Jump to content

Airbus Vs Boeing, A Fairy Tale ?


yermanee

Recommended Posts

Thank you Yermanee for the article good read, always amazed how these two go after each other and there is never any mention of aircraft engines in their results.

I recall Boeing claiming the 737-800 with winglets was ideal for Europe and would be an Airbus killer, only problem was the aircraft needed to fly at 38,000 feet in order to achieve the results, sort of hard to do from AMS-BRU smile.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seats, like engines, are surely selected or specified by the airline, not the manufacturer ? wai2.gif

In reality the B737 and the A320 families are much of a muchness, the A380 is bigger & newer-design than the B747, which is still a good plane, both manufacturers are competing hard which can only benefit the airline-industry & the flying-public ?

This competitive tension is much better than one monolithic monopoly-producer, the world needs both Boeing and Airbus, thank heavens the Europeans got their act together and ensured that there would be competition ! Imagine, for just a moment, a world without Airbus ! thumbsup.gif

Engines, galley equipment, seats, carpet, avionics, lights, toilets almost everything but the shell is outsourced at least EADS have a few firms in the supply chain. The A380 with a price tag of around $300-$350 million engines alone can cost $15 million EACH.

In terms of stats I prefer to read carrier results, LH a trusted source reports the A380 consumes 80kg less fuel per pax on FRA-NRT vs the 747. If we take 80kg per pax on an A380 it would equate to 27,000 kilos of fuel give or take the price of fuel today $12K one way or savings of $24K round trip so there is the airline benefit. Flying public benefit hmmmmm no comment smile.png

Airbus just celebrated it's 10,000th order and 7000th delivery a true success story, I totally agree with you thank goodness there is competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seats, like engines, are surely selected or specified by the airline, not the manufacturer ? wai2.gif

In reality the B737 and the A320 families are much of a muchness, the A380 is bigger & newer-design than the B747, which is still a good plane, both manufacturers are competing hard which can only benefit the airline-industry & the flying-public ?

This competitive tension is much better than one monolithic monopoly-producer, the world needs both Boeing and Airbus, thank heavens the Europeans got their act together and ensured that there would be competition ! Imagine, for just a moment, a world without Airbus ! thumbsup.gif

Engines, galley equipment, seats, carpet, avionics, lights, toilets almost everything but the shell is outsourced at least EADS have a few firms in the supply chain. The A380 with a price tag of around $300-$350 million engines alone can cost $15 million EACH.

In terms of stats I prefer to read carrier results, LH a trusted source reports the A380 consumes 80kg less fuel per pax on FRA-NRT vs the 747. If we take 80kg per pax on an A380 it would equate to 27,000 kilos of fuel give or take the price of fuel today $12K one way or savings of $24K round trip so there is the airline benefit. Flying public benefit hmmmmm no comment smile.png

Airbus just celebrated it's 10,000th order and 7000th delivery a true success story, I totally agree with you thank goodness there is competition.

The new 747-8 gets better fuel economy than the Airbus 380. It is a competitive game of leap frog. If either couldn't compete closely on fuel economy, it would be gone from the market. No airline will run a fuel hog if something else is available.

Also, why is no one mentioning the cracks in the wings of the 380? Airbus says they are "small." Is there no part of a wing which shouldn't have cracks? Is there no part of a wing which isn't important? Don't all cracks start out small? Airbus says they watch and fix them.

The US has been building the basic aluminum passenger plane since the 1930's. Some of those DC-3's are still in service around the world because of short field and unimproved field capabilities.

The US has vast experience in building not only large passenger planes, but large military planes. Some of the passenger planes began life as military planes. Think that right after WWII there was the huge B52 bomber jet. It is still in use and is still the best high altitude carpet bomber and heavy load bomber in existence.

The early military, and still some current military transport and refueling planes are Boeing 707's which became passenger jets decades ago.

If given the choice, I'll go with experience, thank you. I will surely fly on an Airbus if it fits my itinerary best.

