Buscar :  

Entrada de los miembros

Crear tu cuenta
 

| Inicio >> Foro >> AIRBUS OR BOEING?

Foro sobre la aviación civil

AIRBUS OR BOEING?

Volver al index del foro - Enviar un mensaje en este tema

  Mensaje de Arkangel07 - Enviado el 09 Aug 10:29  
 
This is just a thread to hear your opinions and experiences about/on Airbuses and Boeings, since in many other threads you started a discussion like that even though that wasn't the subject. No argues, just a discussion. Like, which one do you like better/ think has better chances in future, also looking at how they stand today. Discuss.
Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de FLX - Enviado el 09 Aug 12:18  
 
Embraer will hv best chance in sales success in the future with their E-jets. It's cheaper than B or A and has similarly advanced tech.

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de SJR - Enviado el 09 Aug 15:16  
 
I agree that Embraer is likely to be a third player in the future although i doubt it can reach the size of Airbus and Boeing. Only in the last few years had there only been two major league manufacturers and i suspect that Embraer will become the third company rather like McDonnell Douglas were before

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de EI-DUB - Enviado el 10 Aug 0:31  
 
and what about the long haul market? thats where embraer would need to make up a lot of ground, if they want to become a major player. however at the moment boeing seem to be the major player long haul wise, just look at how successful the 787 has been for example.

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de Werkur737 - Enviado el 10 Aug 0:50  
 
EI-DUB, you got a point, Embraer doesn't wants untill now to competes with Major players like Boeing and Airbus. i've been already on Embraer factory, when in Brazil, during delivered of first ERJ170/190 and the press release was pointed that for now they do not want to fight with major players. They market share is from 78 to 118 pax for E jets.
The 135/140/145 line is still in production but with only a few of orders, now with orders for the executive market.
Embraer, already the thrid player, do not have a idea what is the big jet, like 787 of Boeing or A388 of Airbus.
AIRFLEETS.NET STAFF
PHOTO SCREENER
Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de captain bill - Enviado el 10 Aug 7:37  
 
Airbus are very adventurous in many ways and I think A-380 is an example of that but also the 787 is way beyond anything else in it's technical construction and so we could go on about this technicallity and that and compare the two but that is the job of the buyers as they have stacks of confidential information that we don't have.

How technically knowledgable are we to make judgements on which manufacturer will be the most successfull ?

Do we know what delivered price the airline will pay for the number of aircraft desired ?

Do we know how the manufacturers will juggle production slots around to make sure each airline who has ordered will get their first one or two aircraft on the disired delivery date ?

I think the answer to these and lots of other questions that will determin the success or failure of any manufacturer are not known by us and it will be the airlines that will make the final outcome known.

I like both manufacturers aircraft and the flying experience of all types (not so sure if I would like to fly in A-380) and hope that both do well in the future.

Embraer have found a welthy little or not so little market place for their product and will continue to sell in it for many years to come.

When BA inherited Bcal part of their inheritance was
A-320s. Now many of us felt that these aircraft would only be around for a little while but no they are still in the fleet and many others ( 319. 320 and 321s) have joined what was a Boeing based fleet so it is so difficult to predict who will buy what from whom.





Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de DEMIS - Enviado el 10 Aug 8:18  
 
I will absolutely agree with Captain Bill !
The future for both manufacturers in any way looks bright , but we lack so much information , mainly in final marketing approach and off-sets involved in every , big or small , order , so that prediction of the future is rather obscure .
Besides do not forget the new Airbus A-320 production line that will be come operational shortly in China , which with no doubt will furnish and cover China's massive internal flying needs .
I think finally that both manufacturers , adding Embraer in their own selected part of the market , will give us the pleasure of flying in a more comfortable , environmentally friendly way and above all with more safety .
By the way within the next ten days , I will be traveling at least four times and most possibly , all of them will be with Airbus A-320 series planes.

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de FLX - Enviado el 10 Aug 8:19  
 
Correction on my earlier comment - 'E' will enjoy the biggest sales success in the mkt segment where E-jet competes because its MUCH MUCH MUCH cheaper than similar(But not the same capability) products fm 'A' or 'B'. Take a look:

1. Approx. base price per unit in US$
E195: <35mil
A318: >=55mil
736(737-600): >=49mil

2. Max pax 1-class:
E195: 122
A318: 117
736: 132

3. Max range in km:
E195-LR: 3,334
A318: 5,950
736: 5,648

4. Max speed in Mach:
E195=A318=736: 0.82

5. Weight Empty in kg:
E195: 28,970
A318: 39,300
736: 36,378

6. MTOW: Roughly=Empty+Max(Fuel+Payload):
E195: 50,790
A318: 68,000
736: 66,000

Ok, let's say I'm starting-up a new small LCC that only offers Y-class and must select only 1 type fm E195, A318 or 736 for my new fleet. 1st of all, I pay less $ for 3 E195s than for 2 A318s and since both hv practically the same pax capacity, the Airbus seems out of question. 2nd, total $ for every 5 units of 736 is the same as 7 E195s....that's like buy 5 get 2 free! Oh well, E195 carries 10 less pax than 736...but wait a minute, I can only sell 660 seats fm the 5 Boeings but can sell 854 seats fm 7 Embraers....hmm sounds like a great deal fm the Brazilians! But can E195 fit my op plans?

In U.S./Canada, it has enough range to serve any 2 cities on the W. coast(e.g. YVR-LAX) or E. coast(e.g. BOS-MCO) and can cross the entire continent with 1 stop....may be I can beat the WN(Southwest) empire and its huge 737NG imperial fleet! In Europe, E195 can reach as far as IST(Istanbul), SVO(Moscow) or CMN(Casablanca-N.Africa) fm DUB non-stop(Dublin)....hmm, may be I'll hunt down the mightly FR(Ryannair) beast infested by thousands of 737NGs. In Asia-Pacific, E195 range covers any 2 cities within each of these regions and in many cases, between these regions: Most of China , all of East Australia, all of Southeast Asia, all of Japan+Korea, all of India.....I better get into these mkts now before hundreds of A320s already ordered by AK(AirAsia) and JQ/3K(Jetstar) flood all airports in these fast-growing regions.

