Anibal Katayama: Boeing all the way
Tobie Oshea: both manufacturers big high quality aircraft, so it comes down to personal preference as to which one you like. for me, i prefer the boeing aircraft as they have a long history of building the toughest aircraft in the world.
Garrett Detone: Boeing all the way.
Zelma Casebier: Boeing, like airbus are terrible at turning, cause there parts are placed horribly on the plane. The engines are right next to the cabin so they suck ive flown one and there not close to the quality of boeing.
Chris Coggins: Airbus vs Boeing, as already pointed out both meet very high safety and quality requirements. So really it's based on opinion; I would go with Airbus.Why Airbus? Well, to date, every Airbus crash has been related to some kind of pilot error. Not every Boeing crash can be attributed to pilot error.For example;TWA Flight 800 was a Boeing 747 that exploded in flight. It was a fuel tank explosion; a design flaw.! Even if the pilots knew what was about to happen, aside from cancelling the flight outright there was nothing they could have done differently to save everyone's lives.United Airlines Flight 585 was a Boeing 737 which suffered a rudder jam which caused the aircraft to crash. Again, no fault on the pilots. It was a design flaw, something to do with cold temperatures causing the rudder to fully deflect and jam.USAir Flight 427 was another Boeing 737 which suffered the exact same rudder jam. It wasn't until this second accident that Boeing finally figured out what was going on, and made corrections to the aircraft.British Airways Flight 38 was a Boeing 777 that landed short at London Heathrow. Unlike the other crashes, this one was fortunately non-fatal. What happened was the engines failed to respond to a throttle-increase, and the aircraft was unable to stay in the air. Again, this was no fault of the pilots. In fact, the pilots probably saved the day by not stalling the ai! rcraft. But it was a design flaw, that was found and corrected! . Granted, maybe this was more Rolls Royce (the engine manufacturer) moreso than Boeing, but a design issue nonetheless.We can consider other incidents like Japan Airlines 123 Boeing 747, Aloha 243 Boeing 737, United 811 Boeing 747 all suffered serious structural damage. Granted, these incidents can all be attributed to poor maintenance; but who wants to fly on a plane where your life is dependent on maintenance? Shouldn't planes be built sturdy enough to withstand going outside normal maintenance just in case the "new guy" misses something?Now lets look at notable Airbus incidents:(I am excluding Air France A330 Flight 447 because the investigation is still ongoing)Air France 358 Airbus 340 overran runway at Toronto: pilot error.Gulf Air Flight 072 was an Airbus 320: the pilots ignored the GWPS "pull up" warnings and crashed into the ground.Air Transat Flight 236 Airbus A330 ran out of fuel over the ocean due to a fuel leak caused by a faulty part being installed by mainte! nance. The pilots failed to recognize the warnings that the aircraft was giving. Fortunately they landed safely despite losing both engines over the ocean. Pilot/maintenance error.And the final nail in the coffin: USAirways 1549 "Miracle on the Hudson". The Airbus 320 hit the water and held together! The last time a Boeing product attempted to land in the water it was an Egypt Air Flight 990 Boeing 767 and it completely shattered killing almost all on board.So arguably, both manufacturers have accidents despite excellent safety records. However, all the Airbus crashes can be attributed to pilot error or maintenance error. Only most Boeing accidents can be categorized this way, some were design flaws which Boeing never realized until lives were lost. And finally, in a 1v1 comparison; an Airbus landed safely in the water while a Boeing shattered to pieces. Airbus, therefore, seems to the higher quality manufacturer.ADDED: J600RR you need to post some data please... I went to ! the site and was only able to find this: http://www.planecrashinfo.com/! cause.htm scroll down to "design flaw" and you get mostly Boeings and Illushyns after 1970 (when Airbus entered the market). The NTSB also posts this http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Paxfatal.htm... the list starts at 1983 which is 13 years after Airbus started. There is a total of 23 Boeing fatal crashes to 1 Airbus fatal crash (US only). Granted, Boeing at the time was bigger... but a ratio of 23:1 is pretty lopsided in favour of Airbus.Now maybe you didn't expect someone to actually check out your source... but apparently even the stats at NTSB is