AirBus versus Boeing

[Schadenfroh]

Boeing, my uncle works for them, so I am biased

 

[FoBoT]

i am from washington so i am biased

a friend of mine from high school works there also

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Voted Boeing/Boeing. Flying in a 777 is super enjoyable, and Boeing still has their military aircraft.

 

[MDE]

Boeing since they're based in Chicago.

 

[EyeMWing]

Boeing is a company with serious concerns about profit.

Airbus can do whatever the fvck they want, because France isn't going to let them die.

So Boeing will always be on top in the long run. Airbus may have the bigger plane now, and may have the better short-hop bird, but Boeing will bounce back.... And on the short hop thing, on pretty damned short notice.

 

[Synth3t1c]

boeing rool:

i love their 2 floor planes rool:

rool:

 

[Armitage]

If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going

 

[GTaudiophile]

Well, before I get subjective, let's look at the maiden flight info for the following aircraft:

B737: April 9, 1967 (39 years old)
B747: February 9, 1969 (37 years old)
B767: September 26, 1981 (25 years old)
B757: February 19, 1982 (24 years old)
B777: June 12, 1994 (12 years old)

Average age: 27.4 years old


A300-100: June 28, 1973 (33 years old)
A310-200: April 3, 1982 (24 years old)
A320-100: February 22, 1987 (19 years old)
A340-300: October 25, 1991 (15 years old)
A330-300: November 2, 1992 (14 years old)
A321-100: March 11, 1993 (13 years old)
A319-100: August 25, 1995 (11 yers old)
A318-100: January, 2002 (4 years old)

Average age: 16.63 years old


So, looking at that, Airbus aircraft are roughly half as old as Boeing aircraft. Yes, both companies have updated their models (747-100, 200, 300, 400, etc.) but the original design concept/airframe is outdated on most Boeing aircraft. All Boeing currently in service, aside from the 777, were designed in an era without CAD!

So, what are these companies doing now? I think Airbus is smart. First, they attacked Boeing by building newer, smaller planes first, taking away 737 market share for example with the A320 series. Then they moved up the ladder, targeting the 767 with the A330 and A340. Next, they plan to target the 747 and 777 with the A380 and A350, respectively. Airbus is targeting each and every Boeing model, giving customers are newer, more up-to-date choice in each segment. What has Boeing done all this time? I would argue that they have largely sat back and done nothing. They have updated the old stuff instead of going back to the drawing board, largely augmenting the 737 series with the 500, 600, 800, X, etc. Same with the 747-400, 767-400ER, and 777-400ER. These old designs are simply outdated, using outdated materials, and not designed to handle the demands of the 21st Century. Newer Airbus models are designed to use composites like carbon fibre, for example.

Now, from a subjective standpoint, I still prefer Airbus aircraft. Every year, I fly a Lufthansa A340-300 back and forth from Atlanta to Frankfurt. I think it's much quieter, less prone to turbulence, and has much better climate control systems than say the 767-300ER that Delta flies on the same route (took one of those to Munich in December).

So, I prefer Airbus, but I think the companies will still be tied in 20 years.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Boeing is a company with serious concerns about profit.

Airbus can do whatever the fvck they want, because France isn't going to let them die.

So Boeing will always be on top in the long run. Airbus may have the bigger plane now, and may have the better short-hop bird, but Boeing will bounce back.... And on the short hop thing, on pretty damned short notice.

It's not just about bigger planes, it's about economy, and Airbus produces more fuel economic planes right now. The A340? 330? 747 isn't exactly fuel economic anymore. The A380 is even better...

Originally posted by: Armitage
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going

How often do you travel?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Well, before I get subjective, let's look at the maiden flight info for the following aircraft:

B737: April 9, 1967 (39 years old)
B747: February 9, 1969 (37 years old)
B767: September 26, 1981 (25 years old)
B757: February 19, 1982 (24 years old)
B777: June 12, 1994 (12 years old)

Average age: 27.4 years old


A300-100: June 28, 1973 (33 years old)
A310-200: April 3, 1982 (24 years old)
A320-100: February 22, 1987 (19 years old)
A340-300: October 25, 1991 (15 years old)
A330-300: November 2, 1992 (14 years old)
A321-100: March 11, 1993 (13 years old)
A319-100: August 25, 1995 (11 yers old)
A318-100: January, 2002 (4 years old)

Average age: 16.63 years old


So, looking at that, Airbus aircraft are roughly half as old as Boeing aircraft. Yes, both companies have updated their models (747-100, 200, 300, 400, etc.) but the original design concept/airframe is outdated on most Boeing aircraft. All Boeing currently in service, aside from the 777, were designed in an era without CAD!

