Can't go wrong with the dependable 737.
Poll
Airbus or Boeing?
| Airbus | 37% | 37% - 89 | ||||
| Boeing | 62% | 62% - 146 | ||||
| Total: 235 | ||||||
Concorde!! Never time for the seats to get uncomfortable in that
While it was a good idea, it was failure. It was later found out that both sides wanted to pull out of the deal to produce it, but neither side wanted to pay the cost of abandoning it.~c4~cheppi wrote:
Concorde!! Never time for the seats to get uncomfortable in that
Boeing, because they realize that with a smaller, more versatile aircraft (787), you can offer more flight times to more destinations. With the A380, its only economic to fly big routes like tokyo-NYC-London-LA etc. but people like to fly to other places as well, and not only twice a day, but all sorts of times a day.
Plus if a 787 crashes you have what, 300 deaths on your hands? With the A380 it can be upwards of 1000. Some old saying comes to mind, something to do with eggs and baskets...
Plus if a 787 crashes you have what, 300 deaths on your hands? With the A380 it can be upwards of 1000. Some old saying comes to mind, something to do with eggs and baskets...
@spray & pray... you earlier referenced a south american crash of a boeing 737, and implying a systems failure of TCAS or whatever you were getting at, trying to prove your airbus point. in that incident, the plane it collided with, a brazilian ERJ, was not detected on the 737's TCAS as the crew of the ERJ had TURNED OFF their transponder. the 737 clipped the winglet of the ERJ, on a critical part of its airframe, thus the 737 crashed and the ERJ did not. Not boeings fault, not ERJs fault. PILOT/HUMAN ERROR, as you should know, like 99.9999% of all aviation accidents. so everyones arguements about which is better considering track records in crashes are null and void.
Actually all crashes are 100% human error but some crashes can be prevented. This also relies on the human element but it also relies on the aircraft building/maint. Why are you digging up a really old story? It also wasn't the ERJ's fault since the 737-800 was flying at an incorrect altitude for what heading it was taking up. Know it or not there is a rule if you are travelling anywhere west bound you must fly only even numbers (not sure I dont fly airliners) and if you are flying east you must take odd numbers. The 737 was flying the incorrect altitude for the direction it was travelling. Im not sure if ATC gave them clearance to fly but apparently someone did not know. This is too old for me to bother anyway. Im still not sure why you picked to post on a topic 1 month old.mcjagdflieger wrote:
@spray & pray... you earlier referenced a south american crash of a boeing 737, and implying a systems failure of TCAS or whatever you were getting at, trying to prove your airbus point. in that incident, the plane it collided with, a brazilian ERJ, was not detected on the 737's TCAS as the crew of the ERJ had TURNED OFF their transponder. the 737 clipped the winglet of the ERJ, on a critical part of its airframe, thus the 737 crashed and the ERJ did not. Not boeings fault, not ERJs fault. PILOT/HUMAN ERROR, as you should know, like 99.9999% of all aviation accidents. so everyones arguements about which is better considering track records in crashes are null and void.
Actually, BA made a shit load of profit eventually on their side, especially marketing wise (with memorabilia etc.) - Don't know bout Air France though :susmarine2007 wrote:
While it was a good idea, it was failure. It was later found out that both sides wanted to pull out of the deal to produce it, but neither side wanted to pay the cost of abandoning it.~c4~cheppi wrote:
Concorde!! Never time for the seats to get uncomfortable in that
I wish I could remember the show....it was on the former discovery wings channel. I think it was France who wanted to pull out, but I am not sure if it was both or just the frogs.Moonraker_x29 wrote:
Actually, BA made a shit load of profit eventually on their side, especially marketing wise (with memorabilia etc.) - Don't know bout Air France though :susmarine2007 wrote:
While it was a good idea, it was failure. It was later found out that both sides wanted to pull out of the deal to produce it, but neither side wanted to pay the cost of abandoning it.~c4~cheppi wrote:
Concorde!! Never time for the seats to get uncomfortable in that
Marine how did the airline end up? When are you guys going to do the first flight or has it already happened?
