Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/56126/

Topic: Forum Hipacrits
Username: Flying_727
Posted 1999-11-12 00:04:39 and read 1144 times.

I have noticed that when a boeing fan says someting bad about airbus, a airbus fan gets upset. Well then why do you airbus fans keep saying stuff bad about boeing aircraft. Some of you need to think about what you are saying befor you say it.

thanks
Flying_727

Topic: RE: Forum Hipacrits
Username: CaptPeter
Posted 1999-11-12 00:15:18 and read 830 times.

That's a good thing to say 727, I always use to say that to myself when i wondered about how people complained so much about the planes. Why do they hate them so much?

If you hate Airbuses Boeing people, Why do you hate airbuses so much?

If you hate Boeing's Airbus people, why do you hate them so much?

If you hate them because someone else doesn't like them or you don't like their performance or record or how they look, quit whining. You usually don't have a choice when you book a flight anyway, and if you go on a plane you don't like, so what, you will only be on it for a few hours anyway. I think people should take 727's advice seriously this time.

Topic: RE: Forum Hipacrits
Username: Ben2
Posted 1999-11-12 00:17:05 and read 817 times.

I think you should also think before you type . It's true that people get rather heated on the debate you describe, but the thread you just started has nothing to do with aviation and could cause an argument. It should be deleted.

Topic: RE: Forum Hipacrits
Username: CaptPeter
Posted 1999-11-12 00:25:38 and read 802 times.

What the heck? What has come to this forum? It's a dump now...now I remember why I left so long ago. Why can't people be allowed to post non-aviation type posts? It has plenty to do with aviation, the argument of people hating certain manufacterer's aircraft. I think people should read over the posts they are replying too as well and thinking about what they will post before they post it.

Topic: RE: Forum Hypocrites
Username: Cedarjet
Posted 1999-11-12 00:36:36 and read 802 times.

I am a big fan of Airbus and American companies do not have a divine right to monopoly markets overseas, even if they think they do. Airbus is a good lesson for all American companies and policy makers. That said, Boeing was my first love and the initial series of planes they built - 707, 727, 737, 747 - I love more than any single Airbus design, and they changed the whole world and made it a lot smaller. Most contributors I suspect feel the same way however their loyalties lie - the most ardent Boeing fan must be thankful that AI mean Boeing have to make better planes. And no AI fanatic can deny what Boeing have done to make the planet smaller, and of course the mighty 747 will never be beaten in the heart of any true aviation-lover.

I don't think I have seen any views expressed which are irrational - anyway, I think the Tupolev Tu-134 is the best jetliner, and is the safest plane to cross the Pacific in. Those of you who disagree can go to hell. What? It's time for my medication?

Topic: RE: Forum Hipacrits
Username: Ben2
Posted 1999-11-12 00:40:53 and read 797 times.

Sorry if I can across as mean, but do you really think this is going to get valuble, meaningful conversation? Bottom line is, the people who are the hypocrits are immature, ignorant idiots who will never come to their senses and think rationally. How often have you seen "scarebus junk" or the "737's rudder problem" presented as an argument? That's what pisses people off, arguments with no validity, and that's why everyone rags on eachother and points fingers. When you get down to it, there is no argument, everyone starts yelling at eachother and presents no meaningful points. Even if somebody does think rationally, they'll probably get blasted. Anyways, those who are immature will not change, I guarantee it. In my opinion it will never get solved and I felt that the thread will just cause some problems... if I've offended anyone I am truly sorry. Sorry for the speech, this is just what I have observed on this board for the past 8 months or so.

Topic: RE: Forum Hypocrites
Username: Iainhol
Posted 1999-11-12 00:42:40 and read 795 times.

When you don't even spell hypocrites correctly anyone can and will take you seriously. It is against the rule to make spelling errors. CaptPeter it is also one of the rules that the topic must be aviation related. Talking about people on the forum is not aviation related. Us airbus people do not mind you saying that the 320 is not good because...... But all you seem to do is say the first part of the sentence The 320 is not good. If you backed your point up with some facts (another forum rule) then we can discuss the difference. I have not seen you say why airbus is inferior to Boeing (in your mind) and that is what winds us all up. I will put money on that you have no good reasons to like Boeing more.
Iain

Topic: RE: Forum Hypocrites
Username: CaptPeter
Posted 1999-11-12 00:54:59 and read 786 times.

I see no one is how I remember them and Iainhol is one of the few veterans that i remember from back in 98. Well pardon me for being old fashioned and not seeing the new rules lately but if you check back into the archives for way way way back in late 98 that you will notice that lots of things were off topic but were fun to post and an argument only rarely erupted from that. Those days were funner, and people were nicer. I don't recall a time where people were made fun off for their opinions like they have now or were shouted down for something they did not know like people do now. Tsk Tsk tsk.

And you people are getting off topic as well, the topic was supposed to be onto that people should think of what they post before they post it and why airbus lovers hate boeings and vise verse. The replies are turning into how airbus is not inferior to boeing and vise versa... Screw the bloody rules, the only rules people used back in 98 were to respect people opinions and don't use vulgar language and not much else, now you have to be aviation related, have to support your posts, blah blah blah. Garbage in my opinion whichis supported by the fact it was so different back in 98

Topic: RE: Forum Hypocrites
Username: Das Flugzeug
Posted 1999-11-12 01:10:02 and read 782 times.

Hey, I'm with Capt'n Pete, I'll talk about anything, as long as people remain civilized. Anyone want to talk about Reverse Combustibators?

It should be fun too!

Topic: RE: Forum Hipacrits
Username: Mirage
Posted 1999-11-12 01:19:35 and read 789 times.

If you think the rules are garbage what are you doing here Mr98? a little respect for Johan would be nice. I was here also in 98 and the administrator was also Johan Lundgren, he knows what he's doing.


Topic: Mirage, Iainhol
Username: BOEING 737-300
Posted 1999-11-12 02:13:53 and read 768 times.

Right words, Mirage !

Iainhol, please, don't restart your famous "corrector games", okay ?

Thank you very much.

Topic: RE: Forum Hipacrits
Username: Flying_727
Posted 1999-11-12 02:14:56 and read 770 times.

Iainhol

That is exactly what i mean when you say "i bet money that you can't find reasons to like boeing more"
You are judging others choices

and this aviation related b/c it shows how people treat others. Like CaptPeter said "it shows the argument of people hating some manufactures"

thanks
flying_727

Topic: Flying 727
Username: Iainhol
Posted 1999-11-12 02:27:07 and read 763 times.

I am not judging your choices at all but if you have not support them they seem pretty worthless when we are trying to discuss the difference between aircraft and the best thing you come up with is:
I would rather have a Boeing as Airbus suck.

That means nothing and does not comply with the rules we have in here. I do not care if you like Boeing or Airbus but if you back you claims up with some interesting facts and research you have done in making your choices it would make this place better.

Discussing how people act in this forum has nothing to do with aviation!
Iain

Topic: How's This For Interesting
Username: Boeingrulz
Posted 1999-11-12 02:56:15 and read 763 times.

Aviation fanatics, it seems, should like all airplanes. Whether you admire a particular manufacturer's planes more than another may be a subjective decision, something personal. The Portuguese have a great saying, translated loosely, tastes can't be discussed. They are wise people because they realize that discussing tastes is dangerous and it is usually better to agree to disagree. A mature discussion starts from the understanding that everyone is entitled to their own likes and dislikes. Only with this understanding can we have a forum that is enjoyable to all.

Topic: Airbus And Soul Cleansing
Username: Pilot1113
Posted 1999-11-12 04:21:20 and read 759 times.

Okay, it's time I got some soul cleansing and "purge myself of all the evil demons from within my soul... amen! I can't hear you... AMEN!!!"

My side of the Airbus/Boeing arguement is built around Airbus' philosophy of designing the pilot out of the cockpit. I don't like the fact that everything the pilot does goes thru a computer first and then it (the computer) decides if it's a good or bad command, then executes it (depending). What if something goes wrong that the programmers never thought of? A computer only knows how much it's been programmed.

Let's say an engine prylon is damaged and the engine manages to go up and over the wing and rips out the hydrolics on it's way over (like what happened to the AA DC-10). Now the designers/manufacturers probably considered this possiblity so minute that they thought it 'impossible' to happen and so didn't program the computer to recognize this would happen. What happens when it does? True the DC-10 did crash...

A better example would be the UAL 232 disaster. Again, it was another DC-10. The center engine exploded and sent shrapnel flying. Pieces of the fan disc severed the hydrolic lines and jammed between both the right and left ailerons. The crew had to invent a way to get that plane on the ground. If that aircraft was designed like an Airbus, I WILL bet anyone here $200 million that they wouldn't have made it to Sioux City.

