There hasn't been an Airbus v. Boeing debate here in a long time. At least this one is pretty civil. Nice work gentlemen.:D

I was only pointing out to those that think they are hand "flying" the Airbus that they are NOT flying it at all.

The 777 Autopilot is certified to land in 38 kts, apart from LWMO. A nice thing to have when tired after a long flight. And it does a damn good job too.

The Eicas on the 777 works like a dream, all the time.:ok:
The Ecam on the Bus is a nightmare: 1/ Ecam actions 2/ check the paper QRH 3/ check the FCOMs.
Airbus ECAM actions can be wrong and not fixed by software updates for a long time. Makes it messy for the crew, and possible to screw up.
An example is a KA A320 that had a flap problem and the crew followed the Ecam actions, trouble was they were not right and the FBW software gave them hell until they pulled out the bulletins. They nearly came to grief that day. ( back at Kai tak in about 1996 )

I've never been in a good landing in an Airbus, especially the 340, it has 4 distinct touchdowns and only 1 of them are smooth!! ( the first touchdown as the rear wheels meet the runway, the gear tilt screws the rest )

The Airbus rattles and squeeks as you taxi along, all the overhead lockers look like they are about to rip off.

Several heavy landings done, mostly by an inexperienced F/O. The Captain doesn't know what inputs the F/O is doing and if he tries to use "sidestick priority" below 50' he could cancel out the input from the F/O and quite possibly make it a lot worse. Quite a few landing gear have needed changing on a Bus, NEVER on a Boeing.

Several accidental go- arounds below 100' when the PF moves the Thrust levers out of the "detent" to give it a burst of power to stop the speed decay or sink rate, he mistakingly puts it back into the detent and then gets TOGA. Around we go...............yee haaaa.........oops.
This can only happen below 100'

It's slow, but at least it's quiet in the cockpit( a good point )

Airbus: built by a dummy to be flown by a genious
Boeing: built by a genious to be flown by dummies.

oh and did I mention the complicated fuel system on the Bus? Inner tanks, outer tanks, split tanks. The 346 has 18 fuel pump switches on the overhead panel for goodness sake!!

We had a 330 divert into Darwin with a medical problem a while ago. The crew didn't transfer the fuel from the outer tanks to the inner before landing...........so what happened? The outboard wings iced up in the humid Darwin air due to cold fuel !! 12 hour tech delay waiting for the fuel temp to rise and melt the ice.
( crew ran out of hours to continue )

the crew can't be blamed, they were not to know, they do now.

Interesting comments, GE90115BL2, thanks.

When I converted to the 737 CL and NG, I was told by my instructor that Boeing build aircraft to be flown hard by Ham fisted Texans, Airbus build aircraft to be flown gently by French pilots.

I have no idea what the ideal landing in a Airbus is like, but on the 73 it is a positive one. Mine are somtimes still hard and I have not broke anything yet.
The 73 is a bit like a old Mercedes S class, full of over engineering:cool:

About handflying and bias !
 

What I still -after 20 years ! -find amusing is all the argument about flying a Boeing like a Cessna 152.
That was probably true up to the DC-4 era and then became the greatest macho joke in pilot circles : Thinking that one has a direct action on the flight controls is, in my very humble opinion, either myopic or intellectually dishonest.
The last semi-modern cable-and-rods airplane I flew last was the Nord 262 and- along with the DC-4 - the controls seemed set in concrete anywhere above 170 kt indicated.
So the hydraulic power was put in airplanes, in its different forms so, to be perfectly honest, one could not move these controls on virile muscles alone...
Then came the jet and its inherent higher speed and then they gave us mach trims (transparent), yaw dampers (also very transparent), CWS (called here A/P-transparent flying) which is the normal way of operating a DC-10...And I am not even talking about changes in flight control configuration with speed (low / high speed ailerons, spoilers....) that the pilot does not manage.
So... are you still having a direct control of your flight ?
Don't you think that the engineers have given you systems that make believe that nothing had changed and your beloved DC-3 is still alive ?

