Airbus vs. Boeing Which one do you support? Why?

>>62038687
airbus is bigger and more comfortable. Flew on both on a recent trip to japan and the Airbus is just a better aircraft. It looks cooler too.

>>62038687
>Which one do you support?
You should ask which one can support you.

>>62038687
haven0t flown on the A380 but the Jumbo is garbage

I don't care, as long as it's not United Airlines.

>>62038687
Any time people try to compare the two, I see fanboyism mixed with patriotic nationalism.
They're gigantic aircraft manufacturers, they don't need fanboyism.

Airbus because they don't fly their airplanes into skyscrapers

Boeings are more reliable

>>>/n/
/g/ has truly gone multicultural

they're both heavily subsidized molochs who regularly fuck things up so I don't care.

>>62038687
airbus are comfii

>>62038835
example?

seems like both aircraft are going to be ultra safe, its just about the cost efficiency and comfort inside

>>62038793
I know a kid who took this debate very seriously in high school

The passenger experience is far more down to how the airline configures the plane (number of seats and legroom available in each, for instance), rather than any innate properties of the aircraft.

>>62038687
>Which one do you support? Why?
None. They're both disgusting companies that regularly engage in massive bribery operations to hawk their shit.

>>62039030
honestly I'm surprised they haven't attempted to pack people in like sardines with seats facing opposite of each other to fit in a few more seats in tiny ass boeing planes.

>>62038687
Don't really care about the companies, but Airbus has better big planes right now.

>>62039022
My entire university takes this debate very seriously (ERAU).

>>62039086
Just have passengers pair up. One person sits on another's lap. That way you can have something like 70-80% more passengers with the same number of seats.

>>62039070
t. Embraer

>>62039208
you could fit 5x more people if you make them lie down like a slaveship

I work at Airbus UK in Procurement, AMA
Data related work though, engineers are faggots and working with them is tiresome.

>>62039145
I was talking about a little shit in high school though, not a situation where this debate matters

I fly quite a bit. Airbus are nice, but they have those loud ass hydraulics that freak everyone out every time they adjust the flaps. It sounds like something is broken

>>62039304
>engineers are faggots and working with them is tiresome
Aw, do they talk down to you for being a data monkey?

>>62038990
>Comfii

What did he mean by this

File: 1438453205683.jpg (75KB, 601x601px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 601x601px

>tfw to much of a poorfag to fly business class with any airline

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTES-mrDJd4

>>62039070
This guy is actually on the right lines, these 2 fuckers have a ridiculous monopoly.
>>62039321
The opposite actually, they treat me like the ewoks treated C3PO. They are morons who can't into lateral thinking. I sense you are one, and that you're a faggot nigger.

>>62039356
>I sense you are one, and that you're a faggot nigger
Spotted the larper

>>62039391
K. I would post a photo of my id but I cbf as you don't matter enough to me. I work Procurement Ops in Bristol (there are about 200 other people in this division so don't want to narrow it down too much), that's all I can say without revealing anything important about myself.
If you have any questions ask, otherwise fuck off with your engineer tears.

>>62039327
comf - EE - eye like when you say Triarii it is TREE- arrr - EE - EYE

The airbus needs to go on a fucking diet. What the fuck is it using for fuel, lard?

>>62039334
I get business all the time because air canada fucks up and they have to put me somewhere on a flight so first class it is

Daily reminder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSQYr8f0014

>>62039321
engineers are the least important when it comes to aerospace
even the machine set up and operators are more important

Boeing. Airbus(es) don't even allow the pilot to do a barrel roll because of their retarded computer controlled systems.

>>62039304
Too bad, we're the ones that actually make the shit fly, so suck it up

Regards from Wichita

File: africa attack chopper.webm (767KB, 553x309px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 553x309px

>>62038687
>those a380 sales

Boeing has been the household name for jets in America for decades, Airbus has not. In fact I hadn't heard their name once except for the last few years. This is a lot like the Japanese vehicle explosion in the 80s and 90s, only slower. Hopefully Boeing won't need 2 decades to realize they have serious competition like the big 3 did. Regardless, competition is always good. Better jets, lower costs, and a faster pace of development.

>>62039568
This guy knows
>>62039584
LOL sure. You are being replaced very soon.

>>62039583
When would a pilot EVER need to fly upside down?

>>62039610
evasive maneuvers for when japan makes their next attack

>>62038687
My company supplies both with engines. Same difference really. Airbus are playing catch up at the moment.

>>62039589
787

>>62039585
It shakes so bad that if it did fly it would rip itself apart.

airbus is nearly all autopilot, you can't go into manual override ever, and the entire plane is piloted by a fucking joystick in your left hand.

>>62039610
When he feels like it. If I buy a fucking plane I expect it to follow my orders, not some stupid computer.

>>62039585
This, what were they thinking with the A380plus? Does literally anyone want that shit?

>>62039589
Not to mention the Chinese and Russians coming into it

>>62039605
I hope so, that's my wet dream, but we'll see if EASA allows it. By the time they do, I'll be able to take up a comfy research position.

>>62039610
>need
SHALL

>>62039676
and we should go back to manually operated hydrualics controls right?

>>62039683
You need an IQ above double digits to be a worthwhile researcher in any field.

File: Big_Guy_Crashes_Airbus_WIth_No_Survivors.jpg (86KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 800x450px

>>62038820
KEK

>>62039610
Whichever one has cheaper rates and isn't a deathtrap.

>>62039693
Yes.

>>62039665
This. Aircucks will try to defend this somehow.

fuck all this jumbo shit

buy some C-Series so we don't have to deal with noise pollution anymore

>>62038687
aribus is more comfortable to fly on.

>>62039665
>you can't go into manual override ever
This guy knew how to manual override.
>>62039708

>>62039816
you still can't do a barrel roll or take the plane beyond it's manufacturer design limits

>>62038687
Airbus has A380, there's nothing similar in that category in terms of comfort and cabin layout options.
Also they Rolls Royce engines are unbelievably quiet.

Also, Airbus is fly-by-wire and has safe flight envelope parameters built in, it's actually idiot proof, which is a good thing with today's minimally trained and underpaid pilots.
Makes for a safer, more comfortable flight.

Boeing has the space division which is far more demanding, so obviously it comes up with more innovations and crazy concepts.

>>62039610
That nigger pilot Denzel played in that movie.

>>62038687
Boeing layed off my dad but I'm a true patriot so them I guess

>>62039906
>Also they Rolls Royce engines are unbelievably quiet.

That's just because you are inside walls designed to block the sound.

>>62039266
E-jets are actually very comfy, and I take them over a 737 when I have the choice.

>>62039834
>you can't fly the plane the way it's not supposed to and cause it to crush and burn
really terrible innit?

>>62038687
Airbus sounds more comfy

>>62040026
>my flagship product isn't strong enough to withstand a barrel roll at 600mph

wow

>>62039834
>you still can't do a barrel roll or take the plane beyond it's manufacturer design limits
But you can take it into manual override. American planes are usually made by companies with military interests in mind, so they are more than likely to incorporate aspects that a commercial plane doesn't need. Like being sturdy enough to do a barrel roll. It doesn't mean that airbus' sucks cock. It just means that American planes are better, because they have war plane lineage, and some aspects of that are carried over to the commercial variants.
Me I would rather be in the plane that has tight security, mentally balanced flight crew, and a well trained/well financed ground maintenance crew. The model of the plane isn't as important to me as that.

>>62039921
God I hate americunts

>>62038687
Why not 747-8?

>>62040054
Civilian Boeing planes are not designed to do aerobatics. Neither are military aircraft of that size for that matter. You can't do aerobatics in a B-52 either. In fact, one of them crashed rolling to 90 degrees, which is not even close to a full barrel roll. At high altitude it's probably survivable, but there's a reason it's never done and commercial planes have protections to stop you from doing that shit.

United Aircraft Corporation/Oбъeдинённaя aвиacтpoитeльнaя кopпopaция

>>62038687
i support anything that is wide enough to let me sit comfortably without body/leg contact to the person next to me (no, im not fat)

>>62040270
>You can't do aerobatics in a B-52 either.
>At high altitude it's probably survivable
It has been done at high altitudes, but you seem hell bent on moving goal posts so just fuck off.

>>62038687
Bombardier best

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRM-NAj63g8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5SBzdG3upw

>>62038687

Non amerifag here but I had to say boeing.

Airbus's stretch room is just too small.

>>62039583
this also boeing didnt go for the "bigger is better" commie stupidity that is the a380

the 787 is a fucking work of art conpared to that french faggotry

>>62040506
What goal posts am I moving exactly? Every manual tells you that you shouldn't do it, and it puts undue stress on the air frame.

Depending on speed and altitude, you can recover, yes. Yet that doesn't mean the plane is designed for aerobatics. In case of civilian planes, they have protection measures to stop you from doing it - but any civilian plane, be it Airbus or Boeing can in theory do it as long as the altitude and speed are high enough. The same as large military planes. It is possible, in theory, but in practice it endangers the plane and should not be done.

>>62038687
The A380 is a brilliant plane, but it just isn't as viable as the 787 and new 777 versions.

File: Boeing_747-412_El_Al_Israel_Airlines_4X-ELH_8711516190.jpg (781KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

781KB, 1600x1067px

(((747)))

>>62040758
Those planes don't really compete anyway. The Airbus A350 XWB competes with the 787. Forgot what the competitor for 777 was.

>>62040612
boeing had a very profitable monopoly on jumbo jets for decades. airbus already competes against boeings smaller jets.

>>62040833
The problem is that it's harder for the airlines to validate buying the A380, because it's got a limited number of airports it can land at and you need to get them pretty full to make the flight worthwhile.

