Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Airbus or Boeing

acidfast7 said:
I should also say that I much prefer high-speed rail over planes around Europe.

If the cost is less than 50% more, I'll always go with the high-speed rail due to city center-proximity and the ability to move around (plus happy hour every evening is quite nice.)

Would be nice if they were running at 350km/h instead of the conservative 300-320km/h

:sigh:
\
Click to expand...

lol this made me laugh ... well done.

But I agree I like train travel. It's a shame that the fastest train here (acela express?) in the US travels at a max speed of 240 km/h (with an average speed of about 110 km/h). I totally understand why though, but still...

I like the speed of the TGV, but the interior makes me want to eat my eyes so the ICE is certainly one of my favorites.
 
wordoflife said:
lol this made me laugh ... well done.

But I agree I like train travel. It's a shame that the fastest train here (acela express?) in the US travels at a max speed of 240 km/h (with an average speed of about 110 km/h). I totally understand why though, but still...

I like the speed of the TGV, but the interior makes me want to eat my eyes so the ICE is certainly one of my favorites.
Click to expand...

actually, the Chinese are running some of the trainsets at 380km/h, but found that the energy consumption is too high

i recently rode on the Acela and the speed wasn't horrible but the shaking made it very hard to type. Also, I'm amazed that you don't have standing room only on most Amtrak trains, when the seats are gone, they're "sold out", which I find kinda crappy.

I recently took the TGV to Paris and I found it nicer than the ICE interior (which has the German boringness about it.)

However, ÖBB (Austrian) recently introduced a Munich-Budapest high-speed line (called Railjet), which I recently used and was quite impressed with. It was much nicer the the TGV or ICE.
 

Attachments

  • SIE_railjet_premium3_668x328.jpg
    SIE_railjet_premium3_668x328.jpg
    145.7 KB · Views: 109
My Wife has been Cabin Crew for over 10 years With BA and she would pick Boeing over Airbus all day. She just doesn't like them. She has told me in detail why but I rarely listen :eek:
 
I'm going to say Boeing out of loyalty for my best friend's husband working for them. :D Truth be told though I don't really mind either one. I go with the flight times and prices that suit me more than the planes.


acidfast7 said:
I should also say that I much prefer high-speed rail over planes around Europe.

If the cost is less than 50% more, I'll always go with the high-speed rail due to city center-proximity and the ability to move around (plus happy hour every evening is quite nice.) ...
Click to expand...

We actually agree on something. I really like trains and will opt for them over air travel whenever it's practical.
 
iBlue said:
We actually agree on something. I really like trains and will opt for them over air travel whenever it's practical.
Click to expand...

I think the UK is really tough for rail travel (overcrowded and expensive.) However, I really enjoyed the Eurostar service and am excited that it's being opened to competition.

Also, HSR2 is a big debate for you guys, is it not?
 
acidfast7 said:
I think the UK is really tough for rail travel (overcrowded and expensive.) However, I really enjoyed the Eurostar service and am excited that it's being opened to competition.

Also, HSR2 is a big debate for you guys, is it not?
Click to expand...

It definitely tends to be crowded and pricey in Britain. Still pretty fun to watch the countryside woosh past... for those times when I manage to get out of London. I loved taking the Eurostar to Paris and back. So much nicer than enduring airports too.

I think high speed rail annoys the NIMBY crowd but it's inevitable.
 
robbieduncan said:
I would say the only difference is being in the upper deck on a 747 (never been on a 380 so don't know if it's the same)
Click to expand...

Haven't been on the upper deck of either, but in terms of general ride and noise level...

Well, the 747 came out in the late 60s.... and it shows.

I'm keen to try a 787 now... the A380 shows that aircraft design has come a long way since the 747, and I'm interested to see Boeing's take on it...
 
djmodifyd said:
really? I'd for sure take an rj2 over 145...maybe different airline setups?

oh well, they both suck lol
Click to expand...

I'd take an E170 or E190 over both. ;)

smharm said:
Fly out of DSM or OMA depends on the flight
Click to expand...

With SWA buying out TRS, your options at KDSM just got bigger, depending on they routes. So that 2 hour drive to KOMA may not be an issue anymore.

BL.
 
