Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A320 Series Vs. B737  
User currently offlineFrequentflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 736 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 30624 times:

Folks:

I would like to get a gut feeling from pilots who happen to have flown both 737 and A318/19/20/21.
I am curious as to the difference in handling, beyond the envelope protection provided by software.
Parameters of interest: stability, ability to land in Xwinds, maneuverability, general ease of flying.
Another way of looking at this: take some examples of flight stage or configuration (t/o, level flight, descent, 1-engine out...) and tell us why you may feel more comfortable with one rather than the other.

Thanks!

Pat

-I do not mean at all to start another A vs. B war, as I appreciate both families of aircraft, however I am interest in the comparison.-


Take off and live
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 30603 times:

Well if it did come to an A vs. B war I'd be torn. I guess I'd have to go with Boeing as the home team.

I can address some of this from the perspective of having flown B-733/734 but never the JT-8D version nor the NG. Well, I did fly the NG sim and had some familiarization with the NG. I've also flown A319/320/321. By utter coincidence, I've flown 104 different tail numbers on each type. I have more hours in the Bus but I taught the 737.

I'm going to give you what I feel are the broad strokes about them and let others more current and more specifically informed than I am to fill in details.

First off, I think the 737 was better built and if I was ever to experience something really dire I'd rather be in the Boeing. Think of those pictures you've seen of B-17s returning to England with shocking amounts of battle damage; that is the way I feel about the Boeing products (five types) I've had some experience with. From what I've seen with the upholstery and finish on Airbus products (not safety related - I know) I don't think I'd want to be flying a forty thousand hour Airbus.

Cockpit comfort: Airbus hands down. The Boeing seats hold up to wear better and the sheepskin is really nice (no jokes about layovers in Scotland please) where the Airbus has cheap woven fabric that comes apart in a few years. The airbus though has this wonderful clean, bright, roomy, modern flight deck. In The 737 you have to JAM your flight bag down between the seat and sidewall. That is just a minor annoyance but pulling it UP out of the well again has caused more than one back injury among aging pilot populations.

The 737 is old fashioned because they kept fleet commonality with the -200s so many of their customers already had. The overhead is all toggle switches. It is really quaint. I do not like the Airbus pushbutton/annunciator light combo overhead panel but many do and it is clean and modern. Scanning the overhead you can just read down one side to the the big captions FUEL, HYD, ELEC and so on. Easy to use. Boeing takes a bit more search.

Of course these differences sort of disappear with a few hours in the airplane.

By the way, my favorite overhead panel was the BAe-146 with its rocker switches. Clean, modern AND easy to read. Something that seems to have eluded A and B.

Performance: I guess it really doesn't matter. You load up to what you can lift on this day, so it is more of a bean-counter issue. I know the NGs have absolutely fabulous performance. To take my local airport, Reno, at 4412'MSL for an example: A 737-700 on the hottest day in Reno History could land at maximum certificated landing gross weight, do a quick-turn, and take off at maximum certificated takeoff gross weight. Beyond that - what the hell do you want? That is incredible. For reference, we once chartered a B-737-200 with -7 engines to fly a group of people GEG-RNO. They could not carry 90 people with no luggage and no cargo nonstop. They had to make a fuel stop at BOI. By comparison, GEG is nowhere near the density altitude of RNO.

In the Airbus it sort of seems to boil down to this: The shorter the tube the better the performance. The 319 is pretty hotroddish. The 321 somewhat doggy. For landing purposes I don't like trying shorter fields in the Airbus, especially the 321.

The flight envelope protection on the Bus is really cool and it works quite well. Some might see it as little more than an excuse to cut down on pilot training costs. You hardly even need to know how to fly an airplane to handle the Bus.

Boeing is entirely conventional in this area. It flies like any old jet airliner. Actually they are fairly docile as compared with early Boes, like the 707 but they are best handled by a real jet pilot.

The training program for the Airbus was pretty darn simple. Hardly anything to memorize. Autopilot on for almost everything. My one regret is that the systems instruction is somewhat "dumbed-down" and as a result I don't really know much about them.

