Airbus versus Boeing

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chemapeich
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?


you say aircraft are not designed for the ease of maintenance, the mech in mind. Ask a aircraft engineer and he/she will say your wrong. There is a lot of money spent on maintenance, not thousands but millions every day. Airlines think of mechs last I dont think so, after pilots they are the highest paid employees for an airline company. Ever been on a runway and look out the window and see those big hangars, what do you think there doing in there, just using them as garages. You know how many man hours go into maintaining an aircraft? airplanes spend months on the ground in maintenance, and the longer the plane is on the ground the more money the airline is losing... so you tell me save or lose? thats the basic answer. Now for a buyer of an aircraft, they look at the total price of purchase and warranty info, to see how much up front money can be saved. thats why most companies are going with airbus. Airbus is good for the purpose it is being sold for, no problem with that. boeing has problems because of their corporate side now. they cant make up their mind if they want to be totally defense, or commercial or just both like they are. Ask any factory worker from boeing they will tell you. And yes the satistic which is fair is the one for mechanical failures because this shows the product not a person. This statistic is not all true though, it shows for crashes or incindents where emergency personnel are called in. But there is the stats for just problems like the A300 rudder, or the 747 pylons, or the concords tire/gear well problems.. these are things going on all the time, evr been on a flight that was delayed or cancelled and they just said it was a minor maint. glitch. Yeah right you think the airlines want you to know before you fly with them that the rudder wont move, or a flap wont go up, or even they cant keep the engine running.... this is typical in the world a commercial aviation, goes on every day. So in conclusion YES maintenance is very important to any and all airline companies.




posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   
When I said harder maintenance I wasn't talking about the kind of problems you talk about. What I mean is that if accesibility is a problem, it's not that bad... I mean, they pay people to make the maintenance, of course, and they are supposed to know what they have to do, and then... well, I suppose that kind of things don't make the plane too much expensive... I'm sure that this increase the price of the plane during it's life (sorry for my bad english) but, like you said, companies always think about this kind of things, so I suppose that if they still choose Airbus is because that increase is not as dramatic as you say... and well, you is an employee, and like I said, workers are not as important for any company like the people who gives them money... of course you want a happy employee, but the way to have the employee happy is not spending more millions in a easier to mantein plane, the way to have them happy is paying and treating them well, and that is almost independent from the plane they work with... of course, if during the maintenance of an Airbus companies could do 3 flights with a Boeing, there wouldn't be any Airbus on the air...
To sum up, what I mean is that the problem with the maintenance with Airbus can't be so much serious... and if it is in an acceptable margin, it's not any real problem

[edit on 30/4/05 by Chemapeich]



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   
doesnt cost millions more to make an aircraft easier to work on. And yes the customer is important, but airlines have laws and safety rules that they must abide by or else they cannot fly in some countries airspace. So any airline will tell you safety first then the customer.



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   
A lot of plane come out of other plants all over the world. Maybe not on the scale of the big boys (747/A380) but you have to figure into the equation the many smaller players all over the world. This may be national pride, but this company puts out a fine line of aircraft. www.bombardier.com...



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
There is a good article in the May 1 NYT about the cost of infrastructure changes in airports to accomidate the A-380; it looks as though there may only be a dozen airports in the world by the end of the decade able to service the monster.

Here's an open question: Do you want to spend an hour waiting while the plane loads and 45 minutes to disembark?



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
A lot of plane come out of other plants all over the world. Maybe not on the scale of the big boys (747/A380) but you have to figure into the equation the many smaller players all over the world. This may be national pride, but this company puts out a fine line of aircraft. www.bombardier.com...


I agree, Bombardier and Embraer are very good plane builders, but unfortunately noone makes 1:400 models of their aircraft, so I have none in my collection



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   
well in the U.S so far only 4 airpotrs have plans for the a380. And one of those airports,LAX, is having problems with their plans and hoping for special approval from the FAA. And one of the busiest airports in the U.S. Atlanta international does not have any plans for the A380. And the famous O'Hare airport in Chicago seems like it wont be able to accomodate the A380 at any time in the near future. So this aircraft will only be able to definitely land at JFK in NY, and Miami, and San Francisco. Wow for such a big aviation market in the U.S., not that many airports going to be able to take this aircraft.

The U.S. aviation buisness has taken a big hit after 9/11 and is hurting. But in the last year aviation has been getting back on its feat, With companies like southwest, airtran, and jetblue. Most citys in the states have seen a rise in expenses to keep their airports open and in buisness, they dont want to spend big bucks on rebuilding to accomodate the A380, when they dont know what kinda of return it is going to bring. This is going to cause this aircraft greif here in the U.S. With this and all other things I have mentioned in the past my opinion is I prefer boeing over airbus and wish them both good luck in the future of aviation.





posted on May, 7 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
The US is not the world, and as I said before... to me it's just a matter of politics... maybe I won't be too much loved here, but America makes me sick



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   
And also... if foreign companies are buying A380... don't you think that maybe it's bad for the US not to have airports prepared?? if companies began to use the plane but they can't go to the US, this would be bad for you... and maybe they would need to improve the airports... just wondering... like I said before... US is not the world... and whatever you do, if The World do the other thing, you will be in trouble...



