I don't think so, no one that has any systems knowledge operates in this fasion. :ugh:

Problem with frozen fuel in Darwin! I'm amazed cos I have never seen fuel temps anywhere near freezing point over Australia and have never known the temp in Darwin below 20C.

Just landed the 777 in 32 kts across. Loved it !!!!!!. However my back is still going to need 2 hours of rubbing every time I get to BKK because of the torchure device we have to sit on. Hell I hate the seats !!!!

Well Dream Land - We have lots of Boeing to Airbus and Cadet to Airbus pilots in our fleet - trust me, lots and lots do it. If they think its loosing energy close to the ground, nat instinct is to push them forward..

Lots of power, however... (Go around, Flaps!)

GE,
Quote ;"So what about all the other things I commented on?
1/ Fuel system and wings iced up
2/ ECAM bs
3/ RMI faults and not being able to do VOR approaches
Cat got your tongue with those ones? How's about you try and refute them."

1/- That happened as well to a 777 in a medical emergency...Cold soak and a quick descent...Result was the same.

2/-Read the first pages of this thread and see that quite a few pilots prefer the A ECAM to the B EICAS. As in my airline just about 2/3 of the young pilots transfer from the 320 to the 777, it's pretty general that they miss the Airbus when working on the "dumb" philosophy of the Boeing. Not really an argument as it is a matter of preference.

3/-The RDDMI is just another instrument -part of the standby flight instruments- and has two selections VOR/ADFs. I agree that its integration has been a problem BUT, contrarily to what you write, the ND displays correct course/radial informations. Therefore, one can perform VOR, VOR/D, ADF approaches without any trouble. If anything, I prefer the Airbus set-up to the one you are using.
Another uninformed myth shot down... ( not surprising, you guys usually go for the hype without any prior background check).

Many other seem to argue it is just the other way around, e.g. in terms of the computer vs pilot flying the aircraft..

I know Lufthansa and SQ were pushing for a side stick in the 787, but Boeing didn't surrender.

Looking at the 787 I think new Boeing designs have become more common with Airbus designs, not the other way around.. ;)

I will post you a current company Notam again, seems you didn't read it the first time round.

not a myth mate, real.











To my knowledge it cannot happen on the 777, our wing skin is thicker and I've never seen a Boeing grounded in Darwin because cold fuel caused ice on the wing. The only Boeing that seems to suffer from this is the 737-800 series, happens a lot in Melbourne to Aussie operators in Winter.

At the end of the day, it's the accountant who says Ur company made a profit or not... not the pilots...

I am laughing hard n agreement..

So when are we gonna see the BoeBus 9000?

Oh? Heck, then... we know the answer to the following:
To get discounts on the A330s... LOL !

It's being done... sorta...
PK-YVE (Batavia 320 ex Transasia)... It's gotta be the worst dispatch reliability in the classic & 320 fleet country wide.
PK-RMA & RMC (Mandala 320 wCFMs... the ex Irish 320s they leased when the lessor went bust), well, even Mandala's now phased out 732s had better dispatch reliability. To this day, Mandala's current fleet of 2 734s and 2 new 319s and 2 new 320s and 2 old 320s... U can guess the dispatch reliability order... the 734s tend to have extra nights flights picking up where the 2 old 320s left off at noon a few days a week... when one of the new buses has something wrong, all hell breaks loose. Got some dual rated 320 & 734 pilots there, and guess what, they're now spending more hours on the 734 than the old 320s... coz it's more reliable (same age-ish)... despite the shortage of crew on both fleets.

Sidestick? handflying?
3.8G landings on 320s anyone?

If there's one thing I really like from the bus is the double blink strobes... I can see it from miles away it's an airbus!

Lemurian,
Ecoutez bien Mr GE90115BL2 et peut-etre vous apprendrez quelque-chose.Votre Nintendo detruit les habiles traditionels du pilote.Reflechissez bien
monsieur

ah, you sound like CDG ground giving AF prority over non- english speaking Airlines. :=

So out with it.........what did you say?

Votre Nintendo detruit les habiles traditionels du pilote.Reflechissez bien
 

An Airbus described as a nintendo, that's maybe why the youngsters are so much better with it.

You got a point though.


EDIT to include translation.

