264 replies to this topic

[-Toshiba-]

Yes I have flown in an Airbus and Boeing before. I found the Airbus to be more of a pleasant, faster, smoother, higher ride.

[THBatMan8]

I should have rephrased my previous post and asked if you have been behind the controls of one.....

Yes the fact that Airbuses can be quieter is true, as I have rode on a few of them...... But everything else you mentioned is limited to weather and or payloads. I've had smooth rides on a 737, 757, 767, 747 and a A340. I also had rough rides on the same aircraft I mentioned.

[cactidust]

Independence, for the love of god, please shut up! You're seriously big time embarrassing yourself.

[RadRig211]

Independence76, on Dec 27 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

I not even going to bother reading all that, because I know it's some biased rant against me that's not even worth it.

And how dare you even consider reading your opponent's argument... Not even to see if there are any valid points to correct yourself on. This is the exact attitude I'm criticizing!

Independence76, on Dec 27 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

And I have the right to my opinion, and so do others. They can like Airbuses if they want. However, as long as the discussion does not break any forum rules, the topic's legit.

You certainly do, and as do we, so further ignoring our comments is even more ignorant! Furthermore I don't even know WHY you brought up forum rules, as this thread so far doesn't seem to break any, unless you think flaming made up facts that don't agree with your opinion is some sort of forum rule...

Independence76, on Dec 27 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

BTW, on your Airbus-not-Boeing rant, I said low-fare carriers. It also depends on the market, service, and reputation. Here's my responses to your questions.

If it has to depend on market, service, and reputation, then HOW does that have to do at all with Airbus and the fact that they aren't Boeing as per your original remark???

Independence76, on Dec 27 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

Sterling, Aloha, ATA, and XL: the two reason for both of these is the market they were in were not popular enough to sustain at all.

Aloha had been flying for ages, and was certainly very popular - as with ATA. Maybe not for you Texans, but certainly when I lived in the Bay Area (which was for 13 years), both Aloha and ATA made quite the profit running scheduled and chartered flights respectively from the Metropolitan San Francisco area to Hawaii.

Independence76, on Dec 27 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

EasyJet: Because they want "more advanced" rather than "reliable partners."

Can you give me a source to this "fact?" Also, what the heck is "reliable partners?" Are you saying they switched to Airbus because Boeing isn't reliable?

Independence76, on Dec 27 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

Hawaiian: Because they want the "latest" gear, which I'm still amazed by they're profits in such an unpopular market. They've been doing fine on Boeings/MDs.

Hawaii....unpopular....are you kidding??

Independence76, on Dec 27 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

SAA: Once again, the "latest" stuff.

Once again, can you give me a source? Unfortunately for them, they are doing absolutely horrible financially - but if you knew that you would have brought that up as a point FOR your argument as they operate a mostly airbus fleet (though the 4 engines do help with Johannesburg's "hot and high" environment....many people on airliners.net speculate that the A340-500 could make nonstops to the US while the 777-200LR because of the mere fact that it has 4 engines and makes it superior for "hot and high").

Independence76, on Dec 27 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

Iberia: They also wanted the "latest" stuff, and were under pressure from most oneworld carriers.

Source???? And being pressured from who? American Airlines who operates no Airbuses? Japan Airlines, who operates no airbuses??? (alright, they operate a few A300s domestically, but those are in the midst of retirement)

Independence76, on Dec 27 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

TAP: "Latest" stuff.

Source??




Continued Below....

Edited by RadRig211, 28 December 2008 - 09:57 AM.

[RadRig211]

Independence76, on Dec 27 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

And for the LLC section...

Germanwings, Tiger, Wizzair: They've been going steady, because if the competitive European market. Also, Ryanair has recently started to dig into their routes with 738s.

How does Ryanair have to do with Tiger Airways, the LCC from SOUTH EAST ASIA? Also, Ryanair was having some troubles of their own from the recent oil spike...it's not so fine and dandy because they operate Boeings...

Oh and for the record, Germanwings is one of the most successful LCCs out there....

Independence76, on Dec 27 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

Silkair: They have a hybrid Airbus/Boeing fleet.

Are you blind, or do you just enjoy making up nonsense? Heck, look it up on airliners.net, they operate A319s and A320s exclusively!!

Independence76, on Dec 27 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

Jetstar: They're funded by Qantas, which has a huge Boeing fleet, with only a few Airbuses (in which they've had problems with).

Qantas has a big Boeing fleet, yes your made up facts have done you well there, but the A330s aren't a small fleet. Furthermore, it was their 747s that have been torn apart recently...though that has nothing to do with Boeing, but rather Qantas' maintenence.

