Boeing versus Airbus (not again!)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing versus Airbus (not again)
Rotornut,
Comment,
"Airbus and Boeing trade swipes over big-plane versus small-plane strategies."
Does Airbus really believe they can continue to build aircraft of mamoth dimensions! Is there no limit?
Structures of such mammoth size are subject to the laws of physics. A mass of these dimensions will not accelerate easily with abrupt wind shear forces. When unable to accelerate and dissipate the applied forces thru motion, the aircraft absorbs the kinetic energy in the structure. e.g. The TWA 800 accident. The structure was hit broadside (80 degrees) by aircraft wake turbulence. A 13.5' section of the keel beam was torn out of the structure, PRIOR to the explosion.
Once again the NTSB, by covering up the real cause of the TWA 800 accident, has eliminated evidence that could have been used to prevent further accidents. e.g. AA 587, extended aircraft separation standards behind a B-747 "Heavy"! And now the
A-380, what problems can be forseen?
Fraternally
Comment,
"Airbus and Boeing trade swipes over big-plane versus small-plane strategies."
Does Airbus really believe they can continue to build aircraft of mamoth dimensions! Is there no limit?
Structures of such mammoth size are subject to the laws of physics. A mass of these dimensions will not accelerate easily with abrupt wind shear forces. When unable to accelerate and dissipate the applied forces thru motion, the aircraft absorbs the kinetic energy in the structure. e.g. The TWA 800 accident. The structure was hit broadside (80 degrees) by aircraft wake turbulence. A 13.5' section of the keel beam was torn out of the structure, PRIOR to the explosion.
Once again the NTSB, by covering up the real cause of the TWA 800 accident, has eliminated evidence that could have been used to prevent further accidents. e.g. AA 587, extended aircraft separation standards behind a B-747 "Heavy"! And now the
A-380, what problems can be forseen?
Fraternally
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't everyone missing the point here?
Now that Boeing have a worthy opponent in the airline industry, this is leading to new designs and new ideas. This is something aviation is crying out for, especially in the wake of Concorde's retirement.
Regardless of whether you think Boeing or Airbus produce the 'best' aircraft, surely everyone can see that a bit of competition is a good thing. Now all we need is a third major player to really shake the tree.
R.
Now that Boeing have a worthy opponent in the airline industry, this is leading to new designs and new ideas. This is something aviation is crying out for, especially in the wake of Concorde's retirement.
Regardless of whether you think Boeing or Airbus produce the 'best' aircraft, surely everyone can see that a bit of competition is a good thing. Now all we need is a third major player to really shake the tree.
R.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7E7 will cruise at approx M0.85 i.e. pretty much the same as most Boeings
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From an economic point of view the people to ask are Cathay.
They published a background paper that compared the 777 to thier A330s.
There conculsion: the airbus is about 60m USD cheaper but the Boeings are more economic. The cross over occurs at 6 years the the Boeings are cheaper. Airbus's business plan gets you over time but they discount the upfront price.
Interestingly the Cathay average MELs per flight for Airbus aircraft is 10 the average MELs per flight for Boeing are less than 1.
Having said this the economics of one airline pilot and engineering type are huge to small companies but less so to large companies who reach are critical mass of about 24 aircraft.
A start-up company would definately favour the cheap aquisition costs and pilot training simplicity of Airbus.
They published a background paper that compared the 777 to thier A330s.
There conculsion: the airbus is about 60m USD cheaper but the Boeings are more economic. The cross over occurs at 6 years the the Boeings are cheaper. Airbus's business plan gets you over time but they discount the upfront price.
Interestingly the Cathay average MELs per flight for Airbus aircraft is 10 the average MELs per flight for Boeing are less than 1.
Having said this the economics of one airline pilot and engineering type are huge to small companies but less so to large companies who reach are critical mass of about 24 aircraft.
A start-up company would definately favour the cheap aquisition costs and pilot training simplicity of Airbus.
Yawn: does anyone have objective comparative training costs for a pilot on a narrow/widebody Airbus versus a similar-size Boeing, other than where the training is heavily subsidized by the manufacturer? Does either "type" require a much higher cost percentage, i.e. 20% or much more, for two groups of pilots with the same overall levels of experience?