Lemurian,
Ecoutez bien Mr GE90115BL2 et peut-etre vous apprendrez quelque-chose.Votre Nintendo detruit les habiles traditionels du pilote.Reflechissez bien
monsieur

LEMURIAN,

Listen to mr GE90.... and maybe you'll learn something, your nintendo destroys good piloting skills.

Don't know if anyone mentioned it but which aeroplane has a nice big tray table to put your food on/ sleep on, whatever! -AIRBUS :ok:
Comfort comes first! :ok:

does the 777 have a tray table? I don't know?

Oh and one other thing, I recently walked past a framed picture in a simulator building and had to look twice at what I saw, I picture of a DOUGLAS DC-3 with the caption below it saying BOEING DC-3 !!!!! How on EARTH can they take credit from something they did not put one ounce into designing! :yuk: And don't tell me "but Boeing merged with Douglas Blah blah blah!"
There was also a whole lot of other Aircraft they seemed to have claimed in other photos. :yuk:
B717= another Douglas Design (a third generation version of the Douglas DC-9)
They also redesigned the F-18 Hornet, bigger better ect.. and called it the Super Hornet, so well done, but it came from a Douglas Design!

And I wont start me on the B737, from a pilot point of view....... what a major f^$% up! :yuk:
But yes, like someone said, from a business point of view they are of course doing well.

Yes in an ideal world I'd like a sidestick WITH backdrive on the 777. And then we could have a nice pull out table as well:ok:

That would make it truely the bees knees:)

Actually we have quite a few F/O's on the 777 that came from the Bus. Their biggest complaint is the lack of table, that's it. Oh and maybe a few features of the Airbus FM would be good.

They like the big Cockpit, nice big uncluttered LCD's, simple systems and best of all they really LOVE the ECL. ( it actually works on the 777 )

Overall they say the 777 beats the Bus hands down.........And they don't regret coming over to the "other side"

Some of you guys really have strong feelings about your favorite aircraft don't you!

"Boeings are better because Airbusses can't do VOR approaches..." etc. etc.
They can do VOR approaches. And please don't show us your NOTAM again - it refers to one aircraft type at an airfield that obviously has some sort of anomaly. Airbus should have fixed it by now, but its still not a very good anti-airbus argument is it?

I can't get excited about the rest of the arguments, though. They're all very good aircraft. Just very different. In the same way that the French and the Americans are very different. Nobody is going to try and argue which race is better are they?

And pushing the thrust levers out of the CLB detent and back into it on an approach (at any altitude) is just crazy. Well, it is to me as the Airbus is the only type I've flown. I guess ex-Boeing pilots are used to having to adjust the levers themselves. This shouldn't be seen as an Airbus design fault - just poor training?

The VOR problem effects UN-modified Airbus VOR receivers for ALL VOR approaches at ALL airports that require the redials 006 to 016.

Until modified the AIRBUS cannot do ANY type of VOR app at the airport using THOSE radials above.

Naha and Utapo are only 2 that I come accoss in SE Asia near HKG, any Airport that uses those radials is out.

My point is that this has been a software problem on Airbus aircraft for well over 3 years, WHY does it take soooo long to write a fix? It should be done quickly.

Not to mention the managed RNAV ban still in effect since an Airbus came close to a sea wall on approach. This happened over a year back.

Did I tell you about the Nose Wheel steering problem on the 330? Yep they couldn't use full nose wheel deflection for some bizaar reason. That was fixed after about 3 years finally.

The list goes on a bit longer with the problems my buddies tell me about. That's right the Airbus guys/girls I know love to tell all about their wonder jet. When drunk they wish they were flying the 777 again.

One day I probably will have to transfer to the Airbus, escpecially If I want a Base in OZ. I hope you'll welcome me into the Airbus family?

Who knows, maybe after the Airbus frontal Labotomy I'll like it too:ok:

GE,
Quote : "I just spoke to an Airbus skipper mate and he confirmed this, most of our 330's are fixed ( after 3 + years ) but none of the 340's."
As I have no knowledge of this situation here, seems to me CX isn't too keen on getting the fix (just a VOR receiver modification). Maybe they're getting rid of them soon ?
So your argument is moot.