Independence76, on Dec 27 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

JetBlue: The market was perfect for any airline to take. They ordered Airbuses because it was the "latest" stuff, and the routes were the profit-makers.

The A320 entered service far before the 737NG. Can you provide solid facts for any of these accusations?

Independence76, on Dec 27 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

Frontier: They've had large ups and downs. Also, ever since they've got their first Q400, they've had less problems on routes they had problems with on Airbuses.

This is an absolute joke. You think that Frontier's performance is solely dependent on their decision to order planes???

Independence76, on Dec 27 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

Southwest: They've been making cash for years in the most difficult times. On Boeings.

And they also just posted their first negative quarter in years...

Independence76, on Dec 27 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

Delta: They have a gigantic fleet. The more planes you have, the more money you must have. It's more of a problem of the quantity of what they own, not what they own in general.

More like the more money they have tied up in banks. Airlines can't afford to flat out purchase a bunch of planes, numerous banks finance almost every airline out there. Furthermore, you say it's a problem of what they own? Don't they own all Boeings (excluding the recent NWA acquisition, which is still operating under its own certificate)??

Independence76, on Dec 27 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

Aer Lingus: They needed newer aircraft. They saw every other little airline in Europe buying them because they were the "latest" stuff, so they jumped on board.

Little airline, huh? Last I checked, AirBaltic, Wizzair, Germanwings, EasyJet, Europe Airpost, Iberia, bmi, CCM, LOT, CSA, Malev don't fly as far as San Francisco; but if you don't believe that range has nothing to do with size, how does "latest stuff" have anything to do with it? The 737NG product line is still newer than the A320...

Independence76, on Dec 27 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

Virgin America: People are amazed. They love the seats. They love the price. They love the routes. They say EVERYTHING is good about their service. You know what they don't mention? The plane.

I flew Virgin America last month from Seattle to San Francisco because the Southwest ticket to Oakland was more expensive (and yes, I have quite a few flights under my belt with WN (SEA-MDW-ISP-BWI-MDW-SEA, SEA-RNO, and MANY SEA-OAK flights)), and not only did I prefer the product, but I wholly enjoyed the fact that the windows were higher up and bigger on the A319 than WN's 73Gs...and that has NOTHING to do with product...but yes, VX's product was far superior.

Independence76, on Dec 27 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

US Airways: Well, first off, their route system, cabin service, and reputation pretty much make me want to run and scream. I've also heard bad things about their A330s, like delays on computer system problems, something mechanical, or some little problem in the cabin.

I agree with you that US Airways is horrid. I flew them San Francisco to Amsterdam and back (on their RUSTBUCKET BOEING 767s) and it was the worst transatlantic experience I've gone through (and living between California and Norway gives you a lot of pond hopping). Furthermore, US Airways A330s are way better than their 767s thanks to their updated INTERIOR product, which then again has NOTHING to do with the manufacturer, so I don't know why you think that.
------------------

Try doing some research, stop being so narrowminded about Airbus planes, and at least open up to criticism! This isn't the only topic I've seen such ignorant posts from you...

And I hope you realize that the Seattle economy, the one in which I spend all my money, is HEAVILY dependent on TWO companies: Microsoft and BOEING. I'm not anti-Boeing, I just despise idiotic opinions.

[The_Great_North]

lockdog, on Dec 28 2008, 06:52 AM, said:

Watch it! The Airbus A340-200 will pwn any Boeing. Have a race at FL450 and see Airbus A340 doing 1,300kmph, Boeing foing 900

I didn't know what I have started.

What the is wrong with you!

[THBatMan8]

gregvancouver, on Dec 28 2008, 10:17 AM, said:

lockdog, on Dec 28 2008, 06:52 AM, said:

Watch it! The Airbus A340-200 will pwn any Boeing. Have a race at FL450 and see Airbus A340 doing 1,300kmph, Boeing foing 900

I didn't know what I have started.

What the is wrong with you!

A few red flags about this false comment:

1) Airspeed is measured by KTS (mach at higher altitudes) and not kmph.  1KT = 1 nautical mile per hour.
2) The A340 has the same max service ceiling (just about) as the T7 or any other Boeing the same size for that matter and it's under FL450.
3) Airbuses (the A340 in particular) are powered by either RR, PW or GE engines.......... The same engine manufactures that build Boeing's engines  .

Edited by THBatMan8, 28 December 2008 - 11:18 AM.

