to Robin, Cras, Jamalje and the few usual Airbus bashers that seem to wake up on this forum regularly :- I suppose you are all fully qualified to fly the Airbus, otherwise you wouldn't dare make such comments on a forum visited by amateur and professional pilots as well. - United does fly the Airbus. So do Delta, US Airways, Virgin America, Jet Blue...and the list is still growing. Get over it.Airbus bashing is like Boeing bashing : amusing to some but really negative - and boring - for most of us on this forum.Instead I would suggest you guys look at the threads where real Airbus and Boeing pilots have shared their experience with us (and where you guys seem strangely silent) and try to learn from them.Sincerely,Bruno

southwest does not have airbus neither does alaska airlines. I think airbus sucks.

Scary like the last 737 accidents - for instance at Schiphol that could not have happened in an Airbus. Airbus makes extremely good and safe planes. A 747 would probably have fallen to a ground in the same accident that happened to the RR A380 engine.Airbus is out-selling Boeing for a reason.Rule Europe! ;)

It's never happened to an 747. Remember about a year ago a airbus A330 crashed on landing. It was a brand new plane and it was a good day for flying. Rule boeing they are better, not airbus AKA fallingbus, dumbus,crashbus. I could go on for hours.

It's never happened to an 747. Remember about a year ago a airbus A330 crashed on landing. It was a brand new plane and it was a good day for flying. Rule boeing they are better, not airbus AKA fallingbus, dumbus,crashbus. I could go on for hours.

Failbus is a good one.

southwest does not have airbus neither does alaska airlines. I think airbus sucks.

Well lets see, clearly they DONT suck cause over 1000 A320 neo's have been ordered. Let me guess, you are American like the rest of the airbus haters who can only sniff up boeing's but?

It's never happened to an 747.

As you might or might not know, Airbus and Boeing are airframe makers. They do not produce engines. It was a RR engine that failed.And it actually happened to a 747 last year:http://aircrewbuzz.com/2010/08/qantas-boeing-747-uncontained-engine.htmlBTW: The A330 is one of the safest airplanes in the world, could you please point me to the accident you mentioned?"Failbus" is a good one... First twin engine wide body. First full double deck wide body. First unified aircraft family. First fly-by-wire in commercial jet. Best safety record. Best selling aircraft builder in the world. Yes, I see a lot of fails.

southwest does not have airbus neither does alaska airlines. I think airbus sucks.

Back on topic: that AAL is getting both B and A is a huge step forward for them, and a rude wake-up call for Boeing. If Airbus hadn't snagged such a large order from a hereforeto Boeing-only customer, they wouldn't even have considered a 737RE. Of course, the other reason that AAL split the order is that they want to get rid of the old MDs, and needed a huge order, but there wasn't one manufacturer that could deliver them all in a decent time frame. As it stands they've tied up the production lines for both companies until 2018 (presumably, if B does officially green-light the 737RE), which will lead to interesting decisions from other major carriers with regards to, say, Fokker replacements, or what have you.

One thing the NG badly needs is a cockpit update. Boeing had EICAS 25 years ago for 757/767 and the NG never got it. Just compare the 320 cockpit to the NG and see the huge declutter factor.

Let me guess, you are American like the rest of the airbus haters who can only sniff up boeing's but?

Or he prefers his vertical stabilizer to remain attached. And the plane to not stall out of the sky 35,000 feet above the ocean.

As you might or might not know, Airbus and Boeing are airframe makers. They do not produce engines. It was a RR engine that failed.And it actually happened to a 747 last year:http://aircrewbuzz.com/2010/08/qantas-boeing-747-uncontained-engine.htmlBTW: The A330 is one of the safest airplanes in the world, could you please point me to the accident you mentioned?

afriqiyah airways flight 771.

A lock is eminent.EDIT : I've remoed my nonsense post.

Yes this airbus vs boeing thing is getting lame. Most of the lovers or haters have zero experience on both of them either from a pilots perspective or maintenance perspective. Until you get time on type on BOTH of them your opinion remains as an uneducated and/or biased one.JackColwill

It's never happened to an 747. Remember about a year ago a airbus A330 crashed on landing. It was a brand new plane and it was a good day for flying. Rule boeing they are better, not airbus AKA fallingbus, dumbus,crashbus. I could go on for hours.Failbus is a good one.

Stop it already. You only make yourself looking silly with these statements. Here is some quick math for you to ponder:The Boeing 747 first flew commercially in 1970* (with Pan Am), so it has been in service for roughly 41 years, and has suffered 51** hull losses to date. This gives us an average loss rate of 1.24 frames per year.The Airbus A330 first flew commercially in 1994, so has been in service for about 17 years. It has has suffered 6 hull losses to date, which gives us an average loss rate of 0.35 frames per year.Just for fun let's repeat the same game with the bread-and-butter narrow-bodies:The Boeing 737 first flew commercially in 1968 with Lufthansa, which means 43 years in service, with a total of 153 frames lost. An average of about 3.6 frames per year.The Airbus A320 first flew commercially in 1988, which means it has been in service for 23 years, with a total of 23 frames lost. An average of 1 frame per year.Not all hull losses are caused by mechanical failures, but the overall trend favours Airbus.To be fair it needs to be mentioned, that aviation safety improved significantly over the years. So Boeing incurs a penalty by being in business longer than Airbus. Today, both companies' aircraft are very safe. Now my aim here is not to show which manufacturer is superior or builds the safest aircraft, but rather to make people stop with their unfounded bashing of either side.Sure, there will be always be bias and personal preferences, but the name-calling is just silly. Especially when it comes to aviation enthusiasts that usually visit this forum.*(dates and first operator according to Wikipedia)**(number of losses according to aviation-safety.net)

afriqiyah airways flight 771.

