A380 First Flight
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess there's always going to be those that love BOEINGS and those that love AIRBUSES. I'm not fussed either way as long as I'm employed and flying in any of these.
ACMS,
You really think the 777 looks better? Guess we just have to dissagree on that one. Equipment fail on EVERY aircraft type not just Airbus but, Embraer, Boeing, Bae, Fokker etc. I know of plenty of flights on a 737 where the APU was U/S and had to wait for a GPU at the gate before shutting down .
I still think it was a great achievement for Airbus with the A380.
ACMS,
You really think the 777 looks better? Guess we just have to dissagree on that one. Equipment fail on EVERY aircraft type not just Airbus but, Embraer, Boeing, Bae, Fokker etc. I know of plenty of flights on a 737 where the APU was U/S and had to wait for a GPU at the gate before shutting down .
I still think it was a great achievement for Airbus with the A380.
I have been in this industry for 30+ years, I've seen quite a bit happen during that time. I've flown thousands of hour in the front and probably just as many down the back with quite a few different Airlines. So I think I should have a right to an informed opinion without some jerk calling me a W
R !!
It's just that never in my life have I come across a fleet of A/C that seems to have one hell of a lot of snags pop up. Not just minor stuff either, ask the crew of Virgin Atlantic if they think 2 engines just failing in crz is minor!! Yep there is a problem with the fuel system on the 346, will Airbus actually fix it this time or will they just go on getting the crews to "work around" the problem. You see they are good at taking 10+ years to actually fix something, Boeing pull their fingers out and hey presto the problem is fixed. A good example is the RMI on the 330/340, not to mention nose wheel steering, wing anti ice, electronic checklists that are wrong etc etc etc........
Anyway enough of this, the 380 has flown. Time will tell if the Europeans can make an A/C on spec or not.
And don't as me to accept the 380 actually looks nice
oh and the reason the 380 only has 2 reversers? WEIGHT. They need to save in any way they can. WHY? to make the spec they promised the Airlines.
A famous Airbus response to a tech problem: "oh yes we know about this.........." really!! then why don't we?
The French have over engineered their A/C, quite simple really.
R !!It's just that never in my life have I come across a fleet of A/C that seems to have one hell of a lot of snags pop up. Not just minor stuff either, ask the crew of Virgin Atlantic if they think 2 engines just failing in crz is minor!! Yep there is a problem with the fuel system on the 346, will Airbus actually fix it this time or will they just go on getting the crews to "work around" the problem. You see they are good at taking 10+ years to actually fix something, Boeing pull their fingers out and hey presto the problem is fixed. A good example is the RMI on the 330/340, not to mention nose wheel steering, wing anti ice, electronic checklists that are wrong etc etc etc........
Anyway enough of this, the 380 has flown. Time will tell if the Europeans can make an A/C on spec or not.
And don't as me to accept the 380 actually looks nice
oh and the reason the 380 only has 2 reversers? WEIGHT. They need to save in any way they can. WHY? to make the spec they promised the Airlines.
A famous Airbus response to a tech problem: "oh yes we know about this.........." really!! then why don't we?
The French have over engineered their A/C, quite simple really.
The paying public love them
As I work in a Company that spends a lot of time as SLF in aircraft. The opinion of the most seasoned of travellers is that the airbuses are a much nicer plane to be in than the Boeing. I would have to agree that, most of the experiences on the top deck of the 747 leave a lot to be desired about luggage space, head room and noise.
Here in the states, they fly a lot of 340s and for the the 1 - 3 hour hops they are fantastically comfortable compared with the 73 or 767.
In the end - competition is good. And the consumer wins. I hope Airbus succeed with the long range consolidation of route hauler in the 380. I also love the smaller long range Boeing Jets - like the flight that SIA do between New York and Singapore.
On the airport congestion thing - a lot of that is beat up by US press supporting the Boeing line. I used to consult to the Immigration Departments of the US and Australia, and for at least 15 years now they have been improving and implementing systems to facilitate passenger movements at ever increasing numbers - whilst the airport infrastructure remains lagging or static. The biggest thing is going to be the provision of two unloading jet-bridges instead of one - chicken-feed compared with the $/seat/mile savings made by sending 1 380 to a destination instead of 2 747s.
