Boeing vs. Airbus
 

The big battles.

I'd prefer Boeings because they seem more pilot friendly.

Well, I fly Boeings and prefer them overall. However, having jumpseated on many Airbuses I must say I love how quiet and pilot friendly they seem to be. Ideally, I'd like a Boeing aircraft that's as quiet as an Airbus and that has a joystick so I can read my paper, I mean the must-read-bulletins without that big stick between my legs getting in a way... Hey, don't be jealous now... :D

...based on what assumptions or observations?

It not being French is good enough for me! ;)

Never flew the Bus, but flying an airplane that the the throttles don't move?.............that would seem to me like taking away one of your five senses?

True, but you'd regain your hearing? LOL

To be fair, our (big brown) 75s are much louder than most pax 75s. Sometimes I feel like taking my David Clark headset out of it's retirement... ;)

Voted B btw.

I have only flow the old versions of both Boeing and Airbus. 72,74, & A-300. I still prefer Boeing.

Considering all the US components on the airplane, that is an interesting comment. And considering the international components on the Boeings.

Moving autothrottles also move when the engine is shut down.. or at least they did on the 737 and 757. So, if one is expecting VALID tactile feedback, they may be surprised.

Not that one way is better but they are different. What I found was with the non-moving throttles, I spent more time actually looking at eng instruments.

In general, the propensity to mow down trees during demo flights, loss of vertical stab, total or multiple partial loss of rudder surface in flight, and recent loss of and near loss of aircraft due to possible pitot static problems come to mind. There is that French thing too.

I'm sure they build a fine product and Boeing does too. Just the observations of a non 'Bus driver.:D


They are both products of a global economy, it is just that I prefer the benefits of such an arrangement accrue primarily to my country, chauvanist that I am, not to say that other countries are not just as wonderful and full of well-meaning people.

Still betting the 380 will cut them down in the long term.

Ford vs. Chevy -or- Mercedes vs. BMW ????
 

It's the age old debate; Ford vs. Chevy or the the more upscale; Mercedes vs. BMW, etc. Which do you prefer ?

Having flown both, there are advantages and disadvantages with each. I like the structural integrity and design process that Boeing uses in constructing their aircraft; however, the Airbus cockpit is more comfortable, quietier and user friendly than most Boeing products. In my view, it's strictly personal preference.

As an observation, most pilots who knock "the 'Bus" have never flown the Airbus and Jungle, please don't bring up the Airbus accident in Toulouse where it went into the trees. That was strictly pilot error and it can happen with any aircraft.

G'Day Y'all:)

I thought it had to do with computer logic that "assumed" the airplane would land (close the ground) so the power went to idle and it was too late when the pilots realized it and attempted to add power... It's been a while, maybe I got it all wrong? :confused:

YouTube - A320 Airbus Down (2 of 2) (Mulhouse, France - 1988)

Agree, but it isn't exactly good public relations when a factory demo pilot can't figure out the autopilot.:)

It did perk up interest from logging companies.

Many of the comments are not apples/apples. I flew the 737 for quite some time and was in the training dept during the hard-over rudder period. Very interesting to say the least.

and while we are talking about not understanding airplanes and airplanes doing odd stuff, we might not want to mention the 737 in Amsterdam with a radio altimeter fault. Or the Helios where the crew went hypoxic because they didn't realize the packs were not on. ??? Or the BA 777 going into London.

The oft cited Habsheim(sp?) crash is a good example of people being very ill-informed. Watch the video and you will not hear the engines spool up until the 'bus is in the trees (17 seconds). (disregard the invisible talking head who knows zilch) That is not a computer problem. That is someone sitting on their thumbs, in idle and then getting caught by slow spooling engines. This event would have happened in almost any aircraft.

YouTube - Crash A-320 Air France

More mis-information. NOT an Airbus demo pilot.

ASN Aircraft accident Airbus A320-111 F-GFKC Mulhouse-Habsheim

But google the crash and you will find lots of the 'truth' out there.

The video interviews Harry Hopkins who for quite some time did flight checks for Flight International, the magazine. Harry was a good guy and an enjoyable fellow to be around. Anyway, Harry notes at 3:30 in the video the throttles are in idle and power is applied 'quite late'.

