Airbus versus Boeing

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 09:37 AM
After all the bruhaha over hte A380 weight issue, Boeing have announced that the 787 is also over its planned weight. Not much info at the moment, but Im hoping to chase down more soon. Luckily, as with the A380, its early enough on in the development process so that internals can be redesigned to bring the weight down to targets.

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 09:45 AM
How do u know the A380 will be a nightmare to maintain? there arent even any commercial ones out yet. I seriously doubt the situation is as bad as u are suggeting because if it was nobody would buy airbus this is clearly not true as they have a bigger market share than douglas and boeing.
I think u may be just nit picking, sour grapes?

[edit on 28-4-2005 by ufo3]

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 10:02 AM
I can't believe this thread has been allowed to go on, it's quite clearly a Europe v America thread.

It has been said numerous times on this thread, these two planes are aimed at different markets.

Airbus understands that, what with the increase in passenger requirements more people will be travelling in the future and it's better to take one plane rather than two.

Boeing on the other hand designed something that could easily have come from an episode of Thunderbirds......

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 12:43 PM
I will put it like this, the A300,310, and 320 I have worked on. None of these aircraft were a joy. Each one had its own little problems, usually in part to not being able to do things that airbus says you can do. This is a common problem in the whole industry but seems to be beyond average with an airbus. So if this company keeps up there ways it should be just the same. I have seen brand new a300s come in with the wrong landing gear on the aircraft and have to be grounded till there techs come out and refit and install the proper gear.I Have yet come across a boeing with this problem. And why is it that there are more B737s flying in the air than any other commercial aircraft. And yes I know the A380 is made for the long haul, but look who its first customer is singapore air, they cant even fill a 747 rather an A380. thats why you dont see any american companies ordering this aircraft yet. To fill that many seats and make the aircraft cost effctive is going to be hard. Companies can save exspenses using other aircraft for the long distance flight such as a 767,777,MD11,A300,A310, etc...

I am not totally against airbus, the company has great ambitions and is doing much better these days than Boeing. Just because they sell more planes now does not mean they have a favored product. Corporate loves them because of the marketing, but get down into maintenance and see which aircraft is a better quality machine, Boeing wins by a long shot. You dont see many 30 year old airbuses flying anymore, but you sure do see boeing and douglas. I worked on a maintenance line for a good time that did heavy checks on DC-8s yes still flying, designed in the fiftys and still flying today. You dont see them as a passenger plane but they sure haul mail very good. I dont think the best made airbus or boeing will ever be able to do this, but this is a plane i always think about when it comes to flying, it does it well and it shows how good engineering can make something last a lifetime. I just wish aircraft can be designed like this still but companies like to cut edges and in the end you spend millions of dollars on something that probably wont last the amount of time it should. I am not here to bash companies but I have to stand up for boeing they have been doing it for a long time and they do it right.

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 02:57 PM
I like the cut of your jib ncbrian211, well put. Most people on this thread tend to be bias toward the country of origin, including myself, as opposed to the practicality of the product.

As for Singapore Airways filling seats, I couldn't tell you, but I can tell you that those seats available in Britain will almost definitely be filled and would tend to think this is a global trend as competition between the airlines continues to become more intense.

There is a place for both of these monsters, but I hope that it will be short lived as the real issue of practicality which seems to be missed is that we are still creating a form of transport that has a devastating effect on the environment.

I ask why?

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 05:29 PM
I do think that if they weren't gonna fill the airplanes, or it wasn't interesting for the companies, Airbus wouldn't be selling the plane like they are doing, and I think they have a lot of orders for the giant plane. On the other hand, I think that the fact of american companies not buying the plane, has more to be with political reasons than with the quality of the plane (and, well, they are on their right). Also, 787 and A380 are very different planes, and maybe complementary... the big plane on the big traffic routes, and the small one for the less used ones. Both planes are interesting for a different thing. And, let's be realistic, 747 is a quite old design... they should make a completely new plane rather than talking about to make a new version... the 747A sounds me like when they said they were gonna make a bigger version... it was when Airbus started to talk about the A3XX... companies were more interested in a brand new plane than in a new version of an old one, and Boeing decided to stop the project... will this happen again?? I hope they realize that this is a closed way and decide to build theyr flying wing...