A318 and B736 hv a lot more lower deck cargo capability than E195 but since this is a LCC, that's not a priority for making $. On the other hand, because the E195 design is much lighter than 736 or A318, it'll enjoy lower landing+other airport fees and may be even better economics.

In terms of customer comfort+convenience, unlike A318 or 736, every pax on E195 will enjoy either window or aisle seat. Seat width will also be wider than anything in the A320 or 737NG family. Overhead bin size & aisle height won't be far fm a 736 or A318. There is also no diff between A318, B736 and E195 in speed. Wonderful, pax will be happier in E195 than A318 or 736.

So I should invest in 7 units of E195s to start my new airline - about the same as the cost of just 1 brand new 77W(777-300ER)

I wonder how many airlines serving short-range mkts in the world arrive @ the same conclusion as me regarding aircraft choice....



Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de Werkur737 - Enviado el 10 Aug 9:52  
 
FLX, i missed the A318 and B736 to analysis, I was saying about the long-haul aircraft, but forgot to mention, again you did a great comment.
AIRFLEETS.NET STAFF
PHOTO SCREENER
Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de SJR - Enviado el 10 Aug 12:53  
 
Well if they can make a more economic small aircraft it would be entirelty possible that they could do the same on the long haul market. In terms of the LCC choice it would all depend on the range that the carrier needed. This is the reason that JetBlue use A320's and E195's. They see that the E195 is slightly more efficient in terms of fuel economy and landing taxes but need the extra range and capacity of the A320-200 on several routes.

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de B340 - Enviado el 10 Aug 13:07  
 
First, the long haul. Embraer lacks the long-haul aircraft in its production line totally. While Airbus and Boeing are like this:
Max. range:
A340-500= 16,600km
-600= 14,260km

B747-400= 12,200km

So, 4,400 km is a very long distance. It makes difference. Airbus wins in pure distance race.


Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de FLX - Enviado el 13 Aug 8:31  
 
Small size/Short range is the biggest/fastest-growing segment of the airliner mkt so the lack of long-haul product in E now won't affect their rapid growth(Possibly faster than B or A) at all. Also, think about this: E does not compete with A and B in larger/long-haul mkt. However, E does compete with A and B in smaller/short-range mkt AND WINNING. Ever since E190/195 came out, they just simply dominates over A318/736.

B340:
No idea why and rather strange that U compare a 345 with a 744(Diff generation tech, capability, economics, etc.) but left out its most current direct competitor 77L(777-200LR). May be simply based on total # of engines but nothing else? May be 777 family is little known in your part of the world? Anyway, I can do a comparison similar to yours and arrive @ a totally opposite conclusion:

77L=17,600km
77W(777-300ER)=14,685km

388(A380-800)=15,200km

2,400km is also a very long distance. Only diff is that unlike the 744 design being a lot older than 345, the 388 EIS AFTER 77L. Boeing wins in pure distance race with a design that's a bit 'older'(Again, same generation tech though).

BTW, the max range U've stated for 345 is about right but only for the 345HGW(High Gross Weight) variant EIS this yr. Basic 345 only has max range of about 16,000km. Also, pls note the longest range 747 currently in service is the 744ER variant(Max range: 14,205km) and yes, 2,395km is still a very long distance:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_400er_prod.html


Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de aaaron3 - Enviado el 13 Aug 10:54  
 
I think B and A are approximatelly the same in max range but FLX you do seem to be a Boeing fan, don't you?

i'm not complaining about it but i think 17600 Km is a bit too much. i mean it is about 19 hours of non stop flight...who needs this?

anyway i'm not a Airbus fan i like A just as well B.but i think Airbus is safetier than Boeing, thats why i like A a bit more than B.Airbus haven no accident because of technical problem while Boeing has lots of them.
and thats also a important thing

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de captain bill - Enviado el 13 Aug 11:54  
 
aaaron3

You are starting to scare me as one who has to fly Boeing for a living. Can you please tell us all something about these lots of technical problems that have brought down boeing jetliners.

How many A-320s do you know of that have been W/O due to technical problems with fly by wire / computer problems ?

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de FLX - Enviado el 13 Aug 13:13  
 
captain bill:
Once again, U've beaten me to be the 1st to ask aaaron3 about what sources this  Airbus haven no accident because of technical problem while Boeing has lots of them  statement is based upon. I still vividly remember this JetBlue A320 nose landing gear incident earlier this yr....spectacular fireworks! If that's not a tech problem, I don't know what is.

Interesting U mentioned about W/O re A320 tech problems. I recall I heard about this quite a few times fm various aviation media but rarely for the 737NGs. I always wonder why they keep saying 737NGs hv higher dispatch reliability(Except Boeing's own website of course). I used to think how can this be statistically possible since both are pretty much similar in terms of tech design(Except FBW on A320)......unless Boeing has a PR team infinitely superior to Airbus in covering-up this kind of things which I highly doubt.

1 last personal question: may I know what type of Boeing U typically fly for a living?

aaaron3:
Thank you for branding me as a B fan but I'll be equally happy if you brand me as an A fan. Let me remind U my comment was about a  pure distance race  originally raised by B340 and I only tried to clarify some probably incorrect statement re max range performance by products fm A and B. It's kinda funny if U think I'm a B fan because I stated its plane can go further. Pls correct me if there's any error in my stated max range figures.

