264 replies to this topic

[Independence76]

RadRig211, on Dec 28 2008, 08:50 AM, said:

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???

He asked me on how Airbuses sometimes make money.

RadRig211, on Dec 28 2008, 08:50 AM, said:

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.

Aloha has had a large drop in passenger traffic. Same with ATA. Other airlines were taking stake in their markets.

RadRig211, on Dec 28 2008, 08:50 AM, said:

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?

Well they were doing well with Boeings. Suddenly, they decided to switch to Airbuses because it was mainly "more advanced."

RadRig211, on Dec 28 2008, 08:50 AM, said:

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??

No. The island-hopping routes had heavy competition from Go! and Hawaiian.

RadRig211, on Dec 28 2008, 08:50 AM, said:

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").

Like I said earlier, some airlines use Airbuses as a marketing tool for a "more advanced" aircraft.

XnKU4GecNFc

[Independence76]

RadRig211, on Dec 28 2008, 08:50 AM, said:

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)

LAN, British Airways, Finnair, Royal Jordanian, and some other European airlines that tried to "compete" by getting the most advanced planes.

RadRig211, on Dec 28 2008, 08:50 AM, said:

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

TAP: "Latest" stuff.

Source??

Do some searches yourself. They explained of how they wanted "more advanced" planes. Like every other airline in Europe they wanted to compete with.

Edited by Independence76, 28 December 2008 - 05:20 PM.

[Independence76]

RadRig211, on Dec 28 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

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....

Ryanair is about to test how well they do on routes. I thought Tiger was in Europe, sine I don't know too much about them. I would know more, but Wikipedia isn't working in my house for some bizarre, unknown reason. And every airline was having trouble with oil problems, so that's not a A vs. B argument. Germanwings may be doing well from what you're telling me, but Lufthansa is taking a huge stake in the Euro market right now.

RadRig211, on Dec 28 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

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!!

Last I heard, they were operating both A32xs and 737s. Also, Wikipedia isn't working for me, so I have no fleet lists.

RadRig211, on Dec 28 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

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.

Qantas started Jetstar, so they want to make sure they are well placed. And how is "Qantas has a large Boeing fleet" a "made up fact?" I when I said "problems" was directing it at the Airbuses. And yes, those recent incidents were indeed Qantas problems. However, the last I heard, they were having computer problems on their A330s.

RadRig211, on Dec 28 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

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?

Accusations of what? The routes were the real money-makers. Now their E-170s are doing them some good.

RadRig211, on Dec 28 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

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???

Since when did I say that? I simply said their new planes were better on some routes than the Airbuses (in which is a point).

[Independence76]

RadRig211, on Dec 28 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

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...

That bolded part says something. They've done well through the worst times.

RadRig211, on Dec 28 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

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)??

I said it's a problem of quantity.

RadRig211, on Dec 28 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

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.

Since when? I was reading on Boeing's website about 4 years ago that the 73G's windows were bigger than the A32x windows. I'm not sure if the mini-site is still up, but it was by Boeing and dedicated to the 73G series.

RadRig211, on Dec 28 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

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.

Old 767s. They don't take care of any of their planes, Boeing or Airbus. But I was also talking about how the airline wanted to use it as a promotional tool against other airlines in the country. They were one of the first US airlines to get the A330.

RadRig211, on Dec 28 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

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.

I see plenty of criticism. However, it has no basis. Ignorant posts from me? This is an example of how many here are breaking the rules and blaming me for it. You are responsible for your posts. I used to be a big Airbus fan. Then, I looked at the comparisons of Boeings and Airbuses, only to come to the fact that Boeings had a better system of doing things. I don't rely on others to make opinions for me.


Also, people, sorry for the quad-post.

Edited by Independence76, 28 December 2008 - 05:47 PM.

[-Toshiba-]

The Official Airbus A340 Debate flame war has been officially been officially closed by the Famous King Toshiba of Earth!


EDIT: Please don't laugh. I really am a King. Yes!

Edited by lockdog, 28 December 2008 - 05:56 PM.