Earlier in the video the narrator says the crew turned off the computers. Well.. uh, no. Can't do that. And the computers don't idle the engine. The pilot pulls the thrust to idle and if s/he forgets, the 'bus reminds with "RETARD, RETARD".

or loose bolts from poor factory assembly puncturing fuel tank and causing aircraft to explode (CAL 737 in Japan), or spontaneously exploding center fuel tanks (TWA 747 & Thai 737), or cargo door blowouts from poorly designed latches sucking passengers into engines (United 747), or loss of control and inflight breakup from uncommanded reverser deployment (Lauda 767)...

Both sides have blood on their hands - its just the nature of the industry and no one is infallible.

A balanced argument? Airplanes are ALL compromises and each is trying to create the best machine possible based on certain assumptions. Contrary to popular view, pilots are not tossed out of the process during development.

Boeing, Airbus, Fokker, McDoug, Saab, Embraer, Bombardier all build good airplanes. But many arguments, as evidenced here, are based on incorrect info. Not company demo pilot. Not computers taking thrust to idle.

I enjoyed flying the 'bus. I enjoyed flying the 757/767 (the 737 was never a favorite due to the small noisy cockpit and slow speed [0.74 trans-can??] but it was/is a good machine or Boeing would not have convinced so many to buy and fly it. And Boeing wisely agreed to Kelleher's demands for a faster, higher flying, longer ranged 737.. the NG.

In the end, for an airline pilot, the BEST airplane is the one flying the trips that pay the most, have the best layovers, the nicest FAs and the least number of days/month. At least that was the way I saw it.

Bingo! Agree 100% Of course, since we don't have any FAs at ups we're screwed! :D

I can assure you, like the Boeing/Airbus argument, there are positives and negatives.

I have never flown the Boeing. But I will throw in the MD80 as a favorite for me. I really enjoyed the plane.

I am now on the 320 and find it to be very easy and comfortable.

As long as it gets me where I am going and the company is making money, I am happy.

The -80 was/is an interesting comparison to the 737. The mode control panel took some revised thinking but once understood it was no big deal. The big thing about the -80 or even the -9 is the ability to decelerate and the very high extension speeds for slats and gear. The autopilot was not as good but still it was Cat III capable. Like the 727, on landing you didn't want to be trying to save a smash by pulling on the yoke.

But it is somewhat funny in that prior to the introduction of the 'bus, it was Boeing versus Douglas. ??

Exactly. It is like Ford vs Chevy or USC vs UCLA. No matter what, you will have some on both sides.

I am on a 319LR pretty often and I love that plane. It is the 320 cockpit with a great climb and we are good for FL410 on it (the 320 only does FL390). The 319LR is a hot rod for sure. It really gets up. The -80 though would come down when you wanted, the 320's... not so much.

I believe it was an Air France pilot and no I did not use Google .
May be old but the memory is still working :D.
And I prefer the whale .


Fred

I have flown both and each has it's good points and flaws.... To actually answer the poll one needs to know exactly what we are comparing (not which aircraft models but traits).

The airplane to fly is the one which offers you the most amount of money combined with the best available schedule. ;)

Well I'm still an 18 year old noobie flying 172's :D

But yeah I really don't know. When it comes to this "battle," I go by the visuals of the aircraft.

Comparing apples to apples. I've been back and forth between the 777 and the A-320 for the last ten years. The only thing I like less about the 777 is the yoke. The 777 is hands down a better flying, better built, more reliable and more user friendly aircraft than the A-320. With that being said once you get used to the Bus it is not a bad machine to fly it's quiet, roomy and pretty simple to operate. I'd much rather be on a Bus than a guppy.

As far as the A-320 into the trees. It's real simple the guy did a low pass below 100' AGL he had the auto throttles engaged and thought they would maintain his selected airspeed. They won't at that altitude and by the time he figured it out and jammed the throttles to TOGA it was to late.

Do you know the difference between a chain saw and an Airbus? About 50 trees a second... Thanks I'll be here all night.

Based on my own visual observations and biased assumptions :rolleyes:. I actually don't have a real preference...because I can't. As a passenger, the only difference I see is design.

When it comes to manufacturer vs manufacturer, the only ones I can actually speak in are the ones that involved Cessna, Piper, and Diamond.