Look at Qantas flights to LAX. Full to the brim every day with 6 flights daily! Whats the cost difference between sending 3-4 380s compared with 6 747s (I may be incorrect on capacity and qty, but you get te idea).
Here in the states, they fly a lot of 340s and for the the 1 - 3 hour hops they are fantastically comfortable compared with the 73 or 767.
In the end - competition is good. And the consumer wins. I hope Airbus succeed with the long range consolidation of route hauler in the 380. I also love the smaller long range Boeing Jets - like the flight that SIA do between New York and Singapore.
On the airport congestion thing - a lot of that is beat up by US press supporting the Boeing line. I used to consult to the Immigration Departments of the US and Australia, and for at least 15 years now they have been improving and implementing systems to facilitate passenger movements at ever increasing numbers - whilst the airport infrastructure remains lagging or static. The biggest thing is going to be the provision of two unloading jet-bridges instead of one - chicken-feed compared with the $/seat/mile savings made by sending 1 380 to a destination instead of 2 747s.
Look at Qantas flights to LAX. Full to the brim every day with 6 flights daily! Whats the cost difference between sending 3-4 380s compared with 6 747s (I may be incorrect on capacity and qty, but you get te idea).
Pharcarnell....thank you! Exactly right.
ACMS...I suspect your 30 years in the industry may have fried your poor old brains! If not, then you will recall the following.
737: Rudders that simply decide to slam against the stops. This alone has killed more passengers than any Airbus defect.
747: Centre Tank fuel pumps that explode when switched on. Not a pleasant experience for the punters.
757: Generates more wake turbulence than an aircraft twice it's size. Cessna 172's can't get airborne for 24 hours after one of these things flies past!
767: Something was aRse-up with that thing, can't remember what. Not fun to fly in as a pax either on a flight over 3 hours.
Sonic Cruiser: Looked good - on paper.
787: Looked good on paper. Then it was redesigned now it looks pretty much like any other aircraft. Not sure about an
entirely plastic fuselage either. No good out at Alice! Good to see Boeing being innovative though.
Also...... Airbus aren't French.
Got to agree though that Airbus are just as arrogant as Boeing when is comes to listening to customers. The manuals are crap and there are as you said too many defects allowed to go on forever.
Bring back Douglas!
ACMS...I suspect your 30 years in the industry may have fried your poor old brains! If not, then you will recall the following.
737: Rudders that simply decide to slam against the stops. This alone has killed more passengers than any Airbus defect.
747: Centre Tank fuel pumps that explode when switched on. Not a pleasant experience for the punters.
757: Generates more wake turbulence than an aircraft twice it's size. Cessna 172's can't get airborne for 24 hours after one of these things flies past!
767: Something was aRse-up with that thing, can't remember what. Not fun to fly in as a pax either on a flight over 3 hours.
Sonic Cruiser: Looked good - on paper.
787: Looked good on paper. Then it was redesigned now it looks pretty much like any other aircraft. Not sure about an
entirely plastic fuselage either. No good out at Alice! Good to see Boeing being innovative though.
Also...... Airbus aren't French.
Got to agree though that Airbus are just as arrogant as Boeing when is comes to listening to customers. The manuals are crap and there are as you said too many defects allowed to go on forever.
Bring back Douglas!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: 1000 ft AMSL
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HERE HERE! BRING BACK DOUGLAS (preferrably without the McDonnell add-on). Boeing went down in my esteem the day they swallowed McDD. 
When all the whizz-bang Wonderliners and Scarebuses have gone to the Big Smelter in Arizona, no doubt, SOMEWHERE, a DC-3, or even a DC-9 will still be soldiering away.
When all the whizz-bang Wonderliners and Scarebuses have gone to the Big Smelter in Arizona, no doubt, SOMEWHERE, a DC-3, or even a DC-9 will still be soldiering away.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Laikim and then there is the best of them all, the DC10, flying in one felt like you were in an aircraft, carved out of solid granite if you know what I mean.
From a distance didn't look all that much different than a Whizbang 123 until you put some scale on it.
