Questo sito web utilizza cookie. Continuando a usare e a navigare su questo sito, accetti l'utilizzo dei cookie.
Chiudi
Sapevi che il tracking dei voli di FlightAware è supportato dalla pubblicità?
Puoi aiutarci a mantenere FlightAware gratuito accettando gli annunci pubblicitari di FlightAware.com. Ci impegniamo per far sì che i nostri annunci siano pertinenti e discreti per offrire la migliore esperienza. Aggiungere gli annunci ammessi su FlightAware è facile e veloce oppure puoi prendere in considerazione i nostri account premium.
Chiudi
Back to Squawk list
  • 68

American Airlines Orders 460 Narrowbodies

Aggiunto
 
AMR, parent corporation of American Airlines, has placed an order for 460 aircraft, including 260 Airbus A320s and 100 Next Generation Boeing 737 and 100 yet-to-be-launched re-engined 737s, powered by CFM Leap-X engines. Boeing says that the re-engined 737 - a product currently in its conceptual phase - will likely be launched by the Boeing Board of Directors sometime this fall, placing the formal authority to offer the aircraft sometime between late September and late December. (www.flightglobal.com) Altro...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


KauaiGolfer
I'm sure the pilots and mechanics prefer Boeing, but what do they know?
rjkosi
RAY KOSI 0
BRING BACK BOB CRANDALL AND INCREASE THE QUALITY OF THE BOARD BY REDUCING THE QUANTITY IN HALF.
HunterTS4
Toby Sharp 0
whatever happened to "if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going"
mduell
Mark Duell 0
Read between the lines... Leahy organized an amazing financing deal: AMR said it will "benefit from approximately $13 billion of committed financing from the manufacturers through lease transactions" to reduce risk and covers the first 230 aircraft.

Reminds me of United's A350XWB order last year.
tyketto
Toby, seeing that they were flying A306s before retiring them after AAL587, the whole Boeing thing became rather stale.. COA said the same thing after they rebranded in the mid-90s, and they are now flying them again (albeit as UAL).
MANBOI
MANBOI 0
Why would they order next gen and next next gen Boeings but outdated Airbus of the same class? I assume one manufacturer will only extend so much credit to a company that just posted another $300-400Million quarterly loss. Having two sets of unionized pilots to fly the same type of plane (Boeing + Airbus) will make terrible fiscal sense for decades to come.
mduell
Mark Duell 0
They're ordering current gen 737 and A320, and next gen 737 and A320. It's confusing since the current generation 737 is known as the 737 Next Generation to differentiate it from the classics (-300 -400 -500).

With fleets that big there's not much difference in economies of scale for the unionized workgroups.
Cactus732
Cactus732 0
If you read between the lines there are two reasons the ordered is split between manufacturers. 1) A single manufacturer cannot produce that number of aircraft for one customer particularly in a market which is not their main focus. 2) American Airlines don't have the money to buy these aircraft outright so the way it's financed will save them more money on the deal.

Also @ MANBOI if you read closely the Airbus deal is split into current Gen. and next Gen. aircraft in the same way as the boeing deal. This reflects American's need for new aircraft before Boeing and Airbus plan to introduce their new generation of narrow bodies
chalet
chalet 0
Very very very confusing, the fingers of whoever typed that news report were faster than his brain. Will have to wait for the official announcement.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well, the official announcement came again on the evening news and the bottom line to it, per the Boeing CEO, was as James Blackham said, one manufacturer could not meet the demand and that it will create about 3000 jobs at Boeing
HunterTS4
Toby Sharp 0
I just can imagine Airbus' painted silver over the skies of DFW.......its just......odd
tyketto
@Toby

Have a look at the A306s that AAL had when they were flying them. FlightAware has a fair number of photos of them, as well as other aircraft photo sites. it isn't odd at all, as they were flying them consistently until shortly after AAL587.
MANBOI
MANBOI 0
...and why did they stop flying the Airbus? Oh yeah, it fell apart and plunged into homes in Rockwaway Beach/Queens.
Pigweed298
Roy Kizzia 0
I am not a pilot (got a few hrs 40 yrs ago) but as I recall, in the past, Air Bus seemed to think that computers were better than pilots, and pilots trying to override the computer got into trouble a few times resulting in catastrophes. But, if Boeing can't produce them fast enough, I guess the split order is the option that is left for AA.
MANBOI
MANBOI 0
@MDuell: Economies of scale are even more beneficial in a larger operation. Costco sales per square foot are about $1,000 while most retailers are $450. I could give you a thousand examples but relative to airlines look at Southwest numbers.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well, as I said in an earlier comment on another post, a big cause of concern for any experiened pilot is the flight envelope. In a Boeing, a pilot can exceed it if he needs that margin to pull his tail out of a crack. Airbus stops that override unless the computer is reprogrammed. All envelope settings are like a mfg recommendation on any product. they should not be exceeded but in most cases can be momentarily without everything flying apart. Normally when that sort of situation arises, there is not time to reprogram;you just have to go there and hope it holds together and THAT is when you need to have that capability but you also need know how to FLY a plane rather than push a button and expect it done for you.This is one big thing an older pilot don't like about Airbus. The thought is good but may not be good in practical application, ala AF447.At some point they will probably change it but not until after more loss of life.
tyketto
@MANBOI:

And why did USA stop flying B737s? Oh yeah, because they fell apart and plunged into homes in Pittsburgh.