[David_Lee_Roth]

You're not very smart for thinking that you're the opener and closer of 'flamewars', because it wasn't: It was an IndyBash.

Maybe you should lose some of that ego, it's pissing me off ;;.


Ok, I'm done, bye . (Just had to say that)

Edited by ReindeerAlex, 28 December 2008 - 06:14 PM.

[AmericanAirFan]

I believe debate was closed on the previous page. It's a null vote neither side wins.  

AmericanAirFan, on Dec 28 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

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.

[_NW_]

Aw man you all continued on this fight without me!  HOW DARE YOU!

Anyways..  like already mentioned..  neither aircraft are superior than the other; Airbus aircraft have their ups and downs, Boeing aircraft have their ups and downs.

Some markets favor Airbus, some markets favor Boeing.

AA does operate Airbus, they've operated them for years.  Delta DID operate Airbus's.  Obviously, Independence, you don't know much about the subject at home, you're a terrible debater.  Airbus's make money, Boeing's make money.  Just because there aren't any low-cost carriers in the USA that operate A320's doesn't mean that Airbus's can't be used on LCC's.  Look at JetBlue, Virgin America, Northwest..  there are so many airlines in the US that operate Airbus's and they do just fine.  And for the record, Airbus's are generally cheaper to purchase because Airbus does deals for large orders, however they are generally more expensive to operate in the US because of shipping of parts; likewise, it's the opposite of Boeing in Europe.  

And for the record, the A340-200 and -300 are terrible aircraft, not because of the aircraft itself, but because of the engines.  The CF56-5C series engines were terrible performers; they restricted the payload, climbing performance, speed, and cruise altitude severely.  The only thing the -200 had was range; but it could not do it at max weight; and neither can most airlines, even the 340-600.  

At the time of the A340-300's intro into service '93, the underpowered aircraft was going to be replaced with the A330 and the 777, as both aircraft could carry the same amount of people and payload, and do it with 2 engines...  saving money on fuel, maintenance, and so much more.

If you think that the A340 was the best aircraft ever built, then compare sales to what's on the market today.

Airbus 340-200: 28
Airbus 340-300: 217
Airbus 340-500: 33
Airbus 340-600: 102

Airbus 330-200: 551 +74 Freighters
Airbus 330-300: 387

Boeing 777-200: 88
Boeing 777-200ER: 431
Boeing 777-200LR: 44 +82 Freighters
Boeing 777-300: 60
Boeing 777-300ER: 165

[Buziel-411_RED]

INDY FOR GOD'S SAKE MAYBE MORE ADVANCED MEANS BETTER.

Indy, no matter what it is, you always see conspiracies or hidden objectives. "They are using it as a promotional tool", "They are helping the Europe economy take over".   Show is some hard, cold facts that show Boeing is better than Airbus. Hey, wait a second...

Quote

I would know more, but Wikipedia isn't working in my house for some bizarre, unknown reason.

You got all of this from Wikipedia?

[Flightsimulatorpilot]

Independence76, on Dec 28 2008, 04:45 AM, said:

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?

Nobody said the topic was braking rules, and I never said anything that would be considered a personal attack. The topic is still within rules.

Independence76, on Dec 28 2008, 04:45 AM, said:

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.

lol

Er, like I've already said, I couldn't care less what you like, or anyone else actually. I don't care if you're a Boeing fan. I'm not trying to convert you. But I can see why you're going on about irrelevant things, it's a when you don't have facts. All I'm doing is calling you out because you seem to think you know everything and make things up to call "facts" and use it to trash a company. Notice how I haven't tried to "convert" FlyingPie? That's because he actually provided a reasonable reason and a fact.

I'm not gonna bother replying to your other posts, as many people have already done that. Yet you still don't seem to listen/read what others are saying. However, you should really provide sources for your claim that airlines are having computer issues/reliability issues with Airbus. Or at least describe what computer problems they're having and what you mean by "new stuff."

Independence76, on Dec 28 2008, 04:45 AM, said:

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.