[Buziel-411_RED]

Independence76, on Dec 28 2008, 03:45 AM, said:

Flightsimulatorpilot, on Dec 28 2008, 02:03 AM, said:

Looks like you read my post after all.

You are so full of , I'm not even gonna bother. But for your own sake, do some RESEARCH and provide SOURCES when you make comments. That way you won't look like an ignorant, biased idiot.

It wasn't a rant against you, I couldn't care less what you, or anybody else, prefers.

Again, your response is full of made-up crap, none of which is actually true or makes sense. What is "latest stuff?" Boeing has high-tech, advanced airliners as well, so it has "latest" aircraft as well. Why didn't airlines order it?

Research the airlines you talk about (Silkair), EI doesn't buy what other airlines buy (it's not a little airline, and little European airlines have not ordered A350's), nobody mentions VX's planes because nobody cares about the plane if everything is great (your comment doesn't make sense), QF bought Airbus for JetStar and continue to order it, and cite your sources for the problems regarding Frontier, US, and QF.

Anyway, your post/posts speaks for itself, and everyone here will notice that. Come up with better arguments, ones that are actually TRUE and make sense. Nothing else to say really, although now we have an Airbus Toshiba and a Boeing Toshiba.

JW, how do you know these pilots? Real life or through AIM/MSN?

Ya know, I've heard a lot of that. "OMG your SO BIASED!!!1" Seriously, this topic wasn't breaking any rules, until you started the personal attacks. And I don't "make up" things and post them on a forum. Why would I waste my time doing so?

Airlines thought "fly-by-wire" was the future. It also has capabilities to replace a pilot under certain circumstances. Boeing is more pilot-based. It has enough technology so it's easier for the pilot to do everything himself. And there's no source to a whole market. If you'd listen to airlines you'd know what I'm talking about. Airlines ordered Airbuses partly because they use Airbuses as "state of the art" marketing and try to ease up on their policies a little more. And what "problems" are you exactly referring to? I don't have to like Airbus if I don't want to.

First off, it would be "Sony Boeing." Second, in the flesh. I don't spend my time on the computer everyday looking for pilots to talk too over the internet.


BTW, you obviously seem to think that you must convert me to some multi-fan of both Boeing and Airbus. I've seen the downsides of Airbus, and I've seen the downsides of Boeing. I'll go with Boeing as the better one IMO, thank you very much.

Quote

nobody mentions VX's planes because nobody cares about the plane if everything is great (your comment doesn't make sense)

Wow. It's strange, you happened to agree with me, on a quote you state I didn't make any sense on. Since nobody cares about the plane, they will ignore the Airbus part(since they would care less about the plane) and just fly them. That's how they make a profit.

Indy, you changed your tune. First you were ranting on about how horrible Airbus was, and how no pilot liked them. Now you're saying, "Oh, I don't have to like Airbus, but you guys can. They have their ups and downs". Now your shifting all the blame on Flightsimpilot, calling him biased when it was you who started it.

Stay consistent with your ideas.  

[_haphadon_]

I have been reading this topic since it started adn thought I should say something. They both make good airplanes both are safe, one is quiter and with sticks one is noiser but with a yoke. Like many said both are good and deciding which is better will never be done untill one falls incredibly. There is no purpose to decide which is better because everyone is going to like a3different one. Still keep this debate going I do enjoy reading all these comments it gets very interesting at times

[Buziel-411_RED]

Quote

Actually, I know 4 real life pilots, and everytime I ask them "do you like Airbus?" they reply with the usual "not very good, they're sucky planes."

I can't imagine a pilot talking that like.

Quote

If it's an Airbus, it isn't a Boeing. That's why I'm not an Airbus fan.

Stupid reason.

Quote

Also, I think the A346 is interesting, but the 748i looks equally as nice. The cockpit is where I judge as well. The A346 has a very nice looking cockpit, but the 748i has WIDESCREEN PFDs and SFDs. You can't beat Widescreen.
You just can't.

That's right, widescreen PFD's make a good aircarft. Stupid reason.

Quote

Ummm.....It's French.

Another stupid reason.

Quote

I was making a point saying that some pilots don't like Airbuses too much.

Because 4 pilots don't like Airbus doesn't mean Airbus is bad.

Quote

I not even going to bother reading all that, because I know it's some biased rant against me that's not even worth it.

If you go on like this, you'll never see when you're wrong.

Quote

Airline XXX wanted the latest technology.

Maybe, Indy, the "latest technology" is the best technology. Ever consider that?


