Wow what are you guys deciding to name the airline I might take a trip up to the US in future id love to see how your airline is going.usmarine2007 wrote:
We have a mod to equip the cabin to carry 156. Just had to add an extra emergency exit over the wing.spray_and_pray wrote:
Yes yes it is I have little experience with Jetliners what I do know is theoretical and comparing statistics, but even though it is the most fuel efficient is it the most cost efficient. I know a 20 can carry the same amount as your average 737 and the 21 can carry a bit more.usmarine2007 wrote:
Well, the reason is, the A319 is the most fuel efficient out of the whole single aisle family. A318,20, and 21.
Poll
Airbus or Boeing?
| Airbus | 37% | 37% - 89 | ||||
| Boeing | 62% | 62% - 146 | ||||
| Total: 235 | ||||||
Out-dated, but I still personally prefer the old 747-400's. Best damn plane for long haul 12-18 hour international flights. Smooth take-off and landing, and felt very little turbulance when going into typhoon season storms. I could sleep on these 747's unlike the noisy and bumpy fuel-efficient planes that are now used.
Ever heard of the A340 or 777 more fuel efficient then a 747 also more quiet. The 747-8 is coming out soon so just wait up for that because then it will be on of those "noisy bumpy fuel efficient planes". The landing and takeoff depend on the skill of the pilot. Just 2 years ago I had captain kangaroo bounce me to the end of the runway in Ho Chi Minh in a 747. The amount of turbulence felt only changes with the side of an aircraft. I sometimes fly with a 12 knot crosswind out of jandakot the restriction for a 152 being 15 knot's flying at 1500 feet with cloud cover at 2000 im bouncing all over the place not to forget the amount of gusts I get blowing me left and right. Its really nightmarish weather especially when there is a low level of windshear out and about changing from tailwind to headwind within seconds which causes the aircraft to climb suddenly or when I get pushed down and normally lose about 100 feet in altitude by the time I recover. If its strong enough I will lose a hell of a lot more altitude and wont be able to combat it until im in the clear. However a larger aircraft could feel all the conditions above as extremely small bumbs except for the windshear and thats if its strong. I have only been caught in windshear 2 or 3 times and luckily both times in air.Ilocano wrote:
Out-dated, but I still personally prefer the old 747-400's. Best damn plane for long haul 12-18 hour international flights. Smooth take-off and landing, and felt very little turbulance when going into typhoon season storms. I could sleep on these 747's unlike the noisy and bumpy fuel-efficient planes that are now used.
The windshear training that I got in university is probably what has stopped me from stalling and crashing and burning when I encounter it. however I know if I get caught by windshear on final thats the end of me. Normally I never encounter windshear I get the weather info before every flight and during flights by contacting tower but it will catch me off guard now and then.
However new aircraft are better in every single aspect then old aircraft. Most are at least.
It is rarely the fault of the manufacturer if a plane crashes. Rather the airline company for lack of maintenance, not following specifications, or failing to address issues that the manufacturer has warned of.
As far as where they are built, it is called sub-contracting, and Boeing does this as well. The have suppliers from all over the world. Including Israel,S. Korea, Japan, and several European countries. Same goes for Airbus, which has suppliers in the same countries, including the United States.
As far as where they are built, it is called sub-contracting, and Boeing does this as well. The have suppliers from all over the world. Including Israel,S. Korea, Japan, and several European countries. Same goes for Airbus, which has suppliers in the same countries, including the United States.
Last edited by nlsme (2007-01-18 10:46:50)
This was posted before anyway agree'd.nlsme wrote:
It is rarely the fault of the manufacturer if a plane crashes. Rather the airline company for lack of maintenance, not following specifications, or failing to address issues that the manufacturer has warned of.
As far as where they are built, it is called sub-contracting, and Boeing does this as well. The have suppliers from all over the world. Including Israel,S. Korea, Japan, and several European countries. Same goes for Airbus, which has suppliers in the same countries, including the United States.
I think you misread my comment. No way did I imply that the 747 was fuel-efficient. The opposite in fact versus the 777.spray_and_pray wrote:
Ever heard of the A340 or 777 more fuel efficient then a 747 also more quiet. The 747-8 is coming out soon so just wait up for that because then it will be on of those "noisy bumpy fuel efficient planes". The landing and takeoff depend on the skill of the pilot.Ilocano wrote:
Out-dated, but I still personally prefer the old 747-400's. Best damn plane for long haul 12-18 hour international flights. Smooth take-off and landing, and felt very little turbulance when going into typhoon season storms. I could sleep on these 747's unlike the noisy and bumpy fuel-efficient planes that are now used.
Sorry, never rode an A340. 777-300 quite a few times though, and everytime, overall ride comfort wasn't as good as the 747. Personally experience mind you, and not due to some spec sheet. Regarding take-off/landing, pilot skill definitely part of the equation, what with most older pilots having more significant 747 air time that 777 airtime. But from my experience, the 777's felt like it took more juice to get the plane going and stopping, and more finesse to land it just right.
Curious about the A380 and 747-8/787 though.
I think you misread mine the I said 747-8 will be fuel efficient at the part hereIlocano wrote:
I think you misread my comment. No way did I imply that the 747 was fuel-efficient. The opposite in fact versus the 777.spray_and_pray wrote:
Ever heard of the A340 or 777 more fuel efficient then a 747 also more quiet. The 747-8 is coming out soon so just wait up for that because then it will be on of those "noisy bumpy fuel efficient planes". The landing and takeoff depend on the skill of the pilot.Ilocano wrote:
Out-dated, but I still personally prefer the old 747-400's. Best damn plane for long haul 12-18 hour international flights. Smooth take-off and landing, and felt very little turbulance when going into typhoon season storms. I could sleep on these 747's unlike the noisy and bumpy fuel-efficient planes that are now used.
Sorry, never rode an A340. 777-300 quite a few times though, and everytime, overall ride comfort wasn't as good as the 747. Personally experience mind you, and not due to some spec sheet. Regarding take-off/landing, pilot skill definitely part of the equation, what with most older pilots having more significant 747 air time that 777 airtime. But from my experience, the 777's felt like it took more juice to get the plane going and stopping, and more finesse to land it just right.
Curious about the A380 and 747-8/787 though.
The 747-8 is coming out soon so just wait up for that because then it will be on of those "noisy bumpy fuel efficient planes"
But less bumpy than the 777.spray_and_pray wrote:
The 747-8 is coming out soon so just wait up for that because then it will be on of those "noisy bumpy fuel efficient planes"
LoL +1Ilocano wrote:
But less bumpy than the 777.spray_and_pray wrote:
The 747-8 is coming out soon so just wait up for that because then it will be on of those "noisy bumpy fuel efficient planes"
Sry, I couldn't make it through all ten pages.spray_and_pray wrote:
This was posted before anyway agree'd.nlsme wrote:
It is rarely the fault of the manufacturer if a plane crashes. Rather the airline company for lack of maintenance, not following specifications, or failing to address issues that the manufacturer has warned of.
As far as where they are built, it is called sub-contracting, and Boeing does this as well. The have suppliers from all over the world. Including Israel,S. Korea, Japan, and several European countries. Same goes for Airbus, which has suppliers in the same countries, including the United States.
Last edited by nlsme (2007-01-18 11:20:24)
Dont worry about it most of it is me and Lowing arguing on if an aircraft can fly without a verticle stabilizer. It ended when an Airforce official said an A300 can be barely stable without one. (airforce official in an article)nlsme wrote:
Sry, I couldn't make it through all ten pages.spray_and_pray wrote:
This was posted before anyway agree'd.nlsme wrote:
It is rarely the fault of the manufacturer if a plane crashes. Rather the airline company for lack of maintenance, not following specifications, or failing to address issues that the manufacturer has warned of.
As far as where they are built, it is called sub-contracting, and Boeing does this as well. The have suppliers from all over the world. Including Israel,S. Korea, Japan, and several European countries. Same goes for Airbus, which has suppliers in the same countries, including the United States.
Boeing have decades of experience, and build the second best engines in the world. Airbus probably use Boeing or Rolls Royce engines anyway. If they don't, then they are gay.
Boeing does not make engines. And Airbus uses CFM, IAE, or P&W's.Penetrator_01 wrote:
Boeing have decades of experience, and build the second best engines in the world. Airbus probably use Boeing or Rolls Royce engines anyway. If they don't, then they are gay.
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2007-01-18 12:48:37)
Are you sure?
I think Boeing makes rocket motors or something like that, but there is no spec for a Boeing engine in my manuals.Penetrator_01 wrote:
Are you sure?
I know that thier earlier productions from 707 to 747-200 use Rolls Royce, wasn't sure about 737, 787, or some of their military creations.
I think Boeing sold its rocket motor division to Pratt...but I am not sure.Penetrator_01 wrote:
I know that thier earlier productions from 707 to 747-200 use Rolls Royce, wasn't sure about 737, 787, or some of their military creations.
Another person making an ignorant comment if you were only to read 1 page back usamarine and I both said that engines are made by different manufacturers other then the airline company. And its the airlines decision on what they want. You can have an RR 757-200 and you can have an RR A320-212.Penetrator_01 wrote:
Boeing have decades of experience, and build the second best engines in the world. Airbus probably use Boeing or Rolls Royce engines anyway. If they don't, then they are gay.
I think a common theme here, is that people are confused by what the aircraft manufacturer actually makes.spray_and_pray wrote:
Another person making an ignorant comment if you were only to read 1 page back usamarine and I both said that engines are made by different manufacturers other then the airline company. And its the airlines decision on what they want. You can have an RR 757-200 and you can have an RR A320-212.Penetrator_01 wrote:
Boeing have decades of experience, and build the second best engines in the world. Airbus probably use Boeing or Rolls Royce engines anyway. If they don't, then they are gay.
Engine - Not Boeing or Airbus
Seats - Not Boeing or Airbus
Tires - Not Boeing or Airbus
Avionics (Instruments) - Not Boeing or Airbus
For all the people who mentioned accidents and crashes, not including 9/11..........
Since Airbus began flying in 1972, and taking all the people killed on airbus since 1972, and all the people killed on boeing since 1972.. I got some stats.
