A320 or B-737NG a better pilots a/c?
 

If you had a choice, which would you choose to fly, and why? Sitting in the respective aircraft jumpseats I like chatting up the pilots about the birds' handling, FMS intuitiveness, flying feel, etc. Nobody yet has voiced much complaint about the French and American staple narrowbody. But if given a choice, what's the better aircraft?

Has anyone flown both? That opinion would be interesting to listen to.

Later.

Some thoughts on the NG
 

I fly the NG and I think it is a great airplane. I can't really comment on the bus at all having never flown it. I will concede some things are probably a little better on the bus. Most notably is the NG is still, to an extent, an older Boeing at heart. No EICAS and the overhead panel isn't as "elegant" as you will find on a 757/767/777. With that said though, it is a great jet to fly with plenty of power. The HUD is a fantastic feature and after getting used to it I really enjoy flying it. It is a great feature when shooting that ILS to mins. The HUD also gives us the option of hand flying a CAT III ILS. So, to sum up I think the NG is a great jet. The few things I'd have changed on it would have been to completely update the crew alerting system and panels to take full advantage of the modern displays but, due to Type Certification requirements to keep all 737 guys legal on all models they could only update so much.

I can't comment on the Airbus but so far I love flying the NG's. I wish we didn't have the fake "six pack" setup but it is needed to keep the type commonality.

I guess I am a Boeing guy though because I do like the traditional control column instead of the sidestick. However, it is somewhat of a pain while I am trying to eat my filet mignon at FL 390 that the flight attendants just brought me(ok...so I did make up that part)

All the Airbus pilots I know do like the sidestick setup and say that after approx. 1 hour you get the hang of it....

the new 737's are a frankenstein's monster mix of 1950's and 1990's technology. they are also noisy as hell. even the new ones with the eyebrow windows blocked and the vortex generators are noisy. i flew my first one the other day and was trying to figure out what all the commotion was about.

in addition, the basic systems are still very old tech and the number of switches that could be totally automated with a little thought is staggering.

i spent about 5 years on the 757/767 and pray to the aviation gods that i won't have to spend much longer on the 73.

that said, i was beside myself with despair when i saw the cockpit mockups of the 787 and saw that ******* control column rising out of the floor like satan's horns.

you gotta hand it to boeing; thousands of airplanes and not one cockpit designed by a pilot. or maybe guys like setting the NG altimeter with that rube-goldbergish knob and not having a flat surface to eat from or any good way of holding jepps anywhere. it just brings tears to your eyes.

I have flown 737 200/300 and /300 EFIS as well as 9 years on Sparky the Wonderjet. I'm back on Boeings (757) and I love it.

The bus is more comfortable and the flightdeck is better laid out and uncluttered. The sidestick is better than a yoke and the systems information on the Eicas is more complete than on the Boeing. It's a wierd philosophy - Airbus gives you all the information but you can't do anything about it. Boeing lets you do more system-wise but you don't have the systems synoptics available inflight.

But flying - hands down the vote goes to Boeing. More power, bigger wings, more rugged construction. Fly by wire takes a lot of feel out of the experience of hand flying. With the autopilot off your control inputs are still filtered through 7 flight control computers. You don't trim because that is done for you. And just as you get into the flare the flight control laws change. It makes for a challenging aircraft to fly well without the automation. But that's the crux of the problem - Airbus wants, nay DEMANDS that you use automation as much as possible. I rarely used the autopilot below 10000 but I always used the autothrust. Nonprecision approaches are managed through the FMS and must be flown on the autopilot until MDA. Lots of wierd quirks like that. Boeings are a lot more straightforward.

Never even been on a bus so can't say much about them. I do like the fact that the 737 is still a mechanically flown airplane and IMO the NG's are a pleasure to fly. Also, living in WA kinda makes me root for Boeing.

I am quite glad to see that Boeing gave the 787 a control column. It's a freakin airplane and not a video game!

so where do you put your meal tray for all the meals you'll be eating on your 10-hour legs? where do your jepps go? how do you cross your legs without banging your knee?

i like boeings, don't want airbusses--but i'd bet there was virtually NO pilot input into cockpit layout and design; unless it was the same "pilots" that designed all the other boeing cockpits.

Cactusmike said Boeings are a lot more straightforward.

I have not flown either but heard this from a check airman that has:
Exaggerated but I do see his point.

i have no desire to fly other than boeings but boeing cockpits are NOTORIOUSLY bad. we've had about 150-plus guys go out on OJI's from either struggling to put their suitcases under the 737 jumpseat or trying to put their kit bags in ANY of the places provided on ANY of the boeings.

and, yes, i'm one of the 150; i had L4-L5-S1 surgery for this poor design and will have low-back pain and limited mobility for the rest of my life.

The Airbus was designed for the 500 hour pilots flying them in 3rd world countries. The "what's it doing now" problems usually start happening when experienced pilots try to outsmart the computer. No doubt about it...if you don't understand the automation, it can bite you.

I believe you will find that most pilots will say they prefer the Boeing products because of their more traditional design. It's still amazes me that the A-320 is early '80s technology. Even though it's been relatively unmodified since its inception, it has been arguably the most advanced transport a/c in the world for the past 20 years.

Just another side note...

A transition course from the A-320 family to the A-330, A-340, A-350, or even the A-380 takes less than 2 weeks. How long does it take to transition from the 737 to any of the other Boeing products? Should the 737-200 even be the same type rating as a 737NG?

itd take some getting used to to fly with a left joystick

I currently fly the A-320 series and have years in a 73', including the 400 EFIS, but no time in a 737NG.

The only airplane I was "Jones'n" to fly before retirement was the 757. I think the 757 is the best looking airliner currently flying and is a hot rod with wings. Put some flames and a set of glass packs on it and you'd be all set. If you could make the engines sound like R-2800's it would be perfect.

I find the 'Bus a competent airplane but I certainly don't think it is better than the 737NG, it's just different. What I don't like about the 'Bus is poor cockpit lighting, maybe if the dome light was brighter (and red), it wouldn't be so irritating at night. You also get reflections from the center pedestal lights on the windshield at night, (or your shirt, if you use the map light).

I MUCH prefer the FMS software on the Boeing vs the Legacy or Pegasus versions on the Airbus. There's a huge difference in this regard between the two aircraft, and I think Boeing won, hands down.

Flying with the side stick from either seat is no big deal, you adjust quickly.

The Airbus is one rough riding sum'bi*ch in turbulence, rides like the wings have no flex at all, DARN!!, spilled my coffee again!

No tail skid on the 'Bus...scraping the tail is a BIG deal $$$$$$$.

The APU on the 'Bus has alot of air available for pack operation on the ground, very comfortable on the ground year 'round.

Crosswind operations, especially landings, are "different".

The airbus cockpit is much quieter than the Boeings I've flown, but that's not saying much. I always wondered why the Boeings were so noisy...supersonic airflow where the windshield blends into the cockpit "roof", the large angle between the windshields and the clear view windows, localized air turbulence? I don't know, but whatever the reason, IT SURE IS LOUD.

I am on the bus, it's ok, weak on the power side and lots of little quirks(but that maybe the software we use). I have also been on the 757, now thats a nice airplane. Lots of power, flies real nice and easy to land. I want to go back to 757, also our trips are better on that fleet.

our new 800's are coming with the vortex generators on the nose just forward of the windows. supposed to make things quieter but i honestly didn't notice much noise reduction.

we still transition from round-dial 300's to NG 900's in the same day. other than momentarily hunting for the button you want and the fact that the round-dials have mechanical flight instuments and no map displays (not to mention terrible broken-down seats) there really isn't much difference. the cockpit is the same cramped and poorly-designed space with no real room for storing other than a very small bag.

Someone elses opinion:

"Boeing views the autopilot as a tool for the pilot, Airbus views the pilot as a tool to turn on the autopilot.