Hey, I think that is enough for now. Let someone else jump in with their observations.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 30598 times:

Guess I could add this as a postscript:

In the Boeing I had:

  • An electrical fire. Number 2 generator control unit. Happened on the ground, returned to the gate.

  • Underserviced CSD had to be disconnected in flight. Not Boeings fault.

  • Tire cap separation (not Boeings fault) that ripped the landing gear door off the airplane.



  • In the Airbus I had:

  • Numerous system monitoring faults requiring the Airbus reset. (Not [Crtl] [Alt] [Del] but rather, MX pulls the circuit breaker and waits 30 seconds.)

  • Cracked windshield on initial climb, due to overtemp

  • Engine flameout. Could have been restarted if we'd had the information MX already had about it. Engine out landing was really easy.



  • That is all I can really remember. All that I bothered to write down in my logbook. Neither one of those is bad.

    [Edited 2006-04-03 20:37:47]


    Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
    User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
    Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 30564 times:
    AIRLINERS.NET CREW
    DATABASE EDITOR




    Quoting SlamClick (Reply 1):
    For landing purposes I don't like trying shorter fields in the Airbus, especially the 321.

    As Mel would say...

    "pls elaborate."


     Smile




    2H4





    Intentionally Left Blank
    User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
    Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 30551 times:

    Quoting 2H4 (Reply 3):
    "pls elaborate."

    You know Mel seems like a pretty smart guy. But you have to wonder why he abbrevs "please" and not "elaborate"

    The Airbii seem to want to roll a long ways after landing. The REF speeds don't seem to be inordinately high and the brakes are more than adequate but like Ol' Man River, they just keep rollin' I would be very hesitant about landing the 321 on a runway shorter than 7000' By contrast I once landed a slickwing -10 series DC-9 with a medium load with a 1700' roll. That was extreme but I took it into five thousand footers all the time.

    Maybe with a few more years, a few thousand more hours I'd have gotten used to it and maybe it wouldn't seem that way, but, very subjectively, it seems that they eat a lot of concrete.

    Anyone else feel that way about them?



    Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
    User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
    Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 30547 times:
    AIRLINERS.NET CREW
    DATABASE EDITOR



    Thanks, Slam, that's good stuff as usual.

    Compared to the 737-400, the 321 has a higher wing loading....but I understand higher wing loading would have the opposite effect from what you describe. Might the 321's airframe simply be a bit more slippery in that configuration?




    2H4





    Intentionally Left Blank
    User currently offlineZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1413 posts, RR: 6
    Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 30519 times:

    I'm not as technical as the rest of you guys but I was talking to a newly trained FO with a certain orange-coloured low cost European airline, and his feeling (having spent a little time in a 73G but primarily flying A319s) was that he by far enjoyed flying the A319 over the Boeing. His biggest gripe with the 73G was the pitching up moment experienced when power was applied.

    Really informative stuff as always Slamclick  Smile


    User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4389 posts, RR: 76
    Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 30516 times:
    Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

    Guess I'd have to go with the Airbus as home team
     Smile
    I have flown the old 737 generation , from the -100 series -with UAL FTC in Denver. My first Boeing was named "City of Eugene" and I wonder what happened to it. I wasn't very impressed with its performance (but after all DEN is a mile high).
    I went on to fly all -200s types with all versions of the JT-8, including the outlandish -17 / 200 advanced -rough field equipped TAAG airplanes, complete with balloon tyres and the anti-FOD perch in front of the in takes.That particular type introduced me to the prehistory of the Omega-VLF navigation.
    It was great fun !

    I certainly do not agree with SlamClick's appreciation of the respective builds of both airplanes.Just look at the wrinkles on the fuselage skin of any 737 and you'll get my assessment. Furthermore, the 737 wasn't the aerodynamically cleanest of all airplanes : the number of added-on vortex generators,flow control fences...etc is the proof that a lot of improvements came from flight testing. Viewed from the back, that girl looks positively obscene ! In comparison, a 320 is /looks a lot smoother.
    And the 320s age very well . Last month I flew one -100 with over 55,000 hours. It was delivered in October 1988. The seats were still very comfy.
    The 737 was the last of its generation and , for its time, the cockpit design was truly remarkable , and if anything, the ergonomics have been marred by the slapstick add-ons which appeared on the next generation (FMS and CRT...)

