Airbus vs Boeing
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: invading asia
Age: 73
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus vs Boeing
What’s wrong with the B777?
Having recently converted from Airbus 330/340 to B777 I can now categorically state that the Boeing is in fact a piece of junk.
Here are the problems it has:
Control Column…where is the table? Fly by wire but artificial feel added to make you think you are flying a conventional aircraft…why? Old Americans? In fully reclined (normal) flying position yoke obscures the PFD/ND displays.
Too much air coming in and unable to turn it off. Especially that little triangular vent by your left knee which blows air in your eyes when you are trying to sleep with your head on the ridiculous control column.
Clumsy sun shades that need to be clipped on and then restowed; they should be pull-down items like the vastly superior airbus.
Ridiculous crank handle for opening window. Airbus opens with the one handle that Boeing already has.
Massive tiller; my arm is sore thinking about it. What do Boeing not understand about fly by wire.
Uncomfortable seat with centre harness strap that crushes your jewels. Does not recline enough.
Outrageous seat rails above the floor. Airbus are under floor like they should be. Wreaks havoc on your leather soled shoes and have already damaged one pair when electrically sliding it backwards.
Chair armrest obscures the CM1 RMP in the (normal) reclined position.
No flap limit speeds on the speed tape on PFD…what?????
MCP too far away from CM1. Major effort from (normal) reclined position to order any weather etc or check system displays.
Boeing procedure also sucks saying is an EICAS driven plane and no need to check system displays. This is purely poor airmanship whereas Airbus suggests a system check about every 30 minutes. This has saved my bacon a few times already and I will not follow Boeing recommendation.
By the way I don't like the Boeing and would go back to the Airbus if I could but that isn’t my decision.
Having recently converted from Airbus 330/340 to B777 I can now categorically state that the Boeing is in fact a piece of junk.
Here are the problems it has:
Control Column…where is the table? Fly by wire but artificial feel added to make you think you are flying a conventional aircraft…why? Old Americans? In fully reclined (normal) flying position yoke obscures the PFD/ND displays.
Too much air coming in and unable to turn it off. Especially that little triangular vent by your left knee which blows air in your eyes when you are trying to sleep with your head on the ridiculous control column.
Clumsy sun shades that need to be clipped on and then restowed; they should be pull-down items like the vastly superior airbus.
Ridiculous crank handle for opening window. Airbus opens with the one handle that Boeing already has.
Massive tiller; my arm is sore thinking about it. What do Boeing not understand about fly by wire.
Uncomfortable seat with centre harness strap that crushes your jewels. Does not recline enough.
Outrageous seat rails above the floor. Airbus are under floor like they should be. Wreaks havoc on your leather soled shoes and have already damaged one pair when electrically sliding it backwards.
Chair armrest obscures the CM1 RMP in the (normal) reclined position.
No flap limit speeds on the speed tape on PFD…what?????
MCP too far away from CM1. Major effort from (normal) reclined position to order any weather etc or check system displays.
Boeing procedure also sucks saying is an EICAS driven plane and no need to check system displays. This is purely poor airmanship whereas Airbus suggests a system check about every 30 minutes. This has saved my bacon a few times already and I will not follow Boeing recommendation.
By the way I don't like the Boeing and would go back to the Airbus if I could but that isn’t my decision.
Take a concrete pillJoin Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legend has it that Boeing is built for pilots, while Airbus is built for those that want to be pilots
But seriously folks... both good and bad attributes are inherent in both aircraft.
But seriously folks... both good and bad attributes are inherent in both aircraft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: invading asia
Age: 73
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More
Other things:
Trim...elevator and aileron trim! excuse me??? What part of fly by wire are we not grasping here? Also the behaviour of the rudder trim with engine out
The fold out side table is too low and the emergency torch (on the floor!) is too close to the wall to allow a standard size flight bag to fit beside your seat.
Trim...elevator and aileron trim! excuse me??? What part of fly by wire are we not grasping here? Also the behaviour of the rudder trim with engine out
The fold out side table is too low and the emergency torch (on the floor!) is too close to the wall to allow a standard size flight bag to fit beside your seat.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: united arab emirates
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having also converted from Bus to 777 , here is my take.
