hey guys I read an article in one of our local papers about Boeing giving some serious consideration to ending production of the 757 due to poor sales (very few new orders as well). I just have to wonder how much longer they will also continue to manufacture our beloved 767 as the same article also goes on to say that they have shelved plans (at least for the present time) for the Boeing Sonic cruiser due to lack of interest and high R&D costs and will instead focus on a more modern(read fuel efficient) plane to replace the 767. hopefully it will continue to live on in some form. I guess Scarebus is really putting the boots to Boeing in terms of customer demand because I know that our flag carrier here in Canada seems to buying Scarebuses almost exclusively. As well a buddy of mine who is an engineer for Bombardier told me that his company is also halting production of a couple of models. Lets hope things pick up in 2003!

Out with the old and in with the new. The A330 is a remarkable aircraft. But when it comes to flight sim I prefer the boeing. The automation on the bus while wonderful for real life applications lacks the hands on feel that I want. Sure I will never fly either one in real life but the boeing allows me more freedom and hands on flying which is why I use flight sim. Now thats not to say that I don't find aircraft like Simworks bus very interesting, i'm sure that I will purchase it but give me the PMDG 737NG any day over any bus product. Best Wishes,Randy J. [email protected]" A little learning is a dangerous thing"

I agree with u 100% Randy, I recently finished watching a series of videos on the making of the 777 and the chief pilot stated that when they built that aircraft one of the fundamental differences between them (boeing) and Scarebus is that the pilot ALWAYS has ultimate control of the aircraft should the need arise whereas airbus, as i understand makes it very difficult for the pilot to override the plane's computers. I remember years ago when I worked the ramp heree on Ottawa talking to a A320 captain just as Air canada wwre introducing the plane and he told me that was his biggest concern with transferring to this plane.

in an airbus it is possible to shut down alot of systems that 'automate' flight. So ultimate control will always be in the hand of pilots. Except for situations of 'controlled flight into terrain' or other of that sort, the logic in the airbus will take over control of the airplane. al the other thingies are enabled to be switched off, perhaps not on an orthodox manner but it is possible. Not saying boeings are bad here, just rectifying some things that are being said. BTW, in an airbus it's allmost impossible to drive the airplane into a situation where a pilot would actually have the need of fully controlling the plane.(f.e. alpha-floor protection) stalling the airbus is only possible in power-outs or in the test-versions(where did deliberately took out the protection to get all data on stall performance of these thingies)So what you're saying is not true.I'll say it this way: take an airbus, ripp off all it's gimmicks and what do you get? a boeing... no offence meant but that's just plain fact.(btw they're far more efficient, regardless of the A340-200/-300)But of course boeings have their neat things. Like on the 777, and most NG updated aircraft, only mistake boeing made is only updating flight decks and not doing much about the performance and efficiency.Cheers

Yep you remember the Paris airshow? where that bus went right into the trees and the pilot could not overide the autopilot?Best Wishes,Randy J. [email protected]" A little learning is a dangerous thing"

I thought that the pilot got too low and the engines didn't spool up in time. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe that the Airbus crash was pilot error, not computer error. I have been looking online for the report, however, I haven't found it yet, so I am not sure. But CRVM does seem pretty sure it was a computer error, he probably looked through the full investigative report before making his assumption. I mean, anyone who would make that statment must after all know what they are talking about. I doubt he made an educated guess, but studied the crash intensly.Ok, no more sarcasim....lol. He, he, he :) :) :)Both Boeing & Airbus produce excellent aircraft. Both planes have thier own disadvantages & advantages. As to who is better is purley a matter of opinion. The planes saftey records speek for themselves.Hasta luego-=MB=-