Proving runs in March.spray_and_pray wrote:
Marine how did the airline end up? When are you guys going to do the first flight or has it already happened?
THIS is the best airbus ^^
No thats what you wish was the best airbus because then your 737 wouldn't have to compete with the more efficient A320 series.
Good luck with it all the best for the future. If you can last long enough ive started transitioning to Dash 8-200's and -300's flying cargo in a few years I might as well apply for a position in piloting. What will be your stance on pilot hours? The current regional im with is 500 hours all together with at least 150 Twin Turbo. I know that Qantas is hiring at 1500 hours.usmarine2007 wrote:
Proving runs in March.spray_and_pray wrote:
Marine how did the airline end up? When are you guys going to do the first flight or has it already happened?
We are hiring all captains now. 5000 total, 1500 PIC in turbines. As for FO's, that will be about 6 months from now, but I am hearing stuff like 2000-2500 total time.spray_and_pray wrote:
Good luck with it all the best for the future. If you can last long enough ive started transitioning to Dash 8-200's and -300's flying cargo in a few years I might as well apply for a position in piloting. What will be your stance on pilot hours? The current regional im with is 500 hours all together with at least 150 Twin Turbo. I know that Qantas is hiring at 1500 hours.usmarine2007 wrote:
Proving runs in March.spray_and_pray wrote:
Marine how did the airline end up? When are you guys going to do the first flight or has it already happened?
Wow captains only? Dont ya think that will be a little expensive in the beggining. Well you got the professionals and to be serious I don't know much about hiring pilots and figuring out their wages. But it sounds like things are getting along thats good to hear.
FAA just approved the manuals also. As for the pilots, you are going to need those captains anyway, so the idea is to have them during the FAA approval process.spray_and_pray wrote:
Wow captains only? Dont ya think that will be a little expensive in the beggining. Well you got the professionals and to be serious I don't know much about hiring pilots and figuring out their wages. But it sounds like things are getting along thats good to hear.
LOL get the pro's in the beggining then start slowly intoducing the newbies sounds good. You are flying 21's or 20's? or was it 19's or 18's A3's that is.
Boing cos the rollys roce engine keeps you safe
19's mainly. But if Virgin America keeps getting shot down on FAA approval, maybe some 20's. With CFM engines of course.spray_and_pray wrote:
LOL get the pro's in the beggining then start slowly intoducing the newbies sounds good. You are flying 21's or 20's? or was it 19's or 18's A3's that is.
You know that it is up to the airline what manufacturer to use? There are Boeings with Pratt & Whitney's and GE's (CFM) also.Kurazoo wrote:
Boing cos the rollys roce engine keeps you safe
Airbus also uses Rolls Royce.Kurazoo wrote:
Boing cos the rollys roce engine keeps you safe
Ahh some 20's that would be nice. The 19 is a nice small comfortable airliner (its flight characteristics) its good with fuel and will get you out of basically anywhere. Its got a good capability for shorter runways.
Well, the reason is, the A319 is the most fuel efficient out of the whole single aisle family. A318,20, and 21.spray_and_pray wrote:
Airbus also uses Rolls Royce.Kurazoo wrote:
Boing cos the rollys roce engine keeps you safe
Ahh some 20's that would be nice. The 19 is a nice small comfortable airliner (its flight characteristics) its good with fuel and will get you out of basically anywhere. Its got a good capability for shorter runways.
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.spray_and_pray wrote:
Airbus also uses Rolls Royce.Kurazoo wrote:
Boing cos the rollys roce engine keeps you safe
Ahh some 20's that would be nice. The 19 is a nice small comfortable airliner (its flight characteristics) its good with fuel and will get you out of basically anywhere. Its got a good capability for shorter runways.
sorry im a noob just trying to be knowledgeable lol
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.spray_and_pray wrote:
Airbus also uses Rolls Royce.
Ahh some 20's that would be nice. The 19 is a nice small comfortable airliner (its flight characteristics) its good with fuel and will get you out of basically anywhere. Its got a good capability for shorter runways.