The one that pays you more

 

Man, that's funny, and I can't wait to use it!

 

I don't think that is correct. Nothing exotic or special about the stability. You can shut down ALL the FBW computers and still fly the machine. It is a high workload but with all the electricity OFF the airplane does not go unstable. I had a chance to fly a 320 with all the stuff off... and am here to write about it.

As for the NGs, that is the genius of Kelleher. He forced Boeing to make him a mini-757 so he could go coast to coast, higher, faster and longer AND IT STILL BE A 737. Brilliant.

As one who flew both (737 and 'bus) what was/is your opinion of the non-moving thrust levers on the 'bus? I thought it was a non-issue but for some, it is a BIG issue.

 

The common rating for the 318/319/320/321 was a brilliant move. Add into that the 330/340, and it is a real benefit, especially to smaller airlines in countries where the have a mix of int'l and local service. Can an airline have a common rating for all/most Airbus models?

As a passenger, I prefer Boeing equipment- definately on looks. No good real reason why (possibly my bias as an American). That said, I wouldn't hesitate to ride in an Airbus.

When an airline selects a "fleet", how often do construction and delivery times come in as a big factor?

 

The non moving thrust levers are not an issue, if you want them to move just disconnect. The auto thrust on the NG was pretty good, especially compared to the MD80. Been on the big bus for the last six years and no problems, love the table

 

III Corps:

It's relaxed stability--it still has positive static and dynamic, as you noted in your flight experience. The downloads on the tail are just reduced, which is a drag-savings.

It is why the entire empennage of the Bus is smaller than a comparable Boeing.

This is unlike the F-16, where the stability is near-neutral, to occasionally negative (ie, the horizontal stab actually lifts). If the flight control computer (HAL) quits, you won't be flying it manually very long--probably long enought to reset HAL, or punch-out.

I'll admit the Bus is not as attractive of an airplane though--kind of blah on the outside. 737 looks sleeker.

At first, the non-moving throttles seemed wierd. And then I realized--why should they move? I thought about how tough it was to set EPR in the 747-200....those throttles had over 120 feet of cable from the cockpit to the outboard engines.

 

EasyJet had a fleet of 737's but switched to Airbus. They have taken delivery of a brand new Airbus every 12 days since 2003. The current order book for firm orders is huge. They still have over 30 737's but not for long.

AL

 

They got each airplane at 20 Million dollars each no wonder they got a huge order.

 

The table would be great! I heard it's rated for 118 lbs...Unfortunately that's only useful for FA's overseas anymore.

 

LOL! THAT's funny!

I've enjoyed the bus very much. I have two things to add from different veins in this thread:

1) Even when you "click the stuff off" the bus is still being flown by an autopilot through pitch and roll mode inputs masquerading as pilot inputs through the stick (thanks to "Normal Law"). It just ain't the same as true stick and rudder aviating that all other airliners still employ as a base. I am very proud of the true piloting skills I possess that are dulled every day I fly a bus and which are being watered down in every transport today thanks to the advancing automation. The automation is great stuff I love to play with ...and I resent every minute that goes by as it waters down the profession's value and skill.

2) As I understand it, my bus is mostly American made - at least by value if not by weight. Think engines and avionics.