Quote : "Not to mention the managed RNAV ban still in effect since an Airbus came close to a sea wall on approach. This happened over a year back.
"
Same answer. there is no managed RNAV approach ban here. You need to see your flight safety people to give an explanation on that one.

Quote : "When drunk they wish they were flying the 777 again."
Only when they are drunk ? And does it happen often with your colleagues ?

What I find very intersting is that you could find a lot of faults with the @Bus products and never say anything about your airplane. For the sake of fairness, yoiu could have told us about ADIRUs, AD (is that one corrected ?), landing gears going upwards through the wing, double engine failure on final, a number of single engine diversions...
Here, we know were the hangar queens are...their names don't start with a A or a 3...What does that prove ? Type of operation and maintenance qualities are very probably one answer...At AF, with a fleet of about 150 320/21/19/18s, they achieve so good a dispatch reliability that most of the time there is no reserve aircraft and most of the QRH items we talked about exist because of time to retrofit new boxes for old ones so fleet standardisation is an endless chore ( it will never be achieved in my lifetime ), and I am not even talking about the compatibility of new *boxes* with the old software. If anything, my main gripe with Airbus Industrie is the speed at which they incorporate improvements to their products. Not the contrary.

Quote :"... maybe you'll learn something, your nintendo destroys good piloting skills..."
I tell you what : pilot cadets join the airline with about 150 hours, of which some 40 on the KingAir...they transform into the medium haul fleet (all 'Buses now )...they fly for another three to four years ( some 2000 to 2500 hrs ) and then move into the long haul fleet,let's say 1/2 to 2/3 of them, depending on the slot availability, will go to the T7...funny enough we haven't heard of any problem getting that qualification and flying on the line ( I also have to say that the T7 is very popular with the pilots : Main reason is that it pays more than the 330/340 ). Flying skills ? Hey, they pass their sim and base checks without any problems...

Now it's time for me to say that I have no gripe with the other brand at all, having flown all types of 737s (including the -100 out of Denver ! and bar the NGs) in all kinds of countries and weather, all types of 747 with all types of engines, and I have thoroughly enjoyed them - except the 300 into Kai Tak -...but I certainly do not miss them when I sit on an Airbus flight deck.
As someone said, it's just a matter of beauty in the eyes of a beholder...
Or is it ?

My biggest gripe with the Airbus is that the autopilot limitation of 100' after takeoff is about 95feet too high.:8

My point was that Airbus take too long to fix problems.

I wasn't meaning my Airbus friends get drunk all of the time, overnights at the Bangkok bar can be fun, a little Beer opens up a lot!!;)

The Rnav managed approach ban might only be a CX software issue? Don't know if it effects all Airbus aircraft worldwide BUT it certainly effects ours.

Point is, it's been over 12 months and still no fix.:D

The Adiru software problem was fixed a long time ago, initially they reverted back to older software codes then they fixed a new one.

Landing gear up through wing? You mean the BA 38?
I would have Loved to see how an Airbus would have looked after that landing in LHR!! Did you notice that the fuselage and wings were not even rippled on the aircraft?

Every time an Airbus does a heavy landing it costs 5 or 6 million USD to replace the whole gear:bored:

Double Engine failure on final, yep that is a mystery for sure.

Single engine diversions, seems that GE has the minor problem there, not Boeing. But it is being sorted as we speak.

How long does Airbus take to fix proeblems? too long.

Quoting GE90:
Landing gear up through wing? You mean the BA 38?

Just a wild guess but I think he was referring to the SAUDI incident.

Quoting GE90:
Every time an Airbus does a heavy landing it costs 5 or 6 million USD to replace the whole gear

Sorry but that's just an unfair statement, any type of plane doing a hard landing can be expensive to repair, it has nothing to do with who or where it was manufactured.

Quoting GE90:
I would have Loved to see how an Airbus would have looked after that landing in LHR!! Did you notice that the fuselage and wings were not even rippled on the aircraft?

Again a non issue imho, the IB346 at Quito also looked fairly well intact after being used as a plough.
No conclusion can be made as to regards of overall strength of any of these 2
frames.
The way everything is designed nowadays ,with little or non overengineering, it is fair to say that the newest birds probably all fall a bit short in this category compared with older designs.

i like the boeing FMC, airbus' isnt as user friendly in my opinion