What do you want to know Patrick? I wrote the article.

One thing that I didn't get to mention because of space concerns is the fact that the Boeing's wing flexes a lot more than the Airbus, which makes the Airbus a rougher ride in turbulence. The Classic 737s were stiffer but the NG's new wing has quite a bit of flex to it.

All right Nigel, you handsome devil, which one are you?

Jgreen

Flew the 300/500, nice handling aircraft. We didn't really use the LNAV feature back in the day, just used the green arc. A great aircraft for short haul.

Flew the 320/319 for about 12 years, great aircraft for cockpit and passenger comfort. Wider fuselage for a roomier feel. Cockpit is has plenty of room, is quiet, and has a table to eat off. Flight controls are nice, if you get to the point to where the laws take over, you have already screwed the pooch.

Currently flying the 737 700/800/900. Basically still a 1960's tech aircraft. Flies like a dump truck and the AP/AT system needs a lot of help. It manages to go trans con or out to the Islands and makes money for the company. Good flying and great schedules make up for the little cockpit discomforts. As long as the TV's and internet are working, the PAX don't care.

Spot on and if you give them a way to charge their phones even better!

Hi John,

Front Row .I'm the big guy on the the left .

Regards
Nigel

Ron,

Nice to have a good pilot take over since I've retired....

Never flew the bus or the 700/800/900.. just the old 200/300/500 and like them very much.
I really preferred the instrumentation on the 300/500 over the full glass treatment.

Did several years on the 400 as a senior copilot and then stayed as a senior capt on the 57/67. Miss it, but the Baron is still more fun.

Interesting that the comment on the 737 is long in the tooth . . . Not sure how many parts from today would fit on the 100, but the 737 is more fuel efficient and has a lower seat mile cost and that's what keeps the 737 selling.

Truth in advertising, I've never flown the really light twin, but sure have jump seated a bunch on it.

I don't think there is much difference, if any between the latest Airbus and the latest 737 on fuel burn when compared on a seat mile basis.

Whichever pays the most and has the better quality of life is "the best".

Everything else is irrelevant trivia.

Best,
Rich

Rich ain't that the truth...... My standard line :" We are both here to keep each other off the Flight Ops Waiting room couch ; And of Utmost importance " The only people that really need to know about this flight is payroll".

I didn't know how good we had it till, we were taken over and the quality of life and pay went south. ( tidbit; O/T was paid at 1.7 once merged 1 to 1 and capped at 10 hours a block).

Could Jumpseat anywhere in the system for free and once booked the VP Flight ops couldn't bump you off the seat.

Nigel

Just read today that the A320neo has a new problem. The "barking dog" groaning noises are even louder on the new design and they are trying to fix that. Very disconcerting to fearful flyers. Always have to explain it is "normal" to my wife. I never understood why that could not be resolved 30 years into the design. Now its even worse in the next generation?

I can only speak from a passenger POV. I fly AA almost always due to being at a hub. So, same airline comparing B73x to A32x I am always happier when I ride the Airbus. 73x on AA is much more cramped for pax than the Airbus. Last flight I had on a 73x was nice as they had upgraded entertainment system, but still more cramped (width) space wise compared to Airbus...

Not shut down but rolled back to idle. The rest of the post is accurate. And my friends in Boeing flight test said the same thing, a Boeing wouldn't do that.

I have flown the 737-200, 75/76, 77, and the 320. I would take Boeing any day of the week.
Bus Pro's
2 jump seats
better px seats
room for your bag in the cockpit

Bus neg
The stick should move so you know what the other guy is doing
throttles should move (same idea)

I spent 18 mo. on the 320. Two times the captain's flight inst. went out. One time with the weather radar in weather. One flight in Alt law. Every time I landed it called me a retard.

One of my best friends is a A/P and works on Boeing and bus. He likes the Boeing better too.

I can't remember what that old space movie was that had the computer HAL take over but that was how I felt on the bus.

I know some guys love the bus. I'm not one of them.

A few more things that didn't fit in the article:

Not sure if it's my airline's mid-1990s-era Airbuses, but the VNAV stinks compared to 737NG. The Airbuses consistently cross altitudes 100-200 feet high keeping you on your toes during the entire descent. With modern arrivals having as many as a dozen or more crossing/speed restrictions this is tiring. Throw a big tailwind in and it's even worse. And on rare occasions it just completely screws the pooch when it comes to descent planning in a "managed" descent. Lots of human intervention needed.

The 737NG VNAV is FAR better. It was so good that I basically forgot the 3-to-1 rule. It would occasionally get fast on the descent (especially if there was a tailwind) as it pitched over to make a crossing restriction. This was easily fixed by inputting a slower descent speed in the FMC or telling the FMC that you will be using anti-ice on the descent (bumps up the idle speed, so it plans a flatter descent). Overall, it rarely botched a complex arrival procedure. Oh and the Airbus has to be told to start down whereas the Boeing will descend on its own when it hits the top of descent.

The Boeing has better exterior lighting too. Airbus landing lights are the drop-down type like a Cessna 310. They drop out of the wing root and buffet the airframe quite a bit. We don't use them above 250 KIAS because of that. The rest of the bright lights (taxi, runway turnoff) are mounted on the nose gear and are therefore useless in flight. The 737's landing lights and runway turnoff lights are buried in the wing root and can be used in flight at any speed. They are also larger lights with better penetration in my opinion. On the ground, from behind, the Airbus shows only one aft-facing, white position light. Not that easy to see, really. Yes, the beacons should be visible on the ground, but overall, it's easy to miss a steady-burning white light at a light-filled airport at night. In flight, there's a single-flash aft-facing strobe on the tailcone. Both the position light and strobe lens on the tail are subject to APU exhaust staining further reducing effectiveness of the lighting.