And why is it that the only acceptable way of flying an aeroplane is still the 1910 way (that's as close to a century that one can get !)* ?
Does having to "manually" trim the airplane give you an orgasmic trip ?
You can say what you want about the 'Bus flight controls and I would even agree with you that some people still object to the un-linked side-sticks, but the fact is that on any FBW Airbus, one can achieve a piloting precision you've only dreamed about (it still thrills me to watch a 600 hour F/O flying a "manual" VNAV approach to Nice and the airplane feels like on steel rails ).

Quote : "Several accidental go- arounds below 100' when the PF moves the Thrust levers out of the "detent" to give it a burst of power to stop the speed decay or sink rate, he mistakingly puts it back into the detent and then gets TOGA."

That's just impossible. To go into TOGA, you need to be in the TOGA detent, equivalent to "firewalling" the thottles...

Quote : "The Ecam on the Bus is a nightmare: 1/ Ecam actions 2/ check the paper QRH 3/ check the FCOMs.
"
Wrong : the procedure is 1/Check QRH and the Tech document for possible amendments, 2/ ECAM actions...Checking the FCOM is to allow you, if you have the time, to make a decision on whether your destination can repair the fault or if you'd have some new limitations introduced by the failure (in my airline, you do that regardless of the type you're flying ; might help Operations...)...The QRH items you refer to are exactly 6 and every pilot I know is aware of them. The only important ones are about using the QRH for an Avionics Smoke and... for NAV: ADR (IR) FAULT : "in case of a total loss of an ADIRU (ADR + IR) first use the NAV : ADR 1(2)(3) FAULT then the NAV : IR 1(2)(3) FAULT checklist". I'm sure even a Boeing pilot can cope with that.

* to illustrate this point, here in France, lateral control is still called "gauchissement" which means "wing warping" !

Lemurian

You are basically right. But you're taking the fun out of it!!

Still I'd like to come back to three issues:

- Sure enough we do not have to fly like in the 1910's. Technology evolves, "tempora mutantur et nos cum illis". But one thing is for sure, we have not yet been able to modify the program of the homo sapiens. And this species is simply better designed to function with ALL its senses than with its (mainly overrated) brain only. So taking away any feedback is taking away one of his senses and this means simply taking away a backup, or safety net, and at least here I hope all professionals will agree, there is a setback per human design.

- As I remeber the DC-9 was flown with a direct cable to the inverted aileron on the main one. Direct link with direct feel.

- Praise the Airbus as much as you want, but a circuit with a DC-10 and its FBW will forever be superior. Set the attitude, hold for 1 second and it flies spot on.

- Comparing EICAS and ECAM is a no brainer. Only guys who haven't flown both can pretend otherwise than discrediting ECAM. Just think: On the 330, with double engine failure: DO NOT USE ECAM! What a farce, it's exactly in such a incident when i would desperately need it!!!!

GMDS:bored:

Lem: sorry but you didn't READ MY POST.

So I'll describe it to you again:
Quite a few new guys and girls have caused an unintentional go-around while doing a managed speed approach. They went OUT of the detent to give it a burst ( forward of the detent )and then they put the levers back INTO the Detent straight after. Below 100' THAT GIVES YOU TOGA. then it's too late................."going around"
( I think it's 100' the logic changes, not too sure of the exact ht )

It HAS happened quite a few times, only happens to you once though!! you learn from it.

So Airbus' electronic wonder jets have a really nifty ECAM fitted that has lots of checklists in it for you to follow, BUT you get the paper one out first because the ECAM may be wrong !! Brilliant system you have mate.:D

On the 777 we always follow the EICAS and do the electronic checklist. Granted there are times with multiple messages you have to filter a bit, but so what.


You can keep you plastique fantastique ( French accent used here!! )


You shouldn't have to "cope with that" buddy. If Airbus were half interested in product support and SAFETY they'd provide a software update to FIX the problem.

