what plane is easier, 320 or 737???

[dartagnan]

talking about flight preparation, hassles, flight concentration,headaches...
what plane give you less problems?

when you have to fly 4 legs a day, everyday, would you take a job on the 320 or the 737(regardless of training cost,...)?

[McAero]

.......or the 319 which is in direct competition with the 737 on London-Scotland domestic flights between 2 large airlines.

[Gary Lager]

Flown both, in the circumstances you describe, and I prefer the 320.

Noise levels lower, more comfortable, less fatiguing.

More capable peformance and simple operating procedures reduce further headaches, and the 320 itself is a pleasure to fly, with excellent situational awareness and progressive cockpit SOPs.

'Easier', though is quite a subjective thing: not counting the difficulty (or otherwise) of the type rating itself, the 'easiest' aeroplane to fly is usually the one you are most familiar with; that familiarity could be hours on type, flying recency, or both.

[mutley320]

A 320 is a nicer machine to operate day to day. I flew and loved the 737 in both seats and it would still be the machine for operations in limited environments, lack of ground support etc. but the 320 is the "next generation" literally.
My only caveat is, a very windy day. The 320 leaves you "disconnected", in terms of "feel". That's what i would miss most about the 73', the stick gave you the feel in your hand of what the machine is doing. In the Airbus you must rely on your eye, either reading the instruments(PFD is wonderful) or looking out the window.However the 'Bus is still quite capable, even on the strong wind days, you just have to have a little faith. The problem is you can sometimes hit the "stop" on the sidestick but the flight control may not have reached it's limit yet,it can be disconcerting but you have to give it that fraction of a second to see if your getting the desired response, say, in the flare, rubbing the nose around and trying to get the wing down into wind.The rudder gives wonderful natural response like the 73, it's just the aileron/spoiler response that lacks the natural feel of the 73'.

[alexban]

737 classic or NG? they are a not alike....regarding performance,Gary,i don't think you got the right one,especially on demanding rwys..this is mostly due to the new wing of the NG..
If you try to compare the 320 with the 737 keep in mind the difference in manufacture year...a 320 / NG comparision will be more fair..
The NG has a minus at cockpit comfort,mostly due to noise generated by the AC..and also a bit windy:hmm:
And yes,no nice table available..:=
Indeed,most important is how well you know the plane..

[phantom menace]

Flown both types, B737 performance and polling it around was great fun although,long term the A320 wins ....much more comfortable for long days..and the days are getting longer and longer :zzz:

[vapilot2004]

Only typed in the 737 classic, but have spent time on all of the above in flight and sim training.

Both the A320 series and 737NG cockpits are brilliant. The classic 737 is definately a pilot's aeroplane. :p

Agreed that the A320 is quieter up front than any model 737 - however on hot days the NG seems to cool down more quickly - any others with more experience on this?

The Airbus display system is thoughtfully programmed.

One area in which NG excels is on-time departures. Fewer tech problems than the computer-rich Airbus in general fleet-wide experience.

[McAero]

At least if you can fly a 320, you can easily crossover to a 380. Regardless of how white an elephant the 380 is, that's quite impressive. Same can't be said really for Boeing aircraft. Guess Airbus have to have one positive thing :p

[alexban]

McAero,the transition from the 737 NG to the 787 will consist of 8 days of ground school,subject of FAA aprovall.And I would chose the 787 over the 380 anytime..:ok:

[McAero]

And I would chose the 787 over the 380 anytime
I'm not an airbus fan, but I do believe the 78 will have as many problems as the 380.
8 days ground school? Seriously? I thought you would at least have to do a minimum level of 777 crossover training.

[TopBunk]

McAero,the transition from the 737 NG to the 787 will consist of 8 days of ground school,subject of FAA aprovall.And I would chose the 787 over the 380 anytime..:ok:

AB

Have you ever flown an Airbus Series 320 and later?

I flew B737-Classics (the REAL classic -200 series), the -300/-400 and then the B747-400 before converting to the A320 family and now back to the B747-400. My preferences are divided, the 737 (esp the -200 classic) for fun and learning the trade (no Map displays, shock horror:D;)), B737-3/400 added glass but little else, the B747-400 is a pilots dream to handle for a 'conventional' aircraft and has awesome stats and performance whereas the A320 series is the best I have flown for multi-sector days in Shorthaul, the cockpit (Porsche-design?) is very good (bar the loud CC tone and some of the lighting) the table is neat and the sidestick totally natural (although the handling finesse suffers in gusty crosswinds, although still perfectly ok when used to it). Back now on the 747-400 and I see more of its downsides in the working environment.

I suspect the 777 is currently the best around (albeit that it still has a control column:yuk:), I suspect that the 787, 747-800 and A380 will all take the current best and improve further.

In my company, and I suspect many others, there are many more people with exposure to both technologies who can see the pros and cons more clearly than before.

In summary, the A320 is an 'easier' aircraft to fly, the non-normals require a greater discipline; the 737-2/3/4/5 harder to fly but more satisfying.

[Dan Winterland]

I prefer the aircraft for which I'm paid the most to fly it, along with the best working conditions. That's my main criteria for the favourite!