Airbus = Bad airplane to fly
 

k - Spent 12 hours on Airbus aircraft exclusively in the last 2 weeks, and I can honestly say - I'll never fly them again if at all possible. I couldn't get first class on such short notice, but even the first class seats weren't much better than coach anyway (cloth seats for first class??). I dunno. It got me where I was going, but everything in the plane is not only uncomfortable (Boeing provides much better seat options to its customers), but incredibly noisy. The isles are tiny to and every time the stewardess walked by, she bumped the hell out of me.

The Aux APU also had an issue, so mechanics running up and down the plane trying to fix it.

Anyway, you Europeans can have your Airbus aircraft. I won't fly them ever again if at all possible. I'll pay extra to fly Boeing and this is the first Airbus I've flown in 10 years with similar experiences to what I flew 10 years ago.

They did fix the water dripping on my leg problem though - By drying the plane out so much with A/C that you practically get a nose bleed.

-S

Cant see the problem as I experienced them in a Boeieng as well.
especialy the last time , as I was half deaf for 2 days because the Pressure mecanism didnt work so well on that flight (it felt like my head was going to be split into 2 parts and my ears hurted like hell then ever before)

but you dont hear me complain about it, whats the point in that?. as NONE of the planes (boeing or Aurbus) are perfect.

The point is: Airbus planes have a cheap joystick instead of a yoke. Compare:

http://img03.picoodle.com/img/img03/...em_8319c27.jpg
----------------------------------------
http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/...ym_db805f4.jpg
http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/...bm_56df111.jpg

Case closed.

I was under the impression that seats and internal configeration is largely down to the individual airlines - not the aircraft builders. Like blaming the builder of a house for the occupants taste in decor

I've flown in BA Airbuses and Boings (on the same day) - the seats that were used in both were identical

#Yawn# Who Cares?

:up: It's the airline not the plane.

I smell brand loyalty. I don't really like brand loyalty :hmm:

As I said in the other thread, my experiences flying airbus so far have all been good, and I dare say generally more comfortable than my trips in Boeings.

I've had good trips and horrible trips on both, my criteria runs PRICE -> airline -> type (maybe)

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: I'm a 747 guy all the way.

http://www.stentorian.com/sheep1.jpg
Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaaaad....

I like any plane that has the same number of landings as take offs.

Allow me to amend that statement: safe* landings.

There are plus points to both aircraft makes from passenger, airline and aircrew's points of view.

If the passenger experience is not a pleasant one, you'll probably find that's got more to do with the airline's policies than the maker of the aircraft. Seat pitch, trim and configuration options are the domain of the airline when it specs up its order. And it is simply not true to suggest that Boeing provides much better seating options than Airbus Industrie; if that were really so, no airline would buy an Airbus product, in fact, if anything Airbus slightly edges things in terms of design at the moment, having just massively revamped this area of its product, although this is a neverending to-and-fro battle between both companies.

With regard to it being a case of whether a Boeing or an Airbus is used and this reflecting the customer's experience, both can be good or bad depending on the Airline. If you want proof of this, perhaps the most criticised of all the well-known high-frequency carriers - RyanAir - make almost exclusive use of the Boeing NG 737 series. And having flown with them twice (from the UK to Finland and back), I can assure you that I'll not be doing so again! But the Boeing 737 is one of the most popular aircraft in the world, with airlines, pilots and passengers. so ther's both a good and bad example of a seat on a Boeing.

In any case, it'll be SAS all the way next time, an airline incidentally, which prefers neither Boeing nor Airbus, but rather the Douglas DC-9 and its derivatives, the most recent models of which, despite the marketing, merely masquerade as Boeings.

Which leads us to the cockpit and avionics; something of an issue with many pilots. Being a pilot myself, I'm not a fan of the notion of Airbus' sidestick-controller, as it requires the pilot (seated on the left) to use his left hand on the stick when flying the aircraft manually. The sidestick controller has been criticised for its lack of 'feedback feel', which is artificially generated from the fly-by-wire system via a series of dampers.