That type of argument isn't going to go anywhere. COA flew A306s as well, and didn't have a problem with them before they went all Boeing. So if it is odd imagining Airbus aircraft flying over DFW, they flew over HOU without any problems at all.
Pigweed298
Roy Kizzia 0
Thanks, Wayne, I didn't remember all the details like you do. Remember the AirBus at a show in Europe that flew by at a large AOA and flew right into a stand of trees without ever climbing a foot higher than its original altitude?
FedExCargoPilot
I guess a320s are better than MD-80s correct? Will save the company some money on fuel, with the winglets on the 737 and A320. A321s will most likely replace the aging 757 fleet, but I hope not because the 757 is my favorite boeing jet...
DAL2621
Aren't A320's more profitable on shorter routes (MD88 routes) than the 737?
JD345
JD345 0
Man, they REALLY don't want to clean their MD-80s.
FedExCargoPilot
I think its about the same, both have about the same characteristics, winglets save fuel on the climb, wingtips provide better range like the 777-200LR. So both a320s and 737 are good for short routes with many takeoffs and landings a day.
danishnelson
I recently on an A320 and a Boeing 737-800 on and quick trip, going on the the same route to and from the same place. The two planes had the same layout, but the 737 was SO much better, the plane had leather seats in Economy, more leg room, and the ride was so much smother. Now this wasn't AA, so I don't know if their going to have the same configurations, but if I had to choose which plane to fly on a short/cross-country trip, the B737 wins the bet!
danishnelson
PS - Click on my name and you can see the planes
jicaro
KUDOS to Wayne Bookout.

Last Post well said, I like both A/C, but on the Airbus, to me seems that there is no feel, it is all the Computer, and technology true must progress and they try, but then again, I believe Technology also has its faults and a good example would be in part W/ AF447, no doubt.> Wayne another example of to much complication, was the QUANTAS A380, on blowing 1 engine, damaging 2 others, yet it took 2.5 hrs for 5 PILOTS, to get her ready for landing, taking in account each Pilot w/ a computer doing there seperate things to deal w/the listed MFD issues!!!!!.
In essence I like both A/C, but like what was said on the Boeing, you have room to wiggle, and on the Airbus>once any limit is reached your SOL for a quick adjustment> IMHO
preacher1
preacher1 0
Robert: I'm typed in most of the RJ's as well and to my knowledge, Airbus is the only thing flying that has that flight envelope mandated. You learn the envelope as you get typed in any AC but a computer programmer on the ground in Europe has no concept(well maybe a concept only)of what can happen sitting in that left seat, let alone how quickly something can happen. They may say it doesn't take that long to reprogram but sometimes that split second may be all is needed to pull your tail out of a crack and recover from something. It's a good idea in theory but those decisions are what a pilot gets paid to make and carry out.I have mentioned that Qantas 380 before, and IF those 5 pilots had not been on that plane, the outcome would have been totally different and it would have probably been blamed on pilot error, cause they would have probably been dead and couldn't have defended themselves.
jicaro
Wayne
I agree in what you said, I did not catch your A380 comment, though it is true, it seems everything results in Pilot error w/ Airbus', I am afraid to say, ever since the 1st 320 that crashed in the airshow in France. And there again, even though the computer ignored TOGO command by the crew, the Capt. was still charged w/Manslaughter GO FIGURE
Is it worth all this to save grace.
preacher1
preacher1 0
That's just the European and Airbus way, blame it on somebody else. Sad to say, it's even becoming the American way, what with insurance companies and lawyers directing a lot of the show. Dead Pilot's can't talk. Just like in New Orleans, although everybody got back on the ground safely, the Pilot's were reamed for not following the checklist. How can you read a damn Emergency checklist when the cockpit is so full of smoke you can't see your instrument panel?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Av8nut
What do you do when you report a quarter-billion dollar loss for the company? Go spend billions of dollars on more airplanes? Sounds ridiculous. I must not be seeing something.
jicaro
Wayne:

Yup I know ontop of smoke in cockpit, ALL!!! MFD, went out!!, also, as you listen to the pilots communication w/airport ATC, you can even hear his MASTER caution alarm wistleing Dixie. But still>wow
wgmmck
Will the Boeing order for 476 Aircraft for American Airlines be manufactured in the US??
agg1930
agg1930 0
Buying two different types of aircraft (737 and 320) for the same type of operation seems to me a mistake. AA will end up with different flying crews, different maintenance, different spares, different GSE needs, different bagagge handling equipment, and on and on. They will have to operate them on separate route systems so as to avoid most of the above mentioned problem areas. In the end, they will have operate as two separate airlines with the same paint job. Crazy!
If one manufacturer could not deliver all those aircraft in the timeframe requiered by AA, whst happens now to other customers that might want some of the same airplanes?
A lot of things just do not make sense to me.
preacher1
preacher1 0
agg1930- they will qualify their crews as they can so the equipment can be mixed. A Pilot might get out of a 737 right now and into and MD of some type for the next flight and they sure fly different. Maintenance will be a little more challenging. As far as delivery, that is up to them but the build and delivery time frame are scheduled based on current production levels.One reason AMR went ahead with their order was to get ahead of an upcoming DAL order. It has been said that both companies are probably going to have to ramp up production anyway.
chalet
chalet 0
@ WayneI wonder what is United's experience in having 737s and 320s in their system. I believe I heard that at the beginning it was not smooth sailing but over time they ironed out the problems and were very happy besides they bought both types at deeper discounts had they acquired only 737s from Boeing. US Airways also flies both 320s and 737s, I don't know how they feel about it. And what about the integration of Deltas 737s and Northwest's 320s, too early to tell maybe.
preacher1
preacher1 0
@chalet: there are a lot of mixed fleets out there. UPS also has about 50 or so Airbuses in their fleet. Pilots will get typed to take advantage of a run somewhere or not miss one, regardless of their preference of planes. They are like everybody else. The runs are what they make their money on. Maintenance will do what they are told and the competition will keep everybody honest. I honestly feel that AAL would have stayed with Boeing if they could have gotten delivery as I think they actually paid a tad more for the Airbuses but the financing package from Airbus had a big say in there too.So who knows. I think AMR has more to worry about than new planes.
SWEATINTHSWAMP
How much will this ad to the cost of revamping the Tulsa maintenance facility? They do not currently have Airbus maintenance. Correct? Will they shift that to another facility? How many maintenance facilities does AA have anyway?
preacher1
preacher1 0
While Tulsa is AA, it has been sort of stand alone to the point of heavy rebuilds, concentrating on the last few years on MD refurbishing. They had a big layoff up there a few years back and reshifted their focus and I think they are even doing some outside work. I know they have maintenance facilities at their major hubs but none of those are heavy rebuild like Tulsa. Who knows how they will integrate the AB maintenance.
jlemon
Jeff Lemon 0
Besides the A300-600R,this won't be the first time AA has operated non U.S.manufactured equipment....witness the acquisition of the Fokker 100 which was preceded by the BAC One-Eleven series 400.

Time to wake up, Boeing: what about a new generation replacement for the 757??
bishops90
@Jeff - With the announcement of the re-engine plan for the 737, I think Boeing realizes that there are other pressing needs than trying to re-invent the wheel with narrowbodies. Maybe they'll do a "Next-Gen / New Engine" 757 and have common type ratings with the 37 whereas the current 57 shares a rating with the 767, which may be phased out eventually. It would make sense to me since the '87 and '77 share a common type rating. Plus with other newcomers in the NB business, I doublt if we'll ever see a totally new mid-range narrowbody from either Boeing or Airbus. Their money will be in the big long haul birds, and Big B will have to look at the trip 7 before too long to completely revemp it's line-up for the next 40+ years. Just my 2cents worth. I'd like to hear what some of you who are more expert in this kind of thing than I think.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Brian you make a lot of sense. At the time of the 767 intro it pretty much had to matcj the 57 on type as it replaced it. That being said, although they share the rating, it takes about an hour in the cockpit but that may just be old to new. My old employer just went from a 757, which I flew from new til I retired from them. About 2 months ago they bought a brand new 767-200ER and I was invited up. As I said, there wasn't that much difference in the cockpit and the time spent was more getting used to something new than anything. I doubt they'll bring the 757 back as it has been out of production since 2004. With the 767ER line out, it will be around for awhile. Not having seen the cockpit, I can't say but from a size standpoint and all, the 767 has more in common with the 777. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
toolguy105
toolguy105 0
I believe American has made a big mistake breaking with tradition and splitting from Boeing. Part of the problem was and will be that neither manufacturer could supply the needed aircraft in the time frame that AA needs them. A mistake AA and other airlines made by not replacing aircraft for the past 6 to 8 years.

Besides not liking Airbus products personally I also don't like the economics of this purchase. We need the money from this purchase to stay here at home to bolster our economy, not the European Union and the subsidized Airbus corporation. I'm left to wonder had McDonald Douglas not gone out of business if this order would have been split between Boeing and McDonald Douglas or the three manufactures of large jets.

I guess when Airbus starts to deliver to AA I will have to look at the plane scheduled for any flight I may be looking at. For if it ain't Boeing I ain't going.
ARUNK
I agree with Ray....Bring back Crandall and get rid of inaudible Arpey!! Boeing should have been the choice here!!
preacher1
preacher1 0
@toolguy105: AA says they are all Boeing now and they are but only because Boeing bought MD.The workhorses of their fleet are the MD's of various types and size and those are the ones really guzzling the fuel. Probably they would have rotated the fleet earlier but I think the sheer economics of the time prevented that. The gov't didn't offer "cash for clunkers" to the Airlines like it did for the public. AAL has pretty much always ran a mixed fleet. We will always be left to wonder what would have happened in a lot of places had MD stayed around.
toolguy105
toolguy105 0
@Wayne I agree with what you said. I am also left to wonder what AAL or any other airline would purchase if the surveyed their passengers. My feeling is that most passengers, at least in this country, prefer and trust Boeing.
DAL2621
Of course they would prefer and trust Boeing. Boeing is an American company. @ many people here, American was all Boeing, just like Continental and Delta. What happened there? It's a new time and airlines are looking for the deal.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Yeah and as Boeing bought out MD to get rid of the competetition, another competitor emerged, albeit on foreign ground, and they'll not be able to buy it out. One thing it seems they have missed though, I don't think until here recently, that they have taken Airbus as a serious competitor, at least for the US market, and as Alex said, Airlines are looking for the deal.
WillisRF
I wish American would buy American.
toolguy105
toolguy105 0
@Wayne. Yes, and Boeing is not looking at the future the way they should be. They are sitting on their laurels and over extended with the launch of the 789s, 747-8&9. Now they are years behind in looking at a replacement for the 737 or revamping it. The have done great interior rework, upgraded the flight deck instrumentation but the present generation basic plane is 20 years old. Giving the 737 more fuel efficiency and greater range, maybe even using more composite in the design can be used in the makeover. As far as what to design as a replacement aircraft, I don't think Boeing or the airlines have a clue. Neither does Airbus for the A320 series, and Airbus has their own pver extentsion problems aith the A380 that is also delaying the A350.

