I thought this was a discussion on the relative merits of the A320 v B737 from a numbers perspective.

Perhaps a separate thread would be helpful for polite talk about automation philosophy. :8

It's a good question raised by the OP and the answer gas been nodded at. The reality is that airlines take into account availability, money, support, spares, training, leasing costs etc. before deciding. These vary from airline to airline and from country to country and they depend on where you are starting from. Manufacturers may also provide individual performance guarantees, like round-trip fuel, no de-icing due to cold soak, runway performance etc. Not surprisingly, pilots rarely make these decisions (too many idiots amongst their ranks, as can be witnessed from reading some replies to various threads). It's the job of the sales guys to help the buyers do the sums - in the process helping their own product to appear to be better value for money. In times past apparently some of these discussions took place in establishments of "ill repute" and others write the reasons why their products should be chosen on notes inside brown envelopes full of cash.

These decisions can take a long period of time because rarely do you change aircraft type more often than once every eight to ten years. Getting it wrong can be very expensive.

PM

Drizzleengine: I'd suggest that any conventional a/c put in the same low energy state at less than 100 feet would have most likely rolled over gone in inverted during the recovery. The same engines as were on the Bus would not have spooled up any quicker on a different frame.


I've flown both Busses and Boeings and am partial to Boeings, but you can't make up nonsense to support a weak argument.

View from the back-end.
 

If I were a Boeing 737 salesman, I would try to sell you the Boeing 737-800 in comparison to the A320 because that is my job, regardless of all other considerations. Claimed unique selling points and technical comparisons between aircraft types are all readily available to prospective purchasers these days, long before I arrive with my box of sweeties, samples, and smooth talk. Prices, I suspect, are a different matter and depend entirely on head-office wheeling and dealing in which I am not involved. My role as an (alleged) salesmen is to toe the party line and carry messages - much like a humble Zulu spear-carrier in the old days. And heaven help me if I get the message wrong!

At the end of the the day it is passengers and freight companies who pay for the aircraft they prefer and their requirements are pretty much standard, hence the similarity and blandness of modern aircraft (and motor vehicles, for that matter). Within those constraints, aircraft manufacturers charge clients whatever they can get away with and their clients pay as little as they can. Its a big bazaar, and pilots are just hired hands driving all those air buses, vans and lorries. Sad for all you commercial aviators after years of expensive training, but that's the way it is. Yours is the responsibility without the power. Whether a Boeing flying grommet is better than its Airbus equivalent is irrelevant to me, the salesman, so long as people buy my company's stuff. But I write only from the perspective of an aviation user, so what do I know!

Having flown both types in a "Low Cost" environment a few years back, the Airbus wins without a shadow of a doubt. I flew the Classc 73 as well as the NG btw.

To OPERATE, the Airbus flightdeck, is quieter more spacious and more comfortable, it makes for a much less tiring day out...

To FLY then it has to be the Boeing, I am glad I started on it, it gave me some invaluable experience and handling skills...

This thread aged well…..