One at a time here:
Geh, I thought it intuitively obvious when mentioning the A300 that I meant the 310 as well. So how many Boeing aircraft have had successful conversion programs? Well, the 72,3,4(Classic and -400),5,& 67 - count them, 7. Did I miss any? As you rightly point out, the 777 will probably happen when the aircraft become available. I think the 330/40 conversion (should it ever happen) will have limited utility because the MZFW is so pathetically low. Hence, the need for that bulbous nose wheel housing on the production A330F, which seems like a good freighter as long as you're not planning to cross the Pacific with it.
Turin, my evidence regarding wing technology is mostly empirical. Sorry if you were hoping for equations. Pit the the 738 against the 320 and even the most 'bus friendly numbers give the Boeing a 5% advantage. How long has it taken Airbus to even get "sharklets" on the 320? Wow, way behind. The 777, it still has no equal after how long? You going to tell me that is all about the engines? A380 wing cracks... whoops. Aren't these airplanes just a few years old? And the 787/350, well the race is on but who believes Boeing is not light years ahead in working (and patenting) carbon fiber technologies and processes. I think the A350 will be massively delayed as Airbus will run into problems relating to assembly and Boeing patents. We'll see...
Swh, I'll accept what you wrote, but most (if not all) long haul airlines reduce the seats from the manufacturers' numbers. Again I'll go empirical, which airplanes can fly HKG-JFK with a full pax load and reasonable (10-20T) cargo? One (perhaps 2), the 777 and maybe the -8I. If any of you throw the A380 out there, we all know that thing would be lucky to even carry all the passenger bags on this route, much less any cargo (ref Qantas who runs a 744ER as cleanup behind the A380 to LAX if you need evidence). The A340-5/6 simply does not cut it on payload or fuel burn. I'm not that familiar with the A330-200 long range bird, but it doesn't seem all that popular.
I'm not going to argue about cockpit technology as Airbus does seem to be more well liked. However, I do think being able to feel the aircraft can be useful to a pilot, something Airbus controls do not allow. This might have been particularly helpful in the AF accident over the Atlantic.
With regard the the -400BCFs, this aircraft will be a cargo workhorse for generations. The destruction of a single CX BCF, I'm told, has more to do with a down cargo market and not wanting to sell capacity to other airlines. Fuel prices and the delivery of 10 -8Fs might have something to do with it as well...
Jizz, You are an idiot! Get a new name and start posting with some IQ...
Dan, actually the computer corrects that spelling for me. Too much hassle to always go back and fix it just to make the monarchs happy. My bias is against the socialist elites running Airbus. They wouldn't last ten seconds in a real capitalist economy without government help. The blue-collar "labourers" at Airbus have my utmost respect as fine manufacturers of the second rate designs they are given.
Kasompe, the 777X really does look posed to seal the deal on long haul, wide body aircraft. It will have better seat economics than the A380, -8I, -300ER, and 350-1000. It will carry more pax and cargo further than its predecessor. What a nightmare for Airbus...
STP, more google searching. $15B+++ for Airbus and $5B for Boeing. Half of that $5B came through NASA on "space related" research. Much of that $5B had direct defense (ie gov't) contract implications as Boeing is the third largest defense contractor in the world since acquiring McD. No doubt, there is some technology cross-over, but it is nothing compared to the predatory lending and development grants Airbus has pulled in over the years. This is not apples to apples... I expected better from you of all people.
Asia Miles, A400... Oh sigh. How many C-17s could already be in operation if the money had just been used for those instead of building this hair-brained disaster? Arrogance is so expensive!
I'm pleased to see my post garnered so many responses. It is good to hear of google searches and the like so we can cut through the media hype and drivel to arrive at the real story, which we (pilots) fly everyday. Boeing is far from a perfect company, but Airbus makes me want to throw up every time they hold a press conference or release. They are the biggest liars in the industry. The Euro press props them up every chance they get, and the NAM press loves to rip on Boeing. It seems a bit unfair as this has a real impact on public perception.
Last edited by cxorcist; 30th Jul 2012 at 20:01.