Another example is the RMI ( or RDMI you call it? ) On the CX A330's we couldn't use the thing for 5 years until Airbus finally fixed the bugs.

here is a copy of a current Notam:-


What is that about? It's been in the Notams for over 3 years

Nope sorry, Airbus are cheap cheap and cheap.

On the 777 when I move the control column it does move the corresponding control surface. It might resist a little if I try to do something the computer doesn't like but it still does WHAT I TELL IT TO. The FBW on the 777 does have envelope protection but it can be over ridden with force if you really want to.

I agree a sidestick would be better, but one with FEEDBACK from the other stick. So you know what the other chap is doing.

I believe the C17 Globemaster 3 has a fighter style stick just like the Bus, but it has feedback?
Maybe someone out there knows?

Just so you know, I'll happily fly on any Airbus. They are a very safe Aircraft. It's just that I think it's over-engineered a bit, and this makes it a little more complicated for the end user ( you )

Flying a Boeing is still like flying an airplane.
Flying an Airbus is simply operating a computer.

I am a computer geek, and I spend so much time on my computers at home that my wife has to tell me to stop it frequently. I love the computer stuff.

But when I go to work, I want to fly an airplane, not a computer.

And when you consider that real airplanes do not even have electrical systems, you can see just how far from that Airbus has gone!!!

As to the Airbus's systems making it safer... consider that the safest thing on an airplane is a highly experienced stick-and-rudder pilot. That is what will keep out out of the trees. If I flew an Airbus for a few years, I think I'd need to go back through Private Pilot training again before climbing into a Cessna again. Not a good situation when basic flying skills erode. And if you don't think an Airbus erodes those skills, you are fooling yourselves. That is not a safe situation.

Ge9011....
 

Quote - "So I'll describe it to you again:
Quite a few new guys and girls have caused an unintentional go-around while doing a managed speed approach. They went OUT of the detent to give it a burst ( forward of the detent )and then they put the levers back INTO the Detent straight after. Below 100' THAT GIVES YOU TOGA. then it's too late................."going around" "

I agree it gives you a boot load of unwanted thrust but not quite TOGA. If one was to move the thust levers above the CL detent, then but not as far as TOGA, then back into the CL detent, the AT will disconnect and give you full CLB power. No sign of TOGA or GA pitch commands, just a bucket load of unwanted power very close to Planet Earth....

Oh really, since when?

IFR hand flying skills, yes by all means, stick and rudder, not quite, cadets can't handle cross winds, I get loads of practice. :}

Quote : "So I'll describe it to you again:
Quite a few new guys and girls have caused an unintentional go-around while doing a managed speed approach. They went OUT of the detent to give it a burst ( forward of the detent )and then they put the levers back INTO the Detent straight after. Below 100' THAT GIVES YOU TOGA. then it's too late................."going around" "
And I say it a bit more clearly : That's BULLLLLSHIIIT !
You can't have a Go-around without the thrust levers in the TOGA detent.(Contrarily to a 744 under MDA)
Please check your sources again.

Quote : "...consider that the safest thing on an airplane is a highly experienced stick-and-rudder pilot..."
Yes, there were so many of them, they are all over mountain slopes. I prefer a good operator to a stick-and-rudder jock anytime (some of them have become very good operators, too).

Quote : "You can keep you plastique fantastique "
Are you refering to the 787 ?

Quote : "As I remember the DC-9 was flown with a direct cable to the inverted aileron on the main one. Direct link with direct feel.
"
I give you that one. That doesn't say that the 9 was not a cow.

Quote : "But when I go to work, I want to fly an airplane, not a computer.
"
As far as I know, all FBW airplanes are flown through a computer, and so will those which will follow. To make you believe that it's not there is what I call intellectual dishonesty and limiting the systems capability.

Quote : "If Airbus were half interested in product support and SAFETY they'd provide a software update to FIX the problem."
That's what they do, and these QRH items will disappear as they all do eventually. Like all that have been discovered through line operation or technical trials.