Is 345's 16,700km a bit too much? May I know how do U draw the line for 'just right'? Want to know who needs this?  Plenty of biz travelers today will pay nearly double the airfare just to skip:
1) 2-3hrs transit time
2) Disembark/reboarding trouble @ an intermediate/stopover point
3) Risk of traffic delay @ 1 more airport
so they can get to the meetings and return home to see their kids faster. The companies I work for in the past 10 yrs are perfect but typical examples.

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de aaaron3 - Enviado el 13 Aug 14:43  
 
captain bill/FLX

yes, i can remeber the jet blue incident early in this year.
in the past, there were quite few boeing thechnical accidents like that TNT 737 where the main gear didn't came out, and that United Airlines 747 where a few people died because the cargo door opened at cruising altitude because it was wrongly
designed, and the TWA flight 800, everybody has died onboard and that was also a technical problem!!!and don't forget there were no victimes in the jet blue incident!!!


Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de aaaron3 - Enviado el 13 Aug 14:52  
 
FLX:

why did you compare the range of 777 and A380?
let us compare 747 and A380...

there is no doubt about is 777 more economic than A340...of course it is!!!A340 has four engines, while 777 has two...

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de aaaron3 - Enviado el 13 Aug 14:57  
 
and i'm sorry i didn't wanted to wright Airbus has no incidents...i wanted to wright: it is not tipical for Airbus to have problems or accidents

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de FLX - Enviado el 14 Aug 9:36  
 
aaaron3:
Only 1 reason that I compared the max ranges of 77L and 388:
B340's comment dated 13Aug when he/she compared the max ranges of 345 with 744 and DECLARED Airbus wins in pure distance race(These are B340's exact words, not mine!).

Considering all my comments in the past on this website, do U truly believe I DON'T know 77L and 388 target totally diff mkt segments and therefore comparing them hv little value??? Exactly like 345 vs 744(Well, not exactly, because 1 pair is in the same generaton tech but the other pair is not), I failed to see any point in such comparison. However, since B340 brought it forward, may be he/she saw something I couldn't see and therefore I could possibly learn something new fm B340.

Now, may I know why U didn't ask B340 for the reason he/she compared 345 with 744 but U focused on asking me why I compared 77L with 388? U accepted the 345 vs 744(When A has an advantage) comparison by B340 but didn't accepted my 77L vs 388(When B has an advantage) comparison???

************************
Obviously, until assembly of the 1st 748i(747-8 Intercontinental)& therefore design 'freeze', we can only compare its prelim/targeted specs with 388. Other than this, I see little point in comparing current 744 with the 388 due to 18 yrs diff in EIS....what's the point? Because both are jumbos quads(4 engines)??? It'll be like comparing A300-600R(EIS 88) with a 787-8(EIS 08)....what's the point? Because both are long-range mid-size twins???

***********************
Normally, over many well-established routes, twin jets hv @ least slightly better economics than any quad jets of similar size. However, this isn't absolute. Remember, twins are governed by ETOPS rules. Sometimes, large twins like 77W aren't allowed to fly the shortest distance route because it's over huge area without any suitable emergency landing sites(e.g. 77W can never land safely @ a tiny 1000m landing strip). This means more fuel burn+time costs. In contrast, a 346 hv no such restrictions & is technically allowed to fly over anywhere.

Thanks for sharing 3 tech-related accident cases re Boeings. U may be equally interested in a few more similar examples where U will find 1) fire in the wing(a la TWA flight 800), 2) landing gear malfunctions(a la TNT 737) and oh, don't forget there were victims:

26 June 1988 - Air France Flight 296(An A320 family) crashed into the tops of trees beyond the runway on a demonstration flight at Habsheim, France. 3 passengers were killed.

14 February 1990 - Indian Airlines Flight 605, an A320-231 carrying 146 people crashed on its final approach to Bangalore Airport, killing 88 passengers and 4 crew members.

14 September 1993 - Lufthansa Flight 2904, in Warsaw an A320-211 coming from Frankfurt am Main with 70 people crashed into an earth wall at the end of the runway. A fire started in the left wing area and penetrated into the passenger cabin. The copilot and a passenger died.

23 August 2000 - Gulf Air Flight 072, an A320-212 crashed into the Persian Gulf on approach to Bahrain Airport. All 143 passengers and crew on board lost their lives.

3 May 2006 - Armavia Flight 967, an A320-211 crashed into the Black Sea on second approach to Sochi Airport, Russia. All 113 passengers and crew on board lost their lives.

17 July 2007 - TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 3054, an A320-233 was not able to stop while landing at Congonhas International Airport in São Paulo, Brazil. The cause of the accident is currently under investigation by Brazilian and international authorities. All 187 passengers and crew were killed with further reported fatalities on the ground.

Seven incidents(All A320 family) of nose gear malfunction, including JetBlue Airways Flight 292

On 30 June 1994, an A330 on a test flight crashed shortly after take-off from Toulouse, killing all onboard

An A340-311 of Virgin Atlantic Airways was forced to land with the right main gear retracted on 5 November 1997 at London Heathrow Airport. When landing, the left main gear collapsed. All 100 passengers were unharmed and the aircraft was repaired within 28 days.

The landing gear of an A340-211 of Sabena collapsed during landing at Brussels Airport on 29 August 1998. The right horizontal stabilizer was destroyed.

There're more examples but don't worry, U should feel safe about modern Airbus products. This kinda of incidents are extremely rare and the same can be said for modern Boeing products. But I'll venture to say B jets hv had more tech related incidents than A. Statistically, it should because B's got more out there especially older ones. A produced no jets before 74 and really only achieved a significant share of the world mkt in the past 15-20 yrs.