Current reports indicate: Pilot error. Turning off the autopilot in low-viz and falling off the glide slope, maybe due to fatigue.

Stop it already. You only make yourself looking silly with these statements. Here is some quick math for you to ponder:The Boeing 747 first flew commercially in 1970* (with Pan Am), so it has been in service for roughly 41 years, and has suffered 51** hull losses to date. This gives us an average loss rate of 1.24 frames per year.The Airbus A330 first flew commercially in 1994, so has been in service for about 17 years. It has has suffered 6 hull losses to date, which gives us an average loss rate of 0.35 frames per year.Just for fun let's repeat the same game with the bread-and-butter narrow-bodies:The Boeing 737 first flew commercially in 1968 with Lufthansa, which means 43 years in service, with a total of 153 frames lost. An average of about 3.6 frames per year.The Airbus A320 first flew commercially in 1988, which means it has been in service for 23 years, with a total of 23 frames lost. An average of 1 frame per year.Not all hull losses are caused by mechanical failures, but the overall trend favours Airbus.To be fair it needs to be mentioned, that aviation safety improved significantly over the years. So Boeing incurs a penalty by being in business longer than Airbus. Today, both companies' aircraft are very safe. Now my aim here is not to show which manufacturer is superior or builds the safest aircraft, but rather to make people stop with their unfounded bashing of either side.Sure, there will be always be bias and personal preferences, but the name-calling is just silly. Especially when it comes to aviation enthusiasts that usually visit this forum.*(dates and first operator according to Wikipedia)**(number of losses according to aviation-safety.net)

I'm not trying to fuel the war or anything I just wanted to say that the 737 NG and the classic are basically two different aircrafts, in terms of technology of course and some slight physical features. The classic was amongst the starting of the jet era, the NG is in a different ball-game. After all the NG is the direct competitor to the Airbus A32X.

You guys are not making a valid analysis wiyh hull losses. Is one of those 747 losses the result of the KLM taxiing onto an active runway? Boeing's fault? Not at all. How about the Air India 747 hijack? You have to consider which of these are a direct result of manufacturing. Both the bus and boeing are great planes. JackColwill

to Robin, Cras, Jamalje and the few usual Airbus bashers that seem to wake up on this forum regularly :- I suppose you are all fully qualified to fly the Airbus, otherwise you wouldn't dare make such comments on a forum visited by amateur and professional pilots as well. - United does fly the Airbus. So do Delta, US Airways, Virgin America, Jet Blue...and the list is still growing. Get over it.Airbus bashing is like Boeing bashing : amusing to some but really negative - and boring - for most of us on this forum.Instead I would suggest you guys look at the threads where real Airbus and Boeing pilots have shared their experience with us (and where you guys seem strangely silent) and try to learn from them.Sincerely,Bruno

Awwwww come on! I know professional pilots that laugh at their own types!4 oil leaks connected to an electrical fault - BAe 146BUFF - in reference to the B-52.FLUF - in reference to the 737.Pregnant Guppy - Cargo version of B377 StratocruiserFlying gas tank - KC-135/KC-10The SCUD - F100 (it would leave base and not always make the intended destination due to tech issues)It was a joke - lighten up. :(

and where you guys seem strangely silent

I'm too busy making pointless posts. Besides, the throttle reference was at Airbus, the rudder hard-over at Boeing, so I was bashing both, if I was bashing anyone at all. :( Fact: Airbus have lost a couple of aircraft through control issues. A320 at the Paris airshow was unresponsive throttle. They lost an A330 when the Autopilot would not disconnect during flight testing. It ploughed in shortly after takeoff.http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml#captain

When he increased throttle to level off at 100 ft, the engines did not respond.......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.1) OEB 19/1 (May 1988): Engine Acceleration Deficiency at Low Altitude. This means that it was already known before the accident that the engines sometimes did not respond normally to the pilot's commands on the Airbus A320. However Air France did not inform their pilots about this anomaly. After the Habsheim accident, the engines have been modified (OEB 19/2, August 1988).2) OEB 06/2 (May 1988): Baro-Setting Cross Check. It stated that the current design for barometric altitude indication on the Airbus A320 did not comply with airworthiness. This could be a hint why the aircraft was as low as 30 ft (9 m) above the runway whereas Asseline affirms that the altimeter indicated 100 ft (30 m). These OEBs were sent to the company (Air France), but they had not been handed to the pilots.

Fact: Boeing has rudder issues on the 737. http://www.b737.org.uk/rudder.htmFact: The more Ford Pintos exploded in a crash, the more Ford said it wasn't a design a issue.I see a trend here...Best regards,Robin.