Boeing has taken what was originally designed as a short to medium haul aircraft into a very versatile short to long haul platform. In Boeing's case the present 737 next generation series killed the 757. The 737 is probably by far the best multi-faceted aircraft in any airlines fleet. About the only thing that I can think that can be done with it is to make it lighter and more fuel efficient. If it is possible a cleaner wing. I'm not sure if Boeing improved the wing when they came out with the next generation series.
padgettrea
Look at it this way... in a few years we'll be able to pick up repossessed (new) 737's.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well, toolguy105, according to one of the many articles that came out after this deal was done, maybe this one, they were waffling on what to do with the 737, as far as a reengine, or brand new and one of the things they were looking at was carbon fibre to make it lighter but this AMR deal just forced their hand. Yes, all the playing with the 737 did pretty much kill the 757, but Boeing is also just going to have to realize they are not the only kid on the block anymore and make some decisions a little faster rather than take forever as they have on some things, basically telling their customers to kiss off, "we'll tell you when we are ready".
toolguy105
toolguy105 0
Before I retired I worked for a company that thought they could trade on their name. They almost woke up a little to late when they found out competition likes to eat too. They are today still fighting the battle and they still have a management theory based in part that their name will see them through. Hopefully Boeing has seen the light.
preacher1
preacher1 0
So sad but true in many places. Lack of competition CAN, and I say CAN,not always, make people complacent, and as you say, others like to eat too. One may have the name and a superior product but if the other one will fly and do the same job, in this case, the Airlines are in business to haul PAX.
bishops90
Thanks Wayne - yeah I kinda had a senior moment there about the '57 being out of production. Like I said though I think Boeng will do what it can with the re-engined 737 - who knows, maybe another stretch? - and that'll be it for them in the narrowbody market. Development costs and time for smaller incremental efficiency improvements will be very challenging as others come into the that market which has already become a commodity market for the most part.
As much as many think Boeing is short sighted - I think Airbus is in the same situation. Since both companies are so large, and are the only players in the long-haul business, I think they will both leverage their positions and crank out all the refined narrowbodies in the current stable as possible and put their real money into more efficient, revolutionary long haul birds, I.E 787;777(and it's replacement);748-8I;A350;A380 etc.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Brian: I know all about them"senior moments"lol, as they are coming more often now lol.BUT, I think you are correct on the long haul.With Embrarer and Bombadier getting into the picture stronger, the next few years will be very interesting. I guess as long as I can keep my physical up, and I'm already on some fairly simple waivers, and have enough friends left to help me keep fairly current in type, I'll be able to keep my head clear but I don't have any plans to get typed in an Airbus of any kind right now.
usaerin
Surely AA is just kidding.
ryn2016
john shea 0
They would do better if they negotiated with all three unions and resloved the lack-of-contract issues, and regained reliability of the current fleet.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well, they definitely have a problem somewhere. They were the only legacy carrier that didn't make money last year. Some pigs are feeding at the trough somewhere.
DAL2621
@ Wayne, I read an article a couple months back that Boeing was leaning towards building a new plane, because they had the confidence that their customers were willing to wait. With these economic times airlines aren't going to wait 10 years for a new replacement from Boeing when airbus is coming out with the NEO 4-5 years before. 2 of their major customers(Delta and Continental) now fly airbus aircraft, and after flying all Boeing, there is a much higher risk that they may order more airbus, or have a split order like American. Look, now American is ordering more Airbus than Boeing. With all of this going on, now Boeing is stuck trying to make a huge decision with little time, that can effect the company for years to come. The re engined version will be a lot more expensive than a normal re engining would be (because the 737 sits too low) and of course creating a new aircraft sucks the money out of you.
honzanl
honza nl 0
toolguy105: yes, let's US airlines buy US products ! but then don't be surprised if Chinese airlines will go buy Chinese, EU buy EU... ! If you want to export, you also have to allow imports. What you want is like communists did economics....that sure will help !
EMTNytHawk
Not a pilot, just a longtime aviation junkie and industry observer. @Wayne -- thanks for bringing up something that occurred to me, the growing prevalence of RJs in smaller markets. It's not just the short-haul but the passenger volume that airlines are looking at. My home airport, KOMA, is a prime example -- I'd say at least 1/3 to 1/3 of all flight volume is either Bombardier or Embraer RJs (many of them run by mini-airlines like ComAir, All-Wisconsin, ASA, SkyWest, etc. under the flag / livery of the big boys). Let's be honest, the bigger airlines aren't going to cart around empty seats on B737s and A320's if they see 50- and 70-seat RJs can handle the passenger volume. Yes, you do see the "bigger" aircraft here (Midwest with MD-80s/B717s, American with MD-80s, United with A320s and an occasional B757 if they haven't been completely retired, and of course Southwest's all-B737 fleet). Frankly, the "biggest" aircraft regularly flying through KOMA are freighters. FedEx has at least one A300-series shuttling through here daily (not to mention having a veritable flock of Cessna SuperCargos on the ramp), and UPS has at least one daily B757 shuttle. Comparatively, the large majority of the Continental flights I see going out of here are Embraer RJ-145s or similar going to Houston. And the growing trend I see in places like KOMA, KLNK and other "low-passenger-volume" airports is the shift to the RJs. (I have to wonder if that shift will grow with Embraer's 170-190-series aircraft). Simply put, the airlines aren't going to waste fuel carting around empty seats on A320, B737s and the like if they don't have to.
EMTNytHawk
Correction to above -- make that 1/3 to 1/2 of the traffic at KOMA
preacher1
preacher1 0
Better look again at that FedeX. Unless I misunderstand your type or something has happened in the last few weeks, Fedex is all Boeing. Pilots revolted on buying Airbus for their regular freight and that also led to them cancelling the A380 order and go with the 777. Management was so proud of that cause they has $%^&*( up bad. Airbus price was right but it never dawned on anybody what it would cost to reconfigure KMEM and KGSO to handle them, not to mention some of the major hubs they had them planned for. They were able to lay the whole thing on immediate capacity need but it was the Pilots that raised Holy Hell.
bishops90
Patrick, Here at GSP it's more like 90% RJ's and that number came down recently when SWA arrived. Fedex and UPS run 752's daily in and out (3 total). The RJ's continue to get bigger also, with 90 seater's becoming commonplace in lots of places. That's why I think the >120 seat market will eventually disappear for Boeing and Airbus.
agremeister
"whatever happened to 'if it aint boeing, I aint going'?"

