Airbus or Boeing?


#1

Very controversial question, but its never bad to stir up a little controversy now and then 8)


#2

My vote would be for McDonnell Douglas. Unfortunately, the former is not longer with us and the latter does not make commercial aircraft anymore.

The DC-8 and DC-9 series were great aircraft.

The L-1011 was better than the DC-10. Unfortunately, it had a rough time getting out the hangar and into service.


#3

:confused: [/confused]


#4

Based on what criteria?

Looks?
Comfort?
Profitability?
Innovation?
IFE?


#5

Not based on any one specific aspect, just in general.


#6

While I agree that they designed and built some great military aircraft, the DC10 was possibly the worst design in commercial aircraft history. Routing all of the hydraulic lines through a single failure point in the tail near an engine was directly responsible for the DC10 crash in Iowa. One noted aircraft safety expert even refused to fly on the DC10 citing its poor design. The DC11 (excuse me, MD11) never even recovered its development costs.


#7

While I’m not a noted aircraft safety expert (nor do I play one on TV!) I did walk off a DC10 in Chicago once many moons ago and sought an alternate transport back home to BWI.

I can’t recall ever refusing to board an aircraft before, and I’ve flown in some real dogs over the years. Amazing what some bad press will do to color one’s opinion of things.


#8

:smiley: Did you find yourself with the suckiest seat ever?!!! (i.e. the middlest one.)

I used to fly on NW’s DC-10s all the time when they had them. I didn’t mind the 2-5-2 when at a window seat.


#9

From a passenger’s point of view, Airbus seemed to have an edge as far as passenger comfort was concerned. They came up with certain innovations such as overhead LCD’s above head in every other seat or so while Boeing were still rolling out brand new A/C’s with a single CRT screen in front of each section. They also came up with those headrests with adjustable width.


#10

One has to wonder how we’d be accommodated were Toyota or Nissan to build aircraft.

As a person of above average proportions, I often feel that if Boeing had their druthers we’d all have to fit into small, sealed, uniform sized boxes for the duration of a trip.


#11

If the AIRLINES had their way, we’d fit into those boxes. Boeing will sell you a 747 with 10 seats if you wish. I will testify that Boeing may like to depict different high-capacity configurations as being comfortable to people of all sizes, even though you and I (6’3") would most certainly disagree with their claims.

I’d imagine that Airbus make the same sort of remarks about the comfort of their a/c as well. Skybus’s 150-seat A319s can’t be too comfy though…

BTW: I know we’ve had this very same discussion before, but my search didn’t find the discussion I’m thinking of. When comparing a/c quality and “toughness,” someone told the story of a 707 that had its wingtip sheared off, and still landed safely somewhere in the Pacific.


#12

source: ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=75271&key=0
NTSB Identification: OAK65A0076
14 CFR Part 121 Scheduled operation of PAN AMERICAN WORLD AWYS INC.
Event occurred Monday, June 28, 1965 in SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Aircraft: BOEING 707 321B, registration: N761PA


FILE DATE LOCATION AIRCRAFT DATA INJURIES FLIGHT PILOT DATA
F S M/N PURPOSE

1-0020 65/6/28 SAN FRANCISCO CAL BOEING 707 321B CR- 0 0 10 SCHED INTERNATL PASSG SRV AIRLINE TRANSPORT, AGE
TIME - 1310 N761PA PX- 0 0143 44, 17736 TOTAL HOURS,
DAMAGE-SUBSTANTIAL OT- 0 0 0 2606 IN TYPE, INSTRUMENT
RATED.
NAME OF AIRPORT - SAN FRANCISCO INT
OPERATOR - PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS,INC.
TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION
ENGINE FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION IN FLIGHT: CLIMB TO CRUISE
AIRFRAME FAILURE: IN FLIGHT IN FLIGHT: CLIMB TO CRUISE
PROBABLE CAUSE(S)
PERSONNEL - MAINTENANCE,SERVICING,INSPECTION: IMPROPER MAINTENANCE (MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL)
PERSONNEL - MAINTENANCE,SERVICING,INSPECTION: INADEQUATE INSPECTION OF AIRCRAFT (MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL)
PERSONNEL - PRODUCTION-DESIGN-PERSONNEL: POOR/INADEQUATE DESIGN
POWERPLANT - TURBINE ASSEMBLY: WHEEL TURBINE
MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS - MATERIAL FAILURE
FACTOR(S)
MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS - IMPROPER CLEARANCE-TOLERANCE
MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS - FIRE IN ENGINE
MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS - SEPARATION IN FLIGHT
COMPLETE POWER LOSS - COMPLETE ENGINE FAILURE/FLAMEOUT-1 ENGINE
EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES - PRECAUTIONARY LANDING ON AIRPORT
SUSPECTED OR KNOWN AIRCRAFT DAMAGE
REMARKS- RT.WGTIP & NO.4 ENG.SEPARATED IN FLT. DURING OVERHAUL NO.4 RNG SERVICEABLE WORN PARTS INSTALLED.


#13

I was an unwilling passenger traveling to SEAsia in June of '67 on a World Airways 707 charter that encountered clear air turbulence (CAT) over the Pacific severe enough to cause the aircraft to shed the no.2 engine and pylon.

We limped into Naha, Okinawa and killed several days awaiting a replacement aircraft.


#14

i think flymeariver764 wanted a conversation along the lines ‘why do you like Airbus or Boeing?’

For me i prefer Boeing because of the traditional yoke thats in FRONT of you and because i dont like Airbus design of a side stick controller which looks like my pc joystick!!

Another reason is of the FBW, i hate it, simple, so yes i don’t have much respect for the B777 but overall i prefer Boeing


#15

Allegiance to the manufacturer in my country! Pure and simple.


#16

Boeing…Boeing…Boeing…hmmm,I wonder if a poll was taken for airline pilots with the question ?which do you prefer to fly?..what would the response be???The 737-800 gets my vote as also does the 777-200LR,747-400,oh and the soon to be 787…GOD BLESS AMERICA…Happy July 4th everyone.


#17

I live less than 10 nm (direct KPAE) from them. Of course I like Boeing! (See below)

Statistically, the poll above (assuming everyone votes here) would show a large percentage on the Boeing side since the majority of FA members in the forum seem to be from the US. (That would probably most likely explained by the fact that FA tracks unblocked aircraft controlled by the FAA only.)


#18

Details for Sunday’s big Boeing bash… :smiley:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/snohomishcountynews/2003773059_boeing04n1.html


#19

Boeing


#20

Definitely airbus. Don’t get me wrong, Boeing knows how to a make a plane but Airbus seems to be the new innovator and take big chances to create something new. Yes, the 787 is all new but its been like 14 years and many boeing planes have been a previous models’ fuselage with new wings and such for example.

Used to be a big Boeing fan but I got to give it Airbus now. Carbon fiber, fly by wire, etc., they’ve been the first to have done a lot.

:confused: … awaiting to be bashed (as expected)