So, what are these companies doing now? I think Airbus is smart. First, they attacked Boeing by building newer, smaller planes first, taking away 737 market share for example with the A320 series. Then they moved up the ladder, targeting the 767 with the A330 and A340. Next, they plan to target the 747 and 777 with the A380 and A350, respectively. Airbus is targeting each and every Boeing model, giving customers are newer, more up-to-date choice in each segment. What has Boeing done all this time? I would argue that they have largely sat back and done nothing. They have updated the old stuff instead of going back to the drawing board, largely augmenting the 737 series with the 500, 600, 800, X, etc. Same with the 747-400, 767-400ER, and 777-400ER. These old designs are simply outdated, using outdated materials, and not designed to handle the demands of the 21st Century. Newer Airbus models are designed to use composites like carbon fibre, for example.

Now, from a subjective standpoint, I still prefer Airbus aircraft. Every year, I fly a Lufthansa A340-300 back and forth from Atlanta to Frankfurt. I think it's much quieter, less prone to turbulence, and has much better climate control systems than say the 767-300ER that Delta flies on the same route (took one of those to Munich in December).

So, I prefer Airbus, but I think the companies will still be tied in 20 years.

I don't think Airbus considers the 787 that will start to be delivered to airlines in 2008 "nothing".

They sh!t a collective brick and tried to rework the A330 and are now rushing to develop the A350.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Boeing is a company with serious concerns about profit.

Airbus can do whatever the fvck they want, because France isn't going to let them die.

So Boeing will always be on top in the long run. Airbus may have the bigger plane now, and may have the better short-hop bird, but Boeing will bounce back.... And on the short hop thing, on pretty damned short notice.

It's not just about bigger planes, it's about economy, and Airbus produces more fuel economic planes right now. The A340? 330? 747 isn't exactly fuel economic anymore. The A380 is even better...

Originally posted by: Armitage
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going

How often do you travel?

Meh - it's just an old advertising slogan.

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Newer Airbus models are designed to use composites like carbon fibre, for example.

:roll:

You obviously are clueless. When Boeing announced that 787 was going to be mostly composite, Airbus said they were full of it. Boeing stuck to it (having done a ton of composites work on the HSCT) and Airbus pretty much crapped their pants and had to redo the redesign of the A350 to include more composites. The 787 will still have more composites than the A350.

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: K1052
I don't think Airbus considers the 787 that will start to be delivered to airlines in 2008 "nothing".

They sh!t a collective brick and tried to rework the A330 and are now rushing to develop the A350.

Haha, that sums it up nicely.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Newer Airbus models are designed to use composites like carbon fibre, for example.

:roll:

You obviously are clueless. When Boeing announced that 787 was going to be mostly composite, Airbus said they were full of it. Boeing stuck to it (having done a ton of composites work on the HSCT) and Airbus pretty much crapped their pants and had to redo the redesign of the A350 to include more composites. The 787 will still have more composites than the A350.

I know that Boeing is attempting to go like 100% carbon fibre with the 787, but Airbus has been using carbon fibre for years in their fuselages:

The structure of the aircraft is mainly of high strength aluminium alloy with some structures of carbon fibre and glass fibre reinforced plastics.

Source

 

[ElFenix]

all the airbuses i've ever flown in have been crap.

that and their planes are ugly.

and i can't stand that the french give them huge cheap 'loans.' it sure is easier to come up with a new airframe when you don't have to worry about if you can sell it or not.

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

I know that Boeing is attempting to go like 100% carbon fibre with the 787

100%? If you pull numbers out of your butt, make them realistic.

787 will be %50 composite. A350 will be %39 composite, despite the fact that the A350 will be coming out 3 years after the 787.

Airbus had been making small increase in composite usage but the 787 made a huge leap.

 

[mackle]

It's now Boeing vs. Europe....lol...

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

and i can't stand that the french give them huge cheap 'loans.'

No, they aren't loans. If you take out a loan and then lose all the money, you still owe that money. If Airbus loses all the hand-out money the governments give them, guess what? They don't have to pay anything back. It's one thing to have a subsidy, but it's a completely different ballgame to have risk-free subsidies. The money Boeing gets is nothing like Airbus gets.

You know what's really ironic? The CEO of Lockheed Martin came to school for a speech. Let me preface this by saying that LM has been working a lot with Airbus lately. Anyway, guess what he talks about--how unfair Airbus's subsidies are. I found this odd considering Boeing is one of their chief competitors and Airbus is (in some respects) one of their partners.

 

[skyking]

Composite does not make a better airplane, per se. It is suited for certain parts of the structure, but can be very heavy when compared to aluminum in others.
It has several big disadvantages in high load areas, for example.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: ElFenix

and i can't stand that the french give them huge cheap 'loans.'

No, they aren't loans. If you take out a loan and then lose all the money, you still owe that money. If Airbus loses all the hand-out money the governments give them, guess what? They don't have to pay anything back. It's one thing to have a subsidy, but it's a completely different ballgame to have risk-free subsidies. The money Boeing gets is nothing like Airbus gets.

