OK come one come all before I get thrown off the post and blocked permanently to listen to the following. It is not my intention to start a war but what will be will be. I'm had enough of these lame uninteresting posts so I've decided to liven things up a bit.

1) I'm sick and tired of these European attitudes that Airbus is so amazing and now we can finally get back at Boeing. What the hell did Boeing ever do? Oh yeah I think it was when they made excellent well-designed aircraft and sold them for a profit. GASP!! But of course Airbus doesn't do that. Airbus is only in the market for the universal greater good.

2) Why the hell is it such a victory when Airbus gets the order and Boeing doesn't!??! The reality is both are huge multinational corporations making billions upon billions of dollars. What the hell do any of you have anything to do with it anyway? These companies are getting rich selling their product and would do much better to stop undercutting each other. Yes duopoly however illegal works. This means don't sell planes for less than manufacturing costs (favorite tactic of both especially Airbus) and don't waste billions of dollars on A3XX/747X which will only hurt both companies in the end (the classic prisoner's dilemma of Economics).

Bottom line is both make the mode of transport to get where you want to go. But some of you would probably take up arms against the other post writers for their "blasphemies" if you only could And what about these arrogant attitudes you all seem to have. I would guess that maybe 10% of you are pilots who don't know jack shit about what you are talking about yet you feel the need to attack the simple enthusiasts who have innocent questions. I have seen this many times and been a part of it recently. Lighten up.

So just accept that Airbus is as shameful and Boeing and get on with your lives. Airbus sucks. Boeing sucks.

Amen brother....

I agree with you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was expecting to be pounced on.....any takers?

I think there are a lot of people here who share your sentiments. If someone threatens to have this post erased it will only hurt matters. If you have something to say, you should feel free to speak your mind.

What is it that you find redeeming in going out of your way to try and piss people off? Granted, I've done it numerous times on this post, but the difference is that I never intended to. If you want to get a rise out of people, without making yourself look like a jackass, you can start by posting a controversial question, instead of coming out and making blanket insults like that. You probably will not have a skimtchin of credibility henceforth now. I mean, I hate to reply to an insult with an insult, but c'mon man......are you with us or not? I bet I speak for many here.

As long as the airplane has a red button to turn all this computerized crap off (which sadly most airplanes have on board) so YOU as the pilot can "FLY" the aircraft instead the other way around and as long as the yoke is positioned infront of you, I don't care where the airplane comes from; just let the pilot fly the plane instead of playing some computer games up front where hundreds of lives are in the hands (or should I say "microchips" and "processors") of the people in command, today also known as computer supervisors.

Where are the good old days of cables and pulleys.

Boeing727

So, what's your point?

I mean, are you simply trying to piss people off or are you saying that people should take negative comments about their favorite brand, shut up, and quit being pansies?

I hope it is the latter.

Tschuss

WC

A bit of both here guys. I wasn't so much trying to piss people off as spark their interest just a little bit. I feel very strongly that people who love Airbus or love SIA or love the 737NG (haven't seen too many but I'm new at this) should also accept a little criticism from time to time. Nobody is perfect and Airbus sure as hell isn't (neither is Boeing for that matter). Every post I see that starts out well enough but gets bogged down in name calling, threats, and paranoia (YES I too am guilty of this) which is just plain dumb and it sure as hell isn't constructive by any standard.

I wrote this crappy post and the others in something of a foul mood trying to piss a few people off (hey guys you can't please everybody all f the time). Please don't get the wrong impression...I'm not an asshole, far from it in fact but I also think the Golden Rule (treat others as you would have them treat you) doesn't always apply. Didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings (except those of you who came out and e-mailed that my post should be deleted). I think that's just plain dumb thing to do and is tantamount to censorship just because Gundu doesn't agree with me.

Hope that cleared things up a bit and I promise next post will be a bit more relevant and less political. It IS interesting the kind of issues my garbage vitriol and bile has produced. You see, we had a productive discussion in the end though no?

More planes, less talk.......

