How does it compare to the 737 on mins and low visibility? Most pilots say the bus is very comfortable up in the front. As a passenger, it seems to be pretty smooth back there. Also, did they ever figure out what was the problem with the JetBlue A320 that landed in LAX with the nose gear turned 90 degrees?
YouTube - Aircrash -- Jet Blue Airlines flight 292 Crashlanding

Nate,
Good luck with the bus. I loved it!!! (ex-Spirit, furloughed UAL). It spits ice at you in the summer the APU is so good.:cool: PLENTY of room for crew meals (and Suduko book, crossword, laptops,etc. ;)) Wish I knew you were in the market. Still have a house in Howell. Also, wife got her PhD. at MSU.
GO GREEN!!! GO WHITE!!!

Worn out seals and the brake steering computer glitch, I know the same thing happened a few years prior to Ship 503 a.k.a 'Christine' and at a few other airlines.

Interesting. Do you guys have firmware updates on the bus (i.e. to correct software bugs)?

BTW - Those Jetblue guys did a tremendous job. I remember the news guys were saying "I'd buy those pilots a drink, any time". :)

Former UAL Bus
 

I flew the Bus from 2002-2003 before furlough. I echo the positive sentiments of the others. I think it is more comfortable for passengers as well as the crew, because the cabin is 6 inches bigger in diameter. Cabin air, whether in back, or in the cockpit, is superior even to the 747-400, which had 4 zones, if I remember correctly. As a fighter and trainer-background guy, the stick is more natural to me than a wheel.

The FMS is slightly different. The story goes that Honeywell built both boxes for Boeing and EADS. Boeing claimed the software was proprietary, and EADS therefore had to take away the "Execute" button. I got used to it. Not sure if the story is true, but seems plausible.

One of the big advantages (Huge, actually) is the way normal checklists and EPs are presented on the glass (at least, that is how UAL's Buses are set up). They all pop-up automatically. This from "Before Pushback" to multiple compound emergencies (where the glass decides the priority; no more guessing like in the 727).

Critical-Action items are red on the EICAS, clean-ups are Yellow, and advisory are Green. Do something out of order? It "Dings" at you and puts a cursor showing what step you should be doing.

Airbus uses a "lights-out" philosophy on the overhead panel...it is normally dark unless there is an abnormal or emergency. Then, only the swithces that are illuminated will be pressed during the course of the EP. Example: Engine fire. Only light on is the Fire light. When the EICAS step says to arm the bottle, you press the light...and an "Armed" light takes its place. When the step says "Discharge 1 Bottle," you press that light....and the other "Armed" light comes on. (If I am making minor mistakes in verbage here, forgive me...it's been 7 years).

The "Soft cruise" technique (the autopilot uses small climbs/descents to control speed instead of constantly changing throttles; supposed to be less noticable to passengers, and less likely to cause an engine failure) is novel and works well...unless you get into an overspeed in mountain wave at FL390. A quirk, but I think a good tradeoff.

I went to the Bus also wondering what I would think. I came away from it thinking "Why doesn't Boeing build them this logically?" My biggest disappointment of the 787? It still has a wheel in a fly-by-wire airplane.

After my mil-leave is over, I expect to go back to the Bus, and probably spend the rest of my career there. While others are worried about the Seniority intregation, I worry that UniCal will try to get rid of the Bus in favor of CAL's 737 fleet. Hope not.

I think Alaska did that in the 1990's with their MadDog fleet. They let it wander plus or minus 200 feet in cruise, knowing that ATC computers won't detect the altitude change until it hits over 250 feet.

Not sure how smart that is in RVSM.

I agree for the most part with the positive comments on the BUS. It is really nice to fly. I am not a DAL guy, but have been on the BUS for a few years now and the above comments are spot on.

Since we have heard all of the good, here is some of the bad, at least from my perspective:

I came off the 757 so that is the most recent basis for my comparo -

The 320 cannot climb like the Boeing. The 320 is not a dog, but it is not a 75 either. I have never been on the 73, but guys tell me that have flown both, the 73 will also handily outclimb the BUS. My experience is that the 75 can get right up to altitude. The 320 cannot be heavy and jump to 390, no way. You can certainly feel the difference between a 75 and 320 in the climb.

The 320 also tops at 390. On the 75 (or even guys on the 73) you can get to 410. This can be the diff between bumps and none.

The 320 is a little "sloggy" in roll control at low speeds to me. There is some delay between the side stick and the flight controls. It is not as positive as the Boeings.

Other than those small items, the 320 is very nice to fly.

You are talking about the MD80 PMS, "Performance Management System", a.k.a. "Perf." I believe we still have the option of using it today at AA. It is kind of like a poor man's VNAV. Perf actually works quite well but you have to input a lot of data. If you take the time to put everything in, it will climb, cruise and descend quite smoothly, bringing throttles back to flight idle in descent instead of "low lim."

I never used it - didn't like the +/- 175 ft it used to maintain speed in cruise. However, I believe it is still approved for use in RVSM (haven't flown it in 3 years, so not 100% sure.)

I created a whole separate thread about flying the bus. With the 330's on property with my company I'm curious about some of the characteristics from Airbus when compared to Boeing. I'm on the 76 right now and find it to be a pleasure to fly. The 767 feels like a Cessna on roids if you ask me....You can always feel what she's going to do, and anticipate every move she's going to make...you cant overfly that airplane. Climbing to altitude with the PW birds are a joy....a little sluggish if you get one of the old GE birds as we have a few in the fleet.

Anyone have an experience in the Bus and the 767?

I spent a lot of time on A300/310, but none on the A320. I will assume similar architecture.

" Profile" cruise would limit autopilot pitch authority to +1.15/-.85 G. Pitch was used to maintain speed within these parameters. The real goal was to limit autothrottle movement and reduce fuel consumption. The book said a 1% reduction in consumption.

I never saw more than 50' variance in reasonablr air. RVSM compliance was never an issue, and ride smoothing for pax was a secondary benefit.

Moutain Wave, or moderate turb would necessitate an exit from "Profile" and restore full autopilot pitch authority.

320/330 drivers : is this similar in your jet ?