From a distance didn't look all that much different than a Whizbang 123 until you put some scale on it.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: 1000 ft AMSL
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always liked comparing the fuselages of the DC9 to the 737 (not that we had much time for comparison before even TATA's sold off the Deisel). The DC9 had a smooth, rigid looking skin. No wrinkles. The brand spanking new 737-300's had the wrinkled "Boeing Nose" from the get go, that just continued to wrinkle more with a gusty breeze going around it at M0.82 
A DC9 going U/S was indeed a hang of a lot less compared to the Boeing products. Douglas got the bugs out before they sold it to you. Additionally, because of lower unserviceability, undoubtedly it was NOT good for the Douglas spare parts after-sales department, unlike Boeing continually sending out revisions, alterations, addenda and poodenda
I think I made an error though in the Smelter in Arizona quip - Scarebus will likely be stripped of all the plastic first, leaving enough aluminium to make a milk bottle top, if you are lucky
The DC10 was a brick. Only ever flew ON on once, and it was a pleasure to fly in. One did feel safe, enclosed in that THICK Douglas aliuminium clading! Cargo doors aside, what an aeroplane, that will undoubtedly outlast the 707 in the tanker role.
A DC9 going U/S was indeed a hang of a lot less compared to the Boeing products. Douglas got the bugs out before they sold it to you. Additionally, because of lower unserviceability, undoubtedly it was NOT good for the Douglas spare parts after-sales department, unlike Boeing continually sending out revisions, alterations, addenda and poodenda
I think I made an error though in the Smelter in Arizona quip - Scarebus will likely be stripped of all the plastic first, leaving enough aluminium to make a milk bottle top, if you are lucky
The DC10 was a brick. Only ever flew ON on once, and it was a pleasure to fly in. One did feel safe, enclosed in that THICK Douglas aliuminium clading! Cargo doors aside, what an aeroplane, that will undoubtedly outlast the 707 in the tanker role.
Tsk, tsk ....
737: Rudders that simply decide to slam against the stops. This alone has killed more passengers than any Airbus defect.
---
This is the only one that's worth mentioning.
747: Centre Tank fuel pumps that explode when switched on. Not a pleasant experience for the punters.
----
Because of poor maintenance, not a design fault.
757: Generates more wake turbulence than an aircraft twice it's size. Cessna 172's can't get airborne for 24 hours after one of these things flies past!
----
So? How on earth does that make 757's more dangerous to the people that travel on them?
767: Something was aRse-up with that thing, can't remember what. Not fun to fly in as a pax either on a flight over 3 hours.
----
So the seat pitch that the airline chooses is the fault of Boeing now?
Sonic Cruiser: Looked good - on paper.
---
And for productivity. No doubt many airlines would buy it if it were made, but I don't think there was quite enough for Boeing to start production.
It's one of the reasons why Cargolux bought -400's to replace the -200's as they worked out with the extra speed/range they could make a lot more money per month with them.
787: Looked good on paper. Then it was redesigned now it looks pretty much like any other aircraft. Not sure about an entirely plastic fuselage either. No good out at Alice! Good to see Boeing being innovative though.
---
So looks are important to the safety of an airliner? tell me how that works?
I too am concerned about the longevity of the composite fuselage, but if anyone is to make them work it will be Boeing.
737: Rudders that simply decide to slam against the stops. This alone has killed more passengers than any Airbus defect.
---
This is the only one that's worth mentioning.
747: Centre Tank fuel pumps that explode when switched on. Not a pleasant experience for the punters.
----
Because of poor maintenance, not a design fault.
757: Generates more wake turbulence than an aircraft twice it's size. Cessna 172's can't get airborne for 24 hours after one of these things flies past!
----
So? How on earth does that make 757's more dangerous to the people that travel on them?
767: Something was aRse-up with that thing, can't remember what. Not fun to fly in as a pax either on a flight over 3 hours.
----
So the seat pitch that the airline chooses is the fault of Boeing now?
Sonic Cruiser: Looked good - on paper.
---
And for productivity. No doubt many airlines would buy it if it were made, but I don't think there was quite enough for Boeing to start production.
It's one of the reasons why Cargolux bought -400's to replace the -200's as they worked out with the extra speed/range they could make a lot more money per month with them.
787: Looked good on paper. Then it was redesigned now it looks pretty much like any other aircraft. Not sure about an entirely plastic fuselage either. No good out at Alice! Good to see Boeing being innovative though.
---
So looks are important to the safety of an airliner? tell me how that works?
I too am concerned about the longevity of the composite fuselage, but if anyone is to make them work it will be Boeing.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18-Wheeler
me three.