Just wanted to reply to HZ-AKF's post where he asked something like: Who cares which of both multi-billion companies gets orders (or anything similar).
I care about it, and every time Airbus gets an order for its planes I'm happy as those secure many jobs here in Germany and the rest of Europe. And don't let me forget to mention the very elegant looking A330-200, a real pride in the skies...it lets my heart beat faster...I hope to see it in SIA colors soon...
And I also care about if Boeing gets an order for GE-powered B777s, as I just love those planes with their XXXXX-large engines...(RR and PW not bad, but they don't look as impressive).

Regards
Udo

HZ-AKF wrote:
-------------------------------
I was expecting to be pounced on.....any takers?

****
By reading your post(s) start believing that this is the reason you came here.

Is it your intention to disrupt any serious (or even sometimes humorous) discussions by posting things like this?

And while in the one or other topic there might be sometimes hot discussions above doesnt properly reflect the mood here but just seems to seed any of all the things you implied in above.

Rgds,

HZ-AKF (nice name, dude), I do agree with you that things here need to seriously get more interesting. So, in that respect I welcome your post.

Boeing is crap...airbus is crap, as you so eloquently put it. Fair enough. I think many people, especially in Europe, like the fact that Airbus is doing so well out of a national (if that's the right word) pride, just the same as why American people like Boeing.

I particularly, like yourself, hate those ill-informed comments of people who know very little about the subject discussed. All they can do is repeat things they have heard, mostly things that simply aren't true. It really annoys me...and it doesn't matter if these comments are made by a Boeing or an Airbus fan.

In fact, we have one such person here right now. Just go back to Boeing727's post and ask yourself, how much does this guy really know about it and how much is utter (censored) ? I can tell you, but I think you already know. Playing computer games up front ? Do automatics really endager 'hundreds of lives' ? Hello, reality check.

I just ask you why do you come here acting like God, telling us what to think, what to post and making such conclusions.

"The reality is both are huge multinational corporations making billions upon billions of dollars. What the hell do any of you have anything to do with it anyway?"

"I would guess that maybe 10% of you are pilots who don't know jack shit about what you are talking about yet you feel the need to attack the simple enthusiasts who have innocent questions. I have seen this many times and been a part of it recently. Lighten up."

You don't know me and by the way this is a forum, remember that you're in a forum?

Luis, Faro, Portugal

You wrote:

"I'm sick and tired of these European attitudes that Airbus is so amazing and now we can finally get back at Boeing. What the hell did Boeing ever do? Oh yeah I think it was when they made excellent well-designed aircraft and sold them for a profit. GASP!! But of course Airbus doesn't do that. Airbus is only in the market for the universal greater good."

Well I'm getting pretty sick and tired of hearing about these so-called European attitudes. First of all, there is no such thing as a "European attitude". There is still a great diversity of politics, attitude and language, even within the EU.

The only worry expressed about Boeing is that a monopoly would be in no-one's interest. There are hardly any anti-Boeing people on this forum. Time and time again people, including me, are accused of being Boeing-bashers because they won't keep quiet when someone posts yet another "Airbus are cr*p" message and then suddenly we're hearing about the USA being the defenders of Democracy.

If you actually took the trouble to read all the posts you'd see that the vast majority of the Europeans on this forum are quite happy with Airbus AND Boeing and recognise the the USA's worth without thinking the sun shines out of their... well, you know what I mean. You'd also see that the vast majority of us from the USA, Canada, the UK, Portugal, Sweden, Australia, etc., get along fine and read with interest about aviation in each other's countries.

You seem to bag on Airbus but you do not suport it with anything!! Airbus has way better products. You speak to any Airbus pilot and they seem to be much happier flying the A320 the a 737 pilot is flying the 737. Airbus made concorde which is the only SST. Airbus made the first wide body twin the A300 and then used the same aircraft parts and made it little bro. the A310. Boeing had never used aircraft parts for other aircrafts before Airbus. Airbus was the first to have fly by wire then Boeing compied. The A320 was the first to have an all glass cockpit. Airbus has the quietest aircraft flying the A340. Airbus are selling many more A320 then 737. If you can think of so many industry changing things Boeing has done please post them. Iain

*Applause*

Well I didn't want to start this but the foolish words of Iain and others leave me no choice.

Airbus invented the SST? Never heard such bullshit.
Maybe Airbus planes are nice to look at on the outside I'll give you that. But the one thing I notice everytime I fly the 330/340 is how the interior is EXACTLY the same as the A300 and A310...a 20 year old design. At least Boeing makes some innovations from time to time. In fact the A330 and A340 seem like nothing more than updated and stretched versions of the A300 with a bit of a nicer appearance. Excuse me I don't remember saying anything bad about Airbus...and your ignorant nonsense is a perfect example of the type of flag-waving crap I see all the time.

Point taken David L.
I am not as ignorant as I may seem.

Yes, HK-AKF, you are right about many people and their viewpoint, but at least admit that it comes from both sides. Both Boeing and Airbus lovers post certain things that are not always completely correct (or blatantly wrong, take you pick). Not just Airbus lovers, so let's move on now.

I can already see this post is headed nowhere. I have a lot of respect for Airbus but when people start to talk out of their asshole I can't accept that.

I think they are both fine companies and both will do very well in the future.

Dateline London: November 29. 1962

A supersonic airliner will soon be a reality. After long negotiations the British and French governments have at least
decided to embark on one of the greatest adventures in the history of aviation.Representives from the two countries, British
minister of aviation Julian Amery and French ambassador Jouffroy de Courcel, have today signed an historic draft treaty for
collaboration in the building of a supersonic transport aircraft. Never before have two countries committed themselves to such
close cooperation. The treaty stipulates that France and Great Britain "must in all aspects of the project make an equal
contribution regarding both the costs to be taken on and the work to be carried out, and to share equally proceeds from
sales". Four companies have been entrusted with bringing the project to fruiton. The British Aircraft Corporation and
France's Sud Aviation are to build the airframe, while the four Olympus 593 jet engines will be manufactured by both Bristol
Siddeley and SNECMA.


Excuse me I don't remember hearing anything about Airbus existing in 1962.

"Airbus has way better products"--Upon what do you base this nonsense? Your own "observations" I assume.

Yes Boeing unlike Airbus doesn't keep making the same airplane over and over again adding wingtips or stretching or shortening the fuselage here and there. Thank God they don't...how boring that would be! Boeing copied Fly By Wire from Airbus eh?
I don't think so you half-witted simpleton. U.S. Military planes as far back as the original F-16 in 1979 were sporting FBW technology which has proven unreliable in the commercial market in any case.

Of course Airbus is selling more...not because they are such quality planes but because their operating costs are so low. And Boeing has sold more 737's than Airbus has sold AIRCRAFT.

Sorry idiot. I don't buy your pack of lies and bullshit.

Iainhol you have come to the conclusions that HZ-AKF is talking about - sprouting absolute garbage to make a flag-waving point.

1. As noted Airbus DID NOT create the Concorde. Sud Aviation and BAC did.
2. Every pilot has his or her preferred airplane.
3. What has making a widebody twin got to do with life? Boeing made the first WIDEBODY, period. And, what's more, the most successful one by far.
4. All Boeings use parts from the previous design. The 727, 737 and 757 all share the same tube as the original 1958 707. Don't try feeding us crap that Airbus came up with the idea.
5. Airbus was the first to have FBW because Boeing did not end up launching the 7J7 in the 1980s. What's more, the 777 FBW design is quadruplex and inherently more reliable than the Airbus FBW system.
6. The A320 was NOT first to have an all-glass cockpit. The A310 and B767 are noted for the first glass cockpits, of which the A310 was launched second, but flew first. The first modern glass cockpit was the 747-400, a design traced back to 1982. At that time the A320 still had an A310 cockpit and a hydraulic control system.
7. The A340 is NOT the quietest airplane flying. It all depends on where you stand, of course, but the footprint beneath a 777 is infact, smaller.
8. Since the launch of the A320 Boeing has sold more than 3,000 737s, and Airbus 2,300 A32Xs. Doesn't look good for your interpretation of sales.

Now, Boeing changed the industry BY INVENTING THE MODERN JET AIRLINER. Pods under wings, big capacity. The 707 changed the world more than the Comet ever did (although yes, the Comet does have rights to being the first). Boeing also changed the way the world flies with the 747. The 767 fragmented the North Atlantic routes almost on its own. The 727 came with triple-slotted flaps. Boeing invented swept wings for high speeds at high altitudes with the B-47 bomber, and perfected wing pods with the B-52. They invented the plug door, the raked wingtip, cross-crew commonality (the 757/767). They made the 737 affordable to third world countries so they too could have airlines. They invented FANS (satellite navigation and communication), in flight entertainment systems, the widebody jet, incorporated weather radar for the first time.

I like Airbus. I like Boeing. But I HATE people mouthing off with false information about one or the other. Your post was an utter joke. I hope you've learned something.

Thanks for setting things straight Ravi.

How do you know all this stuff?

Why did you say "applause" after Iain's post? I guess he must have beat you to it and you weren't responding to him.

What do you think of the notion that Boeing is a bit more original in its designs although I like both companies tremendously and think Airbus is doing great things lately.

I've been reading about Airbusses and Boeings since I was 3. I recall in kindergarten when the class was reading spelling books I was reading a 747 maintenance manual.

Ok, so I was just looking at the pictures! :-)

I make it a point to try and prevent misinformation about either organisation from becoming inappropriate facts. One of which we have seen today - that Airbus invented everything and Boeing is the big copy-cat. A truly absurd notion.

I said *applause*, but was referring to the post by David L. I was agreeing with things that both you and he had said and was enjoying reading them.

I make no secret of the fact that I believe Boeing to be a greater company than Airbus based on its heritage. But, to be fair, Boeing has had 54 more years to do it in. Each company started under a similar ideal - to build airplanes better than anyone else. William Boeing did it in 1916, Airbus started with the A300 in the 1960s. I give no creedence to the yelps by Americans that Airbus should not have been subsidised because, quite frankly, I don't see why the world aerospace industry should be dominated by less than 5% of the world's population, and European aerospace is far too talented to be limited to being a Boeing or Lockheed supplier.

Besides, recently BAe finished paying back the UK govt the loans for the A320 series, so its not like the subsidies are free like many Boeing fans like to think it is. I also disregard the notion that Boeing was offered a form of subsidy in military contracts to make its commercial family. The 367-80 was funded entirely by Boeing - a 1952 value of US$16m. The 747 was not an old CX-5 military design eventually won by the Lockheed proposal.

I really enjoy the different philosophies of Airbus and Boeing. It varies from fuselages to wings, to doors, avionics, galleys and in-flight entertainment systems. Two markedly difference philosophies resulting in some very, very fine airliners that can hardly be separated. I do believe, however, that Boeing has more technology than Airbus and proved it with the 777. Quite frankly, the user pays for that technology - same as you would for buying a Sony compared to a Panasonic. Both good companies with good products, but one has the better reputation and the technological clout to back it up. Airbus airplanes are great, and all of them deserve their place in history:

A300: first widebody twin
A310: first widebody to fly with 2-man crew
A320: first to introduce FBW (or more importantly a joystick)
A330: largest twin until Mr 777 came along
A340: common with A330 (not the first idea of its kind, but the first successful kind)

I believe that each manufacturer has their own great ideas. Just in the last three years we've seen Boeing develop the raked wingtip, the BBJ and semi-levered landing gear. Airbus came up with a neat size increase for the A340, continues to try and perfect laminar flow and has some really funky design ideas for the A3XX, though it will look normal on the outside. I like 'em both. From a personal point-of-view, I find Boeing widebodies the most pleasurable to look at, but those A320s sure have some character.

Oh, and not being American or European means that I don't have to wave flags. It's good - it means I can watch either side and tell them when they're being dickheads.

BTW, what is it about the 114th 777 built that made you name yourself after its registration?

The people that created concorde realized that they had a good team. So after the completion of Concorde they went to compete against Boeing and become Airbus. You need to learn more before you write thing of as bullshit.

The 340 have old interior that is left up to the airline not the company. Look in the Sultan of Brunie's A340 his has the best of the best!

The 340 is a lot different then the 300. From the engines,avionics, to the dimensions.

Excuse me I don't remember saying anything bad about Airbus...

I class saying Airbus sucks and is shameful as a bad comment.

Ravi:
1) The people that made concorde where the same people that made Airbus!!

2) I agree but the Airbus pilot seem to say better things about there planes then the 737 crews do.

3) Well there are more twin wide bodies out today then 4 engine wide bodies so it is something!

4) I have not researched this enough to put anything down but it seems as it is true.

5) Well Airbus was the first enough said!!

6) The 310 and 767 are not all glass cockpits. The A320 had the modern all glass cockpit in 1982 also.

7) It is a fact the A340 is quieter then the 777. If you stand at the fence of an airport while a 777 takes off and an 340 takes off you will know what I mean.

8) There are more airbus 320 on order then 717 737 and 757 all put together.

About the modern jetliner the comet was the first. Modern can be taken on so many levels.

Boeing did not do very well with the 757/767 crews. Some airlines do not let their crews fly both. The airbus you can fly the 318 to the 321 no problems. And then with 2 weeks of ground school you can fly the 330/340. The is a bit better then what boeing has done!

With the wingtips. On the Boeing 747-400 United did a study and took some of there wingtips of to see how much they improve the performance. The did not improve at all so Boeing offered to take them off all 744. The airlines said oh no as people can easily identify the 744 with them.

Iain

Iain, you are a fool. It is better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt. I suggest getting an encyclopedia out and look up these terms:

Concorde
Airbus Industrie
Boeing
Raked Wingtip
Winglet
Glass Cockpit
Decibels

It is fools like you who give the traditional, knowledgeable Airbus fan a bad name. Also look up "aircraft interiors" and you will find out that it IS the manufacturer who sculpts the cabin. Airlines pick the colours and seats.

You could have mentioned so many fine Airbus design philosophies, but you have taken the opportunity to show that you know very little of what you are talking about. Amongst them the A320, Concorde and B747. Thankfully you don't represent the core group of Airbus fans in the world who understand exactly what the consortium is all about.

When you make up history, you have got to expect people to eat you for lunch.

I am far from being a fool. It is only bamboozles like yourself that like to higher themselves being belittling others. I do not need to go and look up anything in the encyclopedia. Your commentary about redoing history is absolutely fascicle. There would be no way I need to redo any of my classes. I am ranked 54th out of my school of over 2000+ students. I am also graduating early and I am at school 9 hours a day. On top of all of that I have a job at the airport as an aviation sales associate and I also am enrolled in flight training, as I want to be a commercial pilot.
I know more about planes then you assume or would believe. I am not an Airbus fan I am one of the very few airplane fans. We do not care who makes it just as long as it flies.
Iain

Your academic performance, job, and age has little to do with your knowledge of commercial aviation. Knowledge puffs up. My job as an aviation historian and writer, for instance, does not mean that I can spin history as I see it. I can only report is as it happened. You, sir, have done no such thing today.

I learn something new about airplanes every day, and receive several reminders of things that I formerly knew. My knowledge is never complete, and neither, sir, is yours.

Especially when it is wrong. Oh, and if you're such an avid "airplane only" fan, don't bother us by posting crashed Boeing airliners and flying Airbus airliners.

Actions speak louder than words. And your words make no sense.

Where exactly did he start to "tell us how to think", Mirage?! He simply stated a few of his opinions!

After reading his "10% are pilots...who don't know jack...lighten up,", I thought it was great that he was venting. In no way, shape or form is that telling anyone how to think.

You're more than welcome to BE AN INDIVIDUAL and not follow any of his opinions or suggestions.

FLY777UAL

Hear hear Ravi. Iain, you come off as a perfect idiot to me.. Ravi has substantiated his assertions with facts while you are doing little more than foaming at the mouth like a wild animal. Why can't you accept that Airbus isn't first in everything and furthermore how COULD it be so? Boeing has had a 42 year head start and was making aircraft before Airbus was even thought of. Its not an insult, its a fact. Airbus is making great strides these days and they are a fine company but please let's not play this game claiming Airbus is responsible for all innovation in the aviation industry.

"I have not researched this enough to put anything down but it seems as it is true"

Seems true eh? Even you must realize the ridiculous nature of this statement. If and when you can back up your argument with facts maybe I'll listen to you. Till then keep your propaganda to yourself. I think you are a disgusting pervert for putting those photos of the crashed B757 and the brand new A319. What the hell do you think you are trying to prove with that anyway? You should be ashamed of your own stupidity and ignorance.

Ravi, really enjoyed hearing your personal philosophy regarding the aviation industry. Truly insightful and well thought out which makes for a refreshing change on the forum. I would encourage you to participate more if you can in the future.