    In terms of handling, there is no comparison. The 73 was sturdy and dependable, quite easy to fly. The 'bus is an absolute delight to work on with an astonishing degree of achievable accuracy.
    I have flown the entire family, from the 321 to the 318 and the unique type-rating allows for some out of routine e changes : the 318 is a dragster, the 319 a hot-rod, the 320 is a Porsche and the 321 has already the feel of a heavy jet , inertia and all, and that undefinable side-to-side reaction to turbulence one would feel on a 744 flight deck.
    SlamClick mentions the landing roll of the 321. I have never had any problem with that. The brakes and the reversers are more than adequate and landing in CDG on the 08 R/ 26 L, exiting via the first high-speed turn off (1300 m from the threshold ) is a no event, even on the 321. And we have quite a few short runways on the network, Cape Skirring comes to my mind, or Malabo.

    Funny SlamClick mentioned a CSD failure, as I , in all probability am the origin of the CSD failure procedure : I disconnected the drive although doing so wasn't part of the check-list, then had an argument with the maintenance engineers, who then apologised after they found out that the gear box was a mess, and we would have certainly ended up with a fire had the CSD been still connected.
    My worst experience with a 737 was the ingestion of a stork just after rotation...The engine blew up, we went around and landed with everybody sick on board (anxiety plus the fumes that went into the conditioning vents, made of kerosene,partly burnt flesh and shit and feathers)... It took three weeks to put that aircraft back on line, the whole cabin had to be torn apart and replaced.



    Contrail designer
    User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
    Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 30504 times:
    AIRLINERS.NET CREW
    DATABASE EDITOR




    Quoting Pihero (Reply 7):
    My first Boeing was named "City of Eugene" and I wonder what happened to it.

    I think I might have found it:

    MSN: 19056
    Line Number: 42
    Model: B737-222
    Engines: JT8D-7B
    Delivery Date: 07/13/68
    Last Known Operator: Air Phillippines
    Registration Number: RP-C2024 N9018U

    Data indicates it was broken up at Manila.




    2H4





    Intentionally Left Blank
    User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16998 posts, RR: 67
    Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 30466 times:

    Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 6):
    His biggest gripe with the 73G was the pitching up moment experienced when power was applied.

    WEll, doesn't Airbus cheat here by countering with FBW logic?

    Quoting Pihero (Reply 7):
    My worst experience with a 737 was the ingestion of a stork just after rotation...

    You're supposed to add "(not Boeing's fault)" Big grin



    "There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
    User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
    Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 30463 times:
    AIRLINERS.NET CREW
    DATABASE EDITOR




    Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 9):
    WEll, doesn't Airbus cheat here by countering with FBW logic?

    Would you really classify that as cheating, though? If you would, then I think the handling characteristics through entire flight envelope would also have to be considered "cheating"...




    2H4





    Intentionally Left Blank
    User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
    Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 30429 times:

    Quoting SlamClick (Reply 1):
    the sheepskin is really nice (no jokes about layovers in Scotland please)

    Ochhh... I'm standing right here!

    Quoting 2H4 (Reply 10):
    Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 9):
    WEll, doesn't Airbus cheat here by countering with FBW logic?

    Would you really classify that as cheating, though? If you would, then I think the handling characteristics through entire flight envelope would also have to be considered "cheating"...

    Starlionblue is a well-known opponent of all the evil that Airbus stands for.  duck 

    SlamClick, Pihero: unlike a lot on the "other" forum, I welcome your opinions, warts 'n all. Thanks.


    User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16998 posts, RR: 67
    Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 30376 times:

    Quoting 2H4 (Reply 10):

    Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 9):
    WEll, doesn't Airbus cheat here by countering with FBW logic?

    Would you really classify that as cheating, though? If you would, then I think the handling characteristics through entire flight envelope would also have to be considered "cheating"...

