Red. The fact that almost 20 people have already replied to this topic proves my point once more: If we only say things that are truly meaningful, and haven't been said before at some point, we would actually be quiet most of the time. It's part of human life to communicate the same old issues over and over again. Besides, the initial question is obviously from a newbie in this business, and I'm (as many of us out there) always happy to help any newbie with answers to his questions.

Bi-planejane : Lets just highlight a few things. This argument is a gem. Nothing like a bit of friendly banter...but can I give you a friendly piece of advice.

All I am going to say is that don't believe everything that appears in here.

Most of the crew are going to keep very quiet about what happens internally within our company.

Try not to drag airlines into this. We all work in the same industry.


That said, Airbus for me!!! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif



[This message has been edited by Down Three Greens (edited 21 December 2000).]

To answer the original question and bypass all the other non relevant guff. I've flown both, the answer is it doesn't matter and really who cares? If you really want to be a hands on pilot, go fly in the Alaskan Wilderness. If you want to fly an airliner, despite what everybody says, the most EFFICIENT way to do it is let all the automatic functions do their thing. Then Boeing or Airbus you are manipulating the autopilot for 99% of the time. So there really is no difference. Fly whichever aircraft you are offered, and don't bother wasting your money to get a type rating!

...and best of luck!

Ask anybody who flew on DC3s,F27s,DC9s, Cv440s, B737s..200s/300s/400s and then the A320, what's the best aircraft they've ever flown and the answer is obvious...the A320...it makes all previous flying irrelevant and obsolete! The pilots I feel sorry for are those who have never flown it...the poor sods will never know...and they make up the majority of those who knock the A320!

Joystickwiggler has it nicely summed up; whatever you "fly" in terms of a modern commercial jetliner, you don't. The days of steely airmen heaving on non assisted controls and flying approaches on twitching ADF needles, are, in the main, gone. If you get your butt on a Boeing or an Airbus, enjoy it, but it matters not a jot; whatever you may hear about the subject.

HAVING CONDUCTED TRAINING ON THE A320, OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, I WOULD SAY THAT IT IS A GOOD, IF SOMETIMES IRRITATING AEROPLANE TO FLY. I AM JUST CONVERTING ONTO THE B777, WHICH APPEARS TO BE JUST AS GOOD, BUT IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT MANNER. THE TWO COMPANIES HAVE RADICALLY DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACHES TO WHAT CONSTITUTES "FLYING" THE AEROPLANE. EACH HAS ITS OWN MERITS, BUT I THINK FOR ENTRY LEVEL - GO FOR THE AIRBUS....THERE ARE LOTS ABOUT!

TAILWINDS, AND MERRY CHRISTMAS

:)

Fuzzy

I still stand by my original answer.

As has been said with commercial airliners you are using the autopilot most of the time. The Airbus is better designed from that point of view.

Boeing is mainly selling old technology. This is fine for the old pilots who are frightened of new technology. But then, in my experience, even the pilots who are averse to computers take to the Airbus very easily - it is just an aircraft after all. You can hand fly them if you want to.

If Boeing pilots complain about the computers and the fly by wire system they should be reminded that you can not fly any of these aircraft without assistance. It is possible to fly the 737 without the hydraulics but it certainly not to be recommended!

Consider the following:

1) Whilst some Boeings may have oodles of performance, Boeing are having to play "catch-up" with Airbus in many different areas.

2) Boeing have a Museum of Flight, contained in which is their belief that "...we are the best". Not so, not any more.

If it's a Boeing, I ain't going!!!

Aaah, deHavilland. Uncle Roger lives OK.

Down Three Greens
Friendly advice taken, my comment was a caustic observation referring to a much publicised incident in Sanford. Just curious why this is such a heated topic with guys. But then I guess the same debates rage on over Lambourghinis and Ferraris and their performance <sigh>
It's all about personal preferences really once you get to that level of sophisticated aircraft design. One really can't say one is better than the other, unless there IS a safety issue. Heaven forbid we all end up wearing the same clothes driving the same cars flying the same aircraft. Vive la difference!!!

