, killing everybody.

 

[PositiveRate]

That's true. We just saw a video in class about that crash. Pilot error, not aircraft error. Actually, the bus did a great job of flying at alpha max without stalling, even as it was chopping trees down, the wings stayed level.

The frenchie flying that thing passed at 30'...far below the planned 100' pass. They came in hot and high and leveled off at 30' with the engines at idle...yeah, real smart. Below 100', toga isn't auto, you actually have to put the TL's in toga, which he did just before hitting the trees.

I have no experience to debate the 777/A340 argument, but I had always wondered about the A320 accident...cut and dry pilot error.

 

[Eagleflip]

And, atleast the Boeing doesn't call you a "retard" before you try to land like the Airbus does. Those French people really must think we are stupid

Said General Lee...

Yeah, the first time I heard that during IOE I just about dropped a logger right there...it sounded a bit personal to me.

 

[Whale Rider]

If a 737 had done a low pass down the runway dirty, with the engines unspooled, the result would have been similar.
Except the FBW on the 320 kept it mushing straight ahead with wings level as the engines were spooling up, even though the stick was all the way back.
737 probably would have stalled and rolled over, killing everybody.

I don't think you understand what happend with that A320, It crashed because it wouldn't do a "go-around" it continued to land (Crash). There is no way a 737 would have done that in that scenario because, in the Boeing, the pilot has the final say not the FMS like the scAIRBUSt. Indeed.

 

[Dizel8]

WR,

While it sounds cute, it is factually incorrect. It is late and I am off to bed, but find the accident report, it is available on the net. Once you read it, you will realize what you say is pure drivel.

 

[SuperFLUF]

A320 control incidents are quite numerous.......

How about the UK incident a few years ago when a 320 captain tried to go-around? The engines advanced to GA thrust but the aircraft would not pitch up and nosed in. Luckily only the nose gear collapsed and no one was seriously injured.

Airbus acutally admitted there was a control logic problem and stated they would modify the flight control logic to correct the "flaw". Pretty serious considering they usually blame it on the pilot (funny in their pilot-proof airplanes) and then silently fix the control logic. The list of "little" incidents like this is too numerous to post without killing all the bandwidth.

The real "flaw" actually is their entire control logic philosophy. Airbus has unkowingly admitted their 320/330/340 control system logic was a mistake by changing their philosophy and NOT incorporating it into the 380. A very small, easy to miss, story in Aviation Week last year stated Airbus will use "soft" limit control logic "similar to Boeing's 777 design" in the A380. A major departure from the "pilot error elimination" hard limits in the A320....etc.

A control logic flaw that noses in an A320 is a lot easier to sweep under the rug than a similar incident in the A380 super pig. That would be all over the world news. Bad PR = even greater losses on the airplane that will never break even.

 

[xrated]

Why Cargo Airlines should choose the A380 over Old 747-100/200's

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Crash investigators say they may have a new lead in the TWA Flight 800 crash: a series of problems with an electrical device in the plane's fuel system.

National Transportation Safety Board investigators are closely considering a theory that faulty wiring triggered an explosion in the center fuel tank.

The doomed aircraft experienced electrical problems in the fuel system with "some frequency" according to an investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board who did not wish his name to be used.

The investigator told CNN that repeated problems with the electronic aircraft refueling system and with the fuel flow indicator raises the possiblity that there were electrical shorts in the plane's wiring.

Minutes before the crash on July 17, the flight engineer is heard on the cockpit voice recorder saying that a fuel gauge is sticking.

Originally this was not considered significant because the flight data recorder showed all engines were fueled and operating normally.

Now, investigators think some sort of electrical short could have ignited the fumes in the fuel tank.

"If the wiring and insulation gets brittle, it begins to crack. The protective covering is worn away, so the likelihood of shorts is pretty high," said independent crash investigator Michael Hynes.

A senior investigator with the NTSB says static electricity in the fuel tank is another possible ignition source.







Sorry Whale, had to get that one in.

Go Steelers!!

 

[oldxfr8dog]

I don't think you understand what happend with that A320, It crashed because it wouldn't do a "go-around" it continued to land (Crash). There is no way a 737 would have done that in that scenario because, in the Boeing, the pilot has the final say not the FMS like the scAIRBUSt. Indeed.

Nope, you are ignorant of the 'Bus systems. The aircraft was being manually flown. For a "Go-Around", the thrust levers must be placed in the TOGA detent. The PILOT didn't do this.
How well does a Boeing do a "GO-Around" with the thrust at idle?

 

[Dave Siegel]

I hope everyone buys from Airbus, so Boeing will continue to give Southwest great prices on the 737s so that we'll continue to dominate!

 

[oldxfr8dog]

I hope everyone buys from Airbus, so Boeing will continue to give Southwest great prices on the 737s so that we'll continue to dominate!

Hey, Dave. From your profile it appears you work at WN. Is it true or just rumor that you guys have a waiver to not do pre-flight walk-arounds during turns.
If this is another "dead horse" I apologize.

 

[ADF_Fixed]

"Can we all just get along"

Folks, I think we mature enough to realize that we live in a world of choices. who care you like to pick A(airbus) or B(Boeing). I think you all forgets your main objective and goalssss. It is to soar the sky and bring the world or people closer. Dont you think that is the most rewarding job you can have. Now stop whining and take you hand out of the your pant and hold that stick or the yoke and navigate the gas guzzler. Let the management do all the decision. if It is bad enough, furlaugh. get the picture. So while you all at it "reach out and touch someone"
oh and C is for cubicle

 

[SuperFLUF]

"Dave, what are you doing Dave............"

.........How well does a Boeing do a "GO-Around" with the thrust at idle?

A Boeing pilot doesn't expect that the airplane will do anything for him so he wouldn't try to go around with idle thrust.

Unlike the Airbus "HAL 9000" flight control system that may or may not do what the pilot wants depending on flight control limits programmed by someone who can not possibly forsee every possible situation that airplane might encounter during its lifespan.

How long 'till some unfortunate crew with a planeload of people discovers the next "flaw" in the flight control logic?

If you're confident all the bugs are out of the system, then more power to ya. Lemme ask ya this though, what happens when your little A319 or 320 hits the wake of an A380 and is rolled on its back? Is the pilot actually in command of anything? Does the airplane know what happend? It seems to me that once the airplane is outside of its hard limits everyone on board is just a passenger until the airplane pulls itself back within the limits. Is that something you want at low altitude?

 

[TonyC]

"Can we all just get along"
Folks, I think we mature enough to realize that we live in a world of choices. who care you like to pick A(airbus) or B(Boeing). I think you all forgets your main objective and goalssss. It is to soar the sky and bring the world or people closer. Dont you think that is the most rewarding job you can have. Now stop whining and take you hand out of the your pant and hold that stick or the yoke and navigate the gas guzzler. Let the management do all the decision. if It is bad enough, furlaugh. get the picture. So while you all at it "reach out and touch someone"
oh and C is for cubicle
Last edited by ADF_Fixed : Today at 13:55.

Pilotyip, can you comment on this post? (Mind you, it was edited.)