Alaska General Discussion
10-24-2023 | 09:42 PM
#1161
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,596
Likes: 112
Sounds like you’re confusing the wide body A300 development with the A320 development. Google has the first A300 flight in 1970, the first A320 flight in 1987 and the first 321 flight in 1993. 6 years between 320 and 321 is hardly lipstick. Boeing took 21 years to stretch the 737 when they introduced the 400 in 1988.
the 320 development started in the 70s. Took them a while to get it flying then crashed one into the trees. It is an outdated design like the 737 that they keep stretching.
10-25-2023 | 03:44 AM
#1162
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2023
Posts: 851
Likes: 176
sounds like you are confused about a lot of things. Yes they used lipstick with a dash marketing. The 321 is not a clean sheet design from the 320. The fact you don’t know that says a lot.
the 320 development started in the 70s. Took them a while to get it flying then crashed one into the trees. It is an outdated design like the 737 that they keep stretching.
the 320 development started in the 70s. Took them a while to get it flying then crashed one into the trees. It is an outdated design like the 737 that they keep stretching.
I'll grant you that it's outdated, but it's not the clapped out jalopy that the 737 is.
10-27-2023 | 05:28 AM
#1163
Mmmm wine
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 1,717
Likes: 302
From: The Jet
sounds like you are confused about a lot of things. Yes they used lipstick with a dash marketing. The 321 is not a clean sheet design from the 320. The fact you don’t know that says a lot.
the 320 development started in the 70s. Took them a while to get it flying then crashed one into the trees. It is an outdated design like the 737 that they keep stretching.
the 320 development started in the 70s. Took them a while to get it flying then crashed one into the trees. It is an outdated design like the 737 that they keep stretching.
And yet the 321 NEO is quieter, more comfortable, more efficient, decades more modern than the 737, and has better takeoff and landing performance. It is safer, more redundant systems and so on.
737 design started in the early 50s and wasn't ahead of its time in any facet. The 321 NEO is a fly by wire, ECAM driven aircraft. So what if it was designed in the 70s, it was ahead of its time and built to be modernized properly. For anyone to argue that the 737 in any iteration is better than a 320 or 321 is simply uneducated or lying to themselves.
10-27-2023 | 07:15 AM
#1165
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,618
Likes: 558
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
And yet the 321 NEO is quieter, more comfortable, more efficient, decades more modern than the 737, and has better takeoff and landing performance. It is safer, more redundant systems and so on.
737 design started in the early 50s and wasn't ahead of its time in any facet. The 321 NEO is a fly by wire, ECAM driven aircraft. So what if it was designed in the 70s, it was ahead of its time and built to be modernized properly. For anyone to argue that the 737 in any iteration is better than a 320 or 321 is simply uneducated or lying to themselves.
737 design started in the early 50s and wasn't ahead of its time in any facet. The 321 NEO is a fly by wire, ECAM driven aircraft. So what if it was designed in the 70s, it was ahead of its time and built to be modernized properly. For anyone to argue that the 737 in any iteration is better than a 320 or 321 is simply uneducated or lying to themselves.
But bus also costs twice as much as to acquire (NEO vs MAX), at least in the case of AS with whatever SEA frat boy discount they get. So bean counters are gonna count...
I can't blame them, once I found out what the things actually cost.
https://youtu.be/2D3HWoICdRk
10-27-2023 | 11:17 AM
#1166
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,305
Likes: 249
Bus is unequivocally a better airplane from a pilot perspective, and for pax comfort (it's a couple inches wider). Anybody who says otherwise has never flown both planes. Don't believe me, go ask over in the legacy forums... bus almost always goes senior compared to the guppy
But bus also costs twice as much as to acquire (NEO vs MAX), at least in the case of AS with whatever SEA frat boy discount they get. So bean counters are gonna count...
I can't blame them, once I found out what the things actually cost.
https://youtu.be/2D3HWoICdRk
But bus also costs twice as much as to acquire (NEO vs MAX), at least in the case of AS with whatever SEA frat boy discount they get. So bean counters are gonna count...
I can't blame them, once I found out what the things actually cost.
https://youtu.be/2D3HWoICdRk
Call me a witch, I like the Boeing over the Bus in some ways. Crosswinds would be one of them.
Getting off endless reserve would be another reason Boeing is better, Airbus sucksss
Only to be back on reserve in LA entering year 13th pay…
10-27-2023 | 02:53 PM
#1167
Mmmm wine
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 1,717
Likes: 302
From: The Jet
Bus is unequivocally a better airplane from a pilot perspective, and for pax comfort (it's a couple inches wider). Anybody who says otherwise has never flown both planes. Don't believe me, go ask over in the legacy forums... bus almost always goes senior compared to the guppy
But bus also costs twice as much as to acquire (NEO vs MAX), at least in the case of AS with whatever SEA frat boy discount they get. So bean counters are gonna count...
I can't blame them, once I found out what the things actually cost.
https://youtu.be/2D3HWoICdRk
But bus also costs twice as much as to acquire (NEO vs MAX), at least in the case of AS with whatever SEA frat boy discount they get. So bean counters are gonna count...
I can't blame them, once I found out what the things actually cost.
https://youtu.be/2D3HWoICdRk
10-27-2023 | 03:46 PM
#1168
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Ergonomics and Human Factors Design was a huge part of the design philosophy of the A320. Boeing OTOH, built the 737, then simply made space for the pilots as an after thought.
That reality is painfully (and I use the word deliberately) obvious to anyone who's trained in, and has flown both types.
The lop-sided difference in acquisition costs is currently a function of market demand. The 321 NEO is now universally regarded as the superior product, and so Airbus, who in the early days used to give their airplanes away to gain market share, now has the liberty to price their jets at a premium.
Meanwhile, Boeing, having shot themselves in the foot with the MAX debacle, can't seem to give away that airplane fast enough.
That reality is painfully (and I use the word deliberately) obvious to anyone who's trained in, and has flown both types.
The lop-sided difference in acquisition costs is currently a function of market demand. The 321 NEO is now universally regarded as the superior product, and so Airbus, who in the early days used to give their airplanes away to gain market share, now has the liberty to price their jets at a premium.
Meanwhile, Boeing, having shot themselves in the foot with the MAX debacle, can't seem to give away that airplane fast enough.
Last edited by All Bizniz; 10-27-2023 at 04:24 PM.
10-27-2023 | 06:57 PM
#1170
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
I'd say it depends on the aspects of comparison.
Yes, the A220 is a much newer plane, so I imagine it has the most modern whizz bang, avionics system on board. A video gamers dream.
But when it comes to range, the A321XLR, at almost 5,000 mile (touted as the credible replacement to the venerable B757), gets the edge over the A220.
In my opinion...
Yes, the A220 is a much newer plane, so I imagine it has the most modern whizz bang, avionics system on board. A video gamers dream.
But when it comes to range, the A321XLR, at almost 5,000 mile (touted as the credible replacement to the venerable B757), gets the edge over the A220.
In my opinion...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
