BF2S Forums Which large cabin airliner is better?

Sh1fty2k5 wrote:

Well, ok, you're not good with math, but i'll try to describe it for you.. Five times as many boeing times five crashed airbuses equals what the amount of crashed boeings would be if your statement was correct. Unfortunatly, around a 100 or so boeings have crashed so.. Yeah you see it.

Computers > Humans

now lets see a formula factoring in how many more decades those boeing models have been in service

your analogy fails in that, going back and looking at the models, their flight histories are far too disparate for that simplified a comparison

A319 year= 1993
A320=1987

737=1968


747=1969





just taking the two bigger ones

a 320
"(As of 3 May 2006 for the whole A320 family)

Hull-loss Accidents: 12 with a total of 440 fatalities
On 3 May 2006, all 113 people aboard an Armavia Airlines flight died when the Airbus 320 crashed into the Black Sea near the Russian resort of Sochi.
Other occurrences: 2 with a total of 0 fatalities
Hijackings: 6 with a total of 1 fatality
Seven incidents of nose gear malfunction, including JetBlue Airways Flight 292 "


747

"[edit] Incidents
The first crash of a 747 took place in November of 1974 when Lufthansa Flight 540 crashed in Nairobi killing 59 people.
The Tenerife disaster on March 27, 1977 claimed a total of 583 lives when two 747s collided in heavy fog at Los Rodeos Airport, making it the highest death toll of any accident in aviation history.[24]
An Air India Flight 855 Boeing 747 crashed into the sea off the coast of Mumbai (Bombay) on New Year's Day, 1978. All passengers and crew were killed. Many residents of sea-front houses in Mumbai were witness to the incident.
On August 12, 1985, the Japan Airlines Flight 123 (a 747SR) lost control and crashed, causing 520 fatalities and is currently the worst single-aircraft disaster in aviation history.[25]
The Lockerbie bombing was a Pan Am 747-100.
Air India Flight 182 was a 747-237B that exploded on June 23, 1985. All 329 on board were killed. Up until September 11, 2001, the Air India bombing was the single deadliest terrorist attack involving aircraft.
Korean Air Lines Flight 007 was a 747-230B which was shot down by the Soviet Air Force on September 1, 1983. All 269 passengers and crew aboard were killed.
El Al Flight 1862 was a 747-200F which crashed shorly after take-off from Amsterdam Schiphol on October 4, 1992. Engines no. 3 and 4 detached shortly after take-off and as a result the flight crew lost control and the crippled 747 crashed into the Klein-Kluitberg apartments in Bijlmermeer at high speeds. All 3 crew were killed as well as 43 on the ground.
China Airlines Flight 611, a 747-209B, broke-up mid flight on May 25, 2002, en route to Hong Kong International Airport, Hong Kong from Chiang Kai Shek International Airport in Taipei, Taiwan. All passengers and crew on board lost their lives.
On 31 October 2000, Singapore Airlines Flight 006, a Boeing 747-400 flying on a Singapore to Los Angeles via Taipei route rammed into construction equipment while attempting to take off from a closed runway at Chiang Kai Shek International Airport, caught fire and was destroyed, killing 79 passengers and 3 crew members. The accident prompted the airline to change the flight number of this route from 006 to 030 and to remove the "Tropical Megatop" livery on the accident aircraft's sister ship.
Despite all these, very few crashes have been attributed to design flaws of the 747. The Tenerife disaster was a result of pilot error, ATC error and communications failure, while Japan Airlines Flight 123 the consequence of improper aircraft repair. United Airlines Flight 811, which suffered an explosive decompression mid-flight on February 24, 1989, subsequently had NTSB issuing a recommendation to have all similar 747-200 cargo doors modified. TWA Flight 800, a 747-100 that exploded mid-air on July 17, 1996, led to the Federal Aviation Administration proposing a rule requiring the installation of an inerting system in the center fuel tank for most large aircraft.

As of May 2006, there were a total of 44 hull-loss occurrences involving 747s, with 3707 fatalities."


seems like alot, until you consider how many more decades, flight hours, departures, and take-offs the 747 has under it's belt.
in fact, it's about a 2:1 ratio between the two when you discount flight/ground crew errors and hijackings

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-12-06 11:58:58)

aardfrith wrote:

Just wondering what's inspired the question.  Are you planning on buying one in the near future?

he is planning to steal one lol

so what did your company pick?

i knew it

Boeing is better, because it doesn't require government subsidies to stay afloat.  It stands on its own financial strengths.

Turquoise wrote:

Boeing is better, because it doesn't require government subsidies to stay afloat.  It stands on its own financial strengths.

To be fair, Airbus did not have WWII to buil off of.

blisteringsilence wrote:

Alright, I can't take this anymore. I have to respond.

The chief problem with comparing planes that have crashed with one another is that you are NOT looking at why the plane crashed. Almost NO crashes are the fault of the airframe designer.  Since 1933, there were only 18 fatal incidents that involved a design flaw. 18. Not too shabby for the commercial airliner industry.

