Boeing sales

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
What will you eventually go back to ?


Assuming you're asking me...the answer is: it depends on the new contract that UAL is negotiating (well, I use that term advisedly...after 3 years of "negotiating", without a contract...one might conclude that the company doesn't want us to have a contract and its commensurate pay increase...).

While I prefer Boeing, I will bid the airplane that gives me the best balance of quality of life and pay at my airline. Right now, that's F/O on the A-320, but I could see bidding the 757 or 777 in the near future...just depends on the terms of the contract...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 757guy
As a pilot, I prefer Boeing any day over an Airbus product. Boeings are built for pilots, Airbus is designed by engineers, for engineers.

I have flown both Boeing and Airbus. Boeing is better built by a mile. Just my opinion though, if you ask enough of them many pilots will tell you that they love flying the A320 too.

My .02

757 Guy


As a passenger, I think I'm feeling the same way after watching that package on CBS News over the Fourth holiday on why the French scAirBus crashed on the way to Rio De Janeiro a couple years ago...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57466644/faulty-data-misled-pilots-in-09-air-france-crash/
 
Last edited:
One thing I notice on an airbus is that they seems to turn a lot more aggressively (body roll in terms of a car when turning) and sometimes it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable in one.
 
my heart loves boeing but so far on domestic and international flights airbus planes have been more comfortable. Could be the way airlines set out the seats.
 
Originally Posted By: crinkles
my heart loves boeing but so far on domestic and international flights airbus planes have been more comfortable. Could be the way airlines set out the seats.

Yes...most of the comfort of any flight has more to do with the seating configuration and even the type of seat. I've been on identical aircraft and found one to be more comfortable than another just because of the seats.
 
Yep, I was glad to see Boeing ink the deal with United for 150 737s.

There are still some areas where the USA is second-to-none...aircraft and aircraft engines being one of those.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
One thing I notice on an airbus is that they seems to turn a lot more aggressively (body roll in terms of a car when turning) and sometimes it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable in one.


That's the autopilot most likely (if you're in cruise) or pilot technique if you're near the ground...not everyone is as smooth as you would hope...
 
Originally Posted By: crinkles
my heart loves boeing but so far on domestic and international flights airbus planes have been more comfortable. Could be the way airlines set out the seats.


That's exactly what it is...the airlines specify the interiors...

In addition to being a pilot for UAL, I've got over 800,000 miles as a paying passenger, and there is a big difference among airlines. For example, flew to Manchester, UK on a BMI A-330 and thought it was great. Flew several times to Frankfurt on a Lufthansa A-330 and was miserable...same jet, different seat/interior vendor...
 
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
Yep, I was glad to see Boeing ink the deal with United for 150 737s.

There are still some areas where the USA is second-to-none...aircraft and aircraft engines being one of those.

Who makes the best jet engines in the USA ?
 
Pratt & Whitney.

Rolls Royce are also excellent engines.

Don't like GE for many reasons though they do build engines.
 
Most of my flying has been with Pratt & Whitney engines...and I have to be fair with this, because I've seen engines cause aircrew and airframe losses.

The P & W TF-30 in the F-14 was a stop-gap engine never intended for that purpose, I've had it compressor stall dozens of times, and while it never failed bad enough for me to lose the airplane, it was responsible for the loss of several F-14s. But that was the Navy's fault for choosing to buy it when P & W had another engine that they were developing specifically for the Tomcat...it was a cost-cutting measure, decided on by Admirals in the dark budget years of the early 70's ...that cost cutting became really expensive...

The P & Ws I've flown with in transport airplanes have been models of reliability and performance.

So, I am a P & W fan. If their engines are hung on your plane, you can relax.

My only experience with GE engines was also on the F-14. The GE F-110-400 in the F-14B/D finally gave the jet the performance it was intended to have, and it was phenomenal...but the F-110 killed several aircrew and cost us a few airplanes as well. They were all the result of a design flaw in the AB liner cooling holes that allowed burn-through of the casing. That was GE's fault, when they upsized the liner from the -100 to the -400.

Now, also in fairness, one of those GE F-110s ate the shrapnel from a 20mm gun failure...steel gun parts went down the engine, the engine shed blade parts and was totalled. I had no idea that the engine was FOD'ed until I looked down the intake after shutdown and could see the damage.

And it ran perfectly all the way back to base...an amazing testament to reliability and toughness.

But while Pratt's problems were the result of the wrong engine in a fighter airframe, GE's problems came from poor engineering.

To this day, I remain a P & W fan.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Is it true that Boeing is thinking about using the GE built 747-8 engine on the 777 or is just a rumor ?



Wouldn't be powerful enough. 777 engines are much larger even than those on the new 747-8.
 
There are a couple of engine "families" out there - same core, different power ratings and some even have different fan sizes. The Rolls-Royce Trent, for example, comes in a couple of flavors, some on the A-380, some on the A-330, some on the 777...they range from 53,000 (too small for the 747) to 95,000 lb of thrust, which is powerful enough for the 777...

So, I am not sure to which GE engine you're referring, but it's possible that it's a variant of the same family...likely the GEnx...which is a follow on to the very common CF-6 (used in lots of airplanes, and the basis for the LM-2500 gas turbine in the Arleigh Burke class destroyers, among others). The GEnx is fitted to the 787, but I don't think it's available for the 777 yet - not enough thrust...that's where the aforementioned GE-90 comes in...
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
There are a couple of engine "families" out there - same core, different power ratings and some even have different fan sizes. The Rolls-Royce Trent, for example, comes in a couple of flavors, some on the A-380, some on the A-330, some on the 777...they range from 53,000 (too small for the 747) to 95,000 lb of thrust, which is powerful enough for the 777...

So, I am not sure to which GE engine you're referring, but it's possible that it's a variant of the same family...likely the GEnx...which is a follow on to the very common CF-6 (used in lots of airplanes, and the basis for the LM-2500 gas turbine in the Arleigh Burke class destroyers, among others). The GEnx is fitted to the 787, but I don't think it's available for the 777 yet - not enough thrust...that's where the aforementioned GE-90 comes in...

Your inputs on aviation related threads are great. It's nice to actually get to hear the perspective and knowledge of somebody that knows his 'stuff'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom