American Airlines orders 460 Boeing and Airbus aircraft

[ViviTheMage]

Great news!

What happens to the old planes?

 

[Genx87]

Great news!

What happens to the old planes?

Probably sent to a junk yard in Arizona or sold to carriers in Central and South America.

 

[PottedMeat]

Great news!

What happens to the old planes?

boneyard? sell 'em to russia?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

If you believe that a company should buy American rather than buying the product that is best for their business then you are not in favor of capitalism.

i didn't know the 2 were mutually exclusive.
why can't i place a priority on one over the other?

 

[ichy]

i didn't know the 2 were mutually exclusive.
why can't i place a priority on one over the other?

There is only ONE company in the US that produces large commercial airliners. Refusing to buy Airbus means you totally give up on the notion of competition and endorse a Boeing monopoly. Utterly retarded, just like everyone else who gets all nationalistic about a commercial transaction.

BTW, how would you feel if Lufthansa and Air France suddenly said they'd only buy Airbus?

 

[a777pilot]

Great news!

What happens to the old planes?

They are scraped, or sold to third world countries.

 

[alphatarget1]

Are you retarded? AF447 was the first in-service crash of an A330 (one crashed without passengers during testing) EVER. Compare that to, oh I don't know, every other widebody airliner in service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330#Accidents_and_incidents

As of June 2011, the Airbus A330 had been involved in thirteen major incidents,[123] including six confirmed hull-loss accidents[124] and two hijackings, for a total of 338 fatalities.[125] The following are notable accidents and incidents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Incidents_and_accidents

As of April 2011, the 777 has been in seven incidents,[161] including one hull-loss accident,[162] and two hijackings, with no fatalities among the passengers or crew.

Airbus = fail. They are lucky that Qantas A380 didn't crash last November.

 

[Kntx]

AA ordered a reengined 737 that doesn't even exist on paper. Weird.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

There is only ONE company in the US that produces large commercial airliners. Refusing to buy Airbus means you totally give up on the notion of competition and endorse a Boeing monopoly. Utterly retarded, just like everyone else who gets all nationalistic about a commercial transaction.

BTW, how would you feel if Lufthansa and Air France suddenly said they'd only buy Airbus?

good for them?

 

[ichy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330#Accidents_and_incidents

As of June 2011, the Airbus A330 had been involved in thirteen major incidents,[123] including six confirmed hull-loss accidents[124] and two hijackings, for a total of 338 fatalities.[125] The following are notable accidents and incidents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Incidents_and_accidents

As of April 2011, the 777 has been in seven incidents,[161] including one hull-loss accident,[162] and two hijackings, with no fatalities among the passengers or crew.

Airbus = fail. They are lucky that Qantas A380 didn't crash last November.

Your stupidity is giving me a headache. Did you even read what incidents they were?

-"On 24 July 2001, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam attacked Bandaranaike International Airport, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Two SriLankan Airlines A330s were destroyed among other airliners and military aircraft.[127][128]"

Oh yeah, that one was Airbus's fault

You also neglect to mention the related A340 which has NEVER had a passenger fatality either. As for the Qantas incident, that was caused by the engine. Engines from that same family power some 777s and 787s.

One of the more interesting reads about aviation out there is a column in Salon called Ask the Pilot. The point that the author makes again and again and again is there's no such things as an unsafe commercial airliner, and incidents are so rare that you can't even make a meaningful statistical comparison. Hell, after its crash the Concorde went from being one of the "safest" airliners in service to by far the most dangerous.

Both Boeing and Airbus make extremely safe planes.

 

[alphatarget1]

You also neglect to mention the related A340 which has NEVER had a passenger fatality either. As for the Qantas incident, that was caused by the engine. Engines from that same family power some 777s and 787s.

One of the more interesting reads about aviation out there is a column in Salon called Ask the Pilot. The point that the author makes again and again and again is there's no such things as an unsafe commercial airliner, and incidents are so rare that you can't even make a meaningful statistical comparison. Hell, after its crash the Concorde went from being one of the "safest" airliners in service to by far the most dangerous.

Both Boeing and Airbus make extremely safe planes.

A340 is a crappy plane with 4 engines that nobody really wanted. Never been a fan of flying in one of those.

A340 Number built 375 as of 30 June 2011
B777 Number built 923 as of March 2011

I have to admit the only reason I posted crap against Airbus is that they are not American and not because I genuinely feel that they are unsafe. I don't feel unsafe flying in an Airbus, in fact I prefer A319/A320 over B737. I just prefer Boeing over Airbus in general especially on widebody aircrafts.

 

[Throckmorton]

A340 is a crappy plane with 4 engines that nobody really wanted. Never been a fan of flying in one of those.

A340 Number built 375 as of 30 June 2011
B777 Number built 923 as of March 2011

I have to admit the only reason I posted crap against Airbus is that they are not American and not because I genuinely feel that they are unsafe. I don't feel unsafe flying in an Airbus, in fact I prefer A319/A320 over B737. I just prefer Boeing over Airbus in general especially on widebody aircrafts.

Wow, looks like this forum is full of planefans. Is that a word? It's kind of funny but also very depressing seeing somebody bash a plane, spout off numbers, and talk about how he hates being a passenger in it. It's like those guys they interview on History Channel who are "experts" on combat and speak in authoritative tones, but have never held any kind of weapon in their lives.

 

[freegeeks]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330#Accidents_and_incidents

As of June 2011, the Airbus A330 had been involved in thirteen major incidents,[123] including six confirmed hull-loss accidents[124] and two hijackings, for a total of 338 fatalities.[125] The following are notable accidents and incidents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Incidents_and_accidents

As of April 2011, the 777 has been in seven incidents,[161] including one hull-loss accident,[162] and two hijackings, with no fatalities among the passengers or crew.

Airbus = fail. They are lucky that Qantas A380 didn't crash last November.

The AF disaster is the only hull loss where they think that a technical problem caused the loss

All the other ones were pilot errors and external problems like fuel contamination and hijackings

you = fail

 

[freegeeks]

A340 is a crappy plane with 4 engines that nobody really wanted. Never been a fan of flying in one of those.

A340 Number built 375 as of 30 June 2011
B777 Number built 923 as of March 2011

I have to admit the only reason I posted crap against Airbus is that they are not American and not because I genuinely feel that they are unsafe. I don't feel unsafe flying in an Airbus, in fact I prefer A319/A320 over B737. I just prefer Boeing over Airbus in general especially on widebody aircrafts.

so basically you are admitting that you are an idiot

 

[alphatarget1]

so basically you are admitting that you are an idiot

Whatevs. The internets is for fun and trash talk. haha.

 

[ichy]

Wow, looks like this forum is full of planefans. Is that a word? It's kind of funny but also very depressing seeing somebody bash a plane, spout off numbers, and talk about how he hates being a passenger in it. It's like those guys they interview on History Channel who are "experts" on combat and speak in authoritative tones, but have never held any kind of weapon in their lives.

Both Boeing and Airbus fanboys are retarded. There's no kinder way to describe their mindless cheerleading.

As for preferring Boeings over Airbuses or vice-versa, how the airline configures their cabins matters far more than who built the plane. An airline could choose to put AVOD in any plane, add a couple inches of legroom, etc etc. It has nothing to do with the airframe manufacturer.

 

[ayabe]

Amazingly the only time I've flown on an Airbus was when I went to Alaska a few months ago. I was excited actually, I think it was a 330 but am not certain. Felt like I had bit more legroom than on the 757 I took for that part of the flight on the way there.

90% of the time it's a regional for me so CRJ series. Up until about 2 years ago my last leg on the return flights were ATR-72 turboprops, now those things suuuucck.

I would be very glad to be rid of all the MD-8x series aircraft, they usually in pretty miserable shape, on Delta at least, which are MD-88's IIRC.

 

[freegeeks]

Both Boeing and Airbus fanboys are retarded. There's no kinder way to describe their mindless cheerleading.

As for preferring Boeings over Airbuses or vice-versa, how the airline configures their cabins matters far more than who built the plane. An airline could choose to put AVOD in any plane, add a couple inches of legroom, etc etc. It has nothing to do with the airframe manufacturer.

exactly, I fly both all the time and it comes down to the airline. I flew AA transatlantic last week (Boeing) and I think everyone who flies AA will agree that they are pretty ghetto (old planes).

 

[brencat]

As a passenger, if given a choice between flying on an Airbus vs a Boeing aircraft, I would almost always choose Airbus -- mostly because I find they are quieter in the cabin (less engine noise seems to permeate the hull).

I recently told this to my friend who is a B737 pilot for Continental airlines. He told me as a pilot, he would gladly fly the 737 for the rest of his career.

He then told me some major design differences between the two companies. Airbus for years has supposedly tried to engineer the pilot out of the cockpit with their fly by wire system. The 'Miracle over the Hudson' incident with Cpt Sully occurred on an Airbus A320 when the onboard computer detected a problem with one engine and shut BOTH down shortly after takeoff. The pilot had no call in that and couldn't override the computer's decision. He was lucky he was able to ditch in water so soon after takeoff and when the shutdown occurred at so low an altitude. It could have ended very badly.

Boeing's 737 design on the other hand requires the pilot to make that call to shut down the engine in a similar scenario. My friend says there could be metal shards flying out of the engine and it could be on fire, but if he cranks the throttle, the engine will still provide thrust if it's still capable.

That feedback completely changed my view about the build philosophies of both companies. And my pilot friend's view is shared by many pilots -- that the 737 is the safer aircraft to fly because it gives the pilot more control and involvement, particularly in an emergency situation.

