Hi all,

I had a couple questions about performance numbers for for both aircraft and how airlines evaluate the two options.

A.) I would assume cost per mile, maintence, and turn around times as well as bottom line cost to purchase the a/c is the deciding factors. With both companies stating they have the superior a/c are there reliable places to find out which a/c is the better performing a/c?

B.) real world performance once an aircraft is acquired by a carrier.
I was wondering if those numbers were shared from airline to airline? And how far off they are usually from the manufacturers claims?

C.) based on sales is it incorrect to assume carriers have determined that the A320neo is the superior a/c?
If that's true what is it that makes it the better a/c
Boeing makes strong claims that it has a better performing aircraft than airbus-yet airbus wins the sales.

Airbus is better.

Unless you prefer Boeing, in which case the Max is better.

Either way, one of them is better, and probably the one you want to be better.

On the A321neo, I think it is pretty obvious that the Airbus is the performance winner by a wide margin versus the Max9 - hence the reason for the development of the Max10. The market has spoken, loud and clear - the Max10 is a response to try to mitigate the losses and offer a competitive machine.

With the Max9, you have a stretch of a stretch of a stretch of a stretch - there's just no more left in that frame, and I'm skeptical that the Max10 is going to be as good as they claim. Even still, it will be sub-optimal. I am very surprised that the FAA hasn't stepped in yet, as this really pushes the limits of the original 737 certificate and the grandfathering certification. At the very best, it will bring it close enough in performance numbers to the A321neo that it will be worth buying, especially when Boeing throws in the deal sweeteners.

kurtverbose wrote:

Airbus is better.

Unless you prefer Boeing, in which case the Max is better.

Either way, one of them is better, and probably the one you want to be better.

Thank you for a great laugh, right in the airport as I look out and see a sea of 737's and 320's taxiing about.


I am curious too, and I will get the numbers right out of the computer when a certain airline gets theirs delivered. Though I am critical of one airframer just following and then blatantly copying Boeing in many regards, the 737 has become an embarrassment. Always too narrow, always too low, always too loud, always less safe without flight control protections - always playing catch up.
Unlike the 737-800 vs 320 CEO, I think the performance numbers will show the 737 Max lagging in fuel efficiency vs the NEO, and if so, that would make the 737 second/last place in measurable category besides maintenance costs (which I know nothing about) and purchase price.

The 737: One of the greatest things pertaining to aviation in the 20th century, the worth thing to happen to aviation in the 21st century.

Mutt wrote:

I am curious too, and I will get the numbers right out of the computer when a certain airline gets theirs delivered. Though I am critical of one airframer just following and then blatantly copying Boeing in many regards, the 737 has become an embarrassment. Always too narrow, always too low, always too loud, always less safe without flight control protections - always playing catch up.
Unlike the 737-800 vs 320 CEO, I think the performance numbers will show the 737 Max lagging in fuel efficiency vs the NEO, and if so, that would make the 737 second/last place in measurable category besides maintenance costs (which I know nothing about) and purchase price.

Less safe? How about losing all hyds on A320?
By the way, wasn't the A320 crash in France attributed to supposedly flight control protections refusing to pull up?

benbeny wrote:

Less safe? How about losing all hyds on A320?

I guess losing all hydraulics on a 737 is not much better. And IMU the A320 was certified under later and more demanding regulations than the 737.

benbeny wrote:

By the way, wasn't the A320 crash in France attributed to supposedly flight control protections refusing to pull up?

IIRC alpha protection kicked in. This bird was to slow and to low. A computer can prevent you from doing wrong things but not from doing stupid things.

b.

As I said.....Airbus is better.

Unless you prefer Boeing, in which case the Max is better.

Either way, one of them is better, and probably the one you want to be better.

I believe that statistics show the A3xx and 737 series aircraft have very similar safety records. So wrong on the "less safe" claim.

Mutt wrote:

kurtverbose wrote:

Airbus is better.

Unless you prefer Boeing, in which case the Max is better.

Either way, one of them is better, and probably the one you want to be better.

Thank you for a great laugh, right in the airport as I look out and see a sea of 737's and 320's taxiing about.


I am curious too, and I will get the numbers right out of the computer when a certain airline gets theirs delivered. Though I am critical of one airframer just following and then blatantly copying Boeing in many regards, the 737 has become an embarrassment. Always too narrow, always too low, always too loud, always less safe without flight control protections - always playing catch up.
Unlike the 737-800 vs 320 CEO, I think the performance numbers will show the 737 Max lagging in fuel efficiency vs the NEO, and if so, that would make the 737 second/last place in measurable category besides maintenance costs (which I know nothing about) and purchase price.

The 737: One of the greatest things pertaining to aviation in the 20th century, the worth thing to happen to aviation in the 21st century.

This is the most ridiculous statement ever. The 737 isn't any less safe than an airbus...that is mythical thinking.

It's not significantly louder either. I feel much safer about flying a 737 than an airbus 320 - but I'm not scared of either.

I always tey to route myself on an AA 738 over an airbus.


Quit drinking the coolaid.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

This is the most ridiculous statement ever. The 737 isn't any less safe than an airbus...that is mythical thinking.

It's not significantly louder either. I feel much safer about flying a 737 than an airbus 320 - but I'm not scared of either.

I always tey to route myself on an AA 738 over an airbus.


Quit drinking the coolaid.

This sounds like an "if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going" sentiment... Although to your credit, if it "ain't Boeing," you still will be going.

Both aircraft are perfectly safe. I trust the FAA's judgement. Yes, the GTF is demonstrably quieter... based on marketing materials, but the MAX-10 hasn't even entered service, much less lept far off of the drawing board, so this is really a moot argument about hypotheticals.