    As DavidL points out so delicately (ahem...), I'm just being facetious  Wink



    "There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
    User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
    Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 30373 times:
    AIRLINERS.NET CREW
    DATABASE EDITOR



    Ah yes...my apologies. My mind must have been locked in the "defend common sense and logic" mode that is so necessary in other forums....  Wink




    2H4





    Intentionally Left Blank
    User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16998 posts, RR: 67
    Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 30370 times:

    Quoting 2H4 (Reply 13):
    Ah yes...my apologies. My mind must have been locked in the "defend common sense and logic" mode that is so necessary in other forums....

    Hey, keep that "defend common sense and logic" crap in general_aviation and the loony bin (AKA non_aviation AKA where rational people fear to tread AKA why am I even reading this thread AKA don't even think about it AKA oh crap I posted and now I have to follow the trainwreck). We're professionals here.  bigmouth 

    Big grin



    "There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
    User currently offlineSpeedracer1407 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 333 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 30357 times:

    As long as we're talking about differences between the A320 series and 737, I have a question about engine spooling on these planes.

    Recently, i've flown on a few A 320s with NW and a few 738s with CO. Both have the CFM engines, and both FADEC. But at every takeoff, I noticed a small differnce in spool up to takeoff power. For all 5 flights, the engines spooled a bit, waited, then spooled up to T/O thrust. On the 737, the spool to takeoff thrust was slow, and sometimes incremental, with what seemed like minor adjustments in the last seconds of the spoolup. The A320, however, every time, spooled VERY quickly, like 2 seconds or so, to takeoff thrust.

    Is there a difference in the way pilots of either plane select takeoff thrust that might account for the difference in spool time?

    I'll hazard a guess, you know, just in case i've learned anything at all from reading these forums: The Airbus driver bangs the thrust levers into the T/O detent, and the FADEC spools the engines as quickly as possible. The 737 Driver does....i donno...something different.

    O



    Dassault Mercure: the plane that has Boeing and Airbus shaking in their boots.
    User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4389 posts, RR: 76
    Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 30330 times:
    Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

    2H4
    Thanks for the info. A wee bit of sadness to know someone had reduced it to pieces.

    Quoting Speedracer1407 (Reply 15):
    I'll hazard a guess, you know, just in case i've learned anything at all from reading these forums: The Airbus driver bangs the thrust levers into the T/O detent, and the FADEC spools the engines as quickly as possible. The 737 Driver does....i donno...something different.

    You answered your own question.Just change T/O detent with "Flex detent", as a max TOGA thrust is an absolute rarity these days.
    But there are somewhere around a few hard liners - old timers or poets - who would treat these engines with more respect than AI does.



    Contrail designer
    User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
    Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 30326 times:

    Quoting SlamClick (Reply 1):
    but I taught the 737.

    What Subject in Particular.

    Quoting Pihero (Reply 7):
    as I , in all probability am the origin of the CSD failure procedure : I disconnected the drive although doing so wasn't part of the check-list, then had an argument with the maintenance engineers, who then apologised after they found out that the gear box was a mess, and we would have certainly ended up with a fire had the CSD been still connected.

    What Indication & why do you say It wasn't part of your check list.
    Pls Elaborate  Smile sorry folks thought a while but couldn't find a better word than my reliable one .
    CSD Disconnect Indication would be HOT or LOP correct.

    Quoting Pihero (Reply 7):
    My worst experience with a 737 was the ingestion of a stork just after rotation

    Was this JT8D or CFM56.

    regds
    MEL



    Think of the brighter side!
    User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4389 posts, RR: 76
    Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 30317 times:
    Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

    Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 17):
    What Indication & why do you say It wasn't part of your check list.

    Sorry, I typed too fast.I should have written "I am probably the originator of the C/L change".
    A generator failure in flight did not call for a CSD disconnect.On that particular day, after the c/l was done, I still felt uncomfortable ."What if the gen failure was due to a gearbox defect ? in this case, keeping it connected to the engine shaft could lead to a messy salad of gears, rods and ball bearings,no? Oh to hell with it, i disconnect it, the engineers would be furious but our skins here on bord demand it."
    On the JT-8 aircraft, the c/l was quiskly amended to include a CSD disconnect in the event iof a GEN FAIL



    Contrail designer
    User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
    Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 30311 times:

    Quoting Pihero (Reply 18):
    in this case, keeping it connected to the engine shaft could lead to a messy salad of gears, rods and ball bearings,no

    Wouldn't LOP or HOT Indicate.
    regds
    MEL



    Think of the brighter side!
    User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
    Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 30258 times:

    Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 17):
    What Subject in Particular.