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 07:00 PM
I shall just say that Airbus is nowhere near Boeing's quality. It has made a great leap forward but not yet enough to even claim the right to compete with Boeing. Airbus manages to sell aircraft in large quantities just due to its prices, and offers made to airlines, not to mention the pressure put on EU countries to acquire Airbus aircraft. Materials used in Airbus aircraft are of much worse quality to make up for the price loss, so that Airbus wouldn't go bancrupt, while Boeing invests into safety and quality rather than mass of aircraft produced and sold.

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 08:06 PM
Just one question for all those who talk about quality of Airbus aircrafts... how many of them has have accidents? (It's really a question, I haven't found any serious data about that) and how many Boeings? I mean... If Airbus planes are so much worst built and, consequently, so much dangerous... they wouldn't be flying... and they fly, and they sell more planes than Boeing... If Airbus materials are so bad and all that... please, gimme a fact, data, and I will say I'm wrong... but till then, I will believe that american planes are like american cars... and my opinion about american cars... well, they look like stone age

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 09:18 PM
-china air april 26, 1994 A300 crashes 264 dead
-American airlines nov 12, 2001 A300 crashes 260 dead
-Indonesia jet sep 26,1997 A300 crashes 234 dead
-china airlines feb 16, 1998 A300 crashes 196 dead
-Air France during airshow airbus crashes all onboard dead
-Pakistan internation airlines A300 crashes 167 dead
-A320 crashes into mountain in france all dead
-A320 crashes into persian gulf waters in 2000 while trying to land 137 dead
-flight attendent sucked out of door during flight dead

I can go on for a while many crashes of Airbuses especially lately. not many survivors

Also Boeing has sold more aircraft in its history than Airbus

[edit on 28-4-2005 by ncbrian211]

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 02:42 AM
ncbrian211 could you provide a link for the information above, I'd like to have a little more detail about each of those crashes, cos if this is true, i'm amazed any Airbuses have been sold anywhere.

As for Boeing selling more..........., they have been in business a little longer.

edit: No need to quote the entire post of one that is directly above yours.
Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

[edit on 29-4-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 03:05 AM
Ooooh statistics!! Lots of fun games you can have with statistics! Lets see shall we (statistics correct for end of 2003) -

Concorde 1 accident
Airbus A300 9
Airbus A310 5
Airbus A319/320/321 4
Airbus A330 2
Airbus A340 0
Boeing 727 46
Boeing 737 47
Boeing 747 24
Boeing 757 4
Boeing 767 3
Boeing 777 0
British Aerospace BAe 146 4
Embraer 110 Bandeirante 28
Embraer 120 Brasilia 5
Fokker F-28 20
Fokker F-70/F-100 3
Lockheed L-1011 Tristar 5
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 42
McDonnell Douglas DC-10 15
McDonnell Douglas MD-80 9
McDonnell Douglas MD-11 4
Saab 340 3

So in total number of crashes, Boeing has had .... 124, while Airbus has had ... 20.

Now, I can go on and do this all day, presenting different in statistics in different lights. And someone can go and do the same thing to present Boeing in a similiar light, for example accidents per number of flights or similiar. The fact is that no aircraft is immune from crashes.

Very few crashes involve inherent manufacturing faults, infact the predominent cause of crashes throughout civil aviation history has been pilot error, take a look at the stats on this page if you want.

By all accounts, the worst aircraft to fly on is Concorde with 11.9 accidents per million flights - ouch.

[edit on 29/4/2005 by RichardPrice]

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 08:21 AM
I never said boeing never crashed but a majority of the crashes are pilot error. Where if you look at the airbus the majority of there crashes have to do with mechanical failure, not a good word in aviation. Now to date boeing aircraft make up a rough 75% of the world fleet of commercial jetliners. nearly 12,000 aircraft flying today. As whare Airbus only has a total of 5000 aircraft ordered not all flying till this day. And boeing is still producing and delivering aircraft today. And dont forget about Boeings other aerospace buisness..such as deafence, communications, research, space research....etc. the facts were pulled
right from each comapnies profile on their websites. I dont hate airbus i just wish they would make their aircraft a little more friendly to a mech like me.

oh yeah check out this link....

Boeing quick facts

[edit on 29-4-2005 by ncbrian211]

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 08:35 AM

Originally posted by ncbrian211
I never said boeing never crashed *snip*

Oh I agree entirely, but as I said, statistics can make Hitler look like Jesus if needed. Theres a great book out there called 'Fun with Statistics' - get it from a local library, its a great read (its a humour book more than anything).

oh yeah check out this link all boeing haters....