Nevertheless, the cockpit is generally a roomier and less stressfull environment in most Airbus aircraft, certainly roomier than their Boeing counterparts (which have a grand tradition of tiny cockpits), but one has to weigh against this the general preference of most pilots for a traditional 'yoke' in a large aircraft, despite the fact that it can often obscure some of the primary flight displays and leave no room for you to put stuff on your lap. But this is the way Boeing, and virtually every other manufacturer does it, apart from Airbus Industrie.

Cockpit commonality is a big plus in Airbus aeroplanes, and this has advantages for crew familiarisation between models, and is thus a good safety feature. But on the downside, the Mode Control Panel (MCP) - i.e. the control panel up on the front of the 'dashboard' with which you generally fly an airliner via the autopilot - is unecessarily 'fussy' in the Airbus and has been widely criticised in comparison to the one found in Boeings. This not-very-intuitive control is among the culprits for several well publicised Airbus accidents, however it is fair to say that much of the cause was also a lack of familiarity with the system when it was newly introduced, and many of the same features now reside on Boeing flight decks, albeit in a better 'haptic' form.

On balance, there appears to be very little to choose between the two manufacturers with regard to safety these days, the statistics may show more Boeing crashes than Airbus ones, but that's probably because there are more Boeings around.

Boeing and Airbus have adopted differing long-term strategies for which aircraft they will concentrate on producing, with Boeing going for more regional-sized aircraft, and Airbus striving to take the lead in the long-haul market. Although both manufacturers are also attempting to dent the others' share of their respective first choice too! Because of this, one interesting development for Airbus, is that they are getting into the military aircraft market too, with large logistical transport aircraft starting to come off their production lines as well as commercial jets.

There is a definite difference in cultures between the two companies, with Boeing having the tradition and all the great benefits that such a position offers it, whereas many Airbus company people see it as purely a job in a consortium, and there are most definitely language barriers and cultural clashes between the European partners that don't exactly help things at Airbus. Nevertheless, sometimes the lack of constraints born of not being concerned about breaking with traditions can free up creativity.

So in the future, if Boeing go for the short haul, and Airbus for the long haul, much of the time, you'll already have the decision made for you on which make of aeroplane you fly on!

Personally, I wish they'd bring the DC-3 back, so there!

I see the USMC is buying European when it replaces the MARINE ONE fleet.

Subman = Bad passenger to fly :smug:

Chock,

I find it interesting what you say about the MCP in Airbus and the different cockpit philosophies. I'm no pilot, and can only watch at it from the better modules for flihgtsims on the market, but there are some packages both for Airbus and Boeings that are complex and representative enough for the overhead and frontal panels that you get an idea of the differences. And from that simulator perspective, I see it exactly like you. I was more busy with Boeing cockpits (767) first, and later found it difficult to adopt to the Spartan style and the changes in handling in the airbus 320. I cannot say if that is just because of the order in which I learned both planes, but I find the european cockpit philosophy - as you said - a bit anti-intuitive in some details, especially with the MCP and the flight management computer (was it named FMS or FMC? :lol:)

From a pro pilot's perspective I assume it is a great argument that with one certification for an Airbus, you get flight permissions for several other Airbus models as well, since their cockpits share so many similiarities. It also saves the carriers the money to re-instruct and retrain their pilots on different plane models.

I never flew myself in an airliner, and hopefully never will (small planes always, but no flying bricks please :lol:), but my father did a lot of flights when his orchestra was touring, and they had both Airbusses and Boeings, as well as others. He found the carrier they used (and weather and pilot) to be the decisive variable concerning comfort, not the aircraft type.

By the numbers on paper, the A380's cabin will be the most silent, best-air conditioned cabin of all flying planes, with small advantages in seat space. So far carriers have not ordered the maximum number of seats possible, and the plane usually will be equipped with fewer additonal seats than there is additional space. this will give additonal 15-40% in individual seat space per passenger even in economy class, depending of specifications demanded by the carrier.

Available to first carriers in autumn 2007.