Print from discussion forum

Topic: RE: CX747
Username: MD-11
Posted 1999-02-03 21:37:45 and read 599 times.

Since the stuff is getting to be so far down the message list, I'll post this at the top...

The point was that if Boeing has the 747 to which Airbus can't compete, then Airbus has the A340 to whose range Boeing can't compete. They both have something that in some way is "superior" to the other. United777 said that Boeing could easily build something with the range of the A340. Well, just as well Airbus could easily build something with the abilities of the 747, which they are doing sort of, with the A3XX.

"United777 was correct is reinterpreting what I said. "

I don't think it should be up to other people to interpret correctly what you said. You said Airbuses are junk. I think one of the forum rules was that one should not intentionally post something that is misleading or untrue, and post it as a fact. Saying that airbuses are junk, is misleading and untrue etc. Thanks

Topic: RE: CX747
Username: KL808
Posted 1999-02-03 22:31:04 and read 598 times.

Thank you very much MD-11, for pointing that out.


Topic: RE: CX747
Username: Mirage
Posted 1999-02-03 23:14:04 and read 598 times.

""United777 was correct is reinterpreting what I said. "

I don't think it should be up to other people to interpret correctly what you said. You said Airbuses are junk. I think one of the forum rules was that one should not intentionally post something that is misleading or untrue, and post it as a fact. Saying that airbuses are junk, is misleading and untrue etc. Thanks"

I totally agree with MD-11. You should think twice before post the Airbuses are junk.

Mirage, Faro, Portugal

P.S. My favourite plane is the 747-400

Topic: RE: CX747
Username: BryanG
Posted 1999-02-03 23:22:44 and read 598 times.

In comparing the ranges of the A340 and 744, I'd say that range is less of an issue than everyone is making it out to be. Sure, it's very true that the A340 can fly way farther than the 744, but the longest flight in the world is still Chicago-Hong Kong and that's done with the 744. Though the A340 has range, no airlines capitalize on that advantage in any way.

Topic: RE: El Al/CX747
Username: johans
Posted 1999-02-03 23:24:40 and read 599 times.

In my opinion, El Al should:
-already drop Boeing from the bidding process, due to the multiple errors, some of which could have been fatal,and others which plain are annoying (i'm talking about condensation and rain/snow INSIDE the cabin) and the design of the airplanes doe not suit El Al's refined image at all (this is why Finnair never has ordered a Boeing airplane except for the 757-200, which is the only good airplane Boeing makes), because, in my opinion, i would never buy a Boeing airplane until cows (beside the 747) fly.

- award Airbus the contract for it's A330's/A340's, due to their popularity, good reputation, fly-by-wire controls(sometimes can be a negative), and to join the growing ranks of airlines operating the A330/340 aircraft family (including Virgin Atlantic, a VERY nice airline by the way)

Hyvaa Paivan Jatkoa kaikkille!


Topic: RE: El Al/CX747
Username: TAD
Posted 1999-02-04 01:57:51 and read 598 times.

If Airbus make it it is IMHO Junk!

If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.


Topic: RE: El Al/CX747
Username: Singapore 777-3
Posted 1999-02-04 11:22:19 and read 598 times.

I totally agree with MD-11, Mirage and johans. For one thing is that Airbus is only a 20-odd year old company and Boeing is a historically-rich company. Isn't it obvious that Boeing should be able to build better planes? But so far, have their planes really been much better than Airbuses? I really don't think so!

Yes, of course, the 747 is superior in its own way but since A340 is such a "weak" plane as some of you point out, why do airlines still purchase it? Don't give me that government crap thingey. The thing is...from a passenger point of view, the Airbus is definitely more comfortable than the Boeing, anyday, even if technically it is not as good. As long as the plane can takeoff, cruise and land safely, it is a good plane, Boeing or Airbus, or even EMB, ATR...

Topic: RE: CX747
Username: aviator_ua
Posted 1999-02-04 12:18:39 and read 598 times.

Why do the airlines prefer Boeings?
Certainly, you cant argue with those numbers.

Topic: RE: CX747
Username: CX747
Posted 1999-02-04 22:37:28 and read 598 times.