As for competition, perhaps some forget that there are competitors within the US which go after passenger and military contracts. Start with McDonald Douglas and Boeing. The US knows how to build jets of all types and sizes for all purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seats, like engines, are surely selected or specified by the airline, not the manufacturer ? wai2.gif

In reality the B737 and the A320 families are much of a muchness, the A380 is bigger & newer-design than the B747, which is still a good plane, both manufacturers are competing hard which can only benefit the airline-industry & the flying-public ?

This competitive tension is much better than one monolithic monopoly-producer, the world needs both Boeing and Airbus, thank heavens the Europeans got their act together and ensured that there would be competition ! Imagine, for just a moment, a world without Airbus ! thumbsup.gif

Engines, galley equipment, seats, carpet, avionics, lights, toilets almost everything but the shell is outsourced at least EADS have a few firms in the supply chain. The A380 with a price tag of around $300-$350 million engines alone can cost $15 million EACH.

In terms of stats I prefer to read carrier results, LH a trusted source reports the A380 consumes 80kg less fuel per pax on FRA-NRT vs the 747. If we take 80kg per pax on an A380 it would equate to 27,000 kilos of fuel give or take the price of fuel today $12K one way or savings of $24K round trip so there is the airline benefit. Flying public benefit hmmmmm no comment smile.png

Airbus just celebrated it's 10,000th order and 7000th delivery a true success story, I totally agree with you thank goodness there is competition.

The new 747-8 gets better fuel economy than the Airbus 380. It is a competitive game of leap frog. If either couldn't compete closely on fuel economy, it would be gone from the market. No airline will run a fuel hog if something else is available.

Also, why is no one mentioning the cracks in the wings of the 380? Airbus says they are "small." Is there no part of a wing which shouldn't have cracks? Is there no part of a wing which isn't important? Don't all cracks start out small? Airbus says they watch and fix them.

The US has been building the basic aluminum passenger plane since the 1930's. Some of those DC-3's are still in service around the world because of short field and unimproved field capabilities.

The US has vast experience in building not only large passenger planes, but large military planes. Some of the passenger planes began life as military planes. Think that right after WWII there was the huge B52 bomber jet. It is still in use and is still the best high altitude carpet bomber and heavy load bomber in existence.

The early military, and still some current military transport and refueling planes are Boeing 707's which became passenger jets decades ago.

If given the choice, I'll go with experience, thank you. I will surely fly on an Airbus if it fits my itinerary best.

As for competition, perhaps some forget that there are competitors within the US which go after passenger and military contracts. Start with McDonald Douglas and Boeing. The US knows how to build jets of all types and sizes for all purposes.

LH's stats were based on the A380 vs the 747 -8, apologies I should have mentioned the model. Both make statements about fuel consumption all the time, Boeing for example will still use a 535 config on the A380 when in actuality LH is configured with 509 sort of skews the numbers IMO, also without engine data - a CF6 has 3-4% more burn. There are so many variables weather, payload, true load factor, cargo, route etc that the only numbers I trust are from a carrier who operate the aircraft and LH operate both aircraft types on the same route.

No one is mentioning cracks, known or unknown issues for either Airbus or Boeing because IMHO that isn't what the post is about, It's more to do with one saying we're better than the other, and people in the know & airline buyers alike understand it's just a game.

Personally I don't like it when they attack each other with nonsense, at the end of the day I believe most travellers could care less if it's an Airbus or Boeing - say Illyushin then people care, for me it's the same as a Big Mac or a Whopper it's a burger, both fill me up when I'm in the mood for a burger, if I need to go to NRT the airline, time and price are more important than if I'm flying an Airbus or Boeing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Yermanee for the article good read, always amazed how these two go after each other and there is never any mention of aircraft engines in their results.

I recall Boeing claiming the 737-800 with winglets was ideal for Europe and would be an Airbus killer, only problem was the aircraft needed to fly at 38,000 feet in order to achieve the results, sort of hard to do from AMS-BRU smile.png

Actually, I don't know about that short distance or what they would do. When I've flown to Europe, the main leg from the US was a large plane, and then we switched to smaller planes to fan people out to final destinations. Same as US. I really don't know.

