Airbus or Boeing

[Kapitan]

what do you prefer airbus or boeing

[Type941]

Airbus, it's European! :up: :shifty: :rotfl:

[Kapitan]

i like airbus but i dont like flying

[Takeda Shingen]

I don't like flying, even if it's European! :up: :shifty: :rotfl:

[Kapitan]

still say airbus has a good planes

[Torpedo Fodder]

Boeing, because uh, I'm from North America :P.

Seriously, Both manufacturers seem to be the same as far as safety and reliability is concerned; Airbus' aircraft have a lower pricetag, but Boeing's aircraft compensate for that with lower upkeep costs. I haven't noticed any difference in comfort between Boeing aircraft and their equivilent Airbus model, exept in the case of the 777 vs. A340. The 777 seems to handle turbulance much more smoothly: something about the wings being more flexible, I'm told.

As for future aircraft, I think things are about to get interesting: Midsize super-efficient aircraft like Boeing's 787 seem to be becoming a real craze among airlines (especially smaller ones), what with rising fuel prices and all. The 787 has been grabbing orders at an unbelivable rate, with 280 orders and commitments with options for nearly 200 more. Airbus' competing model, the A350 has 140 sales and commitments; while I doubt it will be a sales failure (neither Airbus or Boeing has yet marketed an aircraft that has been unprofitable for them), the airline industry definately doesn't seem as impressed with it as the 787, which unlike the A350 is an entirely new aircraft, not a modification to an existing design.

Boeing plans to compete with the A380 with the 747 Advanced. While this might seem like a foolish decision, the 747 Advanced will derive alot of technolegy from the 787 project, including use of the same "bleedless" engines intended for the 787 and A350, as well as increased use of composites in the aircraft structure. While it won't have the capacity of the A380, it'll definately be more fuel-efficient. Also, while the 747-400 has lost sales traction as an airliner, it remains popular as a freighter, leading some to believe that the freighter version of the 747Adv may end up being the launch model.

[joea]

Bombadier. :cool:

[martes86]

I like planes which don't have heavy turbulences on landing, and don't have crazy-pilots which set brakes to "Maxi-0-speed". :-j

[The Avon Lady]

Our family has flown a fair share of both company's planes. They all take off, land and generally work as designed.

Since we've never been on a flight with technical problems, I can't grumble about one company over the other, nor about one plane over the other.

The only exception I would make is the 747. There currently is no other plane in service that matches its ability for long hauls and such a large amount of passengers. I find it an impressive modern wonder of the world. Of course, Airbus has their big A380 coming up soon to complete but 747's have been around for something like 25-30 years now, I believe.

What counts most for me is comfort and that's mostly dependent on the seat models and spacing that differ from one airline to another - even on the exact same plane model.

I chose not to vote on this thread. It smells of childish nationalistic partisanship and has little to do with facts in the air.

[tycho102]

I agree with Avon Lady. Comfort is really the only difference between planes. Comfort taking into consideration maximum cruise speed, as well as leg room.

What I'd like to see is a plane with fold-up cots on them. Just really simple fabric cots (maybe with some memory-foam for cushion), and have them stacked to the top of the cabin. Say 4 high in "economy", 3 high in business, and 2 in first class. For crash protection, you'd have to have a fold-down brace that slips around the body and you put your arms through it. Mothers carrying babies would, and other "handicap" people, obviously, have to have a different sort of arangement; I'm talking about the bulk of fully capable adults. You'd have to climb a ladder to get to the top rack, so only "skinny" people ( :yep: ) could/would go there, and maybe get a significant discount.

You could fit more passengers. Long hauls would be more comfortable. People are more likely to sleep. Small LCD tv's could be integrated into the upper cot even easier than the seat backs. I imagine crash safety would also be improved, since current seat belts rely on holding your pelvis to the dismay of your spine; the lie-down design would use your legs, upper torso and arms.


Airbus and Boeing both suck. They need to develop a lie-down plane design.

[The Avon Lady]

Cots?!

No! No!