On the other, it's interesting that all Boeings in your 3 cases cited hv no Airbus equivalents i.e.:
TNT 737: It's actually a 733SF which is a freighter design and there's nothing similar fm the A320 family
UA 747+TWA flight 800: Both are actually 741s(EIS 69) and Airbus had nothing in this size segment until 346 EIS in 02. Is it really logical to compare safety in product designs that are over 30 yrs apart?

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de aaaron3 - Enviado el 15 Aug 11:39  
 
there is only 1 reason why i like B340's comparison more than yours:
A340-500 has a Maximal take off weight(MTOW)of 365 tonnes,
and 747-400 has 377tonnes...that is almost the same...even the ER has 412 tonnes...
777 has an MTOW of 299,380 Kg
A380's MTOW is 560 tonnes...so that is the reason why 777 can go farther on than A340-500 or A380-800.


Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de aaaron3 - Enviado el 15 Aug 12:40  
 
I can doubt that all of those accidents were because of thecnical problems...for example the TAM crash was because the Weather was very bad so the plane tuched down too fast and the runway was very slippery and the aircraft couldt not stop...
What do you mean by writeing   it's interesting that all Boeings in your 3 cases hv no Airbus equivalents?  do you mean that it was easier for Airbus to make safe Aircrafts because Boeing came first???
we can argue about that what would happen if there were Airbus equivalents but i think thats not the way we can doubt about this topic.

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de FLX - Enviado el 15 Aug 15:44  
 
aaaron3:
1st, MTOW data U've stated are mostly wrong. In kg, they should be:

345Basic /345HGW Variant: 372,000 /380,000
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a330a340/a340-500/specifications.html

744 /744ER: 396,890 /412,770 (744 Domestic is 378,182 though)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/specs.html

77L: 347,450 (772ER is 297,560kg though)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_lrproduct.html

2nd, MTOW is not the only reason to determine max range. There're other key design factors such as empty weight, payload/fuel, total efficiency of all engines+sytems, etc. If a low MTOW is the key reason for long range, why does 77L has much longer range but still much higher payload+pax than A300-600R, both being a twin?

3rd, MTOW is not that important for the Airlines. Airplane economic performance such as max payload+pax, max range, min fuel burn, min maintenance cost, min landing fees, etc. are.

Finally, I don't know why U bring in another factor such as MTOW when I repeated many times that B340 comment was clearly only focused on whether A or B has the longest range product.

*********************
So U already declared the recent TAM accident was due purely to weather even though the official investigation is still on going. May I know fm what source U get this info from? Also, what U said earlier about A hv no fatal accident victims due to tech problems was an incorrect statement even though U felt that's the way it is.

manufacturers(A and B and their thousands of subcontractors) can of course design/build safer aircraft types after learning fm the past. This is call tech progress and has been happening since the Wright Brothers build the 1st one. Equally important, there are many many more 20+ yrs Boeing designs still operating out there than Airbuses at the times of the accidents. Statistically, tech accident rate(Incident per aircraft produced) related to B should be higher and A should hv lower rate even if the designs are exactly equal in terms of safety. In contrast, whenever we see a newer tech immaturely applied, that tech will hv a higher chance(Just a chance, not always) to lead to problems. That's why it took almost 10 yrs for the authorities to slowing grant clearances for twins designed for long range ops(e.g. A310, 767) to actually operate long range routes so airlines+manufacturers hv a chance to gain experience through ops & testing.

Come on, these're pretty basic stuff.

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de aaaron3 - Enviado el 16 Aug 9:42  
 
FLX

First i must say sorry about my wrong MTOW data...i got them from airliners.net

still the payload of A340-500/600 is bigger than the payload of the 777-200LR but as you can read in my earlier comments i'm not doubting that 777-200LR is more economic than A340-500/600...but still it can only hold 301 passngers, 139 less than A340-500/600 can.

i know that the TAM accident is not 100% clear yet but a day earlier another 2 planes also slipped off the runway and at that day the weather was abnormal to land...i get my informations from the news...may i now why you get the TAM accident to your list of Airbus incidents due to technical problems?????have you decleared the accident???



Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de aaaron3 - Enviado el 16 Aug 10:16  
 
I' ve looked after all of those accident and i find: (these are not my words, paste them from airdisasters.com and other similar pages)

Gulf Air Flight 072:


The accident investigation concluded that the cause of the disaster was pilot error.


Armavia 967:


The fatal crash of Armavia Flight 967 was a Controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) accident that happened due to collision with the water while conducting a climbing manoeuvre after an aborted approach to Sochi airport at night with weather conditions below the established minima for the landing runway.

Indian Airlines 605

The official verdict of the crash was the  Failure of the pilots to realize the gravity of the situation and respond immediately towards proper action of moving the throttles, even after the radio altitude call-outs of  Four hundred ,  Three hundred  and  Two hundred  feet, in spite of knowing that the plane was in idle/open descent mode. 

Lufthansa 2904

The cause of the accident were incorrect decisions and actions of the flight crew taken when the information about windshear at the approach to the runway was received.

A330 test flight

There were many reasons for the crash. One such reason is pilot error: specifically, the Captain having too many things to do in such a short space of time and the pilots setting the altitude too low for such a potentially dangerous test. In addition the autopilot may not have been working correctly, potentially because the crew were not fully aware of how to use it. It is also claimed that the autopilot was using experimental software which was being tested for Category III approaches. The autopilot was also in control of speed and angle of attack and it is believed that this vital part was malfunctioning.


so i think these accidents were not a 100% because of technical problems...only the Virgin Atlantic and the Jet Blue...but there were no victimes...

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de FLX - Enviado el 16 Aug 14:29  
 
aaaron3
Great job(I mean it) re your research on the incidents of A aircrafts. I agree(I mean it) with U that not they're not 100% tech design related while the 3 cases of B aircrafts U cited are. So, I guess B continue to design+build unsafe products today and all these airlines now ordered 700+ units of 787 family or ordered hundreds of 737NG family or order so many 777 family hv made a big mistake or disregard safety by not selecting A products instead. Anyone not buying A products must be out of their mind or just plain greedy....

