|
   |
Home >> Forum >> Boeing Vs. Airbus? Civil aviation forum
Boeing Vs. Airbus?
Return to the forum index - Post a message for this thread
| |
Message of speedbirdfsx - Sent 24 Oct 17:09 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of captain bill - Sent 24 Oct 17:29 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of EI-DUB - Sent 25 Oct 18:59 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 26 Oct 22:08 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 26 Oct 8:18 |
|
| |
captain bill:
Yes, there were numerous threads on the forum similar to this topic here. 1 of them was 'AIRBUS OR BOEING?'.
speedbirdfsx:
Being super lazy, I hv just copied & pasted my old comment fm that thread to here:
****************
....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).
*************************
So regarding who's better at what they do for civil avaition , each is better than the other in certain aspects. Overall, I venture to say that they're even.
EI-DUB:
This is as informed as I can get. Hope U find it ok.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 26 Oct 11:31 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of EI-DUB - Sent 27 Oct 22:55 |
|
| |
FLX,
apologies, I wasn't trying to be a know-all or anything, I was referring to comments made by a member that a certain irish airline was destined to fail purely because of its all airbus fleet, that were uninformed to say the least!
ei-dub
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of flylinefrontier - Sent 27 Oct 0:23 |
|
| |
What I think is Boeing has the greatest new inventions on planes
1. Range
2.Type
3.aircraft's bodys make out of
4. Designs
Airbus
1. If the type of aircraft has a good flying safety record, they will still keep going.
2. Aircraft like A300 has a bad start becasue of the design, the safety will never change...
3 They have a huge safety concert. expect for A310 and A300
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 27 Oct 9:06 |
|
| |
flylinefrontier:
Interesting comments re 300 and 310. Will be fun if U can share why U feel or facts about why these 2 types are more prone to incidents than others.
1st, I don't find the DESIGN OR MANUFACTURING-RELATED incidents of these 2 types particularly bad relative to B's products. 2nd, A has a fair amount of safety innovations, e.g. A has pioneered & has a tradition to route all critical wirings around the entire fuslage, not through the cabin floor beams(Lots of incidents where cabin floor collapsed/broke rendering all controls useless but fuselage remained intact) like B used to do.
The basic design of 300 has served A well. After more than 20-30 yrs, that foundation has enabled A to develop hot-selling models such as 332, 333 and 343(Well, used to be hot-selling) relatively easy. 300 was the world's 1st twin-engine wide-body concept that entered service - a format promptly copied by 767, later 777 and now 787. I believe B has to thank A for giving birth to such a great & now widely accepted concept: high capacity but still retains twin-engine efficiency. Every wide-body pax jet sold by B for the past 5-6 yrs has only 2 engines!
Pardon my cliche': Imitation is the ultimate form of appreciation
Now all those A lovers can rest assured about how impartial I am re A vs B.
EI-DUB:
No apology required. I'm a junky for commercial avaition knowledge and always hungy for more. Just hope that I can learn more facts(Not that keen on personal taste though because that's just that: personal) fm others via this forum.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 27 Oct 9:23 |
|
| |
EI-DUB:
About that national 'Irish carrier', on the contrary, I believe it has a better chance of survival simply because it selected an all A fleet. For a relatively small airline, commonality means life & death. Just imagine the alternative if they've gone for an all-B fleet: 737NG+777....2 completely diff sets of crew, training, cockpit maintenance, etc. Big guys like BA or LH can afford a combined fleet of 380+777 or 748i+346, not that national 'Irish carrier', period.
Just a few examples where success(Near or @ double-digit growth) is built on an all-A fleet:
JQ(Jetstar)
KA(Dragonair)
SriLanka
JetBlue(Ok, they're starting to get some E-jets)
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of EI-DUB - Sent 28 Oct 2:17 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post a message for this thread
|
|
Messages must be written in english. Messages written in an another language will be deleted.
Post only messages related to the civil aviation, and do not insert any ad. Your IP is logged.
You can custom your text by using the following codes
[B]Your text[/B] : Text in bold
[I]Your text[/I] : Text in italic
[U]Your text[/U] : Text underline
[S]Your text[/S] : Text striketough
To include an Airfleets.net photo, use the code [P]Photo number[/P] |
|