I have enjoyed this thread quite a bit. As someone that works for one of the companies in question and have friends that work at the other, I shall refrain from commenting or casting stones in one direction or another and return to lurk mode.

Pete,

Thanks and congratulations on the article! All the posts generated gave a clear picture of whats to like and dislike from both brands. Interesting to me though, the Boeing being an older design still has more pilot following than the newer Airbus design.

This made me laugh from one of the posts: "Every time I landed it called me a retard." Brings out the french personality!

Rgs,

Patrick.
.

that's me. The only parts of the airplane I care about are the seat I'm in, the seat in front of me, and the overhead baggage space. Those things are determined by the equipping choices of the airline - the make of aircraft is irrelevant.

Thanks Patrick. One thing to keep in mind is that the 737NG is really a complete redesign of the 737. The Classic and NG are totally different animals. The NG's wing is all new with lots of fuel, the engines are much better, and all of the systems were redesigned to be more reliable and better performing. You can't compare the Classic 737s (-100 to -500) to an Airbus. They are apples and oranges. But the NG (-600 to 900ER) is a very valid competitor. Yes, the 737's fuselage dimensions are the same and the cockpit is still comparatively tiny--some things couldn't be economically changed.

What boggles my mind is why Boeing didn't create a clean-sheet replacement for the 737 back in the 1980s when Airbus was working on the A319/320? Boeing elitism? Either way, it was a lost opportunity. And today, what with CAD/CAM design, why not just scale down a 787 to create a replacement? One of the 737's design limitations is the short landing gear. You can't hang bigger fans on it because they'll scrape the ground. Can't raise the landing gear either because they nearly meet in the middle when retracted as it is. It's getting tapped out engineering-wise!

Unfortunately, it's the airlines' fault. They love that the 737 is cheap, plentiful, well supported around the world, and nearly every pilot already has a type rating. Unfortunately, it's become quite a bastardized airplane being touted as a 757 replacement, which it is NOT by any measurement except for those counting beans in the airlines' accounting office.

In general, pilot "purists" tend towards Boeing, which is understandable. But Airbus has done a hell of a job creating an airplane that wins over those purists with good design and lots of creature comforts. As many Airbus pilots say, once you fly it, you'll eventually fall in love with it. While I'm not in the "love" stage yet, 'ole Fifi is working hard to win me over. I think with some fly-by-wire logic tweaks learned in the intervening decades since it was introduced, the A320 could be as "conventional" to fly as the 737.

Aviation Week said a few years back, when Boeing was considering all-new vs. what became the MAX, that one of the advantages of the 737 over the A320 is lighter empty weight inherited from its older certification, something they'd lose with an all-new design. And apparently something important for landing fees. Interesting how factors you wouldn't expect shape design decisions.

They also said that the advantages of carbon aren't as compelling in a smaller tube, at least at the current state of technology. But of course that's evolving over time.

Now that's an impressive family photo.

Because the market didn't want it.

Southwest wants a fleet of all 737s so they can operate with less variation and more efficiently. SW operates almost 600 of them by itself.


Boeing rolls out a new 737 twice a work day. If that is what a lost opportunity looks like, I'm sure Boeing would want more of them.

Mike C.

"When I retired, my former airline was No. 2 in 737 ops, SW was No. 1, us just under 300 and SW just under 500, and let it be well understood, SW called all the shots on the development & certification of each new 737 model. Each new design HAD to allow commonality with whatever older version that SW might be flying.

I'm not saying that is bad, just that is the way it was/is.

Because the market didn't want it.

Southwest wants a fleet of all 737s so they can operate with less variation and more efficiently. SW operates almost 600 of them by itself.


Boeing rolls out a new 737 twice a work day. If that is what a lost opportunity looks like, I'm sure Boeing would want more of them.

Mike C.

One of my favorites:

In the Boeing camp.....and being a HUD cripple, I loved the NG & 300G.
Could be completely off base, but I would avoid the 'Bus if at all possible.
Most of the folks I know that end up on Airbus platforms sort of "hold their nose & bid it", but end up ok with them. Certainly a successful product and huge success in the industry. If you need some trees cleared.......never mind.

Love Douglas, Boeing....Tristar all-time favorite.

Anyone else hear the saying (a little dated), that the perfect airliner would be "designed by Lockheed, built by Boeing.....and marketed by McDonnell Douglas"?

As a type rated Airbus flight simulator instructor for the past two years I can assure you that neither the IAE nor the CFM engine FADEC will shut down an operating engine in flight. These FADEC's will only abort an engine start ON THE GROUND to avoid an EGT over limit (hot start).

As a type rated Airbus flight simulator instructor for the past two years I can assure you that neither the IAE nor the CFM engine FADEC will shut down an operating engine in flight.

well, if I remember well, it was not a case of those engines to pull themselves back to idle, but basically FOD damage to both engines that far exceeded certifications standards…those motors "chuggin'" along in a sort of "subidle" status simply had been the result of major mechanical damage to both engines..they simply could not produce any meaningfull thrust due to the amount of damage anymore..I would assume that this outcome on these engines was not airplane type specific..

still, wonderful cockpit crew…THEY saved the day..excellent..

you may want to check the engine details in the accident report..

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf

The report I read stated that the bird ingestion also destroyed the PT probes (Pressure Temperature probes that are visible just inside the nacelle lip ahead of the first stage fan) that the FADEC uses to determine maximum thrust (among other things) and when that sensing capability was lost (ie no probes) the FADEC was designed to reduce the power to idle to prevent overspeed/overthrust and protect the engines . . . again giving control to the computer system and protecting it from the pilot.