Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer (Post 1749242)

Doesn't seem like a lot to me. He just opined that the -350 will beat the 777X to market. The rest is verifiable fact.

I jumpseated (jumpsat?) on a 787 once. For all the hype, I wasn't all that impressed. The screens are big, and I guess they are cheap to replace (compared to current MFDs), but they almost seemed too big for an easy scan.

I hope we do get the A-350. I really liked the 320, even with its quirks. Boeing's cockpit layout still has its roots in the XB-15 of the 1930s. I get tired of craning to see around the control column on approach, or the awkward balance of eating my crew meal with a seat I can never move back quite far enough. Significant on an airplane that can fly for 12 hours or more. The Bus cockpits have a reputation for being roomy, quiet, and comfortable.

Other than the 380, I'm not aware of any major program glitches Airbus has had. Boeing had issues with the 707 (gear trucks), 727 (#2 engine compressor stalls), 737 (drag/range in the -100), 747 (engines); the -800 had lots of problems (including flutter) for a growth aircraft. The 757, 767, and 777 had no major issues I know of; and the 787 is legendary.

So, given the current status of the A-350 program, CRM's estimate seems reasonable to me.

Originally Posted by Scrappy (Post 1749268)

Strange, all the 78 guys I know absolutely love it and say it's the best airplane we have hands down. I guess the large screens don't distract from their cross check but I know everyone is diff. Looking forward to going to training for it when I come off mil leave.

Originally Posted by bearcat (Post 1749125)

Thats an awful lot of speculation

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer (Post 1749285)

Told to me, fourth and fifth-hand:

1. 787 burns gas like a 757, but carries pax like a 777 (or 767-400).

Good.

2. 787 dispatch reliability: 40% of flights go out 30 or minutes late for mx.

Bad.

Originally Posted by CRM114 (Post 1749321)

Please correct me where needed, if you can.

Check the Boeing delivery schedule, It's Mc Boeing that's saying that 777x-9 production starts in 2017 as where Airbus is reporting -1000 delivery in 2017.

Airbus doesn't have a stellar record of hitting performance numbers like Boeing (used to do), but, if they do, the 350 will be what airline execs opt for. Compared to the the 777x, the 350 is 15% more efficient. The 777 will have to make that gap up by selling the extra 35-40 seats (insert lament about the effect that increased capacity has on yield here).

I could actually care less, it all pays the same for me.

Originally Posted by flybynuts (Post 1749444)

the 787 is performing 17% better than planned on fuel burn.
Maintenance is still 22% higher than targeted (every month there is about .5-1% reduction in this metric).
It's a good plane to replace the 767. I think we need the 350 or 77x too.
We need 99-120 seat planes too.
The most important thing is more planes that make money for mainline. I don't care if it is a crappy guppy or crappy fifi. What we all should care about is these things that are all priority number one.
1. Does it make money? This is key!
2. Is is mainline? If not it doesn't help as much.
3. Do i have a contract that affords me the most pay for the best quality of life? Just as critical to be in parallel with the two above.