Guess what....?I found the report. Here is a summary:As it turns out, the crash was in fact caused by human error: the pilots ignored the low altitude warning systems (probably a reasonable action, given that they were doing a low altitude fly-by). They claimed they thought the plane was at a 100 feet; it was flying as low as 30 feet. They claimed that the engines did not respond properly; the official reports claim they did. It is to be expected that there is a delay between pushing the throttle and the thrust delivered by the engines, in A320 this delay is expected to be 8-10 seconds. Finally, the pilots did switch off the automatic flight controlsMost crashes are pilot error, or improper repairs. In this case, it was clearly pilot error, not computer error. Still not convinced...?? Look it up.:) -=MB=-

Status might be correct here. "The Captain's VersionCaptain Asseline flew the aircraft manually. He had been instructed by Air France to overfly the airfield at 100 ft above ground. When he increased throttle to level off at 100 ft, the engines did not respond. So after some seconds he got worried and thought there was something like a short-circuit in the completely computerized throttle control. So he pulled the throttle back all the way and forth again. By that time the aircraft had touched the trees. After the accident, Captain Asseline was very astonished when he saw on an amateur video tape that the gear was only 30 ft above ground when the aircraft was passing over the runway. He affirms the altimeter of the Airbus A320 indicated 100 ft. Best Wishes,Randy J. [email protected]" A little learning is a dangerous thing"

Hi Guys,That is a sad article about the Boeing 757. But I have to agree with you, that airbus is currently kicking some tail in the small to medium route segment. It is really unfortunate b/c the 757 is by far, hands down the best plane out there.One other thing too...many airlines are also moving toward the CRJ's to the shorter routes under 1.5 hrs Fuel efficient, less gate space, one flight attendant and require shorter runways. It's all about reducing cost these days!It will be a sad day in the aviation industry when the 57 is retired :(Brian

Read somewhere that Boeing only has a handful of 757s scheduled for delivery in 2004 ........ the 767 is not doing much better. Both types have effectively been ousted from the market by the more efficient A321 and A330 offerings by Airbus.I'm hoping that the "Yellowstone" project, which has unsurprisingly taken the top spot from the Cronic Snoozer, will form the backbone of a new family of Boeing aircraft. The market needs at least two strong competitors; as it presently stands Boeing has little more than a beefed up 50's design (737NG) and the modern 777 on offer.PSJumpseated on one of our "new" 757s yesterday. Being lightly loaded and a fueled for a short 1:30 flight, the VSI was showing an impressive 2000ft/min when we passed through FL310. Powerful things them RB211s. Had left my digicam in the bag, so couldn't take any pictures. Sorry.

Long live the 757 :)Henry :-wave

http://www.aitraffic.net/henry/jpsigv3.jpg30 DEC AI Statistics: 22,929 Airports | 321 Aircraft | 6103 FlightPlans | Total of 138,440 flights:-wave :D :-wave NO DEFAULT AIRCRAFT OR FLIGHTPLANS USED :-wave :D :-wave:D Flightplans.txt size: 5.19mb :D

In the cockpit voice transcripts you can hear the radio altimeter cleary saying "100"...then "50"...."30".Again, the captain was indeed aware that his aircraft was too low. Sorry friend, this incident was pilot error.In all fairness though, there have been many crashes that have been caused my software failures onboard the Airbus. An example of this was an Airbus 320 in 1993. The pilots greased the landing so well that the plane didn't consider it a landing at all (It didn't change modes). This prevented the reversers & spoilers from depolying for several seconds. The plane skidded off the runway and was a total loss. Also, there have been many crashes of Boeings from mechanical failures. TWA 800 (I think that is the right flight number; B747) exploded in mid-air due to a spark from faulty wiring which ignited fumes in it's center fuel tank.-=MB=-

Can someone provide a link to this report please?Henry

http://www.aitraffic.net/henry/jpsigv3.jpg30 DEC AI Statistics: 22,929 Airports | 321 Aircraft | 6103 FlightPlans | Total of 138,440 flights:-wave :D :-wave NO DEFAULT AIRCRAFT OR FLIGHTPLANS USED :-wave :D :-wave:D Flightplans.txt size: 5.19mb :D

Greasing the landing that well, must have been sooooft!