To the OP: It just boils down to one thing: Good ol' American ingenuity over French.. :p

Anyways, I would feel the same in ether brand of jet. I would be more concerned over the age/hours of the aircraft than anything else...

These bargain carriers here in town have some 20+ year old hammy down MD-80s that I wouldn't trust my dog to be carried in. I believe one got diverted back not too long ago for some kind of mechanical failure.
 
Macintosh-HD said:
These bargain carriers here in town have some 20+ year old hammy down MD-80s that I wouldn't trust my dog to be carried in. I believe one got diverted back not too long ago for some kind of mechanical failure.
Click to expand...

That is pretty common in the industry...... American has one of if not the the most oldest fleets in the industry. It's not uncommon to have aircraft you fly on be 15-20+ years old and still in good working condition.

One of the biggest reasons why aircraft are retired is due to regulations than age. Cargo companies will be retiring their 727 fleet simply because it doesn't meet new noise restrictions and not due to their age.
 
quagmire said:
One of the biggest reasons why aircraft are retired is due to regulations than age. Cargo companies will be retiring their 727 fleet simply because it doesn't meet new noise restrictions and not due to their age.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I read an article on the 'hush kits' and how they don't cut as much noise as a loss in power, and are expensive, etc...

I recently flew a Delta MD80 that looked practically new on the inside. The outside was spotless too, but apparently it's more expensive to redo the heads because the FC head was ancient! Plus the floor was sticky... ICK.

I like the Airbus heads better than the Boeing ones. They just seem to be better thought out and nicer.

Yes, every plane seems to be different depending on the airline flying it. Check out SeatGuru.com to see how the plane(s) you may be flying in are setup for the particular airline(s). They control quite a lot of the interior layout when they order them. It really depends what they want...

RJ's are disgusting. I've heard stories of people flying in Europe and other countries where the RJ's are clean and comfortable but here in the states they are so close to being cattle cars (just add straw on the floor) and are practically contagious! I flew one in/out of ORD and on the outbound it was raining. The attendant apologized for the rain inside the plane and someone quipped that it should probably rain all over the inside because 'this crate needs a damn good cleaning' to which several passengers laughed and nodded their heads. Some are so gross. I read of a pilot who couldn't get the flight service crew to clean up puke from a previous passenger and they had to leave with the puke still all over the seats and floor. NICE...

I'm not ready to do the 787 yet. With that new carbon fibre skin, I want to see a lot more cycles on them before I'll trust one.

Flying has gotten so bad that if I could drive somewhere, I'll do it. for years I always got the pat down at our local airport. EVERY STINKING TIME! Not so bad now for some reason...

But anyway... First class upgrade in any plane, and it's my favorite...:D
 
I fly airlines pretty infrequently (less than six times a year) but to me the aje of the jet is more important than the manufacturer.

Also, I agree with the poster above about regional jets. They are all equally cramped and horrible. Up here in Alaska I fly from dirt strips in beat-up Cessnas and I still find them more comfortable than regional jets.
 
quagmire said:
That is pretty common in the industry...... American has one of if not the the most oldest fleets in the industry. It's not uncommon to have aircraft you fly on be 15-20+ years old and still in good working condition.

One of the biggest reasons why aircraft are retired is due to regulations than age. Cargo companies will be retiring their 727 fleet simply because it doesn't meet new noise restrictions and not due to their age.
Click to expand...

Very true.. That is one of the reason why UAL put in those orders for the A350 and B787. The B787s were to replace a couple of their B772s, while the A350 is to replace the B744s. While hard to believe, their 772s are coming up on 20 years old (The B777 launched in '95, and UAL was the launch customer).

BL.
 
bradl said:
Very true.. That is one of the reason why UAL put in those orders for the A350 and B787. The B787s were to replace a couple of their B772s, while the A350 is to replace the B744s. While hard to believe, their 772s are coming up on 20 years old (The B777 launched in '95, and UAL was the launch customer).

BL.
Click to expand...

Why are they replacing their B744's with the 787's competitor? Why not just stick with the 787 to replace both? Or hell, buy the B748.....

It's a shame Boeing cancelled the smaller B783.... We would finally have had a decent 757 replacement......
 
