No bud that would be you, Sabenapilot was not firing at anybody as you were.
Lehpron, Sabenapilot was clearly firing off his anti-Boeing nonsense with his statements, READ THEM:
I do not see how you can measure who has the better forecast model: Airbus, designing a whole range of new planes to make sure they offer the most advanced plane in EVERY single category, or Boeing, who has an aging product line on all categories and has picked only one category to modernize...
That's completely false, since Boeing has families of aircraft just as modern that match Airbus's competing familes. If his statements were true, and all but one of Boeing's aircraft families were old and aging, Boeing would hardly sell a thing these days.
Throughout this entire thread it was more or less peacefull until you 'got emotional and defensive'.
Why am I suddenly being emotional and defensive if I just respond to Sabena's comments? I guess it's ok with you if someone bashes Boeing to no extent without backing themselves up Lehpron, but when someone tries to counter it with facts, that's
where the problem starts.
To be more "technologiacally advanced" like you were arguing it does but as i say operating costs outweighs advancement.
FBW is not the biggest thing in determining how modern and advanced a commercial airliner is. Besides, it would've probably cost Boeing a lot more to put a FBW system in the 737NG, when it really would not be required. The "old" system works just fine still to this day.
and as you don't know every single thing about operating costs you're in no position to comment
Right, so if I'm not a professional CBA analyst, I can't comment. So, why do you think you can comment at this stage? I smell the word "hypocrite" here.
Aah, I see that NWA742 is up to his old ways again... How I loved the days when he threw his standard hissy fit on 90% of the threads in which Airbus or Boeing were mentioned, be it under his previous screenname. He's so easily riled up
Hello Scorpio, I'm so glad to see to see you again.
I'm not throwing a hissy fit anywhere, I'd like you to point out where the hissy fit is. You seem to be the one getting emotional about this, not me. In "90% of those threads that mentioned Boeing or Airbus", there were constant A vs. B battles between several members, it takes two to argue and to fight, and you could include yourself in there as well.
Oh, and I'm easily riled up? Right, look at yourself here. You were obviously so riled up by my simple post you felt the need to come personally attack me, nice job.
That would be McDonnell Douglas who developed it BTW, I don't seem to remember seeing Sabenapilot say anything about the 717 not being developed, he just said Airbus developed the modern A318.
MDC developed the DC-9, Boeing modernized it completely with the 717. The only thing those two aircraft have in common might be some fuselage parts, but that's about it. Boeing started, and produced the 717, not MDC.
You're right, Sabena was mentioning just the A318, and I simply reminded him that Boeing also has a modern 100-seater, called the 717. That was just a response in his argument that Airbus has more modern planes in every category, and that Boeing's are all old except for one. That argument is completely false.
The 747-400 was a modernised 747 Classic, the A320 was an all-new design. You simply can't put all the stuff in a modernised design that you put in an all-new design.
So what if it's modernized from an old aircraft? Why would Boeing spend unbelievable amounts of money to develop a completely new jumbo when they could completely update the 747? There's nothing wrong with having a modernized aircraft, it doesn't make it any less of a modern plane simply because it shares a few old main parts. Also, from several Boeing engineers' points of view, just about everything but the main fuselage parts CAN
You guys use this old argument all the time, and it clearly holds no water. Boeing has obviously proved it wrong time and time again.
A quick example:
The 737NG is a modernized classic 737, but it performs right up to the new design of the A32X family. Boeing was smart to not do a new design, because they are capably of modernizing old designs to be able to perform to the same standards as new designs.
Let's look at the 747-400's competitors (and look at it widely, i.e. all currently offered long-haul planes): 777, 7e7, A330, A340, A380. All of these are technologically quite a bit more advanced than the 747-400. And that's not putting the 744 down, it's just a simple fact.
That's a fact, but none of those are direct competitors to the 744. Boeing hasn't updated the 744 because the market for that size is diminishing. Boeing HAS, however, developed more modern and advanced aircraft to compete with Airbus's line of modern products, these being the ones who directly compete, like the A333/A340, 777. 7E7, A332, etc.
Yes, the 737NG is younger than the A32X. But it's debatable whether it's more modern or not.
Yes, it's debatable whether it's more modern or not, but you're forgetting the point of my argument. I'll I'm saying is that Boeing has families of aircraft just as modern as Airbus' competing families. That was the whole point in responding to Sabena.
Don't you think that, if the 757 had really 'killed off' the A321, the A321 would be the one currently going out of production?
No, because the A321 began at a later date, and basically costs Airbus nothing to keep it running if they need to. This will be true as long as they produce the other line of A32X aircraft.
Also don't forget that the A321 has only been around half as long as the 757, and, as a quite simple derivative, cost far less to develop.
Very true, however, since the A321 came out, it really hasn't slowed 757 sales at all. What's slowing 757 sales is the dwindle of the market for that type of aircraft, that's why both Boeing and Airbus are not offering any new projects for that market. The 757 is ending without a replacement, there's probably a reason for it.
How many new customers did the 767 get after the A330-200 became available? When the A330-200 came to the market, 767 sales came to a grinding halt, relatively speaking.
What makes you think I don't know this?? You purposely left out my comment from my previous post:
A330 has gradually killed off 767 sales
The A330 has been getting the sales, but that doesn't dispute the fact that the 767 still remains the common backbone for long twin travel. It's crosses the Atlantic more than any other plane these days I think.
Going around personally attacking people because they said something you don't agree with!
Wasn't really a personal attack, just telling Sabena to look at both sides of the story and to quit posting anti-Boeing nonsense. If I called him an idiot for doing that, that's more of an attack, but I didn't.
It got you banned twice in the past, with two of your usernames. You'd think after all that time you'd have learned something..
Actually, you have no clue as to what got me banned, you are wrong. And speaking of personal attacks, look at what you've said regarding me in your posts. Yeah, I'm
the one that needs to learn something from personal attacks.
Some people are like slinkies - not good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs