To answer your question about which the airline would choose, that would depend on a number of factors including the delivery schedule, the maint support, training, simulators, financing, whether or not they would accept trade-ins. Remember a while back Boeing sold someone some 777s as I remember and they took some relatively new A340s in on trade. Airbus said (for a while before retreating) Boeing has 'em, let Boeing support 'em. That didn't last long.

I flew the 737-200/300/400 and the 737 was never one of my favorites. I enjoyed the KC-135 (REAL Boeing 717) and had a great time in the 727. The 757/767 was like being in your living room. Flew the line with the 319/320/321 and really enjoyed the cockpit and once I figured out the logic, enjoyed flying the airplane. Far better ergonomics than the 737.. quieter cockpit, better seats and you could roast weenies in the winter and hang meat in the summer the air-cond was so good. Remember the 737 cockpit is the same frame as on the 707 and thus it is one noisy work place above 300kts. Not much area to stow stuff... like I said, good airplane but not one of my favorites.

 

The bus is a little bit quieter up front and is about 7 inches wider than a 737. As far as economics, not really sure but since the 737 has a higher service ceiling I would imagine it burns a little less fuel than the bus? As far as the ride the bus has a lot of room up front vs. the 737. Overall I think they are very similar in all aspects but our mechanics say the 737 is built better and will last longer, whether that is true I dont really know.

 

The 737NG's are quieter than the classics.

Our 737's are "managed" too. Auto throttle, auto land, auto brakes, VNAV, etc. Maybe not as much as an airbus? I wouldn't know.

I'd like to try an Airbus someday, but our company is all Boeing.

 

The 737NG are "managed" alright... Try "managing" a descent with VNAV on an RNAV arrival, it's kinda like watching 2 monkeys trying to screw a lightbulb. Other than that, the 737 is a pilot's plane, the bus is a pilot's office.

 

The original 737 was designed for short runways at small airports (5,000 ft) at a time when major cities needed at least a 10k-ft runway to accomodate the early non-fan 707s and DC-8s. As such, it had a thick wing and lots of flaps. Helped for takeoff and landing, but not so good for cruise. Then again, they were only supposed to dominate on legs of an hour or so.

As the airplane evolved and stretched, then re-engined with CFM-56s, it could go farther, but at an agonizing .68-.73 Mach.

The Bus was always designed for a .80 cruise.

NG 737s have a new airfoil (and I think less complex flaps) so as to cruise faster and save weight. The NG 737 is still a conventional airplane design with a significant tail-download on the horizontal for static and dynamic stability. This can be as much as 6-10% of the total weight of the airplane--which means the wing must support said download.

The Bus uses fly-by-wire and relaxed static and dynamic stability. Since the horizontal stab does not "push down" as much on the airplane, the wing can be smaller, since it does not have to "push up" as much. Since the wing is smaller, it weighs less..and the cycle continues. This is more significant a drag and weight savings than the Whitcomb winglets you see on NG 737s. The little "sails" you see on the Bus supposedly do not do anything for efficiency at all (a few early airplanes did not have them; I think they are a customer option).

As stated in a previous post, the Bus is wider (I thought it was 6 inches). This means each pax seat can be an inch wider--not much, but noticable. I think the aisle is slightly wider, too.

I've flown a lot of Boeing cockpits, and the Bus is more comfortable than all of them. Overall, the systems logic is the best of any non-military airplane I've ever flown. Seat comfort, air conditioning/heating, bag storage, the tray table for Jepps and/or food--everything about it was great. The "barking dog" hydraulic-transfer pump in the belly is just a quirk (keeps the pax guessing). Just wish it was made in America.

And I liked flying it. The stick is the way to go. Wish it wouldn't call me a "retard" in the flare. (Voice tells you to "retard" the throttles at about 10 ft).

 

I was thinking the airbus has gained it's popularity and gained so much ground on its rival the 737, by offering an engine selection. We can look back to the L1011 to see how one engine can spell doom.
Before the bashing starts, I understand the CFM-56 is one helluva an engine, I think choice has something to do with it.

 

I been flying the bus for 13 years.....great airplane....but Boeing is simply great!!!!!!!!why?????? is more practical more pilot friendly..done.

What is great about Bus is if a computer fails on ground...they just simply change the chip. But in flight... if the failure happens....it complicates everything.

 

"Twice as a verb, then as a noun."

 

I have flown them both and I am on the 757 now. The 'bus specific fuel consumption is better than the 737 300. I don't know about the 737NG. Cruising at .79 at 350 to 370 I seem to recall fuel flows around 2800#/side, but it has been over 4 years since I have flown the bus. The Bus is faster, the boards work better and the cockpit is more comfortable than the 737. I, too, used to turn the automation off and fly the jet, much to the shock and horror of my F/Os, most of whom clicked the A/P on at 500' and off at 500'. I also used to do MX checks and got to fly it in direct law for real.

Now the 757 - that's a whole different animal.

 

I kinda thought I would have had a more definitive answer by now, however with all the different variables thrown in I guess there is not an exact way to determine a better aircraft.