All in all a very different experience. Kinda like soccer and rugby. Both ball games but quite different.
There are many differences but overall heres,s my impression ( some things may seen mundane but they are relevent when you are spending so much time on the flight deck.
What I dislike on the 777 predictably is no table or sidestick. Also the lighting to read charts etc is very poor compared to a bus.Also the seats believe it or not are very uncomfortable on the 777.( they say the guy who designed the seats on the 777,s wife was sleeping with a pilot)
For an aeroplane that was designed with the consultation of pilots I find this dissapointing.
I mean why should we have to struggle to read the charts sitting in discomfort !!! Also the audio speaker on the 777 is for some reason on the floor , so a little more difficult to hear , almost requiring full volume( for me ,compared to the bus) . Mr Bus put it more in line with where your ears are !!! The FMC is more instinctive on the bus although I am going to give Boeing a little latitude on this as I have been operating it for 4 months v 7 years on the bus. Allthough the use of multiple colours and a far more instinctive and faster thinking FMC does make me prefer the bus. Being able to string the alternate when doing diversion planning in the hold etc is a huge plus given modern fuel policies. Again I have to say I prefer the bus for its FMS.
Taxi with FBW on the bus is also like power steering versus a much heavier tiller on the 777. Again on that I prefer the bus.
OK so what do I like about the boeing then !
Well here is the crux. Where it counts , the abnormals ,Boeing is far superior, The Eicas and systems I feel are far simpler with more redundancy and a simpler overall pholosophy.
If it all goes pear shaped . I would prefer to handle the Boeing philosophy. With the only exception I find being engine failure on take off that is much busier on the 777 than the bus.
I also cannot see the need for having built in the need to trim the 777 just to comply with the requests of pilots. Truthfully the way most modern airlines automation policy , 90 % of the time crews hardly hand fly and trim anyway. So again while its more traditional to trim . I think Airbus got that right.
However on the bus the flight controlls demand roll rate ( a pain in a strong crosswind as you almost have to adjust then centre then adjust then centre) Its all a little messy. The 777 however the roll is aileron deflection ( bank) which is exactly what you want in strong winds.
I do prefer ( handling) the 777 , she is much more solid and stable in almost every regime.
I have found her lovely to land , however most airlines that operate both types seem to have many many more hard landings regularly on the 777 than on the Bus. I am trying to see why , but I do believe it has something to do with the Flare Law in the bus and probably related to motor skills on the sidestick being easier to replicate for regular flare ( inspite of what they say about looking out the window , assessing your sink rate etc which of course is primary.)
If Mr Boeing is listening please give us a more comfortable seat on the 787 , and much better lighting. Would,nt it be logical to have a light that actually shines on your approach charts !. Update your FMC , put in a faster processor. Keep the flight controll laws , but give us a sidestick and a table.
All in all a very different experience. Kinda like soccer and rugby. Both ball games but quite different.
There are many differences but overall heres,s my impression ( some things may seen mundane but they are relevent when you are spending so much time on the flight deck.
What I dislike on the 777 predictably is no table or sidestick. Also the lighting to read charts etc is very poor compared to a bus.Also the seats believe it or not are very uncomfortable on the 777.( they say the guy who designed the seats on the 777,s wife was sleeping with a pilot)
For an aeroplane that was designed with the consultation of pilots I find this dissapointing.
I mean why should we have to struggle to read the charts sitting in discomfort !!! Also the audio speaker on the 777 is for some reason on the floor , so a little more difficult to hear , almost requiring full volume( for me ,compared to the bus) . Mr Bus put it more in line with where your ears are !!! The FMC is more instinctive on the bus although I am going to give Boeing a little latitude on this as I have been operating it for 4 months v 7 years on the bus. Allthough the use of multiple colours and a far more instinctive and faster thinking FMC does make me prefer the bus. Being able to string the alternate when doing diversion planning in the hold etc is a huge plus given modern fuel policies. Again I have to say I prefer the bus for its FMS.
Taxi with FBW on the bus is also like power steering versus a much heavier tiller on the 777. Again on that I prefer the bus.
OK so what do I like about the boeing then !
Well here is the crux. Where it counts , the abnormals ,Boeing is far superior, The Eicas and systems I feel are far simpler with more redundancy and a simpler overall pholosophy.