As to my handle "HZ-AKF" ....has nothing to do with the fact that its the 114th 777.
I used to attend school in Europe and shuttled back and forth to Saudi Arabia once or twice a year. Had the privilege to fly this beauty when it was one month into revenue service and it is truly an amazing aircraft to look at inside and out.

Also had the privilege of flying HZ-AKB, HZ-AKE, HZ-AKK

not to mention LH 320 and SR 319/320 and LH A300 and SR A310

 

That's the stuff!!! Enough with this "Airbus is the best" "Boeing is better"!

I agree with FLY777UAL. You do have a "better than thou" attitude. I am a bit confused, however, with the term "jack shit." Perhaps this is some sort of organically produced cheese from the old country. We still do not import it here in the U.S. Please, don't send us a sample. Take care! Regards!

I like 'em both....honest I do but I've always been more attracted to Boeing for some reason....like Ravi said they do have more of a heritage but that's not the whole story.

Good stuff...at least something is happening on this site again.

Ravi, I agree with most of what you say (today at least), some small points though: Iain was mentioning 'all-glass cockpits', not just glass cokpits, hence the A-310/767 doesn't do it. The 747-400 does.

You also say "At that time the A320 still had an A310 cockpit and a hydraulic control system." Pardon ? Does that mean the A-320 doesn't have an hydraulic system anymore ? Because last I cheked it did, three in fact. Fly-by-wire doesn't mean there are no hydraulics. It's not like the flight controls are moved by electric motors or something. Just the input from the sidestick to the hydraulic actuators is electric. That's all.

Hello Guys,
Thank you very much for the wonderful time that YOU ALL MAKE ME HAVE reading your comments, here in México we said that never ever anyone should start a Politics, Religion or Bullfights discussion, because there is no end, I think we should add Boing and Airbus discussion too. I just love commercial planes Boing is great and Airbus too,

REGARDS

Suffice to say that I know what an "all-glass cockpit" is, and indeed the Collier Foundation noted that the Boeing 777 has "the only true all-glass cockpit flying around the world today." This is obviously because Boeing has disgarded analog interfaces in the 777 for all-glass digitised interfaces. Not only this, but 777 manuals, handbooks and checklists can all be functioned through the all-glass interface.

I made specific reference to "modern glass cockpit" instead of "all-glass cockpit" for which I am in error and apologise for the miscommunication.

And if you wish to pick me up on a technical explanation of the A320 hydraulic system, I'm quite prepared to write you a 250 word explanation as to why I used the exact term "hydraulic control system", which is the correct way to describe an airliner that has hydraulic flight control systems. The operative word being "control".

Obviously the A320 and any FBW airplane has hydraulic systems. However, at the stage of 1982 development the airplane had a Q-feel unit and a hydraulic control system. Today, ofcourse, the Q-feel unit has been replaced by flight envelope protection, software, and computer response.

Again, I apologise for the miscommunication, but don't feel that I was in error in this instance.

Thank you for clearing things up. It was just that your wording was a bit ambiguous. I am glad that you have proved yourself to be such an expert, however I do still expect this 250 word explanation. Pronto  

Yes, sometimes my words are poorly chosen, for which I am forever giving 250 word explanations to indicate what I'm really talking about!  

I also have some news for everyone about the A320 that I forgot considering my pre-occupation with the Airbus and Boeing technology innovation debate. The first commercial airliner to have FBW flight controls was infact the Concorde, not the A320. As we all know, this first entered revenue service a decade in advance of the Airbus jet.

The Concorde, however, has a redundant mechanical flight control system that can be used incase of a failure of the FBW system. However, I don't believe that the Concorde FBW system has ever failed. The A320 has no such system back-up (nor does the A330/340 or the B777), and of course still remains the first commercial jet to have a sidestick controller.