I did learn that in a short flight, they do take the plane to optimal altitude, pull back to cruise for as long as possible, and then start the letdown WAY out. Basically in "coasting" at low power for a long distance from altitude in a low powered glide, they make up for the fuel burned on climb out. It is more efficient than staying at a lower altitude the whole way where the engines are fuel hogs. When you lower the nose of an aircraft you must reduce power or you'll gain too much speed.

You know your distance, your altitude and your speed so it's easy to compute how many feet you must descend per minute to arrive at the runway threshold. As the nose lowers and the power comes back, you make some adjustments until it settles into full speed and correct rate of descent. As the plane approaches the airport, power further comes back, the nose is raised slightly and the plane slows in airspeed to prepare to land. I got to fly a Lear once that way and it's the most fun you can have with your clothes on. The Lear requires two pilots, but the PIC was a Lear instructor and allowed lowly me with only a twin engine private license fly it. At my request they left the autopilot off so I could "try" to fly it and let's just say there was no way I could maintain a steady altitude. That thing could balloon up 1,000 feet in just the time it took to scan the instruments or scan for traffic.

I did learn about the fuel burn thing there though, and why we went to 40,000 feet for a 1 hour flight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Yermanee for the article good read, always amazed how these two go after each other and there is never any mention of aircraft engines in their results.

I recall Boeing claiming the 737-800 with winglets was ideal for Europe and would be an Airbus killer, only problem was the aircraft needed to fly at 38,000 feet in order to achieve the results, sort of hard to do from AMS-BRU smile.png

Actually, I don't know about that short distance or what they would do. When I've flown to Europe, the main leg from the US was a large plane, and then we switched to smaller planes to fan people out to final destinations. Same as US. I really don't know.

I did learn that in a short flight, they do take the plane to optimal altitude, pull back to cruise for as long as possible, and then start the letdown WAY out. Basically in "coasting" at low power for a long distance from altitude in a low powered glide, they make up for the fuel burned on climb out. It is more efficient than staying at a lower altitude the whole way where the engines are fuel hogs. When you lower the nose of an aircraft you must reduce power or you'll gain too much speed.

You know your distance, your altitude and your speed so it's easy to compute how many feet you must descend per minute to arrive at the runway threshold. As the nose lowers and the power comes back, you make some adjustments until it settles into full speed and correct rate of descent. As the plane approaches the airport, power further comes back, the nose is raised slightly and the plane slows in airspeed to prepare to land. I got to fly a Lear once that way and it's the most fun you can have with your clothes on. The Lear requires two pilots, but the PIC was a Lear instructor and allowed lowly me with only a twin engine private license fly it. At my request they left the autopilot off so I could "try" to fly it and let's just say there was no way I could maintain a steady altitude. That thing could balloon up 1,000 feet in just the time it took to scan the instruments or scan for traffic.

I did learn about the fuel burn thing there though, and why we went to 40,000 feet for a 1 hour flight.

I was being facetious with my example. AMS-BRU is a mere 98 nautical miles and it would be virtually impossible without Concorde engines or NASA's help to reach the altitude needed to make the plane fit the reported fuel consumption ads they published. The 737-800 with winglets is an awesome bird and works very well on 2-5 hour sectors, that is when carriers enjoy the advertised benefits, shorter than that it's not the same results.

The coasting you refer to is primarily a US bonus for carriers who operate a spoke and hub system (more flexibility) vs Europe which is mostly point to point.

I'm envious on your Lear experience, I can bore you to death with what happens this side of those doors but sitting up there I'd probably need adult diapers.

Back on topic, Yermanee's link highlights the big boys advertise things that may not be true it's all a game I guess. It would be the same as Chrysler saying our brand XX gets 100 MPG but then we find out that is going down a mountain in neutral and GM calling them Pinocchio smile.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing that commercial aircraft of all makes still look pretty much like they did in the '50s. They have winglets and other protruberances, but nothing really radical. I suspect most of their economy claims are based on the engine and weight and not so much the aerodynamics.

I'm looking for the first commercial aircraft with a rear wing and front canards, box wings, or an all wing design. And it fits current airport facilities. (Not hard at Swampy where you get off the plane into a cattle car for the last 10 minutes of your voyage, but more difficult where they have actual jetways the craft must fit.)

I'm not an expert by any means, but I think the company that comes out with a revolutionary (as opposed to evolutionary) design could rule the skies while the other guys catch up.

I just hope it's Airbus or Boeing (not in that order), and not Chongqing 22nd Air Assemblies Manufacturing Group or Mumbai Aircraft, Ships, Trucks, Rigs, and Cranes Ltd.

Edited by impulse
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lots of pilot prefer Airbus

I'd be very interested to know your source for this statement.

His source is "lots" which is completely non-specific. If you frequent pilot forums and similar you will see a majority of pilots favor Boeing. That is not to say all pilots favor Boeing, scientifically there is no way to know if more Boeing pilots are internet/forum users V's Airbus. I like Boeing aircraft, but my decision towards which aircraft I fly is based on the carrier and the way they configure the cabin, which has nothing to do with the manufacturer. As stated above about the 777 seats, this has nothing to do with Boeing 777, The seats are configured by the carrier. Singapore Airlines has the most generous Business Class seats and configuration for my height. I try to use them regardless of the aircraft make on the route, I will add hours onto a long-haul trip just to get in Bus Class with SQ. For me it is worth an extra leg our a few more hours.

Here are some links that break things down from a pilots perspective

Boeing V's Airbus (the pro Boeing articles are many on the net, a few come to a mutual consensus, and I could not find any that had a majority pilots choosing Airbus over Boeing)

Typical pro Boeing article;

http://travelsecrets.in/Sept-Oct%202012/Carrier%20best.pdf

Typical 50% Boeing- 50% Airbus mutual consensus article;

http://www.salon.com/2011/07/18/boeing_versus_airbus/

If you are a Boeing fan, this is a good read as it compares the different Boeing aircraft from a pilots perspective

http://www.gadling.com/2011/09/30/cockpit-chronicles-boeing-vs-boeing-a-few-pilots-weigh-in-on-t/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

His source is "lots" which is completely non-specific. If you frequent pilot forums and similar you will see a majority of pilots favor Boeing.

That was my thoughts too. Always that rivalry on PPRUNE and the like - but from my experiences I hear more praise for Boeings from pilots that have flown both.

A lot of mates flying for Cathay based in HK, and it is interesting to hear their opinions on Scarebus vs Boeing. Most agree that Boeing are easier to fly.

777 Operation Manual - some of the simplest and most concise checklists for any aircraft I've seen.

Anyway - that's just my opinion - but I'd be interested to hear if there is something more definitive. Lots of pilots prefer Airbus? I don't buy it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








  • Topics

  • Latest posts...

    1. 3

      Thailand Live Monday 23 September 2024

    2. 0

      Suspected Drunk Drivers in Thailand to Face New Testing Methods

    3. 0

      A Grim Warning for Global Sea Levels The Secrets of the Doomsday Glacier

    4. 0

      Labour Leaders to Reject Free Clothing: Starmer and Rayner Announce Change

    5. 0

      Farage Declares "Bigots Not Welcome" as Reform UK Aims for Professionalism

    6. 0

      Kamala Harris Blames Trump Policies for Deaths of Two Georgia Women

    7. 0

      Kamala Harris' Media Absence Defended: Adviser Cites Busy Schedule

    8. 0

      Putin Urges Women to Work and Have a Family as Birth Rates Drop in Russia

    9. 0

      Britain's Reluctance to Challenge the Powerful: A System Under Scrutiny

    10. 0

      Care Homes Urged to Embrace Transgender Identities in Elderly Care

    11. 123

      Are these people stark raving mad?

    12. 89

      Americans -- did you know that Albania wants us? (Another Plan B alternative to Thailand)

    13. 123

      Are these people stark raving mad?

    14. 27

      Is Civil Unrest Inevitable If Trump Loses?

×
×
  • Create New...
""