 

[K1052]

exactly, I fly both all the time and it comes down to the airline. I flew AA transatlantic last week (Boeing) and I think everyone who flies AA will agree that they are pretty ghetto (old planes).

If AA would throw in a cabin refresh more often that would help the perception, particularly their 757s which all look like run over shit inside.

 

[ichy]

As a passenger, if given a choice between flying on an Airbus vs a Boeing aircraft, I would almost always choose Airbus -- mostly because I find they are quieter in the cabin (less engine noise seems to permeate the hull).

I recently told this to my friend who is a B737 pilot for Continental airlines. He told me as a pilot, he would gladly fly the 737 for the rest of his career.

He then told me some major design differences between the two companies. Airbus for years has supposedly tried to engineer the pilot out of the cockpit with their fly by wire system. The 'Miracle over the Hudson' incident with Cpt Sully occurred on an Airbus A320 when the onboard computer detected a problem with one engine and shut BOTH down shortly after takeoff. The pilot had no call in that and couldn't override the computer's decision. He was lucky he was able to ditch in water so soon after takeoff and when the shutdown occurred at so low an altitude. It could have ended very badly.

Boeing's 737 design on the other hand requires the pilot to make that call to shut down the engine in a similar scenario. My friend says there could be metal shards flying out of the engine and it could be on fire, but if he cranks the throttle, the engine will still provide thrust if it's still capable.

That feedback completely changed my view about the build philosophies of both companies. And my pilot friend's view is shared by many pilots -- that the 737 is the safer aircraft to fly because it gives the pilot more control and involvement, particularly in an emergency situation.

The bit about the engines sounds like he's describing FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control). Modern Boeing jets use it as well.

 

[hal2kilo]

If AA would throw in a cabin refresh more often that would help the perception, particularly their 757s which all look like run over shit inside.

AA sucks. They try to pack in at least an extra row if not more compared to other airlines. Don't you just love having barely enough room to drop your tray and feeling guilty when you get the seat back to lean back one notch.

 

[freegeeks]

As a passenger, if given a choice between flying on an Airbus vs a Boeing aircraft, I would almost always choose Airbus -- mostly because I find they are quieter in the cabin (less engine noise seems to permeate the hull).

I recently told this to my friend who is a B737 pilot for Continental airlines. He told me as a pilot, he would gladly fly the 737 for the rest of his career.

He then told me some major design differences between the two companies. Airbus for years has supposedly tried to engineer the pilot out of the cockpit with their fly by wire system. The 'Miracle over the Hudson' incident with Cpt Sully occurred on an Airbus A320 when the onboard computer detected a problem with one engine and shut BOTH down shortly after takeoff. The pilot had no call in that and couldn't override the computer's decision. He was lucky he was able to ditch in water so soon after takeoff and when the shutdown occurred at so low an altitude. It could have ended very badly.

Boeing's 737 design on the other hand requires the pilot to make that call to shut down the engine in a similar scenario. My friend says there could be metal shards flying out of the engine and it could be on fire, but if he cranks the throttle, the engine will still provide thrust if it's still capable.

That feedback completely changed my view about the build philosophies of both companies. And my pilot friend's view is shared by many pilots -- that the 737 is the safer aircraft to fly because it gives the pilot more control and involvement, particularly in an emergency situation.

I hope you are not serious about the "Hudson Miracle". US airways flight 1549 went down because of a bird strike in BOTH engines (read the official report). They lost all engine power so the APU and RAT took over to provide power to the fly-by-wire system. You must get your view from some Boeing forum. There is so much bs spread around about the "computers flying the airbus" that it's not funny anymore. The Airbus has different Flight Control Laws, one of them is called "Direct Law" where the pilot is in full control. Educate yourself before you make such statements
http://www.plasticpilot.net/blog/2009/06/08/fly-by-wire-explained-by-an-airbus-pilot/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes_(electronic)
http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm

btw: Boeing is taken over the Airbus philosophy in the 787

 

[freegeeks]

If AA would throw in a cabin refresh more often that would help the perception, particularly their 757s which all look like run over shit inside.

Their 757 are indeed awfull, I don't mind not having a personal entertainment center (an ipad is all I need) but their cabin layout is very cramped in cattle class and the interior and seats look indeed like someone vomitted all over them, stains everywhere. I only paid like 600 euros so I can't complain too much. Also flew an MD and the fact that there was internet made up for the ghetto style

 

[K1052]

AA sucks. They try to pack in at least an extra row if not more compared to other airlines. Don't you just love having barely enough room to drop your tray and feeling guilty when you get the seat back to lean back one notch.

I fly AA because of their generous mileage program, my proximity to ORD, and my deep burning hatred for United (as the only other viable option). All the domestics are fairly tight in economy so that doesn't phase me much (I'm also short).

I am eagerly awaiting the 737s with the Boeing Sky interiors...