>>62038687
i don't know

boeing has cool shit in 787, like electric starter, resistive heaters in place of bleed air, cool-looking chevrons, "robotic" flaps, more direct steering and all shit

but
airbus actually made first FBW commercial plane and their "glass" cockpits look pretty cool. along with different "modes" (akin to rings in os/cpu), relying heavily on "assistance" and protecting itself from dumb pilot decisions

>>62040615
>Every manual tells you that you shouldn't do it, and it puts undue stress on the air frame.

A 1g barrel roll will put how much stress on an airframe?

>>62040784
Can Jew pilots fly on the Sabbath? Or would starting the engines count as starting a fire?

>>62038687
I'm a big fan of Boeing's smaller more modern 787, but in just about every way the A380 is better than the 747

>>62040973
jej
http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=256905

>>62041024
>Remind me never to fly ElAl.......if religion is to rule the company I wont fly with them!!! Tragic
Nuf said
>posted by a swede

YES

I don't care, I don't sit in coach.

>>62041090
What the frick! That dude should have his Swedish citizenship revoked ASAP.

>>62041024
>El Al get a special budget from the government as a compensation for not flying on Sabbath
they even kike themselves

File: that feel eh.jpg (105KB, 800x765px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 800x765px

>>62038687
>Which one do you support?
Boeing

>>62039266
SOPA

>the airline crammed the plane full of seats therefore the plane itself is bad
No.

>>62040959
They are not designed to fly upside down, it's not the g force that is the problem. For example, engines are now standing on top of their pylons against gravity as opposed to hanging from them as designed. The engines are extremely heavy and metal fatigue in the pylons has caused planes to lose engines before. You really don't want to put stresses on the air-frame that it's not specifically designed to endure. It's not that it will snap in half or catastrophically fail the second you do it - although that can happen, but it can cause nearly invisible damage that may take years to show up and cause an accident.

Oh and you lose all lift when the plane is sideways, so you'll start to fall downwards on your side. A plane as big as the B-52 or Boeing 777 will not roll quickly, it's likely to pick up pretty significant speed downwards. Also, another thing of note is control surfaces. Do they have the necessary travel and performance to keep the plane stable while it's upside down? Wings are designed to produce lift in a specific direction, upside down flying reverses the direction of lift you need. Wings aren't symmetrical most of the time.

It's really not so simple as "lol 1G of force".

>No linked pilot & co-pilot control
>Computers have nearly crashed the planes several times
The A380 is great to fly on.

They both make good, reliable aircraft and it's good to have competition

>>62040959
About the entire weight of the plane times 3 would be pushed into the wings

>>62038687
787 is best

>>62040959
>1G barrel roll
Exit this thread until you have the slightest idea what you're talking about

File: 1385254422347.gif (2MB, 413x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 413x250px

>>62039610
>When would a pilot EVER need to fly upside down?
The point is that Airbus will lock out a pilots from giving control input if the computer thinks it's wrong. So maybe a sensor is fucked and the computer says to correct I will do this, and the pilot goes whoa why is the plane trying to flip? He takes control and the Airbus will refuse his controls because it knows the plane's sensors must be correct. While the pilot knows something just broke but can't override.

Airbus builds it's aircraft to the exact spec for safety regulation. Boeing builds it's aircraft to the exact performance spec often massively overbuilding parts in terms of safety.
For example Airbus builds to 110% of wing load. Boeing builds to normally 150%+ because that fits with the mass and cost design spec.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rak2HldVp9M

Airbus computers have caused, after pilot error, to mid air collisions when the last pilot input which was correct was rejected by the computer.
It was something like, computer correction, pilot error correct, pilot correction rejected -> computer correction and crash.

Airbus also gets massive government subsidies illegally competing against Boeing that gets no government subsidies. Airbus gets deals to make aircraft with no interest loans from government they never have to pay back if the aircraft isn't profitable. Airbus claims Boeing gets subsidies because they have military aircraft sales and can leverage their fiscal stability to make better manufacturing investments.

File: Perfectlanding.webm (3MB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 800x600px

>>62040270
>In fact, one of them crashed rolling to 90 degrees,
Yeah but that pilot was a moron and at the speed and altitude he tried his roll most or less any aircraft would have stalled and crashed.

>>62041427
>Airbus also gets massive government subsidies illegally competing against Boeing that gets no government subsidies.
This is delusional levels of wrong. Boeing gets more subsidies that it knows what to do with it. Airbus and Boeing are constantly in the courts over this issue. Not to mention both Boeing and EADS are military contractors so through that virtue alone they are on government dole.

Stay away from this clusterfuck with your delusional fanboyism. They both receive massive subsidies and it's only a matter of legal technicalities that they get away with it every now and then.

>>62041459
What game is this

>>62041556
Warblunder.

>>62041282
You sound like you're confusing a barrel roll with an aileron roll.

>>62042435
Not him but it is probably the first guy who doesn't know what a barrel roll is