Max payload+pax+fuel(Max weight of each of these 3 components will vary according to mission requirements but the total weight of all 3 can't exceed this total max) can be roughly calculated as: MTOW - Empty weight. Here are the results in kg:

345: 380,000(MTOW) - 170,400(Empty) =209,600
77L: 347,450(MTOW) - 148,181(Empty) =199,269

346: 380,000(MTOW) - 177,000(Empty) =203,000
77W: 351,534(MTOW) - 166,881(Empty) =184,653

Diffs in payload+pax+fuel of the 2 pairs are between 5-10%. So yes, we can say 345/6 can carry more than 77L/W but I won't call that a big diff. Definitely not enough diff to say that they're in diff categories and not the most direct competitive pairs in the mkt today.

Re pax capacity, I don't know how U get 440 pax into a typical 3-class 345 or even the bigger 346. Again, here are the correct typical 3-class pax data:

345/77L: 313/301
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a330a340/a340-500/specifications.html
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_lrproduct.html

346/77W: 380/365
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a330a340/a340-600/

Clearly, diff in either pair is tiny @ about 4% or less and become insignificant as A and B surely hv diff ways to define what is a 'typical' 3-class. Only way to tell which 1 can really carry more seats is to find 1 airlines that operates both types now. This is rare but I've found AC has both 345 and 77L deployed on the same route(HKG-YYZ) and configured both in 2 classes:

345: C42/Y225
77L: C42/Y228

Small diff on the surface. However, 345 has the older & smaller C class seats and 77L has the newer & bigger ones(Part of XM Project):
http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/

Therefore, it's safe to say 77L has @ least a bit more cabin floor space for seats than 345.

On a diff topic, I find the 'typical' 3-class numbers provided by A or B are based on out-dated F and C class seat design+size and typically does not reflect the bigger F, C or even Y class seats used by the majority of airlines today. e.g., in a 3-class layout, NH's 77W has only 247 seats, EK's 345 has only 258 seats, VS's 346 has only 309 seats(No F class but has premium Y). Some 4class 744 of NH only hv 287 seats which is much much less than the 416 stated by B! 3-class 388 has 525 seats according to A but SQ will hv only 471 seats and 4class QF 388 will hv only 450 seats!

May be pax are getting fatter today than 20 yrs ago.....

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de aaaron3 - Enviado el 16 Aug 15:35  
 
FLX
your research is just fantastic!!!!

i can beleve that 777-200LR is a very economic plane,even more economic than A340's(I've never dubt this) and i think thats the reason why Airbus will finish the production of A340s as soon as A350 is ready.

 Anyone not buying A products must be out of their mind or just plain greedy ....

i did not mean that!!!!I've just written that I think Airbus have a better safety record than Boeing, and still i think that is true.
I have never said that Airbus is better than Boeing.
anyway i agree whit you about the comparisons of 777-200LR/300ER and A340-500/600

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de FLX - Enviado el 17 Aug 7:15  
 
A rough comparison purely in terms of total orders received upto now for some comparable(i.e. Closest size+performance+economics+tech) widebody(pax models) pairs of A or B:

332(421 units) > 764ER(38 units)
333(306 units) > 772(88 units)
343(252 units including the 342 variant that has very small orders and much lower economics than 343) < 772ER(430 units)
345(33 units) < 77L(46 units)
346(108 units) < 77W(284 units)

Fm the above, we can see A is more successful in medium-long range products with about 250-300 seats(Typical 3-class). B is more successful in extra-ultra long range products with about 300-375 seats.

Some interesting observations & my theory:
1. Even though 333 retained some key elements of the A300-600R design(Older generation tech), it's still more successful than 772 which was basically a completely brand-new design. To a lesser extent, I see similar situation in the sales of 737NG vs A320 family.
2. I suspect 333 has slightly better op economics than 772 primarily due to much lower empty weight.
3. Listed price of a 333 is lower than a 772.
4. ALL airlines that hv 772 also operate other longer range/bigger 777 family. I suspect the ma in reason they selected 772 instead of 333 is to maximize fleet commonality. In contrast, many 332/333 airlines do not operate the longer range/bigger 343/345/346 in the same family - proof of how good the 333 is as a stand-alone product.
5. Seems like the biggest sales in the widebody mkt has been the segment where 343/772ER sit. A segment of about 300 seats+14,000km range, covering many major city pairs of Western Europe <-> Far East Asia <-> N.America
6. My attempt(Just by personal feel, no formal references) to define 'range' categories roughly in km:
Medium range: 7,000-11,000(e.g. A300-600R,333,772,764ER)
Long range: 11,000-13,000(e.g. 742,743,763ER,332)
Extra-long range: 13,000-16,000(e.g. 744,343,772ER,346,77W,388,788)
Ultra-long range: 16,000 or above(e.g. 345,77L)

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de Boeing Boy Nat - Enviado el 17 Aug 19:42  
 
I would choose Boeing. The reason being is because they have more experience of making aircraft. They have been around longer. Also because of the aircraft choice. I would pick a Boeing 787 instead of an Airbus model. Because it is the most economical aircraft around :-)

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de aaaron3 - Enviado el 17 Aug 19:53  
 
Boeing Boy Nat

I agree whith you about the experiences of Boeing.


isn't the A380 and the A350 will be more economic than 787?I've heard about that somewhere...if not i'm sorry...

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de stewart - Enviado el 19 Aug 11:50  
 
Looking at the short haul arena, Embraer have been discussed, but what about Bombardier? Surely with regional aircraft 50-100 seats they are a serious competitor with Embraer.

