You do realize that is a variation on the theme probably voiced by pilots when hyd replaced cables to the controls, right? :D Or when they put canopies over the cockpit and one could no longer really hear the wind through the wires which had ALSO been removed....

First, here is a argument about subsidies.
http://www.businessweek.com/debatero..._subsidie.html

So your point may be subject to challenge about Airbus being able to cut 'sweetheart deals'.

Second the 727s at FedEx can not really be used as a measure since they are not 'rode hard and put up wet' like many old airframes.

As for A300s still in service, again maybe more myth than fact...
http://blog.flightstory.net/63/last-airbus-a300-built/

The site is a bit confusing in that it states in one paragraph that more than 630 remain in service and in the next it says 120 are still flying. I'm not sure that 1/8th of the 727 fleet is still flying. I could be wrong.

But remember also, the A300 was Airbus's first effort which was not the case with the 727. Funny thing about the way the tide shifts.

Airbus says they are going to build a wide-body twin. Boeing, Douglas say there is no market. (both had studied WBTs and said it was not feasible). Airbus makes the 300. It enters a lease with Eastern for a paltry sum and Eastern becomes the first US operator of Airbus.

Airbus says it is going to make a narrow body twin. Boeing and McDoug say there is no room. Airbus builds the A320. Over the years, Airbus has continued to challenge Boeing and the customer is the better for it.

As for which is better, that is a matter of degrees and preferences. (having said that I think the yoke in FBW makes about as much sense as mudflaps on a Ferrari but I have heard the arguments. )

I believe the BEST pilot is one that plays to the strengths of the machine and appreciates the weaknesses of the design whether it be Airbus, Boeing, Saab, Tupolev, Illyushin or whatever. The same argument about eroding skills can be made for guys/gals flying glass. It may have changed but for a while, F/Os upgrading to their first new CAPT slot and going from glass to steam.. most required an extra sim or two to get through the training program. So, is it an argument of Boeing/Airbus or the pilot and technology?

FWIW, the bus does require some new skills, ie crosswind landings with roll rate rather than flight control deflection.

It's still the same??? crab and kick out half of what "you" think you need (in the flare) and drop a wing..... like Colt 45... "it works every time"

Right up to a point.. the stick commands a roll rate rather than a degree of control deflection so one has to be careful not to DRIVE the gear into the runway. ie.. one can NOT cross control.

I've not flown an Airbus product, but have flown the 737-200,-300 and-800.

Personally, I think Boeing did a very poor job on the NG 737's.

It was all to make SWA happy, and keep the common type rating.

When you look at the level of technology available to Boeing when the NG series was introduced (think 777 and 767-400) they did a very poor job. Here are some examples:

The fuselage diameter is the same between the 727, 737 and 757. The classic Boeing nose (very noisy cockpit) of the 707 could easily have been replaced with the roomier, quieter, and better ergonomically 757 nose. Wasn't done!

The 757 was introduced in the early '80's. when an engine starts it's smart enough to automatically put the generators on line. That "technology" was available for 15 years prior to the introduction of the NG, but on the 737 you still have to manually select the generators.

The FMS systems used on the 757 and 767 aircraft are made by Honeywell. They're great. With the 737 you get a POS system made by Smiths Industries. I think a comparison of a BMW to a Yugo is appropriate.

Fail-active vs fail-active autopilot system.

Boeing could have incorporated the latest available technology and built a helluva airplane. Instead they chose to design and construct a very mediocre product so SWA (the launch customer) would be happy.

I believe the marketplace bears this out. If you look at product lines offered by Boeing and Airbus and compare aircraft "families", Boeing outsells Airbus significantly in every comparison except the 737NG vs A-320 series.

They both will be gone in a few years.

The folks down in Brazil will make something a little bigger than their E190, for one third the price of the cheapest of the other two.

Thye have the best of both worlds.... they get Govt backing like Airbus, and unlike Boeing, they have cheap labor.

We're all going to be flying Jungle Junk within the next 20 years.

III Corp,
You make some valid points but I would also like to fill in the cracks. Boeing has been correct in assesing market conditions and aircraft for a few decades also. First let's look at them bowing out of the SST program after realizing that the fuel guzzling supersonic jet would not have enough seats to justify it's building. After the Russians became the first to launch a supersonic jet the concorde followed. The concorde did not become successful until the very late nineties early 2000 when they were leased out for to charter operators who had pax willing to spend to be on the "Concorde." I would venture a guess and say that had the concorde accident not put that aircraft to bed a few years ago, the fuel prices today would have.
Next came Boeings decision to launch the B747. This was indirectly part of the reason for Airbus' launching a large twin, they then would be competing against the DC-10 and L1011 which came after the design of the B747.
We'll have to see who was smarter in the Airbus/787 design launch. Although they are not similar, the 787 is banking on the A380 to become a niche player and not be as hugely successful as the Airbus people think. The 787 will be going back to original route structure called O & D which stand for origin and destination. Remember back in the day ( well at least for those of you over 40) you could get on a plane and go to your destination without travelling through a hub? Boeing is betting big time that the population shifts around the world support this, coupled with it's reduced costs to operate through newer technology I think they have a good idea. While offering a beefier 747 to placate airlines until the 787 pans out. So far only one operator is interested in the 747-I and that's the same company that had a major influence on the development of the 737, Lufthansa.
Only time will tell.

Any past laments about false feel of hydraulics or the loss of the wind in your face are a different thing altogether from the outright replacement of the human pilot in the direct control of the control surfaces and the flight path. Those guys still needed to adapt and produce the skill to keep the aircraft right side up and on speed, the normal condition for the bus pilot requires no such thing - even with the autopilot OFF.

(Of course, the autopilot isn't really OFF even when it says its off as long as the aircraft isn't compromised with a system failure, is it?)

Flare mode lateral control is the same as in "in flight" mode so the airplane is happy to maintain the last bank angle it was at when you centered the stick. Doing that with a bunch of rudder input and you can bet that those flight controls are indeed "crossed" - even if the stick is centered.