Boeings and Airbuses

mulligan · Post by **mulligan** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:52 pm

Idle curiosity time.
I fly 319/320/321 and wonder how they compare to the 600/700/800.
I'll start with my observations for the Bus, realizing of course that neither type compares to the good old 737-200, on which I spent many enjoyable years:-)

The 319 is an overpowered hotrod. I ACARSed dispatch during a redeye once and asked if it was possible to leave YMM and go nonstop to YYT with a full load at 20 degrees OAT....no problem was the reply.

The 320 has more than enough power but it's no 319.

The 321 is a bit of a dog in the summer and you aren't going to outclimb the weather on one of "those" days. I don't think Airbus could have stretched it another quarter inch! It has a nice feel to it though and reminds me of the 767 in turbulence. A full load usually seems to see you at 330 for a long time.

The max taxi wt for the 319 is 70,400kg/155,200lbs
For the 320 it's 77,400kg/170,635lbs
And for the 321 93,400/205,911

Anybody there with some idle time of their own?

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:08 pm

I am a big fan of the Bus but recently I heard they have a lifespan of only twenty years. If that's the case, AC will soon be losing some of them and probably replace them with the Jungle jets. What a let down.

RB-211 · Post by **RB-211** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:13 pm

Airbuses are for girls. Love the 'Retard Call' at 10 feet radio. French hunks of junk! The old 737's of this world will be flying much longer than any 320.

757 VS 321 = No competition either.

737ame · Post by **737ame** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:06 pm

well i have a little bit of idle time, unfortunately not a pilot. so i really cant give an opinion when it comes to how the aircraft feels but i can help out a little

i am guessing that the comparison you are looking for is the 600-700-800 in comparison to 319-320-321..
really in my opinion they are not comparable.. the 600 is alot smaller and lighter than the 319.. it is more comparable to the -700 and the 320-800 and the 321 to the -900

MTOW are as follows
-600 66000kg/145500lbs
-700 70080kg/154500lbs
-800 79010kg/174200lbs
-900 85130kg/187700lbs

when it comes to the mechanics of these birds the airbus though user friendly really doesnt compare to the rough and rugged built boeings, some times it does hurt to have a few control cables laying around rather than trusting that the electrons know the way ...

just my opinion

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:06 pm

From observing climb rates, it appears to me the 737NG Vastly outperforms the A319/320/321 by far, unless those are some company guidelines.

the Embraers however can hold their own. (Cept for the RJ's) But even the embraer RJ's are better than the canadian brand.

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 5:42 am

Airbuses are for girls.

Ouch! Easy there cowboy. You're hurting my male ego.
You're right though, 757 way better but I don't think the 321 was ever meant to compete with the '57. The 321 is a real dawg. Airbus has all the high tech but no balls. In My Humble Opinion!!

mulligan · Post by **mulligan** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:08 am

Hmmm..

Thanks to AME for some hard data. I hope the Bus lasts longer than 20 years! If not I better be ready to book off as some of ours are approaching that. I remember when they first showed up. There was lots of talk about "flimsiness" but I've always figured it was reactionary in nature, pilots being a pretty conservative bunch. I'd be curious to hear from AMEs familiar with both types on the "robustness" issue.
On a lighter note, I've always thought the "retard" call was something dreamed up by a mischevious engineer! Worse again is the call chime when the F/As want something. Talk about a "startle reaction"! Maybe that engineer was married to an F/A.
What is pax config on Westjet aircraft? Ours are as follows:
319/120.....320/140.....321/166

Snow Monkey · Post by **Snow Monkey** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:12 am

736=119 737=136 738=166

EI-EIO · Post by **EI-EIO** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:07 pm

depends on how they're taken care of. BA is still flying some of the first 320s (the -111s they got from BCal). They're getting tired and will be replaced over the next few years. On the other hand some 320s have already been scrapped, as have some similarly aged 737s.

WSTAC · Post by **WSTAC** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 5:32 pm

Just out of curiousity, what is the seat pitch on your airbus'?

For WestJet, we've got:

600 = 32"
700 = 32"
800 = 34"

mulligan · Post by **mulligan** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:38 pm

I honestly don't have a clue. Anyone else at AC know?
I know that things are more comfortable in the Embrarer, business or economy. Although the Buses are getting new interiors right now. I was in one the other day and it seemed pretty good although I don't think the pitch has changed. The TVs are in.