Maybe they should talk to Raytheon or the Beech people who did the ALL composite Starship, it basically brought the original Beech company undone which is why it is now owned by Raytheon.
The only way they could get em out of the factory was to lease them and they subsequently and only recently have taken them all back and scrapped em.
IMHO Boeing are betting the farm if they go all composite. They don't need to right now and they can go incremental on it.
I too am concerned about the longevity of the composite fuselage, but if anyone is to make them work it will be Boeing
Maybe they should talk to Raytheon or the Beech people who did the ALL composite Starship, it basically brought the original Beech company undone which is why it is now owned by Raytheon.
The only way they could get em out of the factory was to lease them and they subsequently and only recently have taken them all back and scrapped em.
IMHO Boeing are betting the farm if they go all composite. They don't need to right now and they can go incremental on it.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Melbourne - Australia
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMS...I suspect your 30 years in the industry may have fried your poor old brains! If not, then you will recall the following.
737: Rudders that simply decide to slam against the stops. This alone has killed more passengers than any Airbus defect.
747: Centre Tank fuel pumps that explode when switched on. Not a pleasant experience for the punters.
757: Generates more wake turbulence than an aircraft twice it's size. Cessna 172's can't get airborne for 24 hours after one of these things flies past!
767: Something was aRse-up with that thing, can't remember what. Not fun to fly in as a pax either on a flight over 3 hours.
Sonic Cruiser: Looked good - on paper.
787: Looked good on paper. Then it was redesigned now it looks pretty much like any other aircraft.
737: Rudders that simply decide to slam against the stops. This alone has killed more passengers than any Airbus defect.
747: Centre Tank fuel pumps that explode when switched on. Not a pleasant experience for the punters.
757: Generates more wake turbulence than an aircraft twice it's size. Cessna 172's can't get airborne for 24 hours after one of these things flies past!
767: Something was aRse-up with that thing, can't remember what. Not fun to fly in as a pax either on a flight over 3 hours.
Sonic Cruiser: Looked good - on paper.
787: Looked good on paper. Then it was redesigned now it looks pretty much like any other aircraft.
.....silly, silly, silly....
about as relevant as saying it was a Boeing defect that caused aircraft to fly into the World Trade Centre.
Apples with Apples.........
about as relevant as saying it was a Boeing defect that caused aircraft to fly into the World Trade Centre.
Apples with Apples.........
I agree that Boeing have made some silly decisions with their fleet commonality, the whole fleet should have a common 777 style flight deck. And the 767 wont take LD3 containers etc etc.
These are facts, however what I am amazed with is the Airbus day to day stuff ups, reliability, maintenance issues etc.
The 777-300 ER ( of which Air France where the launch customer, quite a kick in the butt for Airbus hey ) has come out way ahead of spec. Has an Airbus ever? or an MD11 ever? mmm NO
The Air France guys I speak to in NRT ( both Pilots and Engineers )
Love their 300 ER's. "Best A/C they have ever introduced"
Anyway I wont be able to get rid of those woeful Airbus plastic jets ( The world's first disposable Jet ) So I may as well just give up.
I'd just like to have a crystal ball and see how todays 330/340 are doing in 15 years time? will they be recycled by then?
These are facts, however what I am amazed with is the Airbus day to day stuff ups, reliability, maintenance issues etc.
The 777-300 ER ( of which Air France where the launch customer, quite a kick in the butt for Airbus hey ) has come out way ahead of spec. Has an Airbus ever? or an MD11 ever? mmm NO
The Air France guys I speak to in NRT ( both Pilots and Engineers )
Love their 300 ER's. "Best A/C they have ever introduced"
Anyway I wont be able to get rid of those woeful Airbus plastic jets ( The world's first disposable Jet ) So I may as well just give up.
I'd just like to have a crystal ball and see how todays 330/340 are doing in 15 years time? will they be recycled by then?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747: Centre Tank fuel pumps that explode when switched on. Not a pleasant experience for the punters.
bbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: WA
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus! Boeing!, you folks have it way wrong. If you want the ultimate airliner, you can't go past the British Aerospace line of aircraft.
Now really, the 146 series, how good. Rugged, quiet, good handling, and thats just the pilots.
No the a380 is just a poor, overgrown copy of a 146.
Now really, the 146 series, how good. Rugged, quiet, good handling, and thats just the pilots.
No the a380 is just a poor, overgrown copy of a 146.