Your academic performance, job, and age has little to do with your knowledge of commercial aviation. Knowledge puffs up. But when you call some one an idiot that is only saying that I do not know anything about planes but stupid in everything I do. And we all learn something new everyday. As Leo Bascaller said 'Before we g close our eyes and go to sleep we should all think about what we have leanrt that day. And if you can think of one thing worth while you day was not wasted' About my picture of the B757 in the mud. It was more to wind you guys up. But you have to admit that more Boeing airliners go down then Airbus' do. HZ-AKF You seem to be a follower and not a leader. That makes you sorry!! Ever since you have come here this forum has gone down hill raidly. And you have not posted any facts about anything just in here to start fights. and calling me sick for my pictures. No one died in the 757 accident and if any one did I would not of post it. It was added to my post to wind people up. And as you claim that notihng of mine is backed up by facts I ask you to please take the time and back your statements of calling my and idiot and saying I am stupid up with facts or all that is, is propaganda. Iain

I am sure, Iain, that you know more than most people about airplanes. However, you must ALWAYS be able to back-up your words and actions with facts. For instance:

"About my picture of the B757 in the mud. It was more to wind you guys up. But you have to admit that more Boeing airliners go down then Airbus' do."

Why would I have to admit this? Because there is more than 7,000 Boeings in service and only 2,000 Airbusses? Which in principle means that for every 2 Airbus jets that crash, 7 Boeings are just as likely to? Then sure, MORE BOEINGS CRASH.

Let's leave out the facts that Boeings are operated in twice as many countries as Airbus machines are. Let's also leave out the facts that Boeing jets outnumber Airbus jets at third-tier airlines around the world by almost 20 to 1. And, for that matter, let's leave aside each and every single issue concerning aviation safety and the reasons why each and every airplane crashes. Oh, and let's not forget that the US media is unscrupulous when it comes to airline accidents, and the European media is not.

There is a new airline safety group starting called Whoop!. I suggest that you join it.

http://www.egroups.com/group/whoop

Yay, a good Airbus vs Boeing bun fight. Love it. I want to put in my £0.02 now.

First, I think the reason Europeans are so defensive of Airbus is because they are constantly accused of unfair practises etc, and the absurdity of these accusations make us a bit argumentative. The fact is that Airbus is relatively new and most of us from Europe had our formative experiences on Boeings, so there is a loyalty to both camps, certainly in my case I didn't get a ride on an Airbus (AF A300B4) til 1990, whereas I'd been riding on Ansett 727s throughout my childhood and then a QF 747-200 when we moved to England in 84. It is Americans with their silly superior "greatest nation on the planet"/"defenders of freedom" delusions that are nationalistic and one-sided.

Anyway there have been some startling inaccuracies in this argument, many by Ravi who claims to have factual info when he flames Iainhol. Here are a few choice errors I must comment on:

1. Airbus could be said to have built the Concorde in as much as it was two of the three main AI partners working along the same lines (except they didn't sell any planes). To say it was AI is obviously incorrect in a literal sense but accurate in a more general way. It was after all the same structure, personnel and goal.

2. Airbus are a superior product, in as much as they are safer (you would think the pilot-centric Boeing would be the safer but look at the stats, compare the 733/4/5 to the A320 family, or the A300/310 to the 767). Airbus are also more hi-tech, make more money, are preferred by pax for their wider cabins (esp narrowbodies) and come with better after-sales service.

3. Boeing did not invent commonality with the 707/727/737. Yes, it's the same fuselage width and nose section, but there is no common type rating for pilots or engineers - the commonality only went as far as reducing R&D costs and mnfring costs, with no thought to reducing operating costs to the airlines.

4. Someone said the F16 was the first FBW plane. Well, who paid for the R&D? The government. Someone else said Boeing were the first with swept wing jets and underwing engines on pylons. Quite right (the Ruskies couldn't hang an engine off a wing til the Il86), but it was all paid for by the gov't. Boeing 0, Airbus 0. One other thing: Concorde is FBW.

5. The 747-400 is no way the first glass cockpit airliner. It's not even the first Boeing glass cockpit. The 744 flight deck was more-or-less transplanted from the 767. But the A310 has a glass cockpit and I think it cam before either of those two. By the way, the A310 cockpit was designed by Porsche, or so I am told.

6. Anyone who thinks I am pro-Airbus will only be vindicated by the above observations. However, I don't agree with the line about pilots who have flown both preferring Airbus. Every pilot I've ever spoken to who has flown both prefer Boeing. Systems are generally duplicated according to engines. A 747 will generally have twice as many of a certain thing as a twin. But a LH pilot friend who has flown A320s, 747s and now 737-300s said the A320 was TWICE AS COMPLEX to operate as the 747-400, and that is backed up by everything I have ever heard first hand. The only plane I have ever heard of that was more complex and "over-engineered" is the Lockheed TriStar.