Wow. Just wow. Who looks at a plane and decide they won't fly it because it's an Airbus or Boeing? Nobody.

@AmericanAirFan: Yes, that's what we're all trying to say. No manufacturer "wins." Airlines choose what works for them and buy it, and both A and B have their ups and downs. That's what we're all trying to say except Independence76. He thinks that one (Boeing) is better and is trying to prove it with made-up "facts" (read: trash). He wants to say that Airbus sucks, doesn't make good planes, and nobody actually wants to order their planes. We're just calling him out on his "facts" and telling him what you said.

[Buziel-411_RED]

This topic gave me the funnies.

[SergeBMW]

Too much hostility on FSW lately haha, I took a break, and recently came back, and noticed members up to eachothers throats

[THBatMan8]

SergeBMW, on Dec 29 2008, 01:09 AM, said:

Too much hostility on FSW lately haha, I took a break, and recently came back, and noticed members up to eachothers throats

And to think I went from a thread about piracy to a Boeing vs Airbus war   .




Guess I'll post that pic here too. lol

[Cactus]

ITT: Fanboys.

[RadRig211]

I can't believe you rely on wikipedia, Indy!

First of all, Aloha and ATA have seen a tremendous drop? Of course, they're no longer flying! The drop wasn't from lower traffic - it was from INCREASED competition; and logically, if more airlines are starting up in Hawaii, then there is OBVIOUSLY demand for it, hence Hawaii is a VERY popular market. I have no idea why you think the opposite - why else would United fly multiple 777s to Hawaii when they could reconfigure them for the shorter SEA-NRT or IAD-LHR flights, since everyone seems to think it's only international markets that make money...

You say you don't know much about Tiger Airways, then why the heck are you even talking about them?!?! I don't know much about Quantum Physics, so you know what I don't do? I don't debate topics on Quantum Physics!! My favorite quote from Gone in 60 Seconds is, " honey, you can't drive...I can't swim, I know I can't swim, so you know what I do? I keep my black outta the pool!!" I suggest you apply that to your debating strategies

If you can't get fleet lists from your incredibly accurate source of wikipedia (I would love to see you write a college paper and turn it into your professor btw...), ever thought of just looking at the pages on Airliners.net? Or how about even googling the airline's website and seeing what their own site says about their fleet! Last time I checked, I couldn't find any legitimate airlines lying about their fleet types...

If Royal Jordanian, Finnair, British Airways (which also has a boatload of Boeing planes), and all those other dirty scheming OneWorld carriers were forcibly yelling at their partners to buy Airbus...well, first of all - wouldn't that heavily suggest that Airbus aircrafts are JUST AS PROFITABLE as their Boeing counterparts??

And yeah, easyJet switched because they wanted more advanced aircrafts, but they MAINLY wanted them so they could lose money instead of going with the super superior 737.... Good joke.

As for the criticism, calling you ignorant isn't breaking any forum rules - it's a comment (and furthermore the truth, anyone who tries to support a debate with Wikipedia is using some darn stupid ideas...sure you might be very intelligent, but my BASIS - of which you think there is none - comes from your complete idiotic responses and proof of facts. Wikipedia and "IVE HEARD THEYVE HAD COMPUTER PROBLEMS" are not sources). I'm not calling you names, I'm not advertising my own site, I'm not spreading pirated products, and I'm not talking about religion or government here, so trying to convince everyone here that this is a dirty dirty topic is wrong. Stop mixing up the act of breaking forum rules with the act of calling someone's complete lack of knowledge or ignorant opinions (Yes, hating Airbus because they aren't Boeing or because they're French IS ignorant...no matter how hard you try and tell me otherwise. And if you continue to disagree, let's pull up the definition next shall we?).