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de B340 - Enviado el 19 Aug 13:30  
 
I'll tell you all why I compared B747 with the A345. It's because I find them being the stronghold of their own companies, at least for the long-haul aircraft.

P.S. KING, thanks for the Quantas new logo photo..

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de B340 - Enviado el 19 Aug 13:34  
 
P.P.S. aaaron3, are you a pilot?
P.P.P.S. why shouldn't a pilot prefer another aircraft manufacturer?
aaaron3, you're from Hungary, right?
If you're working (for example) in Malev, and they don't fly Airbuses, but you still have the right to chose the aircraft you find better overall.

And guys, I don't know where you are all from, but I think it's normal for Americans to find Boeing better, and for Europeans to find Airbus better.. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de SJR - Enviado el 19 Aug 20:45  
 
Well i have only flown on two A300's and the rest were all Boeing. On the whole i prefered the Boeing machines but that was because the A300 was tatty and old. This was again the case on all three of the B733's i have been on. The DC9 is also nice but i dont remember that much of that flight to be honest since it was a long time ago.

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de ferncliff - Enviado el 20 Aug 3:07  
 
As a frequent flyer both internationally and domestically in the Asia Pacific reason I have some comments to make from the economy passenger’s perspective.
For some time I have preferred to fly Airbus as opposed to the Boeing product. The main reason for this is comfort. The A320 has more room that the 737. The A330/340 has a better cabin layout than the 777 with the passenger never being more than one seat off the aisle. The US carrier’s 2-5-2 layout on their 777’s is a nightmare for us real travellers up the back.
And all Airbus products are significantly quieter that the Boeing equivalent. So quiet, you can even hear the distant sound of a toilet flushing.
We all love the Jumbo’s. They are the old faithfuls with plenty of room to go for a walk. But these days, they are so noisy.
It sounds like the 787 will begin to fix this problem for Boeing. I can’t wait to fly in that and the A380


Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de FLX - Enviado el 20 Aug 5:26  
 
aaaron3:
Comparing individual variants of A350 family and 787 family that hv similar range+capacity(i.e. Similar mission profile), I speculate(Can only speculate as Airbus can only provide rough performance targets @ this early stage re A350 project) economics for these competitive pairs will be roughly equal as both will belong to the same overall generation tech(e.g. Extensive use of CFRP+Engine performance):
788(787-8) vs Nothing similar fm A
789(787-9) vs 358(A350-800)
787-10(Not officially launched yet) vs 359(A350-900)
Nothing similar fm B vs A350-1000

If only talking about the variant with the best economics fm A or B, A350-1000(3-class 350+ seats) should hv a clear edge in terms of economics than anything in the 787 family. Of course, this is purely due to significantly bigger size/pax capacity(Biggest variant in a family typically has the best economics) than the biggest known 787 variant(i.e. 787-10).....Rumors of a '787-11' to compete directly with A350-1000 hv been floating around some aviation forums but Boeing mentioned absolutely nothing about it so far.

So,  no  &  yes  re A350 hv better economics than 787.

In contrast, I've read fm sources about 388(A380-800) and 788 will hv similar economics. This is highly possible if we look @ some key performance indicators of these 2 models:
Empty weight: 788 is about 40% of 388
MTOW: 788 is about 40% of 388
3-class pax capacity: 788 is about 40% of 388
Max total engine thrust: 788 is about 46% of 388

388's size advantage over 788 to produce good economics is 'cancelled-out' by 788's newer tech advantage(e.g. light- weight design) over 388.
So, 'no' re A380 hv better economics than 787.

stewart:
Bombardier is doing great in the large RJ mkt but not as well as Embraer(Gut feeling, no facts to back it up). It's just that most airlines considering large RJs these days do it becase they're basically looking for a cheaper way to do a job that used to be done with 737/ A320 families. In terms of capability, the larger E-jets today are closer to the smallest 737NG/A320 family than the larger CRJs available today.

B340:
U lost me completely again... What exactly do U mean by  stronghold ??? If U meant sales  stronghold  within Airbus, 345 is pretty dead with only 33 units sold against hundreds sold in other variants within the A330/340 family. If U meant range  stronghold , are U still INCORRECTLY repeating that the 747 family(Any variant including 748i) has longer range than 77L(777-200LR) even though I hv provided the max range data to U on 13Aug? Do U even know 747 and 777 families are produced by the same company?

I hope those Americans who find B better NOT because Bs are American and those Europeans find A better NOT because As are Europeans. Othewise, it'll be just pure ignorance/childish thinking re today's globalization reality. 1st of all, Bs or As ceased to be 'purely' or even 'mainly' American or European long time ago. U can find tons of key components in a B model designed by European contractors and tons of critical parts in an A model designed by American contractors. On top of that, U hv hundreds of suppliers fm other countries working for A or B. e.g. BF Goodrich(American) designed the landing gears+escape slides for A380. Italian Aerospace firms build the 787 tail section. Rolls Royce(European) and GE(American) engines can be ordered for both A380 and 787 families. Finally, regardless of Americans or Europeans, the only meaningful comparison between A and B should be based purely on the merits+value of each design. I strongly believe nationality is no longer a relevant issue.

BTW, I'm neither American nor European and it doesn't matter where I'm from when it comes to learning/admiring the best design/production by any company fm any corner of the globe.

SJR:
Major reason the A300 U were on was tatty & old was mostly like due to factors controlled by the particular airline rather than the manufacturer. I hv been on A300-600R(Thai's) built long time ago but meticulously maintained AND flew on nearly new built 738(Shenzhen Airlines') but with seats+carpet that were dirty & worn-out.