In all of your pointless rants, you have yet to give us an actual reason why Airbus' are "sucky planes". Even Toshiba is using some facts, not sure how accurate they are, but all you're doing is giving us stupid reasons. Care to give us an actual explanation?

Edited by Rudolph-411, 28 December 2008 - 12:47 PM.

[Chief_Bean]

Quote

Whats happening to the A340-500/600's?

The fanboy that is Toshiba has ruined their image.

And I would just like to add:

Independence, you are a typical, misinformed Boeing fanboy with no real reasons behind your 'arguments'.

[cactidust]

RadRig211, on Dec 28 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

I agree with you that US Airways is horrid. I flew them San Francisco to Amsterdam and back (on their RUSTBUCKET BOEING 767s) and it was the worst transatlantic experience I've gone through (and living between California and Norway gives you a lot of pond hopping). Furthermore, US Airways A330s are way better than their 767s thanks to their updated INTERIOR product, which then again has NOTHING to do with the manufacturer, so I don't know why you think that.

Amen to that! We were rebooked from KLM onto US Airways AMS-PHL-SFO too, after our connecting KLM flight from BRS was delayed.

I've flown on US from LGW-CLT-MCO too, not again! Its the crappest of crap.  

[Buziel-411_RED]

Chief_Bean, on Dec 28 2008, 11:49 AM, said:

Quote

Whats happening to the A340-500/600's?

The fanboy that is Toshiba has ruined their image.

And I would just like to add:

Independence, you are a typical, misinformed Boeing fanboy with no real reasons behind your 'arguments'.

The two fanboys.

I would like to see an all out Airbus vs Boeing debate between Toshiba and Indy.

[AmericanAirFan]

lockdog, on Dec 28 2008, 07:52 AM, said:

Watch it! The Airbus A340-200 will pwn any Boeing. Have a race at FL450 and see Airbus A340 doing 1,300kmph, Boeing foing 900


EDIT: TO think all this started from a Single "Airbus Debate" line.

I didn't know what I have started.

Some poor grammar on here guys... Come on clean up your English.....

I think we need to get over it they are both very competitive aircraft for their economic niche....

As far as flying aircraft I've seen it go both ways pilots that want to be more in touch with their aircraft and feel the aircraft completely, prefer Boeing as there is no auto pitch trim and when you turn the yoke the aircraft responds accordingly and when centered the plane will drift from intended course without further input or autopilot. While airbus is pretty good at going where it's pointed due to computers keeping all the control surfaces constantly correcting. It really depends what you like in an aircraft complete authority and a bit more challenge or an easy point it where you want and that's where she goes.*

No aircraft is dominant it is all personal preference, it's like trying to say which is better being gay or being straight? Straight people will tell you being straight gay people will tell you it's being gay and don't even think about labeling Airbus or Boeing to sexual orientation.. I know you guys we're all above that level  

-Justin

*My source is reading an A vs. B topic on the airliners.net tech ops section where both Boeing and Airbus pilots had their inputs. I also read that some pilots who started on Boeing aircraft did not like it if they switched to Airbus and same for Airbus pilots switching to Boeing.

Edited by AmericanAirFan, 28 December 2008 - 01:02 PM.

[THBatMan8]

I haven't flown the real thing, but I flew full motion simulators ranging from the 747, 767 to the A340, A320. Honestly from what I can tell from an operators standpoint, it is what you prefer and what you are use to. As what was said above if you ask almost every Boeing or MD  pilot what they think of Airbuses their answer will be the same. Same if you ask Airbus pilots what they think of Boeing's. If you want to be a great pilot and not just the average "Joe six pack" then the manufacturer will not matter.

Heck if I had some 15 or 16 year old kid come up to me and ask me what I think of a certain plane while I'm trying to work, I would just tell him/her I hate it to get them out of my hair.

Now from an Airliner's perspective they are going to buy or lease whatever is going to save them money. If the T7 is more fuel efficient then the A340, then that is what they will get (especially in today's economy).

[AmericanAirFan]

THBatMan8, on Dec 28 2008, 02:23 PM, said:

Heck if I had some 15 or 16 year old kid come up to me and ask me what I think of a certain plane while I'm trying to work, I would just tell him/her I hate it to get them out of my hair.

That's kinda mean, I was one of those younger kids once....    I thank all the people that helped foster my passion for aviation. This one 14 year old I talk to, he always tells me how great airbuses are and what not and he just plays flight sim all the time.... He tells me when he grows up to become an airline pilot he wants to fly airbuses. He asks me what I plan to fly, I simply tell him I'll fly whatever they pay me to fly... I told him don't get attached to one plane as it is only flight sim and you will fly many planes throughout your career if you end up pursuing aviation.