It is just a straight-forward question, folks.
It is just a straight-forward question, folks.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ECON SPEED
Earnest, the ECON cruise speed depends on the cost factor the company uses and the wind direction and velocity. The average ECON speed would be .75 for the B737-300/500 and .78 for the B737 700/900. The B767-300 does about .81
and the B777 has about .84. This is then for no wind standart optimum cruising level.
NG
and the B777 has about .84. This is then for no wind standart optimum cruising level.
NG
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Jersey, Channel Islands
Age: 61
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a myriad of arguments as to who builds the better airliner, but there is a clear divide in relevancy of opinion, the foundation of which is why are you in the thing in the first place – i.e. are you fortunate enough to get paid for what you enjoy doing, (lets not get into the merits of the poor pay or clueless management) or do you pay to “go by air”
I read with great interest the debates of a “real pilots aircraft” versus the latest technology employed to “take the strain” (if you live in the UK you may recall the old phrase – “let the train take the strain” and look at the bloody mess that’s all in now!) but what is clear here is that the argument persists mainly between pilots who have not flown both types.
The performance characteristics of the various aircraft are never really debated and although reference is made as to why an airline would buy or has bought a certain type, almost all are immaterial to the debate, after all it is you Ladies and Gentlemen who ACTUALLY fly the aircraft. Just because it delivers more for less does not make it a good aircraft to the pilot, or does it?
I am interested in why in your experience/opinion YOU think one is superior to the other, I can read the manufacturers own web site or read from the report and accounts as to the economics of specific types of aircraft. There is no hidden agenda here, just a respect for professional opinion.
Now before anyone gets excited about my views, (and I fully respect the fact I am a guest on this forum, I only ever get to sit between the first and last rows in the cabin, my office is on the ground, not in the sky) I have been fortunate to fly in most (western) modern airliners. Although I pay for the privilege of flying, I am rarely able to select the type of aircraft I travel on, but, were I given the choice then for many reasons I would travel Boeing. I have no factual evidence as to superiority other than they are generally faster (over a 12 hour flight that does make a difference to me) and offer greater passenger comfort. Specifically, the 777-300 is at the top of the list, it is quiet, comfortable and quick – it is also a stunning aircraft, it looks as capable as it clearly is, whereas the A340-200/300 looks like it stole its engines from the Avro85 and climbs like one too; but how do you answer the question posed in the title of this thread, answers please…
I read with great interest the debates of a “real pilots aircraft” versus the latest technology employed to “take the strain” (if you live in the UK you may recall the old phrase – “let the train take the strain” and look at the bloody mess that’s all in now!) but what is clear here is that the argument persists mainly between pilots who have not flown both types.
The performance characteristics of the various aircraft are never really debated and although reference is made as to why an airline would buy or has bought a certain type, almost all are immaterial to the debate, after all it is you Ladies and Gentlemen who ACTUALLY fly the aircraft. Just because it delivers more for less does not make it a good aircraft to the pilot, or does it?
I am interested in why in your experience/opinion YOU think one is superior to the other, I can read the manufacturers own web site or read from the report and accounts as to the economics of specific types of aircraft. There is no hidden agenda here, just a respect for professional opinion.
Now before anyone gets excited about my views, (and I fully respect the fact I am a guest on this forum, I only ever get to sit between the first and last rows in the cabin, my office is on the ground, not in the sky) I have been fortunate to fly in most (western) modern airliners. Although I pay for the privilege of flying, I am rarely able to select the type of aircraft I travel on, but, were I given the choice then for many reasons I would travel Boeing. I have no factual evidence as to superiority other than they are generally faster (over a 12 hour flight that does make a difference to me) and offer greater passenger comfort. Specifically, the 777-300 is at the top of the list, it is quiet, comfortable and quick – it is also a stunning aircraft, it looks as capable as it clearly is, whereas the A340-200/300 looks like it stole its engines from the Avro85 and climbs like one too; but how do you answer the question posed in the title of this thread, answers please…
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Blackburn & Kenilworth
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that most of the men & women in this world are more interested in how long it can stay up for, not how quick it reaches/desends from altitude?! True??? Safety is another issue!!!