The Raven · Post by **The Raven** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:16 am

Air Canada seat pitch on the domestic Airbus fleet is generally 32 inches. Some Embrarer aircraft seats are 33 inches.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:28 pm

I was climbing out behind a 321 the other day in a RJ200. I didn't know it was a 321 we were following. It beat up pretty good in both speed and climb rate. When I found out it was a 321, it felt like a real kick in the pants. If you think the 321 is a dog, you should try the RJ.

WJ700 · Post by **WJ700** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:23 pm

It's hard to tell 99% of the time what is the actual performance of a large aircraft since we are almost always on derate thrust, cost idexes, and ECON climb, crz, and descents. The climb almost always goes to Climb 2.
In the big picture, I find it a great option when almost all WestJet flights are without an issue for performance. I've left CUN at 33 degrees OAT in a full -800 and it was still flap 1, reduced to 40 degrees.
The scariest was leaving Kelowna on a positioning flight from a charter. We went full thrust and completely shit our pants for the first 5 minutes of the flight.

As for Boeing vs. Airbus, some are lucky enough to have flown both. I agree with Tony that the Airbus automation seems just a bit more refined.
We tend to blame Southwest for the bad features on the 737. LUV bought 400 of these aircraft and flexed enough to get great features like an ancient overhead panel installed. It's even worse on their aircraft since they have a brass plate welded over the VNAV button and a standard flight intrument display on their EFIS. They just started using autobrakes last year.
There is hope for the 737's replacement aircraft since SouthWest is paying a pretty penny to be trained at WestJet's facility on how to fly RNP right now and seems to be coming out of the dark ages.

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:25 pm

Bede wrote:I was climbing out behind a 321 the other day in a RJ200. I didn't know it was a 321 we were following. It beat up pretty good in both speed and climb rate. When I found out it was a 321, it felt like a real kick in the pants. If you think the 321 is a dog, you should try the RJ.

Regional Jets, Especially Bomb. RJs 100/200's are the flying equivalent to a grandpiano. Sure they sound nice on the ground, and look pretty IMO, but they climb like one too.

Troubleshot · Post by **Troubleshot** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:00 pm

you've flow an RJ av8rpei ? thought you worked the ramp?

not trying to sound like a dick just a question.

Pygmie · Post by **Pygmie** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:53 pm

You don't need to have flown one to know the RJs are slow to climb. The vertical movement readout on radar tells the story just fine, and a lot of times the climb rate is so low the radar processing system doesn't even recognize the aircraft as climbing.

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:02 pm

Troubleshot wrote:you've flow an RJ av8rpei ? thought you worked the ramp?

not trying to sound like a dick just a question.

I have a much more intimate knowledge of RJ's than simply flying them my friend, perhaps you should read some of my other posts

I work with multiple of them everyday I work, and no, not on the ramp.

I have seen some neat visual approaches from the ramp of an RJ though.

Troubleshot · Post by **Troubleshot** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:53 am

first off , why would I read some of your other posts for no reason?....

second, you speak as if you have first hand knowledge/experience in the climb rate of an RJ...hence the question. you said (and I quote) "RJs 100/200's are the flying equivalent to a grandpiano", leads me to believe you have flown one.

This is why I asked.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:50 am

Pygmie wrote:You don't need to have flown one to know the RJs are slow to climb. The vertical movement readout on radar tells the story just fine, and a lot of times the climb rate is so low the radar processing system doesn't even recognize the aircraft as climbing.

How true!

Sometimes with ISA+10 heavy at FL340 the climb rate is so low, the VSI doesn't even recognize the aircraft is climbing.

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:10 am

Troubleshot wrote:first off , why would I read some of your other posts for no reason?....

second, you speak as if you have first hand knowledge/experience in the climb rate of an RJ...hence the question. you said (and I quote) "RJs 100/200's are the flying equivalent to a grandpiano", leads me to believe you have flown one.

This is why I asked.

Never touched the control column on an RJ, but I've seen a few on a radar screen.

Troubleshot · Post by **Troubleshot** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:30 am

why didn't you say that in the first place?

Chuck D · Post by **Chuck D** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:00 pm

I've never flown the Airbus, but what I can gather is Boeing made up for the lack of electronic gismos with more power. With the -800, full power will get you out of almost anywhere.

mulligan · Post by **mulligan** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:14 am

My idle time is piling up...
the thrust ratings on the bus are:
319..23,500
320..25,000
321..32,000

This gives a weight to thrust ratio of:
319..3.30
320..3.41
321..3.21
This makes no sense to me in that the 321 is a DOG. Must be something to do with wing area or some other thing that takes a sharper pencil than I have.
Anybody got the numbers for the Boeings?
Sounds like the bigger Boeing has the best performance while for the bus it's the smallest. They're all pretty snappy compared to the old Queenair I used to fly.