I actually dont think there are any Boeing haters on this forum, but there are Airbus haters. Im personally an aviation lover, whatever company produced the aircraft, but I hate the claims made on this and other forums without any backup at all, and the vast majority of the time they seem to be against Airbus which is why you find me 'defending' Airbus a lot of the time.

Nice link tho, thanks for that

[edit on 29/4/2005 by RichardPrice]

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 09:18 AM
richard price...

I dont hate airbus, see i have been working on airplanes for many years and it seems it is always the same problem over and over with airbus. Their aircraft are not mechanic freindly. From problems in their SRM, and Maintenance manuals to there engineering drawings, which sometimes I think are drawn up on mars. See its more than just a plane to me its my life, and I have learned alot about what makes me happy. When something is easy no problem, but when it is mixed up not making any sense then i dont want to touch it. And access is a major role on an aircraft where airbus has some plusses they have many more nagatives, if you know what i mean. For light line maintenance their aircraft is a breeze but bring them in for a c check now theres problems. And they go in many times in there life for this check. Thats why I like boeing, very friendly during heavy checks, easy to work on, and a lot more vendors offering parts and services. And there manuals, a breeze to understand. See it is a preferance to me, trust me Its not hatred,i dont like flying on either one of these aircrafts because I know whats going on underneath where you cant see. This is my opinion.

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 09:23 AM

Originally posted by ncbrian211
richard price...


This is my opinion.

Whoa, calm down - I wasnt implying you were anything, I was just saying that there are Airbus haters on this and other forums. Your opinion is valid, and I respect that. Im currently in the process of discussing your comments with a friend of mine who works with Airbus aircraft on the ground too, as Im surprised nothing about this has come to light before.

There just seems to be a pasttime of bashing Airbus jsut because they arent Boeing - you actually have a different viewpoint because you work with them and thus you actually bring something to the discussion rather than the people who sit back and say 'Dont like them, I like Boeing, Airbus suck because I like Boeing'.

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 02:54 PM

Originally posted by ncbrian211
Thats why I like boeing, very friendly during heavy checks, easy to work on, and a lot more vendors offering parts and services. And there manuals, a breeze to understand. See it is a preferance to me, trust me
Its not hatred,i dont like flying on either one of these aircrafts because I know whats going on underneath where you cant see. This is my opinion.

- This reminds me of the type of thing I used to hear from mechanics all over.

You like what you are used to and you have a tendancy to feel happier and more comfortable about what is known and familiar.

It's the same the world over and nothing new.

As people switch more and more to Airbus from Boeing the boot will change to the other foot and the story will be reversed in more and more places.

The wheel turns, everything eventually changes, that's all it is.

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 05:09 PM
I am accustomed to airbus, been working on them since I have been in aviation. Also I have worked on boeing, douglas, lockheed, northrop, bombdier,cessna,leer, saab, embreair, dassault. Found airbus to be the most confusing of all manuals and not mechanic friendly aircraft. Mechanics all over work on more than boeing, you have Fokker, dassault, saab, embreair etc. These aircraft are used very much in american commercial aviation so please when saying something look at whats out there and think about it. Mechs have been doing this for a while on various aircraft in many countries and one thing most of them like is the ease of maintenance. This word keeps every plane in the sky everyday, and on top of it the mech is a dieing breed not enough for all the aircraft in the world.

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 07:36 PM
Maybe Airbus are harder to mantein, if you say so I will believe you, but remember one thing: planes are not made for the mechanics, they are made for the passengers. Don't say one plane is bad because it brigs you a more complicated work: you are one of the less important parts for the company...
If it sounds hard, don't think I have anything against you... in fact I think it's a very interesting information I hadn't heard about, but in the airplanes world, people wont think about mechanics until you do a mistake... and you know the world is that way... unfair. And Richard had all the reason, statistics are always like people wants... what I was thinking about was something like "percentage of crashes due to airplane failure" or something like that... it's the only statistic that can be a little fair to both companys, don't you think?

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 11:45 PM
But wouldn't harder maintenance be a bad sales pitch when your trying to sell the Airbus jet to other counties? Since there would be fewer A-380’s in service for one particular county than say 747’s because of it size you would want to make sure its going to be around just as long as an 747.

posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 09:24 AM
OK, Boeing are the bestest, and Airbus are the losers.

Now who's the best?

The US or Europe, cos thats all you're actually arguing about, this has frack all to do with planes.

top topics
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in