Sorry, I am back on Boeing for 2 years. They use Flex whether CFM or IAE. I don't remember their being any differences other than maybe different EEC switches, and not have EPR on the CFM's and having to use N1. The IAE's took twice as long to start. The IAE's seemed smoother. I don't remember any difference in FF.

I think CFM slightly outsells the IAE so they must be some advantage they have economically.

I can't quite remember what the max Flex was on the 319's but I remember it being stupid high. 70 C? Too many airplanes have gone through my aging brain housing group.

Boeing makes a high altitude 737-700 as well.

 

Are they stretching the wing on the A321NEO? I thought it was the same wing, just with a winglet.

 

Boeing Max wins in the most important category.....$$$$$ saved per passenger/ hour. In case you arm chair executive wannabes haven't heard. We are in this to make money.

 

Funny one of those gate agents in MSY told me during last contract round we were canceling flights due to pilots misusing sick leave. Keep ur faith with them I suppose.

 

All that is great on paper, but the telling truth is those numbers mean nothing yet since the planes aren't out competing with each other. Take a look at the 787 and what was promised and what we are actually getting. If we actually are leaving people behind in the new 737 and the new Airbus is not, that makes the economics change quite a bit.

 

Hmmmm....yet Airbus has sold about a THOUSAND more NEOs that Boeing has sold MAXs.

I'm thinking there must be more to the "big picture" that a single metric helpfully provided by, um, Boeing, and it's not a slam dunk, eh?

(And yes, making $$$ is good.)

 

Are you all sure you're pilots?

Personally I believe the decision should not be based on all that seat savings stuff. Since this really all about me (I am a pilot and a man) and the Airbus Cockpit is far superior to any of the 737s every built, that is the finale arbitrator. Go Airbus.

Oh and for those who know how to lie with statistics you might have missed something on that pretty chart, the Airbus has 150 seats and the 737-800 162. The fuel burn is based on per seat. So the real question is can an Airbus 320 have 162 seats at a more comfortable pitch?

The 737 pictured has 8% more seats than the Airbus. So If one were to do their calculations using the same number of seats I would imagine they pretty much are even. Which, by the way, combined with the cockpit features makes the Airbus the outright winner!!!!

I think what's really amazing is how stupid the managers are for falling for that chart as a sales pitch.

 

OK here's what is not on the chart:

1. Specific range. How far and from what length of runway can the two fly?
2. ETOPS specifics.
3. Cargo capacity and container technology.
4. Avionics and computer technology.
5. Maintenance history and cost.
6. Predicted lifespan (number of cycles).

Oh did I forget to mention one can fly without a headset in the Airbus and retain their hearing. Maybe this is the 65+ model?

 

Well, they fell for a few thousand RJ's. So if you're looking for empirical data to support your position, that's a good start.

 

You can't ascertain the difference in where the information came from what would motivate a gate agent to say those two completely unrelated statements?