The A320 is a pretty good plane but it wasn't until just VERY recently it could fly non-stop on transcontinental USA flights in both directions year-round, thanks to improvements that allowed for more fuel capacity without sacrificing carrying capacity. That was the advantage of the 737-700 Southwest Airlines flies: the plane could fly between Los Angeles and most East Coast cities year-round even before Southwest retrofitted the planes with winglets to lower fuel burn on such long flights even further.

But now the upcoming A320neo (New Engine Option) will allow the A320 to truly fly USA transcon flights on a full load year-round. :)
 
quagmire said:
Why are they replacing there B744's with the 787's competitor? Why not just stick with the 787 to replace both? Or hell, buy the B748.....
Click to expand...

They were using the B787 as a replacement for the B762s they have in their fleet. They are much older in comparison, and its direct competitor (A330) wasn't going to cut it.

And I was wrong. They are using the A350 to replace the B772, not the B744. They are keeping the B744s in their fleet until they either evaluate the B789, the B748i, or A388.

It's a shame Boeing cancelled the smaller B783.... We would finally have had a decent 757 replacement......
Click to expand...

For the world, that would have worked, especially with Japan. The 783 would have been a great replacement for the B74SPs that are still running. Boeing is now betting on the 'more frequency with smaller aircraft' model over packing everyone into one aircraft. Nowadays, apparently the smaller aircraft more often is more fuel efficient than the heavier aircraft with everyone in at once.

IIRC, the B739 was to be a near replacement for the B757. That isn't working too well..

BL.
 
bradl said:
IIRC, the B739 was to be a near replacement for the B757. That isn't working too well..
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Sort of..... More and more transcon flights are shifting to the B738 away from the 757 and 777.... If I ever fly from the east coast to west coast, I will try my hardest to get on the 777. I love that aircraft and it is extremely comfortable..... I wouldn't want to be in a 737/A320 for that trip.......
 
quagmire said:
Yes it is. Sort of..... More and more transcon flights are shifting to the B738 away from the 757 and 777.... If I ever fly from the east coast to west coast, I will try my hardest to get on the 777. I love that aircraft and it is extremely comfortable..... I wouldn't want to be in a 737/A320 for that trip.......
Click to expand...

I wouldn't either..

But I could have sworn that the B739 was what was going to replace the B757, as it was stretched enough to have the capacity for it. Or to be more specific, the B752. The B739 definitely wouldn't replace the B753. but it is the -700 and -800 models that are making more of a replacement for the B752 than the -900.

I've done that transcon flight in a B738.. KPHL-KIAH-KLAS, as well as KLAS-KBOS-KLAS in an A320. While I liked the pitch and legroom on the A320, having the ability to walk around a bit more would help.

BL.
 
smithrh said:
Pay attention to what Quagmire is telling you.

I tend to think that Airbus has a design philosophy which looks at the people in the cockpit as system managers, while Boeing treats the people in the cockpit as pilots.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would agree with this assessment. When the A210 was first designed, the throttles weren't supposed to move. Honestly I'm not sure how that was supposed to work. :) The trottles do move, but are placed in a detent in auto mode and can be moved manually in manual mode. However, I can't understand why Boeing still insists on putting yokes in airplanes vs joysticks, considering there is absolutely no reason for a column between your legs, due to fly by wire. I imagine most pilots would be thrilled to have a joystick to play with. :)

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kHa3WNerjU

Airbus decided that if a plane was gear down and below a certain speed and altitude, it was going to land - so it prevented the pilots from pulling up and away.

Ask yourself - have the engineers really thought of everything in advance?
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. Referring to the Paris Airshow crash, the Airbus Systems allowed the pilots to fly the airplane into landing realm based on the aircraft being in the landing configuration. At no time did it prevent them from going around, a standard maneuver also known as a rejected landing. Unfortunately while the pilots were sight seeing, they suddenly found themselves in the tree tops and it was a bit late to go around although it sounds like they tried (engine spooling up sound). The reason the aircraft did not warn them is because they met the requirements for landing and the plane was not smart enough to avoid the trees...
 
Last edited:
Huntn said:
Yes, I would agree with this assessment. However, I can't understand why Boeing still insists on putting yokes in airplanes vs joysticks, considering there is absolutely no reason for a column between your legs, due to fly by wire. I imagine most pilots would be thrilled to have a joystick to play with. :)
Click to expand...

The yoke does provide feedback to pilots. Something I would imagine would be hard to replicate in a joystick....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back