This is giving Boeing a 55 year head start of flying before airbus came into the picture.
So, you have a 55 year old company when Airbus came along. So, by starting since airbus' first flight in 1972, and boeings flights since the same year here are the numbers.
9, 406 people were killed from boeings since airbus started flying in 1972.
2,503 people were killed from an Airbus since 1972.
425 people were killed from a Boeing crash who were not on the plane since 1972.
13 people were killed from an Airbus crash who were not on the plane since 1972.
Since Airbus began flying in 1972, and taking all the people killed on airbus since 1972, and all the people killed on boeing since 1972.. I got some stats.
This is giving Boeing a 55 year head start of flying before airbus came into the picture.
So, you have a 55 year old company when Airbus came along. So, by starting since airbus' first flight in 1972, and boeings flights since the same year here are the numbers.
9, 406 people were killed from boeings since airbus started flying in 1972.
2,503 people were killed from an Airbus since 1972.
425 people were killed from a Boeing crash who were not on the plane since 1972.
13 people were killed from an Airbus crash who were not on the plane since 1972.
nice stats, but there are far more Boeing's then airbuses........
I'm a Boeing fan all the way, the new airbuses are cramped only view seats with leg space outside business or first class.
I'm a Boeing fan all the way, the new airbuses are cramped only view seats with leg space outside business or first class.
Last edited by delta4bravo*nl* (2007-01-19 21:05:00)
Leg room and seating configuration is up to the airline, not Boeing or Airbus.delta4bravo*nl* wrote:
nice stats, but there are far more Boeing's then airbuses........
I'm a Boeing fan all the way, the new airbuses are cramped only view seats with leg space outside business or first class.
Yes, but there are almost 10 times as many Boeings flying. And many of those deaths are from a jet built before 1972. Again, a crash is RARELY the fault of the manufacturer, rather the airline.usmarine2007 wrote:
For all the people who mentioned accidents and crashes, not including 9/11..........
Since Airbus began flying in 1972, and taking all the people killed on airbus since 1972, and all the people killed on boeing since 1972.. I got some stats.
This is giving Boeing a 55 year head start of flying before airbus came into the picture.
So, you have a 55 year old company when Airbus came along. So, by starting since airbus' first flight in 1972, and boeings flights since the same year here are the numbers.
9, 406 people were killed from boeings since airbus started flying in 1972.
2,503 people were killed from an Airbus since 1972.
425 people were killed from a Boeing crash who were not on the plane since 1972.
13 people were killed from an Airbus crash who were not on the plane since 1972.
Is ten times a statistic you imagined up yourself or is it true. People get educated on the matter and then post. Marine I thought you would be biased towards boeing but then again your airliner is flying airbus.nlsme wrote:
Yes, but there are almost 10 times as many Boeings flying. And many of those deaths are from a jet built before 1972. Again, a crash is RARELY the fault of the manufacturer, rather the airline.usmarine2007 wrote:
For all the people who mentioned accidents and crashes, not including 9/11..........
Since Airbus began flying in 1972, and taking all the people killed on airbus since 1972, and all the people killed on boeing since 1972.. I got some stats.
This is giving Boeing a 55 year head start of flying before airbus came into the picture.
So, you have a 55 year old company when Airbus came along. So, by starting since airbus' first flight in 1972, and boeings flights since the same year here are the numbers.
9, 406 people were killed from boeings since airbus started flying in 1972.
2,503 people were killed from an Airbus since 1972.
425 people were killed from a Boeing crash who were not on the plane since 1972.
13 people were killed from an Airbus crash who were not on the plane since 1972.
For whoever said airbus is uncomfortable, like US marine said the seating config is up to the airline so are the classes the toilet positions the places where the food is cooked etc. However if I may direct your attention to the Airbus A340 that is known as one of the most comfortable airliners in the world. Engine also depends on the airliner but thats not it. If you take a look at the engines of an A340-313 you will see their very small size. This still has no impact on its climb capabilities etc. I am familiar with the A340-313 anyone that wants to go to europe takes one going this route. Perth-Dubai with Emirates which operate in A340-300, also I have been on other emirates aircraft. The A340 also has a good safety log when a Canadian airlines A340 got hit by thunder 4 times (most aircraft take 3) then did a botched landing at an airport using all the runway and almost entered a highway. Hardly anyone if anyone died. This aircraft on average holds 200-300 people.
Crashes however are always human error at one stage or another, be it the designer of the aircraft maintenance, pilot, ATC you can't list all crashes to an airline. However people have preference's over aircraft I think this is a stupid thing to do even though I have preference airbus over boeing. I think it should be preference over airline. This is where it really matters and as long as they arent flying 50 year old aircraft and its got a good safety record it should be fine.
Sorry bout not "educating" myself, but here you go. Airbus total delivered fleet as of 2006, 4,500. Boeing's as of 2007, 27,220. Not quite 10 fold, but well on its way. And again, many of the crashes were of aircraft built before 1972. And again, RARELY the manufactures fault, RATHER, the airlines.
Last edited by nlsme (2007-01-20 00:52:36)