Glucose Intolerant
Senior
- Feb 22, 2008
- 443
- 264
A-350 Timeline
- Thread starter Justme
- Start date
Or perhaps Yugo with wings.
Seriously, I don't know why people knock Airbus so much. Boeing and Airbus are both having serious issues delivering their newest widebodies, but they both make good solid aircraft.
Travelpro72
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2005
- 4,964
- 455
I love when I hear "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going". Have you been on a brand new 737? They are just as plastic as the airbus inside. Creaking and cracking sounds and overheads that look like they'll wiggle out of the ceiling. NO AIRCRAFT are made like they were "back in the day". I'm no pilot so can't speak from their seat but as a pax/customer they are all same. Well maybe except for airbus being wider.
The A318/319/320/321 fuselage is about 8" wider than the 737, so the comfort factor is a little better since you can still put 3x3 seating, but make each one about an inch wider. The overheads also allow better storage. Aircraft made "back in the day" compared to now are prohibitively expensive to operate with today's fuel prices, so that's a moot point anyway. So, on a customer comfort factor they are ahead (as long as the airline creates a comfortable interior).
The narrowbody airbuses also had the advantage of doing transcons, fully loaded more efficiently than their Boeing 737 counterparts. In fact, many of the earlier 737 variants couldn't even do transcons until they were stretched more and added fuel tanks. I think the idea, in the late 70's/80's, was that the 757 would be the transcon workhorse and the 737 would cover the mid-continental routes.
Frankly, I think they both make good aircraft overall. Some pilots will vehemently argue for one versus the other, but at the end of the day they both have impressive safety records.
Didn't know that about the 75. Hard to imagine that with 3 engines(or was it to be a T-tail 2 engine ala DC9)?. Was that to try to make a narrowbody competitor for the DC-10 or L1011? Economically, I doubt they'd have lasted as long with 3 engines in airline fleets if they went that route, though (in hindsight).
As for the 733 with the extra tanks - was that doing nonstop transcons from BWI (for PI) or PHL (for US), or just CLT and PIT? I recall taking a 733 (or maybe 734) from PHL-LAX in 1990 but there was a stopover at LAS (didn't have to get off).
The Wall Street Journal has a story about "The Miracle on the Hudson", based on an article that was published in Vanity Fair. It describes the features of the A320 family that assisted Sully in his landing. None of this is meant to take anything away from Sully's achievement.
http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2009/05/07...ne-land-itself/