I have a bias, everyone has a bias - it's a common necessity, in order to have an opinion you NEED to have a bias. My bias however is not toward any company for their origins or anything. Like most of the populous, I try and base my opinions of reasonable facts instead of skewing word-of-mouth to fit my narrowminded ideas; and when I'm wrong, whoops my bad...I'll correct it. Perhaps this is another strategy you should adopt! Oh, another one, quitting while you're ahead

And yes, everytime I fly with Southwest, on the -300, the -500, or the -700, I'm always crouching down and getting aches in my neck to look out the window. My ride with Virgin America was the first airbus trip for me in a while, but it was certainly noticeably more easy to look out the window on it.

As for US Airways - yeah they were the first to get A330s in the states....and they're getting more!! Perhaps a sign of something? The A330 is a 767 killer, no matter how you look at it (unless you're going to go into the most exceptional circumstances of city pairs...)

[-Toshiba-]

Stop banging eachother. Please leave Indy alone. He didn't do anything wrong. Let us get back on topic about the Airbus A345/6

[mulletman]

Quote

Well they were doing well with Boeings. Suddenly, they decided to switch to Airbuses because it was mainly "more advanced."

You made that up, which is funny, I call it lieing. You make up things to tell people on an interweb site so your favourite comapany sounds better even though there will be no gain for you. Why do you do it? Does it make you feel good? Would it be a crushing blow for you to find out that boeing arn't the best at everything to do with aircraft? is that why you fail to read or take note of any facts?

Where I'm from we have a special name for people like you but it isn't llowed to be used on this website.

Fred

[Mul.]

lockdog, on Dec 29 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

Stop banging eachother. Please leave Indy alone. He didn't do anything wrong. Let us get back on topic about the Airbus A345/6

As far as I can tell, you're one of a few that contributed towards derailing the topic in the first place

Think what you may but the A340-200 was an utter flop and it's speed capabilities you seem to be harping on about constantly does not change this. The popular A330-200 replaced it and it does a much better job of it. The A340-300 wasn't a bad aircraft as such as it had the range of the -200 but with a similar capacity to the 777-200. It was simply didn't compete too well against the 777 and the order books are a testiment of that.

So why are A340-500/600's being removed from fleets?

As far as the A340-600 was considered, it's performance did not meet expectations at EIS. Some airlines like Iberia and Lufthansa (as far as I'm aware) are successfully able to utilise these aircraft into their fleet despite it's performance. While the Boeing 777-300ER was a major nail in the coffin for the A346 and hindered future orders greatly, carriers with a fairly large A346 fleet may have felt that at the price they got them and at the rate they're paying themselves off as well as their resale values, it's not worth getting rid of them in favour of a brand new order of 777s for example. After all, as long as they have a particular mission for these airframes, that they perform well on then there's no problem as such. Of course this was not the case for other airlines such as Emirates, which have invested in a large number of 77W's.

The A340-500 never sold well and I doubt it was expected to have. It's an Ultra Long Range aircraft that fits a certain niche market. Airlines such as Singapore Airlines have realised that no matter how comfortable the aircraft is, not too many people are keen on sitting in a pressurised tube for 18 hours, and those that do are of a certain background that such services are useful. The A340-500 isn't quite as capable as the 777-200LR in certain areas but for airlines that already own the Airbus, it simply doesn't make sense to sell them at their current retail prices to then invest in brand new airframes. The Boeing's savings in service may not even pay off the additional investment cost in a sensible time period. Other airlines that use the A345 may have found that they don't have much scope to operate the aircraft on routes that it excels at. I'd imagine that as far as future orders are concerned, most airlines in the market for a ULH aircraft would probably prefer the 777-200LR to the A340-500.

I could be wrong but that's the way I see it.

[-Toshiba-]

The Airbus A340-200 is a great aircraft. It has a range of 14,800km which is great. Even you Mul, is against it. . I give up! You guys are right. The Airbus A340-200 is POS.

Edited by lockdog, 29 December 2008 - 11:47 AM.

[David_Lee_Roth]

lockdog, on Dec 29 2008, 12:46 PM, said:

The Airbus A340-200 is a great aircraft. It has a range of 14,800km which is great. Even you Mul, is against it. . I give up! You guys are right. The Airbus A340-200 is POS.

Right click, saved.