in favour of Airbus.I also checked Airbus vs Boeing on Wiki. It states that Airbus has few incidents than Boeing on "aircraft of the same vintage". So all aircraft built prior to Airbus' conception is not included in the stats, and Airbus still holds the superior safety record.ADDED2: Why is it that NASCAR stock cars don't have iPod connectors, heated mirrors, fold-away seating, or all wheel drive? Although these features are advan! cements in technology and quickly becoming standard features on all cars they are undesirable on a stock car which needs to be lightweight and fast. Similarly, fly-by-wire on an air tanker is undesirable since it limits what the aircraft can do in evasive maneuvering. It's not that fly-by-wire is bad, it's just not desirable for an aircraft with such a specific role. Fly-by-wire is actually advanced, and where aircraft design is headed. The new Boeing 777s are fly by wire. The new 787 is fly by wire. Bombardier's C-Series will be fly-by-wire. Everyone is going towards fly-by-wire so clearly Airbus is doing something right, and has been doing it since 1988... some 20 years earlier than their closest rival....Show more
Johnnie Pummill: Boeing. They pay attention to design, comfort, practicality, and looks, while Airbus seems to care more about looks and comfort, rather than the rest. And since Boeings are assembled in the U.S.A. you can assure that they are well-built! .
Wilmer Skidmore: anything but french
Eldridge Rieves: Boe! ing is the better quality aircraft. Just go to NTSB's website and look at all of airbus' fly-by-wire failures, and structural failures that by far outnumbers the failures of Boeing. Anyone who tries to argue otherwise will fail to take into account the 40+ years Boeing had before airbus' conception, and airbus just takes the Boeing concept, 737, 757/767, 747, and redesigns it with a european touch A320, A330/340, 380 respectively; and airbus doesn't even get it right.Many times during flights, airbus computers would override the pilot upon landing flare, engine run-up, in flight etc, And EADS wonders why America prefers Boeing over the lousy airbus when it comes to building an air tanker. LOL at airbus. They have much to learn. First thing being the pilot should be in control not the computer....Show more
Wilfredo Muldoon: The french build a good airplane ie the Falcon series jet's but the Air Bus is junk. "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going"
Rana Rudell: Both a! irplanes are well made, and it comes down to personal preference, often based on the original design philosohpy...Boeing believes the pilot should be in control of the aircraftAirbus believes the pilot should REQUEST what he wants to do to a series of computers, and the computers decide if they will fulfill the request.I will not hesitate to get on either airplane, but I would prefer to fly a Boeing....Show more
Norris Rosener: Boeing. The French do make delicious bread though.
Rana Rudell: Boeing! They dont fall apart in flight like Airbus does.
Leontine Kreitz: personally I think Airbus tries too hard on looks and comfort and doesn't pay close enough attention to safety. Boeing equals all three of these things out.
Toby Women: 1) It is an excellent aircraft, being compatible to high performance singles like the Cirrus SR22 and Cessna 350 at altitudes most normal light aircraft fly. It costs a fraction of those certified aircraft and can be easily m! odified with practically any feature you want. However it is built to d! ifferent standards, so safety isn't as good and the quality depends on the builder. 2) Like a dream. Pilots have compared it to the North American Mustang. 3) I am guessing either the US has a silly law that requires the builder to complete 51% of the aircraft, or the other posters don't know what they are talking about. The thing is, if you had to build 51% of the aircraft (if you could even quantify that), you could never sell it. But kit planes are sold all the times either in various states of completion or as flyable aircraft. Here in Canada there are several professional builders that sell 'homebuilt' aircraft. The limited profitability in these ventures keeps it more of a cottage industry. 4) Van's Aircraft are the best and most popular; combining the best attributes of many other aircraft. The Velocity RG is faster, but can't be used on rough or short strips. The Murphy Moose can get into small and rough strips, but can't go as fast as the RV-10. Some comparably siz! ed certified aircraft are the Cirrus SR22, the Cessna 350, the Mooney M20 series, the Cessna 182, and the Beechcraft Bonanza....Show more