Most crashes come from bad maintnence or pilot error. No airplane is immune to these problems. After these two come engine problems (mostly from bad maintnence again, but the engines are manufacturered and maintained by different companies than the airframes), and (I swear I'm not making this up) running out of fuel. Then you get ATC errors, lighting strikes, and other random events.


For me, personally, I'd rather fly Boeing. Simply becuase my grandfather was a test pilot for McDonald Douglass, and they merged with Boeing.

That being said, you want to see the future of aviation? It's not the A380. It's the 787 Dreamliner series. More fuel efficient than anything Airbus has ever manufactured, with identical glass cockpits across the line (and identical to the 777), and similar control features, the maintnence costs for a line that switches to exclusively 777s and 787s are expected to fall more than 50%.

That's the future kids. It's going to be an awesome time.

The 787-800 is small fry Boeing are coming out with the 747-800 THIS IS THE FUTURE as well as Airbus manufacturing its A350. The 747-800 has the same wing design as the 787 as well as some pretty neat lookin engines. Its nice n streamlined.

Sh1fty2k5 wrote:

Spray_and_pray is correct, even though the Dreamliner may be more fuel efficient, boeing won't "take over" the world, cause the A350 will start production soon, and it's like a copy of the 7E7

Correct some people made fun of airbus they broke the wings of a model A330 added the 787 wings then covered it in aluminium foil. Tada A350. Let me assure you there will be more differences then that.

CameronPoe wrote:

Essentially this poll might as well be:

Where are you from?
Europe
USA

Ummm...you just described this forum section.

usmarine2007 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Essentially this poll might as well be:

Where are you from?
Europe
USA

Ummm...you just described this forum section.

who else really makes planes that can compete?

i'm more likely boeing biased as they directly affect my paycheck, as all the aircraft serviced here are boeing



that and airbuses political tactics in building that new plant were less than honorable. granted most every major manufacturer has done something like that, but most have come around to work with "the little" people nowadays, they basically just cemented over a swamp and bring in huge aircraft right on top residential housing, so close that several historic buildings, one with one of europes oldest functioning pipe organs if i remember correctly, are in danger of being damaged by the wing turbulence.

Lufthansa just ordered 20 747's, apparently no confidence in the A380 future.

"Boeing this year is on track to overtake Airbus in new aircraft orders"

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/art … RTUNE5.htm

Airbus.. For the simple fact that cross training on the various types only needs a little extra training..

..i.e. A common type rating A318/A319/A320/A321 <-- 1 single rating, then not much more training for the A330/A340 and possibly A380 as its a commom cockpit throughout, except for minor differences.

Sh1fty2k5 wrote:

Spray_and_pray is correct, even though the Dreamliner may be more fuel efficient, boeing won't "take over" the world, cause the A350 will start production soon, and it's like a copy of the 7E7

Sorry, I disagree. The beauty of the Dreamliner is not in its fuel efficiency (though that is one of the most easily understood selling points). The beauty is in moving to a single chassis and greatly reducing maintnence and training costs.  And the money to be made is NOT in the mega airliner hub to hub category. It's in the shorter haul routes. Just ask yourself, which are there more of to replace, 747's or 737's?

Now, check this out:

Model                  Range               PAX                       Length               Wingspan
787-3                6,500 km          296 / 2 class              56m                   51.5m
787-8                15,700 km        220 / 3 class              56m                   58.8m
787-9                15,370 km        259 / 3 class              62m                   58.8m
(comparison)
747-8I               14,800 km        467 / 3 class              76.4m                68.5m
777-300ER         13,400 km        365 / 3 class              73.9m                63.9m
                                                479 / 2 class
                                                550 / 1 class

Of these models, they all use the same engine, they all use the same cockpit (though a pilot certified for the 747 cannot fly the others and vice versa), they all have identical flight systems. This means maintnence costs are DRAMATICALLY lower than operating a hodgepoge fleet of boeing/airbus/douglas/lockheed. Why is Southwest Airlines so profitable? One reason is that their maintnence costs are LOW. They only operate one type of aircraft, the 737.

TPM-J45P3R- wrote:

Airbus.. For the simple fact that cross training on the various types only needs a little extra training..

..i.e. A common type rating A318/A319/A320/A321 <-- 1 single rating, then not much more training for the A330/A340 and possibly A380 as its a commom cockpit throughout, except for minor differences.

Minor differences like the fact that some have 2 engines and some have 4? Dude, there's a TON of training that goes into the certification from a 2 engine commercial jet to a 4 engine commercial jet. The same pilot NEVER flies the two. It's just not done, its not safe.

To sign off, I really like this quote:

"The Boeing 737 twin engine airliner is the best selling jetliner of all time. The 5,000th 737 was delivered in February 2006 and the aircraft has carried the equivalent of the world's population, about 7 billion passengers."