    The entire pilot initial except flying procedures which were taught in the simulator. I taught groundschool and a bit in the fixed-base sim. So:

    Aircraft general
    electrical
    hydaulics
    fuel
    powerplant/APU
    fire protection
    pneumatics
    ice protection
    air conditioning and pressurization
    flight controls
    flight instruments
    FMC - Navigation exercises
    performance
    weight & balance
    MEL/CDL

    and maybe a couple topics I don't recall.



    Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
    User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
    Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 30137 times:

    Quoting SlamClick (Reply 20):

    Thats almost the Entire Aircraft.
     bigthumbsup 

    regds
    MEL



    Think of the brighter side!
    User currently offlineWing From Turkey, joined Oct 2000, 1559 posts, RR: 24
    Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 30063 times:

    If I ever have a chance to create the ultimate medium jetliner I would cut the Airbus cockpit and glue it to the 737 body.

    If we go back in the years you can see that the A320 family was ages ahead of its rival -400 series.Even after the improved best selling -800 seies there are lots of specs that the 320 family is still the winning side.

    But on the real life airline operations what really matters is the profit. I flew on both scheduled flag carrier and low cost charter companies.737 can fit into both operations but the 320 is like making a limusine into a taxi cab.I can easily say that the 737 is a really work horse,leads over the 320 family.

    About the flight characteristics;IfI can make a comparison the 737400 is like an experienced old flyer nothing fancy but does the job correct each an every time,the 737800 is like an in-experienced copilot.It sure is more up to date,modern but flying skills not quite reached the same standart as the old one,can go quite nasty on the wind day approaches.

    The 320 family however on the contary to Boeing it goes more stabile as it streches.I generally enjoy the 321 approaches and landings much more than the 320.I make my best landings on the 321 either.Still it can make you a little bit over cautious as it has the biggest risk of "tail strike "of all.

    I was happier with the CFM's when I was flying the 737 series.The climb performance of a full loaded A321 is precarious compared to 737400.If you ever lose your speed while climb its a real pain to gain it back.

    A difference come to my mind now is the Autobrake performance.The 737 has 1,2,3,MAX detends and AB 2 is generally very satisfying.Max (which you really use very rare) makes you feel like an arresting hook feeling.320 family however needs another detend between LOW and MED in my opinion,since low is not very satisfying and MED is more than you need in most cases.Brake fans we have on the 320 is really useful(especially on hot summer days) we have couple of 320s without the brk fans which may require a longer than usual turn around time.

    On the 737 400 we didnt even have brake temp gauges but brake temps were never a big issue.I have experienced my first TO delay due to high brake temps on the 320.(due to very long taxi in Frankfurt and a very short turnaround because of a ferry return)

    On the maintenace perspective I think the 320 is easier to interract between the technician and the airplane,but every cold morning you'll see "bing" chime and some amber failure warning on the ECAM. 737 however almost makes you feel like it will fly in every condition.

    Airbus cockpit philosopy is way too easier than the Boeing,It almost reduces the risk of forgetting something to "0".Take off and landing memos and the ECAM are really really good and useful to have in your hands.Also under the emergency conditions Bus helps you way too much than the Boeing,which is very good.

    About the envelope protection;
    I would like to stress that you barely feel that it is there,in your daily flight operations.It is not designed to take controls from the pilot on a normal cruise or approach,it helps you to save your airplane from an upset condition(or not even get into it)
    I've watched a demonstration of a responce to a GPWS alert with the FBW airbus and other conventional airplanes.320 was way too much safely cleared the terrain compared to conventionals.

    Well thats about it comes to my mind at the moment...