People realized airbus was better.
agremeister
Actuall, on the mandated limits discussion, I believe the airbus approach is better. If a pilot is startled bybthe GPWS or somthing similar, and yanks the yoke back in a boeing, the plane will stall and cash. In an airbus, if the pilot does the same thing, it will find the best angle of climb without stallng the plane. If it still crashes, nothing could have been done anyway.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well, agremeister, being a semi retired corporate pilot and still getting more than enough time to keep my ATP and myself well current, you are full of $%^&. I notice that you carry a student certificate and you can believe as you want BUT IF I PULL BACK ON A YOKE I WANT A DAMN RESPONSE BECAUSE I HAVE DONE IT FOR A REASON. Currently, I am typed thru a 767-200ER and a mess of RJ's, AND I BELIEVE IN FLYING THE DAMN PLANE, not having a computer tell me something else. That all being said, the Airbus system is good in theory but not worth a #$%^in practical application. I believe that if you could ask the dead crew on AF447 they would agree. A pilot may not approach an envelope threshold very often but when he does, a simple warning is enough. A pilot in command is in control, or needs to be, of the ENTIRE AIRCRAFT and should not be overridden by anyone or anything. Good or Bad, when things go to hell in a hurry it is no time for a committee meeting. Ask Sully. Any of those video/Audio's of their cockpit showed the FO giving him the Aircraft! Sorry to rant but you plumb $%##$% me off.
bishops90
Well said Wayne. When the stick's in MY hands, it's MY aircraft, not some programmer. And even though I'm not type rated on much of anything, my whole idea of flying is for ME to FLY the plane.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Thanks, Brian. As he progresses, he will feel the same.
bishops90
I'll fly with you anytime Wayne! See 'ya. Preach on preacher.
Boentgru
Make sure those pitot tubes on the Airbus are the latest types.
agremeister
Look, I have my own opinion and wayne has his, but maybe we should keep AF447 out of this. had it been in a 767, my guess is that the outcome would have been pretty similar.

On the subject of Airbus vs. Boeing, lets face it , Boeing is just as subsidized as Airbus. Americans only prefer Boeing because our government subsidizes them and not the EU. The economies of both are so connected anyway the effect would be the same.

As a passenger, airbus and boeing on the same airline the same, assuming they are the same age. look at United, The only difference between the two is that the A320 has TVs, and thats because the 737 is from the 80s and the Airbus from the 90's