Quote : "Praise the Airbus as much as you want, but a circuit with a DC-10 and its FBW will forever be superior. Set the attitude, hold for 1 second and it flies spot on.
"
1/- I did not know the DC-10 was FBW.
2/- What you describe is what you get on a 'Bus : Leve the 'stick alone and the airplane will fly the latest path you have controlled. On a circling down to the minima, it's priceless.

Quote : "If one was to move the thust levers above the CL detent, then but not as far as TOGA, then back into the CL detent, the AT will disconnect and give you full CLB power. No sign of TOGA or GA pitch commands, just a bucket load of unwanted power very close to Planet Earth.... "
Thanks, Tight Slot. But...
Why would one do that? If anything, the approach speeds given by the FMGS are too conservative. In twelve years on the 'Bus and having worked for the Tech department, I have never heard of that situation. Either you are in A/THR mode and there is plenty of speed or you are on manual flying and to need in this case a thrust over CL is a bit of an overkill (or a wind gradient situation that's out of this world).

GMDS,
Yeah I know, I'm not fun, but this is about a silly war that a few would like to keep waging. To me, being just an airline pilot, I'd take anything my boss and his VP finance will get, and I'll adapt and I will even love it...dealing with its qualities, idiosyncracies and weaknesses. It's just the willy-waving macho trip that hit me. And I want to do the same !
Sorry.

Yesterday ..............

Can't we all just get along? :ok:

I fly the Airbus and love it. I just hope I'm never forced off it and back into a Boeing! Not because I think Boeings are bad, just that I really get on with Airbus philosophy. I love the lack of trim, static throttles (the N1s, FMAs and engine noise tell me all I need to know!), sidestick, etc etc.

I respect Boeing and its pilots. And I hope they respect me and my Airbus colleagues too. Two very different ways of operating a flying machine.

:)

You just don't understand the scenario I have painted do you.

So I'll try to draw it for you a third time.
Please read carefully.

1/ you are flying an approach using the autothrust ( known to be a bit slow in the Bus )
2/ the thrust levers are in the "detent"
3/ the speed gets a little slow below 100' and you decide that the autothrust sitting at lower power just ain't cutting the mustard.
4/ so you push the levers forward of the "detent" for maybe 1 second to give it a bit of thrust to stop the !!!! happeneing.
5/ The thrust then goes UP to commanded thrust lever position. right? yep
6/ you then mistakingly put it back into the "detent".
7/ but it's below 100' and the logic is different
8/ you now get the thrust commensurate with thrust lever postion. ie:
way way too much.
9/ which is not what you want is it. NOPE

What part of this is wrong?
Explain the Airbus autothrust logic to me then?

I know I'm a dumb Boeing Pilot, but maybe you could tell me what happens below 100' if you move forward out of detent and then back into detent? while the autothrust is engaged.

This is basically Pilot error I guess, but it shouldn't be allowed to happen.

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.

All true untill point 8) TOGA will not be commanded. As both levers are moved ahead of the CL detent, the AT will disconnect, not armed, or active - it will disconnect. therefore the levers will act as per the norm throttles in a Boeing. If the PF then puts them back into the CL gate, FULL CLM power is demanded (below 100' on the 330) AT is still disconnected.

Catches most Airbus drivers out at least once...

yes thanks.
I was wrong, it doesn't go into TOGA as you say. please accept my humble apologies for the mistake.

But a lot of thrust results, which is not what you want.

I may have gotten the finer details wrong but the end result of a stuff up and go-around is correct.

It's happened to new Airbus command trainees in CX more than once, doesn't impress the checker.

regards from dumb Boeing pilot.:ok:

p.s I have ammended item 8 on the post above.

No worries, glad to help. PS - our little secret ok - With 1000's more hours on the Boeings than the 'Bus, I'd still like to have the logic of the moving levers...

you know most Airbus Pilot's after a few drinks tell me they'd rather fly a Boeing. :}

Anyway we're all Pilot's and Flying is what we love. So I guess we should just get on with it hey?

:ok:

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