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I apologise on behalf of my fellow Americans for making you sick.

But to be serious, not adopting the A380 causes the U.S. as much trouble as not building an SST 35 years ago.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Chemapeich, he visto las cosas que usted no creería. He visto a mi compañía destruir a los infidels de Airbus. He visto la acción de Airbus llegar a ser sin valor en el cercano oscuro la puerta de Wall Street. Es hora para usted de vender la acción de Airbus, o usted morirá seguramente.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Chemapeich, he visto las cosas que usted no creería. He visto a mi compañía destruir a los infidels de Airbus. He visto la acción de Airbus llegar a ser sin valor en el cercano oscuro la puerta de Wall Street. Es hora para usted de vender la acción de Airbus, o usted morirá seguramente.


Subtle, very subtle



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Chemapeich, he visto las cosas que usted no creería. He visto a mi compañía destruir a los infidels de Airbus. He visto la acción de Airbus llegar a ser sin valor en el cercano oscuro la puerta de Wall Street. Es hora para usted de vender la acción de Airbus, o usted morirá seguramente.


Hey, could you translate that to English please. Not all of us can read French (or Spanish?)



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Chemapeich, he visto las cosas que usted no creería. He visto a mi compañía destruir a los infidels de Airbus. He visto la acción de Airbus llegar a ser sin valor en el cercano oscuro la puerta de Wall Street. Es hora para usted de vender la acción de Airbus, o usted morirá seguramente.


Hey, could you translate that to English please. Not all of us can read French (or Spanish?)


It's spanish... or it wants to be
it wants to mean... "Chemapeich, I have seen things you wouldn't believe. I have seen my company destroy the Airbus heathens (in spanish we say "infieles"). I have seen Airbus's shares loose their price near the dark Wall Street door. It's time for you to sell your Airbus shares, or you will certainly die" Thanks for the recommendation, but to be realistic, Airbus is not in danger of bankrupt... and Boeing isn't in danger too... sorry if my comment disgusted the american people here... I have nothing against Canada, Mexico or Latin-America... my problem is only with the US... they are the real heathens



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Chemapeach, you should be in a different thread if all you want to do is diss America.

Boeing and thier market stratagy vs. Airbus/Eurotrash is a different matter.



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I've flown Airbuses and Boeings, and I have to say that my Airbus flights were generally a little more smoother and comfortable, both in terms of the flying itself and the furnishings inside the plane (although the latter depends a lot on the airline itself, not the plane's manufacturer.)

Both companies make quality aircraft, although Airbus has always had the lead in terms of technology. However, despite the rougher rides, I always felt a little safer in a Boeing because Boeings aren't fly-by-wire. In other words, if there's a computer glitch, the pilot has some chance of manually controlling the plane, which is impossible with an Airbus.

Also, I have my doubts about the A380.. it may be a great plane technically, but carrying all those people will probably make it hell to board and disembark. I know it's only meant to be used at airports with the facilities to handle it, but airports are always messing up. Can you imagine how long it would take to board an A380 if they run out of "terminal docks" and have you bussing out to the plane on the tarmac and climbing up those mobile ladders?

-koji K.



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I have found the big difference in ride characteristics to be engines; GE is much smoother than a P&W or RR on the same airframe!



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Realist,


Originally posted by Realist05
I have found the big difference in ride characteristics to be engines; GE is much smoother than a P&W or RR on the same airframe!


In what way?

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I've been wondering if the same thing that happened to concorde will happen to the a380. The main reason the concorde never caught on was
its cost of operation. Before the 1973 fuel crisis alot of airlines had ordered
concorde. Then it just became to costly to turn a profit. Now oil is heading
over $60 a barrel could the a380 just become to costly to run.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Not in the case of the A380, the only way would fail would be if the traffic was not generated to fill it, or at least fill it to break even point. The reason Concorde became too expensive to operate viably after the 1973 fuel crisis was that it was too small to carry enough passengers to make a profit against the cost of the fuel required for supersonic flight.

The A380 on the other hand carries more passengers than anything else in the sky and is powered by ultra efficient engines designed for subsonic cruising, so its a totally different kettle of fish.

In fact look what cleaned up in the transport market in the aftermath of the fuel crisis, thats right, the Boeing 747, then the biggest airliner in the world, so if the cost of fuel does become prohibitive the A380, along with the 787, will be in the strongest position.


edited for spelling mistakes; I'm such a 'fule'


[edit on 9-6-2005 by waynos]





top topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join