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de Werkur737 - Enviado el 20 Aug 6:56  
 
FLX, you said all, i think 787 is much moderned than the A350 based on A330. No more comments because you already told everything.
AIRFLEETS.NET STAFF
PHOTO SCREENER
Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de FLX - Enviado el 21 Aug 5:42  
 
Werkur737:
Roughly speaking, 787 family will NOT be more modern than the A350 family in terms of tech design. Like I said earlier, they'll be in the same tech generation. The current A350XWB project will share extremely little designs/parts, if at all, with the existing A330/340 family.

I read about a rumored disagreement between ILFC(Potential large customer for A350) and Airbus over 1 key diff in production method between 787 and A350. ILFC insist that the new production method of assembling fuselage fm pre-fabricated 'whole barrels' made with CFRP like the 787 is more advance & efficient(i.e. less weight+construction time+complexity) for A350. On the other hand, Airbus still insist & planned to install CFRP skin panels on metal fuselage frame conventionally for A350(A typical & trusted method industry-wide). So in terms of production method, we may say 787 is slightly more modern than A350.

ferncliff:
In terms of comfort factors controlled by A and B(Not the seat+cabin component contractors) in typical Y-class layout(i.e. Back of the bus, so to speak), my preference depend on which aircraft size category:

Small: A320 vs 737NG
Agreed with U completely. I prefer A320 family over 737 family anytime which isn't surprising due to the wider fuselage width design. In terms of cabin noise level and given similar seat location relative to the engines, I can't feel any diff between A320 and 737NG particularly since both are typically equipped with the same CFM-56 engine family and use same generation cabin insulation tech.

Mid-Large: A330/340 vs 777
Neutral. A330/340 family has seat layout superior to 777 family. 2-5-2 on UA+AA's 777s are absolute hell. The 3-3-3 on CO+DL's 777s is a bit more livable and @ least I get a window even if I'm more than 1 seat fm the aisle but still not as good as A330/340. 777 family has significantly more clearance fm overhead bins+cabin sidewall/windows to my head+shoulder than A330/340 family. It's more comfortable to lean towards a straight sidewall/window on a 777 than the 'curved-inward' ones on a A330/340. In terms of cabin noise level and given similar seat location relative to the engines, I can't detect any diff between 777 family and A330 family. Both are equipped with the same generation tech engines+cabin noise insulation. I could hear toilet flusing sound fm a distance on a 333 of CX as clearly as on a 77W of EK. However, I feel the 777 or A330 cabin a bit QUIETER THAN THE A340 cabin(Probably due to extra engines). The only trip which I felt an A330 significantly quieter than a 777 was when I sat in C-class(Just a few rows behind Door #1) on a 333 and then a few days later sat near the end of Y-class on a 772.

Almost all scheduled pax ops by jumbo nowadays is the 744(747-400) variant designed over 20 yrs ago and EIS in 89. It's almost 'ancient' in terms of engine/sound insulation tech and hv no Airbus equivalent fm its period to compare.

BTW, I also travel frequently within Asia-Pcf + a few trans-Pcf flights every yr either in C or Y class cabins.

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de aaaron3 - Enviado el 28 Aug 20:55  
 
B340 i think you got the point why Airbus and Boeing fans don't like each oder...


Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de FLX - Enviado el 29 Aug 13:30  
 
aaaron3:
Wow,  Airbus and Boeing fans don't like each oder... . Is this statement a bit extreme? I think the majority of A fans just tend to highlight/explain the superior aspects of A products over B's and B fans do the same in reverse. This process is educational and I myself hv learnt a lot about A and B simply by listening to the A fans and B fans and then check against the facts.

Overall, I don't hv a constant preference for A or B. However, I'll always try to find out and share with others the true+relevant facts re A and B and maintain a balanced, non-biased view.

As a whole(Across all current types), I now hv a much better idea re the true relative strenghts of A and B in which I specifically admire:

A:
- FBW(Fly-By-Wire) pioneer
- Common cockpit+pilot interface across all types
- Routing flexibility(Unrestricted by ETOPS) of 4-engine types
- Biggest cabin layout possibilities on the world's largest airliner in the foreseeable future

Out of these 4 items, I especially admire the common cockpit concept. It's the smartest strategic decision A has ever made and it has seriously helped them to sell a lot more jets than they would otherwise and will continue to do so. Think about how much $ an airline can save on crew costs and improve safety(Less complexity, less chance for pilot error) when it's so simple to transition an A318(110 seats) pilot into an A388(525 seats) when the cockpits+controls of the 2 are pretty much the same!

B:
- Pioneer in EFB(Electronic Flight Bag) and inflight, real-time transfer of airplane ops data for preventive maintenance
- Experience in CFRP as the main materials on an airliner
- At the forefront of twin engine aircraft efficiency+capability+size
- Revolutionary manufacturing method+efficiency

Out of these 4 items, I particularly admire the growing widespread use of CFRP. This will become the standard in all future B products and probably A's too. Lighter & stronger non-metal structures can always carry more payload, fly longer range, burn less fuel(Cheaper to operate+less pollution), allow higher cabin pressure+higher humidity(More pax comfort).

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de captain bill - Enviado el 30 Aug 16:34  
 
Yes FLX I would agree that Airbus commonallity of flight deck control is perfect this is why Airlines will buy more than one type of Airbus. Boeing did it with 757/767 and it worked well for many Airlines such as BA.

Carbon Fiber is I think like you the way forward for lowering weight which results in greater fuel efficiency and also for reduced maintainance.

As we keep saying from an operators point of view both manufacturers have their + and - and what we as enthusiasts think matters not so why don't we just enjoy looking at these wonderfull pieces of technology that weigh so much and can take people like you and me off the ground and fly us to exotic destinations around the world.

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de aaaron3 - Enviado el 17 Sep 17:05  
 
FLX

In youtube, in the comments of the videos of A380 you can see that quite a few people argue about the aircraft...