/end rant
preacher1
preacher1 0
Not sure about the 447 outcome but it is an integral part of your thought process, primarily because of the overload of electronic warning and the apparent lack of input the plots tried to make and couldn't. Outcome may have been the same but they should at least have had the chance. That it is one of those times when a pilot must reach for the envelope and try and fly the plane.He does not need to have to go through a committee meeting to get there. Whether you are sitting there at the controls of a heavy or a C150, things are going to happen that nobody on the ground(that wrote the book) ever thought of and you will have to deal with them based on your knowledge of FLYING, and what the Aircraft can do. That, my friend, is the flaw in Airbus theory.
In regard to the subsidies, you had better check the numbers. Yes Boeing is subsidized to a degree and on specific items but Airbus has a direct pipline into the treasuries of the EU countries. All of this came out in the tanker battle a few months back..
You are absolutely correct on the interiors. New vs old will always be a difference, regardless of brand. In another comment string, I said and it was agreed by many that to the average PAX didn't know nor care what they were flying on, as long as it got them to/from their destination and they didn't get their drink spilled.
As an afterthough, the Qantas 380 that lost the engine a few months ago; had there not been 5 senior pilots on that flight deck, with 3-4 doing nothing but working through alarms, the outcome may have been different. You can say that had it been a 747, the outcome would have been the same. Having 5 senior pilots on board is a 1 in a million thing, but a 747 would have had a proven engine, rather than an unproven one and rushed into the market off a test stand. Realizing that is a Rolls-Royce engine but AB hung it on their airplane.
EMTNytHawk
@Wayne -- My source on the A300's flying for FedEx through KOMA was an employee on their ground staff. On first view I had thought it was a B767 myself, but he corrected me a few years ago. Maybe things have changed, I'm not sure. When I get a chance, I'm going to look up a few tail numbers on the FAA website to make sure I'm seeing things right. The ting is, when I see the FedEx and the UPS regulars on the ramp, side by side, the FedEx actually looks like a shorter fuselage than the UPS B757, so I'm still inclined to say it's an A300 for FedEx. Like I said, I'll check a few tail numbers.

The thing is, you KNOW FedEx has a lot of freight going through on some days, because they have both the regular shuttle and a second one (usually a B727 of all things). FedEx seems to do a lot at KOMA; I think they may be a regional hub (especially with all the putt-putt Cessna's on the ramp).
preacher1
preacher1 0
It could be and with the putt putts, probably is. Ck those tail numbers. I would be interesed in knowing. I haven't checked it out myself, it just came from my sources too.
EMTNytHawk
@Brian -- I have to agree, the larger RJs like the 90-seaters could very well edge Boeing and Airbus out of some markets. Especially if Embraer can make good inroads with their 170/175/190/195-series.

@Agremeister -- You can't make the B737 - A320 comparison with United anymore (unless they picked up B737s in the Continental buyout). When United shut down their Ted low-fare operation, all the A320-series aircraft in Ted were repainted to standard United colors and the remaining B737s in the United fleet were retired. It's been several years since I flew on either type of aircraft, but I have done so on both with United. I actually found the seating more comfortable on the A320s. It may very well have been the layouts of those particular aircraft, but that's what I saw. Granted, everything after the first couple rows on almost any major carrier these days is Cattle Class.
data4unme
What ever happened to being American, buying American...
agg1930
agg1930 0
Wow! AA really raised a storm! Just one thought on the so called subsidies tyhat Boeing has received. Boeing does not get outright direct financing from the governmant like Airbus does.
You can say that they have benefitted indirectly from government monies like in the case of the development of the 747 which was paid in part of the C5 competition that lockheed ended up winning. That is one reason that the 747 has its distintive upper fuselage since it was meant to be for a pure freighter configuration that also being the reason that the 747F has been so successful.
Airbus on the other hand, gets outrighjt subsidies, zero interest loans, etc. No comparison.
Agree 100% with Wayne, The main reason to preffer Boeing is that the pilot is allways in control. As a passenger that is good to know. Airbus has had several accidents that have not been fully explained other than to say "pilot error" AF447 is one, TAM in Sao Paulo in July 07, AF 296 in June 88, etc.
There is also another consideration on the AA deal. That is that while Boeing negotiates as a company Airbus negotiates as a country. The amount of diplomatic pressure on AA must have been enormous. When Airbus is trying to sell airplanes their government get very involved. They offer other deals should the airline buy their airplanes, they even give medals to the airline management during the course of the negoctiations,etc etc.
Boeing does not get any government support for their sales efforts.I am talking about foreign sales efforts.
Sorry for all the somewhat disconnected subjects but this AA deal has me very upset! and I agree that in the future I will for sure, avoid an AA Airbus airplane.
honzanl
honza nl 0
agg:

read the whole WTO stuiff: Boeing gets tax incentives, development subsidies and grants, state subsidies etc etc; and by the way: Airbus pays normal interests on its loans
If it is so important to have the pilot in control: why then the F15, F16, F18, F22 and F35 have the same system as Airbus ?? because it is so bad ??
Boeing not gets sales support for abroad ?? read Wikileaks !!
and if Boeing is so good, why the 737 can fly straight into the ground ? (Colorado Springs, Pittsburgh)?
preacher1
preacher1 0
honza nl: too early in the morning to argue and it is the Lord's day besides that. That being said, your comment does beg a reply. Nobody here has said that Boeing didn't get subsidies, just not as much as Airbus. All that was uncovered in the tanker deal a few months ago. agg1930 did not say Airbus was 100%subsidized or 100%interest free loans, but it was evidenced there are several, more than what Boeing receives and he is correct on the diplomatic pressure. Not sure where you are getting your info on the fighters. System may be similar in operation, as far as the actual operation, BUT, it ain't Airbus's system. Even Boeing has their own fly by wire on the 777 and 787 but it is their system. None of these have that arbitrary cap on the flight envelope. Although they are lumping it all together, that is the only part of the AB system that anybody is trashing. It doesn't matter if you hold a private and me an ATP, we will get into jams from time to time and need that margin. If you have not been there yet, you will be and I guarantee you, when you do, you will reach deep into your soul for every ounce of flying skill and knowledge that you have and you will not want to be restricted in using it.As far the 737's flying into the ground, rudders fall off AB's and into Jamaica Bay and they still have not laid an official cause on AF447. It may have come down anyway but a big part of the invesigation is centering on than flight envelope cap and pilots commands being overridden. There is plenty to say and go around on both sides here and will be talked/argued til the Lord comes and everybody still having their own opinions when that happens.
chalet
chalet 0
@ honza nl, the Colorado Springs and Pittsburgh accidents (UAL and US Arrways, respectively) were thoroughly investigatged and the NTSB found out that the uncontrolled commands that deflected the rudder was caused by a defective hydraulic actuator. It was a horrible thing for the relatives and friends of the crews and passengers but that was totaly fixed. Same thing with the Airburs 300-600 of American that crashed in NY, the NTSB found what was the cause and no other accident of the same kind has repeated. The bottom line is: it is painfully inevitable that all major -and minor- commercial aircraft are going to suffer an accident sometime during ther lifes but in the US and most countries in Europe and Asia you have tough safety regulations and responsible flight crews and maintenance personnel that is why air travel is by far the safest method of transportation, so don't point fingers at any one, these are human beings after all.
agg1930
agg1930 0
honza: nobody is saying that Boeing does not get some indirect subsidies as a result of government contracts, and that they also get help from some states for their added business, etc. The difference with Airbus is that they get direct subsidies from their respective governments, and whether you believe or not some of their loans are at artificially low interest rates and very loose conditions on repayment.
As far as the fly-by-wire of the military airplanes mentioned, the system was not "invented" by Airbus, it was designed on this side of the pond specifically for MILITARY applications. Boeing chose not to use that technology on their commercial products for a reason: keep the pilot in control all the time. In the military airplane the pilot sometimes is very busy traying to stay alive so the computers are a big help. That scenario is totally different commercially where normally you do not have other aircraft trying to shoot you down.
As far as sales support for foreign sales, I saw that first hand when trying to sell airplanes against Airbus. While Boeing is working with the airline management, Airbus and the French embassy are working both the management and the government. By this I mean their government is ready to "facilitate" their sales with other "incentives" totally unrelated to the deal, like agricultural subsidies, attractive loans etc provided their airline buys their products. That I find totally unfair.
As far as accidents, like chalet says, it is going to happen to everyone sometime. Also, there is no end to this discussion but I for one will always try to stay away from flying an Airbus airplane.
preacher1
preacher1 0
agg1930: Boeing has the fly by wire system to a degree on their 777 and is going with it on the 787. Main difference, I think,because I haven't flown it, is that it is computer assist over the hydraulic, which gives a faster response and better feel, AND the pilot does not have a computer that will override pilot input if he reaches the envelope. He will get a warning if he is about to exceed it but he can go ahead if he needs to, as do those military pilots.PLUS, on both, even on the 787, there is that stick/yoke on the Boeings, with which there is just more familiarity cause everybody learned to fly with one in front of them. I think most of the fighters in question have a joystick on the side like the Airbus(not sure) but that just don't seem right in an airliner cockpit.
agg1930
agg1930 0
Wayne: Thanks for your comments.I guess we agree that the main feature of the Boeing system is that it allows the pilot final control of the airplane with no computer fighting his decisions. Agree 100% that the side stick just does not seem right in an airliner. In my time I heard that since the two side sticks are not phisycally connected, one pilot can turn right and the other left and the result is that the airplane keeps on flying straight. With the yoke type controls that are physically connected that is not possible.
EMTNytHawk
@Wayne -- Got a chance to get a look at the tail number this morning. If I read it right, it was N748FD. That tags out to an A300-600 series freighter, according to various databases. Also found a listing of fleet tail numbers for FedEx (http://www.planespotters.net/Airline/Federal-Express-%28FedEx%29). It shows a bunch of A300 and A310 frames, roughly 120 or so, in their fleet. The FedEx pilots may not like them, but they don't seem to be going away anytime soon!
preacher1
preacher1 0
Thanks Patrick. It appears my source was wrong
honzanl
honza nl 0
chalet: you miss my point: those 737's crashed because of a fundamental design flaw of Boeing, and commerce was put before safety as the 737 fleet was not grounded even although the failure of a single piece caused the crash; which in commercial aviation is not allowed...
agg1930: what you miss is this: you want the pilot in control, when in the majority of the crashes human error is a major factor. Also humans can not do certain things which computers can do.. Plus you miss 2 other points:
* imagine you have no control anymore (hydraulics failure) but the engines. There are several well-known crashed with that. It is nearly impossible for a pilot to land the plane safe then, although 1 times they did, and 1 time partially. NASA already for a few years is busy to see if they can let the plane be flown by the computers then (by extreme fast and subtle engine power setting changes), as humans can not do that really. With the Airbus system it relatively easy can be done, as there it is just a change of parameters....
- imagine you have to crash-land a plane (lack of fuel, engines failed etc). Then you have a problem: in order to increase the chance of survival for all on board, you have to do something that is against the nature of safe flying: fly slow while low. With a Boeing 737 you can not do that: in order to prevent a stall you have to fly roughly 10% faster than Vst. Try to fly slower and you risk a deadly crash, fly safe and your speed is higher which causes bigger damages when coming in contact with either land or water. With an Airbus the pilot doesn't have to think at all about the speed, the computers will make sure it won't stall. With an Airbus the pilot can concentrate on where to land, and he can just pull the stick, computers do the rest. Look at the Hudson landing on water: the pilot could put it on the water with such a low speed that it stayed intact, didn't flip over what you usually see at higher speeds as the engines scoop water. Look even at the famous 1988 crash of an A320. Yes, many question still open there, but my final point again is: how normal is it that 133 out of 136 on board survive when a plane lands on a forests/trees ?? Again it showed that the plane is controllable even at speeds of a fraction above Vst. With a Boeing 737 at such speeds you crash...
And the history of aviation is full of crashes of airliners that stall, and since an A320/330/340/380 in essence can not stall that is a huge improvement in safety.
If you can not accept that humans have a limited capability, for sure in extreme conditons; then try to fly a Space Shuttle without computers...
A stick that doesn't seem to be right? Well, steam trains 200 years ago also didn't seem right: cows were thought to be afraid of those high speed vehicles... Yes, it is all too human to stick with what you know, and be afriad of the new era....
preacher1
preacher1 0
honzanl: You seem to say an awful lot here and offer a lot of opinion, which by your private certificate, I can't see how you would know a damn thing about. If I am mistaken on your experience (and nothing shows), please enligten us all, otherwise it may be best to keep the mouth shut to keep from showing ignorance
honzanl
honza nl 0
Wayne, only people without arguements and without knowledge talk like you...
I only talk about facts, not about rumours or prejudice; I don't claim to fly just one kind of planes...
and by the way: "you seem to say an awful lot here" is a strange arguement from you, look at the number of your own comments....
and for your information: I have been a commercial pilot and now work at ATC; and my experiences in aviation now spans 30+ years...
preacher1
preacher1 0
honzanl: in this forum one can only determine where a comment is coming from based on what is listed on a person's profile link and what they say. My own career has spanned 30+, with most of that carrying, and still carrying, an ATP and in the left seat of a Boeing of some type so that is where my argument and knowledge comes from and my comments and what I say here are based on that experience. You are like a lot of us in this forum, very opinionated, and regardless of where that opinion comes from, a lot of folks won't change their minds. You seem to know a lot about the Airbus systems but you make no mention of ever having flown one as a Pilot in Command. I haven't either but am still active enough to talk and see. I don't mind automation, BUT, if I am in command of an Airliner, then I SHOULD know how to fly it, and if I do, then I SHOULD know all the parameters of that Aircraft and what I can and cannot do with it and no machine should override my decision. You are apparently quite comfortable in allowing a machine to control your destiny, and I am not as far as Flying goes, AND, that argument will go on forever and neither of us would win or change our minds.As far as your comments above to Chalet about Pilots; dead pilots can't talk and in a lot(not all)of cases, insurance companies and airlines can get the blame put there to reduce liability. As far as the landing on the Hudson, I wasn't in the cockpit, but I think the lack of engines was the reason for a water landing in the first place and that he was pretty much dead sticking the whole way in, hence no speed control.
usaerin
Looks like our next Air Force One has to be an Airbus.
usaerin
But that's alright - the President wasn't made in this country either.
agg1930
agg1930 0
honza: Airbus airplanes cannot stall? Try tell that to the people of AF447 in the bottom of the atlantic off the coast of Brasil.. The airplane that crashed in the forest in France did because the airplane computers did not allow the crew to pull since the computers were "landing"
You call that reassurring for passengers?
The TAM A320 in Sao Paulo could not take off after landing long on a wet short runway because the crew could not overcome the computer that again was "landing" on and on.....
EMTNytHawk
A quick question regarding the Airbus airframes -- didn't Airbus introduce the one-hand side stick with the A-320's? I seem to remember a lot of ballyhoo about that, whereas the A300 and A310 had the traditional wheel/yoke setup that Boeing still uses on everything. Please let me know.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Patrick: Not being typed in one I am not sure, but I think the joystick is on everything. I was watching a piece about them the other night and their chief test pilot was showing off the A380, and it had one. I believe you are correct on the A320. Wasn't that what crashed at the Paris air show some years back as they were touting their fly by wire?
agg1930
agg1930 0
Patrick: The traditional wheel/yoke (as you call it) was used on the A300 for sure I do not know about the A310. It is also standard on all Boeing aircraft,was standard on all Douglas airplanes,was used also on caravelles, BAC 111's, etc.As a matter of fact it was used on every single commercial airplane up to the time that Airbus introduced the infamous "joystick"
EMTNytHawk
Wayne and Agg, thanks for the info. Sorry I've not gotten back sooner (work, ya know). Wayne, I think you're right about the A320 at the Paris Air show. I'm not completely sure, but I do recall something about it crashing and a lot of hullabaloo as to whether the all-new fly-by-wire control system was involved
agg1930
agg1930 0
Patrick: The A320 crashed I believe June 26/88 while making a low pass over a small airport were they were having some kind of air show. For a lot more details look at "Air France 296" on Google. You will find several videos called "Pilot vs Plane" which are very telling.
Fortunately there were very few casualties. From the videos it looks more of a demonstration flight than a regular scheduled flight.
One very good example of the computers not allowing the crew to fly the airplane!!!! Look at the videos and give us your comments.

Accedi

Non hai un account? Registrati adesso (è gratis) per usufruire di funzioni personalizzate, allarmi voli e molto altro!