You know what's really ironic? The CEO of Lockheed Martin came to school for a speech. Let me preface this by saying that LM has been working a lot with Airbus lately. Anyway, guess what he talks about--how unfair Airbus's subsidies are. I found this odd considering Boeing is one of their chief competitors and Airbus is (in some respects) one of their partners.

hence the quote marks around 'loans' and the remark about not having to worry about if they can sell something or not.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
So, looking at that, Airbus aircraft are roughly half as old as Boeing aircraft. Yes, both companies have updated their models (747-100, 200, 300, 400, etc.) but the original design concept/airframe is outdated on most Boeing aircraft. All Boeing currently in service, aside from the 777, were designed in an era without CAD!

So, what are these companies doing now? I think Airbus is smart. First, they attacked Boeing by building newer, smaller planes first, taking away 737 market share for example with the A320 series. Then they moved up the ladder, targeting the 767 with the A330 and A340. Next, they plan to target the 747 and 777 with the A380 and A350, respectively. Airbus is targeting each and every Boeing model, giving customers are newer, more up-to-date choice in each segment. What has Boeing done all this time? I would argue that they have largely sat back and done nothing. They have updated the old stuff instead of going back to the drawing board, largely augmenting the 737 series with the 500, 600, 800, X, etc. Same with the 747-400, 767-400ER, and 777-400ER. These old designs are simply outdated, using outdated materials, and not designed to handle the demands of the 21st Century. Newer Airbus models are designed to use composites like carbon fibre, for example.

The thing with the Airbus-Boeing fight is that Boeing tends to be a very conservative company, not making changes for a long time...and then they will suddenly undergo a paradigm shift, and be making all the uber stuff. Airbus steadily advances their aircraft, but they're afraid to make sudden, drastic changes. So Airbus was steadily eating away at Boeing's market share incorporating new designs and technology while Boeing was stuck just updating their older planes, then Boeing suddenly leapt forward and is working on the 787, a truly next-generation plane that's all-composite. Newer Airbus models don't use that many composites at all in comparison to Boeing's 787, and frankly I think it will make a big difference in the next decade or so, slingshotting Boeing back on top. Towards the end of the decade, I'm sure Airbus will have started eating away at their market share again, so unless Boeing can pull some more tricks out of their hat they'll be the losers. However, I bet they'll think of something.

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I know that Boeing is attempting to go like 100% carbon fibre with the 787, but Airbus has been using carbon fibre for years in their fuselages:

The structure of the aircraft is mainly of high strength aluminium alloy with some structures of carbon fibre and glass fibre reinforced plastics.

Source

And the 777 tail section is all-composite, I've been in the factory and seen them being built. Your point?

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

I know that Boeing is attempting to go like 100% carbon fibre with the 787

100%? If you pull numbers out of your butt, make them realistic.

787 will be %50 composite. A350 will be %39 composite, despite the fact that the A350 will be coming out 3 years after the 787.

Airbus had been making small increase in composite usage but the 787 made a huge leap.

50% BY WEIGHT. Composites are awfully light. Pretty much all the major structural elements will be composites; the engines are the real source of non-composite weight in that figure.

 

[habib89]

the airbus a320's are nice, but boeing's got the 777!!

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Newer Airbus models are designed to use composites like carbon fibre, for example.

:roll:

You obviously are clueless. When Boeing announced that 787 was going to be mostly composite, Airbus said they were full of it. Boeing stuck to it (having done a ton of composites work on the HSCT) and Airbus pretty much crapped their pants and had to redo the redesign of the A350 to include more composites. The 787 will still have more composites than the A350.

yea they've already successfully made full sections of tube from composites successfully. think it was in one of those airline magazines

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Boeing is a company with serious concerns about profit.

Airbus can do whatever the fvck they want, because France isn't going to let them die.

So Boeing will always be on top in the long run. Airbus may have the bigger plane now, and may have the better short-hop bird, but Boeing will bounce back.... And on the short hop thing, on pretty damned short notice.

It's not just about bigger planes, it's about economy, and Airbus produces more fuel economic planes right now. The A340? 330? 747 isn't exactly fuel economic anymore. The A380 is even better...

Originally posted by: Armitage
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going

How often do you travel?

fuel economy..only if you compare with very old 747's and or base the a380 numbers on max capacity seating arrangements that will never be used. no, they don't have the lead there anymore, boeing has new versions of the 747 with new engines/wings that supposedly beat out the a380 in fuel economy. better interior to boot, they used the 787 scheme. much more windows, larger windows, and not sunk into deep recesses lkike on airbus.

airbus can suck it. i'd rather not give the devious french money.

 

[NanoStuff]

Just wait till the 797 comes out, eep.