    Widen your world
    User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
    Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 30062 times:

    Quoting Wing (Reply 22):
    About the envelope protection;
    I would like to stress that you barely feel that it is there,in your daily flight operations.

    Exactly! If you are flying the thing properly and not like a ham-fisted student you will never see it at work. In fact you should be really scared before it ever intervenes.

    I would also mention that as a passenger I prefer the Airbus by a wide margin. The small bit of extra width is just the space I needed for my elbows. I know Boeing doesn't manufacture their own seats, I assume that Airbus does not either. Furthermore the customer dictates which seats, and the pitch at which they are set, but on long-haul, say three or more hours, the 737 is torture.



    Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
    User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16998 posts, RR: 67
    Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 29993 times:

    Quoting SlamClick (Reply 23):
    I would also mention that as a passenger I prefer the Airbus by a wide margin. The small bit of extra width is just the space I needed for my elbows. I know Boeing doesn't manufacture their own seats, I assume that Airbus does not either. Furthermore the customer dictates which seats, and the pitch at which they are set, but on long-haul, say three or more hours, the 737 is torture.

    The airframer may not make the interior, but the operator is always constrained by the internal dimensions so the make does have some effect as you say.



    "There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
    Top Of Page
    Forum Index

    Reply To This Topic A320 Series Vs. B737
    Username:
    No username? Sign up now!
    Password: 


    Forgot Password? Be reminded.
    Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
    • Tech/Ops related posts only!
    • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
    • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
    • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
    • Do not post copyright protected material.
    • Use relevant and describing topics.
    • Check if your post already been discussed.
    • Check your spelling!
    • DETAILED RULES
    Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

    Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


    Similar topics:More similar topics...
    A320 Series And Mountain Wave Turbulence posted Thu Jan 19 2006 21:27:06 by Georgetown
    A320 Series Up For FAA Checks Following JetBlue posted Fri Nov 25 2005 14:07:43 by Julesmusician
    A320 Series Reverse Thrust Activation posted Tue Apr 13 2004 22:33:42 by LHSebi
    A320 Series Trans-atlantic Flights posted Wed Mar 24 2004 02:39:39 by Cancidas
    A320 Series Single Engine TAS posted Thu Feb 19 2004 14:02:56 by Zeke
    A320 Series Cargo Door Question posted Tue Jul 29 2003 19:47:58 by Flyboy80
    A320/B737 Series Training Aids (CD) posted Mon Mar 8 2004 22:12:10 by Starline
    B737 Vs A320 Whine posted Tue Feb 19 2002 00:48:18 by Pelforthb
    B737 Series Max Fuel On Board posted Wed Nov 16 2005 18:09:22 by HAWK21M
    B737-7-8-9 & A320-1 Question posted Fri Apr 15 2005 07:01:51 by TACAA320
    A320 Series Structural Strenght? posted Tue Feb 17 2009 18:01:45 by B767
    A320 Series Engines posted Tue Aug 28 2007 15:01:22 by Musapapaya
    A320 Series-after Arrival: Screens Down And Up? posted Mon Aug 27 2007 12:35:56 by Glidepath73
    A320 Series And Mountain Wave Turbulence posted Thu Jan 19 2006 21:27:06 by Georgetown
    A320 Series Up For FAA Checks Following JetBlue posted Fri Nov 25 2005 14:07:43 by Julesmusician
    A320 Series Reverse Thrust Activation posted Tue Apr 13 2004 22:33:42 by LHSebi
    A320 Series Trans-atlantic Flights posted Wed Mar 24 2004 02:39:39 by Cancidas
    A320 Series Single Engine TAS posted Thu Feb 19 2004 14:02:56 by Zeke
    A320 Series Up For FAA Checks Following JetBlue posted Fri Nov 25 2005 14:07:43 by Julesmusician
    A320 Series Reverse Thrust Activation posted Tue Apr 13 2004 22:33:42 by LHSebi
    A320 Series Trans-atlantic Flights posted Wed Mar 24 2004 02:39:39 by Cancidas
    A320 Series Single Engine TAS posted Thu Feb 19 2004 14:02:56 by Zeke

    Sponsor Message:
    Printer friendly format