Anyway, I have to go and tape the second half of 'The Langoliers', a Stephen King novella filmed for the small screen, about a TriStar that goes back in time (767 in the book). To summarise, I love Boeing but I wish they hadn't lost the plot, and I love Airbus cos they have dared to move forward and do new stuff. I just love flying, full stop. Have fun everyone!

1. It was NOT the same GIE structure as Airbus; it was NOT the same personnel - the Concorde was still in design and test phase when Airbus came along; although obviously the goal to sell airplanes would have been the same. Airbus emerged from a populist atmosphere that does have some connection with the hope that Europeans placed in the Concorde. Soon after design work went ahead on the Concorde, Sud Aviation and BAC began studies into a 180-200 seat subsonic twinjet. The project was called Galion. The French got the Germans to jump onboard a few years later, and BAC was replaced by Hawker Siddeley in the temporary pre-Airbus arrangements. Just because BAC and Hawkers are now BAe doesn't mean that the Concorde companies were Airbus companies. The only Airbus company, then, that had anything to do with Concorde, in the end, was Sud Aviation. And even this company had a supersonic faction with which to deal with the other airplane.

2. Here we go again. Please provide statistical or imperical or analytical facts to this equation. What creditability do you expect without proof?

3. What has crew rating got to do with spares and parts commonality? Besides which, you're actually wrong. Pilots could be dual rated on the B707 and B727, though the B737 was only two-piloted. Engineers do have dual ratings because my father has it - 707/727/737. Eastern Airlines required the B727 to be common with the B707/720 as much as Boeing could make, AND make it capable of using 4,800ft airstrips. Besides which, it was not until Boeing launched the 757/767 that European and US authorities had the technology to understand human factors in the cockpit, and proceeded with same-cockpit certification.

4. Here goes the subsidies deal again.

5. As mentioned if you read other posts Iain was referring to "all-glass" cockpits, of which the 747-400 was the first Boeing design.

6. Your unsubstantiated views do indicate a preference for Airbus machines, and that, as always, is perfectly acceptable. However please substantiate things like "after-sales service" and "superior product" and "wider cabins". I might add here than you can fly for an hour in your 18 inch A320 seat; or fly for 16 hours in your 17.2 inch A340 seat. Hardly seems logical now does it. Do you see what propaganga is? A frikin' joke.

I suppose we're in a marketing industry, and anything Airbus or Boeing says must be truthful to the nth degree.

You seem to go on about personal attacks. Who is it that calls the other one an idiot and claims they are stupid. It also seems to me that you are standing behind Ravi (who we all have to admits knows his stuff) and saying yeah. You have not proved anything in your fight about this Airbus and Boeing discussion you just are using other people's intellegence and trying to make it sound like your own. If you can not prove my stupidity as you stated then you should not say that I am stupid as you do not know that. And saying that Airbus employee people much brighter then myself is a bit below the belt even for your standards. You should never make a comment about some one professional. Just remember Richard Bransons teacher beat him for being dumb and now look at him. And one last thing about maturity we will never forget your last post!

Ravi,
Boeing has many more planes in the sky and I will agree that is why the crash more often. You seem to really know your stuff. I would like to call peace as I for one have learnt tons from our discussion. I must admit I do not agree with all you have posted but you do know more then me.
Iain

To all above: You need a new girlfriend, a new haircut, get a life, get perspectives.

I'm so thankful someone told me to "get a life".

Such inspiring words have made me see the truth and the light.

Americanisms are so funny. They usually don't make sense. Ditto for this one.

I don't know, does Ravi "know his stuff"? Not a personal attack at all, I've never come across you on here or not, sir, but your point about a 707/727 dual rating is crap. Maybe some pilots held ratings for both but it is two entirely seperate ratings, like a 757 and 747-400. The cockpits may bear some aesthetic similarities but that's about it. He calls my views "unsubstantiated" without knowing my aviation background - all my posts are substatiated by facts and a massive amount of experience. Ravi should learn some manners, he might learn something (707/727 dual rating! Oh my aching sides!). Sorry sir, you just wound me up a bit.