If it all goes pear shaped . I would prefer to handle the Boeing philosophy. With the only exception I find being engine failure on take off that is much busier on the 777 than the bus.
I also cannot see the need for having built in the need to trim the 777 just to comply with the requests of pilots. Truthfully the way most modern airlines automation policy , 90 % of the time crews hardly hand fly and trim anyway. So again while its more traditional to trim . I think Airbus got that right.
However on the bus the flight controlls demand roll rate ( a pain in a strong crosswind as you almost have to adjust then centre then adjust then centre) Its all a little messy. The 777 however the roll is aileron deflection ( bank) which is exactly what you want in strong winds.
I do prefer ( handling) the 777 , she is much more solid and stable in almost every regime.
I have found her lovely to land , however most airlines that operate both types seem to have many many more hard landings regularly on the 777 than on the Bus. I am trying to see why , but I do believe it has something to do with the Flare Law in the bus and probably related to motor skills on the sidestick being easier to replicate for regular flare ( inspite of what they say about looking out the window , assessing your sink rate etc which of course is primary.)
If Mr Boeing is listening please give us a more comfortable seat on the 787 , and much better lighting. Would,nt it be logical to have a light that actually shines on your approach charts !. Update your FMC , put in a faster processor. Keep the flight controll laws , but give us a sidestick and a table.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: united arab emirates
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop press
Sorry in my previous post I meant.
I found the engine failure on take off easier on the bus than on the 777. Seemed to confuse that. ( probably something to do with 95 hours in the last 4 weeks) a little shattered.
Sorry in my previous post I meant.
I found the engine failure on take off easier on the bus than on the 777. Seemed to confuse that. ( probably something to do with 95 hours in the last 4 weeks) a little shattered.
Hummm, this post has been up for almost 24 hours and only 15 responses........ I would have thought 15 pages.
As a ex flight engineer off of the 707 and a sim tech who has flown both the 777 and the A320 in the same day, I would have to go with the Boeing as a better airplane. The 777 FMS seems more straight forward. And I like both the moving throttles and the flight control logic of the 777.
I will say that I have put non pilots in both, and most younger kids can fly the heck out the A320. Must be all that computer joy stick time.
BTW, I always had a table in the Boeing!
As a ex flight engineer off of the 707 and a sim tech who has flown both the 777 and the A320 in the same day, I would have to go with the Boeing as a better airplane. The 777 FMS seems more straight forward. And I like both the moving throttles and the flight control logic of the 777.
I will say that I have put non pilots in both, and most younger kids can fly the heck out the A320. Must be all that computer joy stick time.
BTW, I always had a table in the Boeing!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also cannot see the need for having built in the need to trim the 777 just to comply with the requests of pilots. Truthfully the way most modern airlines automation policy , 90 % of the time crews hardly hand fly and trim anyway. So again while its more traditional to trim . I think Airbus got that right.
I think inadvertently you have highlighted the one underlying difference between the two.Boeing's design is pilot-oriented,Airbus imposes its design on the pilot.They "disconnect" the pilot from the plane with little or no sensory feedback and in return try and dazzle you with some gimmickry.You know pilots are just people,some stupid,some not so stupid.I read the thread started by Strong Resolve a while back and noted the staunch and stubborn opposition to almost everything he said in spite of the clarity and sanity of what he was actually saying.Humans have five(some say six) sensory channels;yet Airbus arrogantly ask the system-operator(for that is surely what you unwittingly become) to follow whats going on with one.Revolutionary?Yes.Modern?Yes.Clever?No.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope the 787 is the best Boeing can do rather than the best they can do whilst maintaining backwards compatibility with older aircraft.
I've flown both Bus and 777 and like both, but what frustrates me with the 777 is that it is a newer aircraft than the Airbus yet some aspects seem dumbed down so to be like older Boeings....Almost like putting a hand crank start on a new car because that's how they're always done it!! Even though they have the technology to go much further.
I've flown both Bus and 777 and like both, but what frustrates me with the 777 is that it is a newer aircraft than the Airbus yet some aspects seem dumbed down so to be like older Boeings....Almost like putting a hand crank start on a new car because that's how they're always done it!! Even though they have the technology to go much further.