I Want planes that take half an hour to go from NY to Hong Kong. I'll settle for travelling as a standing strap hanger on one of those. :yep:

[Kapitan]

about the 747 not being matched it is matched the A340 has a range greater than the 747 and can carry almost as many the A380 also surpasses the 747

[The Avon Lady]

about the 747 not being matched it is matched the A340 has a range greater than the 747 and can carry almost as many the A380 also surpasses the 747
Interesting. I don't think I've ever even seen one on an airport tarmac, let alone fly in one.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I chose not to vote on this thread. It smells of childish nationalistic partisanship and has little to do with facts in the air.

Yup. A lot of "mine is bigger than yours" going on in this thread and the associated ones...

[Kapitan]

Airbus A340 has four engines single deck virgin has them in thier fleet every major european airline has them

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a330a340/

[Kapitan]

i voted i dont fly well i dont avoid it if i can

[Torpedo Fodder]

about the 747 not being matched it is matched the A340 has a range greater than the 747 and can carry almost as many the A380 also surpasses the 747

The A340 competes with the 777 and surpasses early-model 747s, not the current 747-400.

[Kapitan]

not in passenger capacity but in range it does the -600 is the longest ranged aircraft ever constructed

[Jace11]

Does anyone have figures on fatal crashes for the two manufacturers? Boeing have probably killed more people but they have been around longer. I seem to remember an early Airbus missing a runway and crashing into some trees somewhere in Europe but im not sure if it was in service at the time. The two most recent incidents involving Airbuses had no fatalities but that could be down to airlines as well as airframes.

Anyway, safety record is more important to me than leg space, speed, range or capacity..

[Iceman]

Rainman...

after this movie came out, it was eventually offered as an in-flight movie by airlines. However, the scene where Charlie is trying to get Raymond to fly back to LA was removed by every airline except for Quantas. In this scene Raymond spouts out dates for every major airline's crashes but notes that "Quantas never crashed."

I want to fly Quantas...definatley, definatley Quantas. :)

[Jace11]

Yeah, airlines will be the main factor cause they all have maintenence rountines, but isn't the actual plane a factor too.. The McDonnell Douglas plane with the dodgy jack screw and raised tail is an example of a badly designed plane.

Is there something inherently safe by having a cockpit full of computers? I don't know the answer to that...

[martes86]

Airbus and Boeing both suck. They need to develop a lie-down plane design.

Agreed. :rotfl:

[Torpedo Fodder]

Airbus and Boeing both suck. They need to develop a lie-down plane design.

Agreed. :rotfl:

Airbus offers that option for the A380, and I believe Boeing plans to offer sleeping accomodations in the 747ADV, assuming of course that an airliner version is built; Several airfreight lines have stated their intention to buy 747ADV freighter models, but no airlines have yet expressed interest in a passenger version, though Boeing isn't intending the 747ADV to directly compete with the A380 anyway, instead it believes it will fill the gap between the 777/A340 and the A380 in both the passenger and freighter markets.

But anyway, here's one reason to love the 747: Can you think of another airliner that has a variant that fires a megawatt-range "frickin' lazor beam"? :rotfl:

[Kresge]

C-17 Globemaster III
:up:

[DivingWind]

An-2! :lol:

[Oberon]

Nah, nah, nah...


SCRAMJET :up:

[retired1212]

none of them

Tupolev or Antonov. They build not so expensive planes :)

[Torpedo Fodder]

none of them

Tupolev or Antonov. They build not so expensive planes :)

What about Ilyushin? The Il-96 doesn't seem bad at all...

[Kapitan]

IL is a bit dodgey i dont trust thier planes dont know why

[Bort]

Boeing is certainly the superior company in my opinion. In addition to their unmatched commercial airliner heritage, they produce a ton of other things like fighter jets and rockets. All Airbus does is build airliners. (Yes, I know they're going to build the A400M, a military cargo plane but that is still a ways off in the future.) Go Boeing! :up:

[Kapitan]

they have built special cargo air craft and yes millatery aircraft and the key players in airbus also design rockets