Several interesting and true replies to the original question have been posted so far. I have flown Boeing, McDonnel Douglas, and Airbus products, in addition to an assortment of turboprops.

It's not a question of which is the better aircraft. I currently fly an A330, but would stick with the B777 if I had my pick. Boeing's might use some old technology, but that's not always a disadvantage. According to my experience Airbus builds very smart airplanes for very smart pilots; while Boeing builds quite smart airplanes for quite dumb pilots. I consider myself an above average stick & brain, though far from flawless. I have found myself mentally in row 45, though I was physically strapped into my pilot seat. In those cases it has been an advantage to be able to easier (i.e. less demanding on the old noodle) transfer through manual control to full automation with a complete awareness of the situation and the systems.

Therefore, I think the Boeing line of products are superior to Airbus, ONLY because it's more of a pilot's airplane than a system operator's airplane. I am absolutely not talking about actually handflying the airplane. I'm talking about autopilot control, systems integration, and flight control computer programming issues. A side stick is perfectly fine, and ALL big airplanes are "fly by wire" anyway. All you do in any big airplane is hydraulics actuation anyway. Also, even Boeing would have used a side stick if United's design team hadn't intervened. After all, a stick is the most natural way you can think of to control an airplane.

However, the question is most likely in regards to what type rating a jet newbie should look for. Here's what I think:

Avoid paying for a type rating if you can. There are many companies who employ guys with only turboprop experience. If you are trying to jump ahead of the game, you might be fooling yourself. Companies like Southwest Airlines (in the U.S.) employ only pilots with 1000 hours P.I.C. Turbine. That means that for some jobs it might be better to stay with a regional airline and make Captain, and then transfer to jets. It'll also help when you are transferring to the left seat in a jet.

If you still want to get a type rating, here's the skinny. Get the rating that will make you desireable for as many companies as possible. Sit down and look in JP Airline Fleet to see who flies what type of airplane. Big operators will not care what rating you have since they're going to type you anyway. Look for small, upstart type carriers. They're the ones most likely to give you a chance if you have a rating in your pocket. If most of them fly Boeing, get a B rating; but if most of them fly Airbus, get an A rating. That simple.

Good luck.

------------------
"Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement."

Take whatever is offered.

And for the people who have flown these magnificent machines,I envy you..... A lot.
Wish I had the same opportunity.

A2107

What is the coolest flying aircraft in the world? Answer : the F-16. What type of flight control system does it have? Answer: Fly By Wire! I rest my case...

No, really come on guys and galls! What's better, tall girls or small girls, blond or brown? The best airliner in the world hasn't been build yet! If we would change our attitudes and be more willing to learn from each other it would heve been! I have litlle experience in both types but I've flown the sims. I love em both. If I had my way I would install 2 fighter cockpits in every airliner. They're way ahead in ergonomy and man-machine interface. Fighter cockpits are high tech environments where the pilot is nontheless central and involved in the flying. I repaet: the F-16 gives me a b&*ner!

Having tried both, the Scarebus is an efficient way of getting from A to B, (bit like a Vauxhall), but I prefer the hands on approach. I know a 737 is hardly a fast-jet but it was certainly more fun.

PS: Tall girls (blond)

[This message has been edited by airforcenone (edited 09 January 2001).]

Remember that the bean counters decide while birds an airline flies!

Airbus planes definitely seem to capture the accountant's attention.

Two engines, whether Boeing or Airbus, seem to be the way many are going these days.

United CFO not along was quoted saying that if he could wave a magic wand, we would only have 320/19's and 777's on the property.

Gentlemen,
Boeing or Airbus? Who cares when you can fly a Gulfstream.

:)

------------------
'Keep the stress down'

Well, there is always a better choice.
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif

Falcon 900EX, lets really get this going!

Have you seen the pictures from the new GV-SP?
Man that’s something I’d like to fly.