How many times have you tried to get Word to do something you could have easily done on hand but couldn't do using the program?

A computer allows for no invention at all. If there is a unique problem with the aircraft and you must invent a way to get it on the ground, the computer won't let you. This has got to be incredibly frustrating (not to mention scary) knowing that you can do something to save the aircraft and it's occupants, but the computer won't let you.

I like Boeing's philosophy much better. They believe the final say rests with the pilot. They make it difficult for the pilot to disable the computer, but not impossible. If he wants to stall the aircraft, the computer pushes up the throttle. If he continues, an indicator illuminates on the EFIS display. If he still presists, horns and bells go off. If he still presists, the stick shaker comes on. If he still presists, a voice comes on "stall... stall... stall" If the pilot lets go of the yoke (and it must be noted that he must physically hold the throttles back, else they automatically go full foward) and the throttle, the computer takes over and recovers. The pilot can put the aircraft into a full stall if he/she shall desire. I'm not advocating that the pilot should do this. I'm just trying illustrate a point here.

A footnote: the forces on the yoke, as you get closer to the stall, increase significantly. A pilot must get his copilot into the action to stall the aircraft because the forces are too much.

If any of you are wondering how I know this... I saw a video on the testing of airliners for one of my classes here at Purdue University. During a video the camera crew was aboard for the inflight testing of an MD-11 and the test pilot narriated his actions step-by-step.

As for the bitterness that is witnessed in this forum, I agree there is way too much here. We need to lighten up. One person posted a message poking fun at F/A's announcements and he received alot of angry messages. It was only in good humor... but unfortunately most people aren't.

I hope this follows the rules and illustrates my point. Let me know if you need more information.

Thank you,

Neil Harrison

Topic: RE: Forum Hipacrits
Username: LBSteve
Posted 1999-11-12 16:20:49 and read 714 times.

Can we all agree (at least from a passenger’s perspective) that the differences between Airbus and Boeing is less obvious? I think unless you’re an aviation enthusiast like us your not going to pay much attention both will come across as very able aircraft for the job. It ultimately comes down to the Airline and the quality of service they provide.

Topic: RE: Airbus And Soul Cleansing
Username: Exnonrev
Posted 1999-11-12 19:43:29 and read 702 times.

Amen Neil! I've been wanting to give my opinion on the Boeing v. Airbus thing for a long time. I haven't because of all the childish stuff associated with it on this board. Like Neil I just want to say my peace and not argue with anyone.

I think Neil is absolutely right about AI's design philosophy. FBW is fine for an F-16. After all, if there's a catastrophic FBW system or electrical failure (F-16s have had plenty) the pilot can always pull the little black and yellow striped handle. Airline pax don't have that option. Boeing's philosophy makes the most sense to me because there are times when the two computers sitting up front have to override the a/c's computers.

My other concern is the misconception of some of AI's defenders equating Boeing's military contracts with AI's government subsidies. The US Government is just another Boeing customer. It has often been said here that since DOD pays most of the development costs for military aircraft, it's the same as a subsidy. There probably wouldn't be a 747 if Pan Am hadn't put up much of its development costs. Other airlines have done the same for other new aircraft, just as DOD and foreign military customers do for military a/c.

It's different at AI. The member countries provide much of AI's funding either by ownership of consortium companies or direct subsidy. I may be mistaken, but to my knowledge the governments of France, Germany, Britain or Spain have yet to buy a new AI product for government use. (not including state-owned airlines) It's not a subsidy when the customer is the one paying the bills.

And yes, AI does take unfair advantage of its subsidized operation. That's not to say that Boeing is innocent of throwing its weight around and bullying potential and existing customers either. They have done plenty.

Does this mean I hate Airbus and its supporters? Of course not. Other than FBW they are excellent airplanes that have done much to make Boeing's products better. I just don't agree with some of their business practices or government ownership of business in general.

Topic: RE: Forum Hipacrits
Username: LH423
Posted 1999-11-14 00:39:38 and read 681 times.

I say that the ageing topic of Airbus vs. Boeing cannot be done. If a topic is posted about an airline buying Airbus and not Boeing (or vice versa) somehow the argument goes to why one product is superior. That topic is so overdone that it is basically the same people saying the same things, over, and over, and over, and over... The world of aviation is a continuum, constantly changing, I think we can find somethng else to constantly argue about.

LH423


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/