Hello gentlemen, just the man that you want to hear from. First of all BOEING OUTESELLS AIRBUS ALMSOT EVERY YEAR. That is also without their governments help. Second, Airbus and Airbus lovers live in a fantasy land where pax, cargo and range are not important, just cockpit commonality and cool cockpit colors. Third, the A340 is a VERY WEAK aircraft, the only thing that it can do is fly far but if you look at reality (Something Airbus and Airbus lovers don't do) you will see that with the number of pax you can carry it is unprofitable and a foolish business move to make. That is why the 747-400 and earlier models are still the long haul models of preference. Fourth, look at the number of airlines operating the A330/340 in the name of cockpit commonality in comparison to operating the 747-400 and 777. I gurantee that you will only find 2 or 3 airlines operating both the A330 and A340. Then look to see the number operating the Boeing brothers. Why is it you ask? PAX + CARGO + RANGE= PROFITABILITY. The 747 and 777= Profitability. Fifth, please don't tell me that hte A3XX is a possibility. 12 BILLION dollars development cost for an airplane whose interest is now waning at best? Well, maybe it is a possibility because Airbus does live in a fantasy land. Sixth, Boeing has the "backdoor" covered with the 747-200ERX, 747-400X and 747-700 along with the shelved -500 and 600. Seventh, if I read one more person saying the A320 is better than the 737 I am going to go mad. IT IS THREE INCHES WIDER. Wow, that is a lot of room! Eighth, the 737NG not the A320 is the fastest selling aircraft of all time with 886 ordered from Nov 93 onward. Ninth, I will now provide factual information for all the doubters.


B737-800 A320-200
Range: 3,352 Miles 3,450 Miles
Pax: 162 150
MTOW: 174,200lbs 169,800lbs
Cargo: 15,910lbs 12,100lbs

B757-200 A321-200
Range: 4,543 Miles 3,100 Miles
Pax: 201 185
MTOW: 255,000lbs 196,200lbs
Cargo: 17,070lbs 13,500lbs

B767-400ER A330-200
Range: 5,800 Miles 5,219 Miles
Pax: 261-304 253-380
MTOW: 456,000lbs 507,060lbs
Cargo: 53,700lbs 51,900lbs

B777-200 A330-300
Range: 5,988 Miles 6,300 Miles
Pax: 301-440 295-440
MTOW: 545,000lbs 606,300lbs
Cargo: 125,000lbs 41,400lbs

B747-400 A340-300
Range: 8,430 Miles 7560 Miles
Pax: 416-524 295-440
MTOW: 875,000lbs 606,300lbs
Cargo: 155,720lbs 45,000lbs

B747-200ERX A340-500/600
Range: 8,300 Miles 9,800/8,600 Miles
Pax: 355-380 313/380
MTOW: 910,000lbs 804,700/804,700lbs

Topic: RE: CX747
Username: CX747
Posted 1999-02-04 22:43:58 and read 598 times.

Mistake: A330-300 MTOW 478,400lbs

I hope that I have provided insight for Boeing and Airbus lovers. I enjoy the challenging of data and wits and hope it continues. Long live the forum.

Topic: RE: CX747
Username: Satchmo
Posted 1999-02-05 14:40:09 and read 599 times.

I don't know what you want to prove with your strange comparisons CX747, aside from the impression I have that you and United 777 are a bit narrow minded and want to silence people who have a different opinion. If you would have only a slight understanding of airline operations and the selling and buying of airliners, you would stop making foolish comments which are not backed by a single fact. The evaluation and selection of an airliner for a single airline depends on a bunch of parameters and what may be important for one airline may be not for another. The airline world is complicated and what you are trying to do is to (over)simplify a complex bussiness and try to sell as a fact what you believe in.

Topic: RE: Satchmo
Username: CX747
Posted 1999-02-05 16:26:24 and read 598 times.

You must be an Airbus lover in "fantasy land". What am I trying to prove? Look at the information yourself, you will see that the Boeing aircraft constantly fly farther, carry more pax and cargo. They also operate as efficiently. That is what I am trying to prove. No more cheap talk just facts and the facts back up what us Boeing supporters are saying.

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

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.