[THBatMan8]

AmericanAirFan, on Dec 28 2008, 01:37 PM, said:

THBatMan8, on Dec 28 2008, 02:23 PM, said:

Heck if I had some 15 or 16 year old kid come up to me and ask me what I think of a certain plane while I'm trying to work, I would just tell him/her I hate it to get them out of my hair.

That's kinda mean, I was one of those younger kids once....    I thank all the people that helped foster my passion for aviation. This one 14 year old I talk to, he always tells me how great airbuses are and what not and he just plays flight sim all the time.... He tells me when he grows up to become an airline pilot he wants to fly airbuses. He asks me what I plan to fly, I simply tell him I'll fly whatever they pay me to fly... I told him don't get attached to one plane as it is only flight sim and you will fly many planes throughout your career if you end up pursuing aviation.

I do agree with you in both ways, but that is probably what happened in Indy's case. I couldn't agree more with getting to attached to one type of aircraft or manufacturer because if you tell the people you want to work for that you will only fly Boeing's (for example) chances are they aren't going to hire you.

[SergeBMW]

I also want to add, on those ITVV aviation videos, they always have a few pilots that talk about how they wanted to fly the MDs back in there day, started out with MDs, then said they wanted to go bigger, went to boeing or Airbus, and then to another Airbus or Boeing.

It all changes throughout your career as an Airline Pilot. Most cases, you will probably end up flying the other plane your going against in this argument haha.

[THBatMan8]

AmericanAirFan, on Dec 28 2008, 01:37 PM, said:

THBatMan8, on Dec 28 2008, 02:23 PM, said:

Heck if I had some 15 or 16 year old kid come up to me and ask me what I think of a certain plane while I'm trying to work, I would just tell him/her I hate it to get them out of my hair.

That's kinda mean, I was one of those younger kids once....    I thank all the people that helped foster my passion for aviation. This one 14 year old I talk to, he always tells me how great airbuses are and what not and he just plays flight sim all the time.... He tells me when he grows up to become an airline pilot he wants to fly airbuses. He asks me what I plan to fly, I simply tell him I'll fly whatever they pay me to fly... I told him don't get attached to one plane as it is only flight sim and you will fly many planes throughout your career if you end up pursuing aviation.

And you were right. I did not mean that to come out the way it did but that's what I get for not reading my posts before I add the reply. I should have reworded that a little.

SergeBMW, on Dec 28 2008, 02:05 PM, said:

I also want to add, on those ITVV aviation videos, they always have a few pilots that talk about how they wanted to fly the MDs back in there day, started out with MDs, then said they wanted to go bigger, went to boeing or Airbus, and then to another Airbus or Boeing.

It all changes throughout your career as an Airline Pilot. Most cases, you will probably end up flying the other plane your going against in this argument haha.

I don't know if you have ever seen the first matrix movie but that reminds me of a quote from Morphius:

"Fate it seems it not without a since of irony".

[SergeBMW]

THBatMan8, on Dec 28 2008, 05:09 PM, said:

AmericanAirFan, on Dec 28 2008, 01:37 PM, said:

THBatMan8, on Dec 28 2008, 02:23 PM, said:

Heck if I had some 15 or 16 year old kid come up to me and ask me what I think of a certain plane while I'm trying to work, I would just tell him/her I hate it to get them out of my hair.

That's kinda mean, I was one of those younger kids once....    I thank all the people that helped foster my passion for aviation. This one 14 year old I talk to, he always tells me how great airbuses are and what not and he just plays flight sim all the time.... He tells me when he grows up to become an airline pilot he wants to fly airbuses. He asks me what I plan to fly, I simply tell him I'll fly whatever they pay me to fly... I told him don't get attached to one plane as it is only flight sim and you will fly many planes throughout your career if you end up pursuing aviation.

And you were right. I did not mean that to come out the way it did but that's what I get for not reading my posts before I add the reply. I should have reworded that a little.

SergeBMW, on Dec 28 2008, 02:05 PM, said:

I also want to add, on those ITVV aviation videos, they always have a few pilots that talk about how they wanted to fly the MDs back in there day, started out with MDs, then said they wanted to go bigger, went to boeing or Airbus, and then to another Airbus or Boeing.

It all changes throughout your career as an Airline Pilot. Most cases, you will probably end up flying the other plane your going against in this argument haha.

I don't know if you have ever seen the first matrix movie but that reminds me of a quote from Morphius:

"Fate it seems it not without a since of irony".