Captain bill

yes you are right we shouldn't argue about Airbus and Boeing, but i think doubting is a very good way to talk about airplanes, and it's also inprove our knowledge of the preformances of those aircrafts.Like FLX is a very good partner to discuss with, his knowledge of all flying things is great!!!

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de FLX - Enviado el 19 Sep 15:02  
 
aaaron3:
Quite often, I actually like the party opposite to me in an argument especially when they raise a good argument that is objective, well-informed and rich in info.

As commercial aircraft makers, both A and B are pretty amazing.

I admire A's audacity & resolve in challenging B in every mkt segment. It took them just a bit over 30 yrs to come up with a complete line of products that go head to head against B and hv never backed away. Not even aerospace giants like Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas could accomplish that. Nobody, not even B, has the guts to commit to a development project as complex as a space program to build a completely new super jumbo jet that will be, for the 1st time in history, able to routinely carry more than 800 pax per flight safely and in reasonable comfort. They're the master in doing more with less. Perfect examples include common cockpit concept and the ingenuity in building both the A340 and A330 fm a single basic airframe design.

I admire B in the their foresight about where exactly the mkt is heading or not heading. They correctly predicted mass air travel between continents would become mkt reality in the 2nd half of the 20th century when they came up with the 747 and let the Concorde owned the SST mkt which comprised of a grand total of 14 units @ the end. They bettede mkt fragmentation and the risinig demand for convenient+economical ETOPS point-to-point services when they came up with the 777 when A still put all R&D resources into long-range quad-engine formats. They anticipated how dead serious everyone & every airline will be about pollution & efficiency when they came up with the 787 and dropped the faster & sexier Sonic Cruiser.

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de jeepee - Enviado el 23 Sep 17:23  
 
I have,over the last couple of years had many flights on both Airbus A 319 and Boeing 737 (various derivatives) and my opinion as a passenger is that Boeing is by far the better aiecraft. Comfortable and feels  well screwed together .
Airbus I find has a cheap,plasticky feel and although slightly wider,still seems tacky and uncomfortable.

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de captain bill - Enviado el 23 Sep 20:56  
 
Where is this discussion taking us ? Into the land of our own preference. I have said befor that when an Airline buys an Airliner new they don't buy one off the shelf. They spec the aircraft in many ways the interior being one of these areas.

So I am Ryanair a budget Airline who cant afford to spend a lot of money on a flash interior due to the fact that I will not generate the revenue to justify the expenditure and I need to put as many seats into the cabin as possible. So what do I get ? I get a black and yellow plastic interior with the cheapest seat in the range with very little leg room between the seats built into one of the worlds finest Airliners a Boeing 737-800. So this is the only 737 I have flown in and my impression of the 737 is low.

Ah but now I'm British Airways and I need to have a very high cabin spec on my 737 because I am a premium business class Airline and want my passengers who are paying a lot more for their flight than that of the Ryanair passenger so first of all I put less seats in the cabin with nice leather and of a higher grade than the budget Airline and give plenty of leg room between the seats and do a beutifull job as far as the interior decor is concerned. This is my first flight on a 737 and I come with a very high impression of the 737.

The same can be applyed to any Airbus type as it all depends on which Airline orders the Airliner and for what purpose they will be using it for.

I am a 757 man as many of you know and if you ever have flown or get the chance to fly a BA 757 with 180 seats in it you will think it is the last thing in comfort. But then again if you fly in a 757 of say ThomasCook with 228 or 234 seats on a 4 hr 40 min flight from GLA to TFS then you start to go off the 757 a bit.

I hope you are able to see what I am trying to say. Airline A and Airline B can use the same type of Airliner but because they spec the cabin differently they can look like two different Airliners. So don't judge an Airliner until you have flown on the same type by a few different Airlines.

Have a look again at FLX's threads about stats and specs on this subject on the various types they are first class.


Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de jeepee - Enviado el 23 Sep 21:22  
 
Most of my flights have been with Easyjet on both types. so I have travelled on the same budget airline with the same buisness parameters for both aircraft types. I have also travelled on Air Berlin Airbus with nice compfy leather seats,but I still prefer Boeing. I here what you say in regards to cabin spec etc.I guess it comes down to personal preference in the end. It would be nice to get the views of air crew who have flown both types. I am new to this site and don,t wish to ruffle any feathers.I am merely expressing my own personal opinion.

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión
  Mensaje de captain bill - Enviado el 24 Sep 10:55  
 
JEEPEE please do keep expressing your own personal opinion and dont be afraid to do so. This is why I love this site so much for at the end of the day we have only one thing in common our love of the industry.

Don't worry about ruffeling feathers I'v done it not knowingly and not to any of our contributers but someone saw what I had said about a certain person I know in the industry and he was not happy with me and chucked his dummy out of the pram. So expess your opinion and if others dont like it they will certainly in a good natured way come back at you as you must to with all of us.

Enjoy the forum and the industry.

Perfil del usuario Mensaje privado Sugerir supresión

Enviar un mensaje en este tema

   
 
Para añadir un mensaje, tienes que estar registrado, si no tiene una cuenta Haga clic aquí par crear tu cuenta

Email :


Contraseña :

Tema
AIRBUS OR BOEING?

Su mensaje Insertar un emoticono



   
Los mensajes deben ser escritos en Inglés . Los mensajes escritos en otro idioma serán borrados.
Enviar sólo los mensajes relacionados con la aviación civil, y no introduzca ningún anuncio. Your IP se guarda en el registro.
Usted puede costumbre su texto utilizando los siguientes códigos
[B] Tu texto [/B]: El texto en negrita
[I] Tu texto [/I]: El texto en cursiva
[U] Su texto [/U]: Texto subrayar
[S] Su texto [/S]: Texto striketough

Para incluir un Airfleets.net foto, usa el código [P] Foto número [/P]