Air NZ goes plastic!

[Guest Scott Campbell]

Mike,>You may have a point with the Frontier example, but there's >always an exception to the rule. They may just be prospering >in a good market.It's actually because they are fairly small, expanding as their profits allow, and don't do the major airlines D&D (Double & Drop) thing. Plus they fly into markets that the larger airlines don't cover very well, with seriously competitive pricing and a single hub (Denver). The Frontier guys have been copping my GuardRail routes, I should have started an airline! :-lol>I have large qualms with the whole fly-by-wire concept. I >like Boeing's take on it- Pilot override fbw. But with >Airbus, there have been several instances of the planes >doing what they think is best, causing a crash.I keep hearing (reading) this, but it hasn't been true for years. Airbus has a pilot override switch. The pilot has full control when wanted - just like the 777. It was a major requirement before United Airlines bought them almost 10 years ago. After airlines demanded it after a Turkish Airlines A320 went haywire in something like 1990, and other airlines had the same issue, Airbus conceded and added the override to its production.The information you list is from 1988. There is basically little difference between the Airbus FBW and Boeing NG FBW, except Boeing opted for a yoke with more feedback than Airbus does.I am perfectly satisfied with the Airbus FBW systems and pilot override. So are my United pals.You can do a search on the safety record for the A320 and see that it is in line with the 737's, which is pretty good.So don't let old data influence you. Do some research and I think your fears will be allayed.(additional)Frontier just announced they will have their first loss next quarter. This is the first loss in over 4 years. It won't be a lot, and will be substantially less than the big boys.

[Guest mikehaska]

Fronier has my vote- I love spunky little airlines, and all trip reports I have heard involving them have been very positive :-)"Airbus has a pilot override switch"No. The "beauty" (I say beast) in the programming is that Alpha floor protection cannot under any circumstances be broken."You can do a search on the safety record for the A320 and see that it is in line with the 737's, which is pretty good."a319/20/21 series is ranked 7th overall in safety. The 727, 737, 757, 767, MD-80, and Saab 340 all placed ahead of it. You tell me- should an a320 have a better record than a 727, an aircraft designed 40 years ahead of it? Pretty shabby in my opinion. (stats @ http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/)

[Guest Scott Campbell]

Mike,I know that site. The problems I have with it is:1) It doesn't give any reports from investigations and doesn't tell why the accidents happened.2) It's part of the "Fear of Flying" host, not a legitimate agency or organization.3) It launches boatloads of pop-ups and advertises its books on Fear of Flying and traveling, and whatever it's flogging this week.4) It is not endorsed by any civil aviation sources.You will also note that the Concorde has a rating of 19. It had one crash in 30 years. You be the judge.I know there is nothing I can say to change your mind, except to read the REAL reports on crashes and causes. The FAA has a nice list for the US. Count the number of Airbus crashes in the US.

[Guest mikehaska]

I knew right after I posted my response that those stats would go over someone's head.Airdisaster.com is one of the leading air crash databases. Just because they have popup ads means that they are not being paid under the table by a manufacturer.Here is another statistic from airsafe.com:Fatal event per Million flights:Airbus a320 0.38Boeing 737-300/400/500 0.29As well, if we compare the older airbuses with older boeing 737's, it's even more startling:a300 0.78a310 1.59737-100/200 0.52You will also note that the Concorde has a rating of 19. It had one crash in 30 years.I shall save others the embarrasment of making the same mistake you did. It's unfair to say that person A is as safe a driver as person B if they are in completely different situations. Let's say person A drives once a week to church, while person B drives every day to work and back in rush hour traffic. If they both get in one crash, who's the safer driver? Well, divide number of crashes by number of trips, and you'll find out. That's how these stats are generated.I have read the reports, I check the AVR every day. It only reinforces the fact that I would rather be flying a boeing!

[Guest Scott Campbell]

Mike,I have a couple degrees, one of which is in marketing. Statistics never get by me. ;-)Like I said, I doubt that anything I can say would change your mind. Fly what you like when you can, that's the way it should be. ;-)

[Guest mikehaska]

Well, let's just agree to disagree. In any case, no matter what you fly, it will get you there safely and comfortable (if you think sitting in a cramped, tiny seat is comfortable ;-))

[Guest Scott Campbell]

Mike,You should have been on the United 744's going to/from Oz before they got the message and made all the economy seats "Premiere" (actual leg room). Holy cow, 14+ hours in a sardine can! :-erksNeedless to say, even with United FF points, I didn't fly them trans-oceanic again. I still don't to Europe. Having leg room to stretch out and sleep is the most important thing, even over boatloads of FF points.This is the main reason I want faster, not bigger. Then it doesn't matter as much how much leg room I have.I've been flying the Concorde from Honolulu to/from Sydney in FS. 4 hours tops. Now THAT's the way to fly! :-lol

[Minos 26]

:-)

[Minos 26]

Hi,1) Iberia do not use lot of Boeing. Except a few 757 and old 747-200 that they will be replace with A340-600. (they are making interesting profits now...)2)At the time US Airways bbought so many Airbusesthey were not in bad conditions contrary to what you wrote in an earlier thread:Results: 1997 1998CONTINENTAL 385 383NORTHWEST 597 -286US AIRWAYS 1025 532UNITED 723 821AMERICAN 985 1314TWA -127 -121 (almost an entire Boeing fleet...)DELTA 934 1078All figures in Millions of $You can also check:http://www.rediff.com/business/1999/apr/24usair.htm3)European gov. do not help Airbus more than the US one help Boeing. Furthermore Airbus do not have all thoses credits and hidden subsidies the Pentagone is giving to Boeing for either odd or tricky research.4) The US gov.always says he is for fair competition, but when he needs to protect its products he does it... (seen in the recent measures for steel...)5)If you can sell an aircraft that uses more advanced technology at a better price than your competitor, it is that you have a better managmentand more efficient factories, also shown in the fact that Airbus do not fire thousands and thousands of employees at each airline crisis.6) Rusty planes are not only in Mojave. The famous heavy, full of metal 737-200 of Aloha Airlines without any top lost its top because it was completly rusty. Check any air disaster site to read this. it is worldwide known...And it was still flying.7) I won't answer this topic again because I am fed up with those childish discussions aimaing to give false proofs or questionnable proofs that your favourite aircraft maker is the best. :-)By the way I like Boeing as much as Airbus, so my mind is not biased. The one I prefer is Robin for its DR-400. :-) Greetings Minos

[Guest Fortress]

>they are government subsidized, after allYou mean like Boeing? If anything, the INTEREST-BEARING LOANS (not subsidy) issued by various European Governments mean that subsidised less than Boeing; with it's defence arm catching everything that the US Government wants whilst using the military development work to prop up the commercial work (a la KC135 to 747).God, this Boeing v Airbus argument that seems to continually propagated by the insular "US is great, rest is crap" stuff is really tiresome.Paul

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.haworth/Fortress.gifVoted Best Virtual Airline of 2002 and Best CEO of 2002 by participants in the BIG VA Vote organized by FSPILOT.comVANF "Best" New Virtual Airline Awardhttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.haworth/saint_georgex1.gif

[Guest]

Having family members working inside Airbus & Boeing, this debate goes on in my family as well. ;)Airbus itself is in a bit of trouble about now. They are having alot of arguments between all the different manufacturers inside of it. In my opinion, it's the only thing holding them back. The A380 project might do well as a cargo plane, but I'm never going to fly in one, and I know alot of people that think the same way. The root of the arguments inside of Airbus is that British Aerospace has been in continuing negotiations with Boeing since 2000. Some speculate that thay are talking a merger (just a rumor of course, but they have been talking). This would mean BAe giving up it's 20% share in Airbus, and the other corporations within Airbus don't like the possibility. You can't really say that Airbus is more economical than Boeing (they are compared to older Boeing planes) , The newer Boeing planes are extremely quiet, efficient, and smooth. Having flown on an A320 & a 737-800, I prefer the 738. Boeing has alot of projects going on outside of the commercial aircraft spectrum, they are truly an "aerospace company" the commercial aircraft division is only a part of a huge corporation. Boeing does fire thousands of workers, but what you don't hear, is that as soon as they need 'em back, they are on the top of the list to be hired again.They are both good manufacturers w/ their good & bad points, but right now Airbus seems to be headed for a bad place. They could branch out a little, maybe settle the internal arguments. It is still very much a conglomerate.Just some insider info. My cousin works for Airbus, & my father works for Boeing. Some of this could be attributed to "office rumors" but I think it has some substance. ;)

[Guest Dominik Mann]

>God, this Boeing v Airbus argument that seems to continually >propagated by the insular "US is great, rest is crap" stuff >is really tiresome. Could not have said it better :-( . I didn't even want to get involved in this discussion at first, but now I have to say that it does not surprise me at all why the rift between Europe and the U.S. is deepening when I look at discussions like this one. To me it's just nation-bashing at a different level. Is this really necessary? I have ridden both Airbus and Boeing aircraft, and I really cannot say that I found either one to be "better" than the other as far as production quality or comfort are concerned. I don't know who on this thread it was who said that Airbuses were rattling as if they were going to fall apart any minute. Believe me, I've ridden 767s on more than one occasion, and they, too, would rattle when running over rough ground.Please let us stop this discussion here.

[Guest]

Come on guys what's so bad about Airbuses anyways. I think the A320 is a great aircraft and just 2 months ago I was on a Northwest Airlines A320 from Detroit to Seattle (for an Alaskan cruise) and it just turned out to fly just fine and besides all we just have to do is hope for the best for Air New Zeland and prepare for the worst and eventually it would probably turn out just fine.

[Guest devaio]

Whats wrong with aibuses???? I flown on them lots of times and there is nothing wrong with those planes. While boeings keep crashing. Like on some of the 737's the tails fall off. Im not saying that boeing is bad but come one people stop making boeing look so majestic. And trashing airbus.

[Guest]

"When I think of Swissair and Sabena, all I see are airbuses..."well,Sabena didn't want airbusses because they were in trouble,they got into trouble when they wanted replace their fleet into an all-airbus fleet.so actually,the opposite is true"The NG variations are improvements on an already strong aircraft"I agree the 737-400 is very strong ,but many pilots don't like the NG's:they have an absolute rubbish AP(but worse than the Bae146 :) )