5 ms·

It seems like Airbus currently is different. Maybe the friction from it being very multinational prevented it from becoming like Boeing, maybe it will have its

It seems like Airbus currently is different. Maybe the friction from it being very multinational prevented it from becoming like Boeing, maybe it will have its own big scandal in a month. Who knows. But currently, Airbus does look better.

rsynnott 7y ago
I mean, it wasn’t a safety scandal, but the A380 was a huge disaster for the company. I’d be more comfortable getting on a notional A360 than a notional 797, but both companies have self-harmed recently.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  It lost them money but it didn't hurt their brand. Those are great planes to fly in as a passenger, they're just not profitable in the end for Airbus. Boeing can't even keep its newest plane in the skies, and may have killed off the 737 line for good. Think another revision after the MAX is ever going to be approved?
  - rsynnott 7y ago
    I think a more modest re-engine of the 737 would absolutely be approved. They’d have to sell it at a discount vs the a32x, obviously.
    - cameldrv 7y ago
      I think that the MAX was about as modest as they could make it. That was really the point of the whole exercise. A more modern engine core with a smaller fan wouldn't have moved the fuel economy needle enough to justify a new model I don't think, and Boeing would have lost a lot of orders to the A320neo. Everything would have been fine except there was so much pressure to make every change as modest as possible that it didn't quite all work. They needed to either make significant changes to the landing gear or significant changes to the flight control computer and they chose neither.
  - joking 7y ago
    the a400m plane has been a brand failure, it's military and on a different league than civilian planes however.
    - throw0101a 7y ago
      And how has the KC-46 done compared to the A330 MRTT?
      - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
        Per a quick check of Wikipedia it seems like they're about equal. The KC46 is being fielded by the US and a few nations that the US traditionally use the same arms. The A330 is fielded by the UK, a couple commonwealth nations and KSA Total number built is in the 30s for both.
        throw0101a 7y ago
        The MRTT is being used in the field. The KC-46 not so much: * https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29933/air-force-says-it-will-be-years-before-boeings-faulty-new-tankers-are-fully-operational https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29933/air-force-says-i... * https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.charpentreau/24184-no-fix-before-months-for-kc-46-pegasus-cargo-issue https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.charpentreau/24184-no-fix-...
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >Boeing can't even keep its newest plane in the skies The 787 is the newest airframe and it's fine. The 737 is the Windows XP of the sky and there's only so much you can fix with service packs.
    - inferiorhuman 7y ago
      The 787 is the newest airframe and it's fine. The 737 is the Windows XP of the sky and there's only so much you can fix with service packs. How about the KC-46 and 777X?
    - snickerbockers 7y ago
      787 doesn't fill the same role as 737 and A320, it's a much larger plane that carries more passengers. 737 and A320 seem to be much more popular for domestic flights within the US than larger planes.
      - philjohn 7y ago
        And the economics of a small single-aisle plane for medium haul, e.g. the East Coast, seems to be what is pushing the needle.
    - rsynnott 7y ago
      They need a replacement for it, then, tho. The 737/a32x size is hugely important. Nearly all the planes I’m on are one or the other.
  - yardie 7y ago
    The 737 needs to go away. It's a great plane from a different era (staircases instead of jetways). That era has long passed. They've been trying to shoehorn it in. Rather than scale up the 737 cockpit flight controls they could have scaled down the 777 cockpit. Or even developed an all new one license cockpit in the same vein as the A320 series.
    - usr1106 7y ago
      One of the bigger 737 operators is Ryanair. They mostly fly to small airports, so it's staircases not jetways. Their product and their brand are worse than bad, but they make a lot of money. Yes, I agree the 50 year old design seems to have reached its end of life.
  - philjohn 7y ago
    As well as being great to fly in (seriously, business class on the upper deck by the window is an absolute dream) they have that "WOW" factor that I haven't experienced since first seeing a 747 or Concorde.
- PedroBatista 7y ago
  The A380 was a bet that didn't payoff, it's a bit different than Boeing's complete rotten culture of the past 20/30 years.
alexis_fr 7y ago
Airbus scandal won’t come “in a month”: Boeing’s problems became public in 2013 and it is the same problem over and over. - The Ducommon airframes in 2013, problem is FAA delegated certification to Boeing, - The batteries, albeit smaller, - The MAX, 2 crashes due to oversight and to the FAA delegating certification to Boeing. Boeing’s problem didn’t come in a day, but in 20 years since the merge with MD, who had the same lose and fast culture. Airbus is safe for the time being, even if risks always exist, political instability for example. Not the case for the moment.
- ahartmetz 7y ago
  Well, for Airbus there is this where it looks like problems were swept under the rug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296 ... though from the same era, there is this for Boeing which seems much worse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > for Airbus there is this where it looks like problems were swept under the rug Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 This is the same basic design flaw that Boeing's MCAS has (allowing a single AoA sensor failure to cause the airplane to do unexpected and dangerous things), but unlike MCAS, it wasn't an ad hoc addition to deal with an issue in a redesign of an old airplane, it was designed into all Airbus fly-by-wire aircraft from the start.
    - slavak 7y ago
      You keep posting this, but it's simply not true- Qantas flight 72 did not experience an AoA sensor failure, and even if it had, the A330 uses all 3 independent AoA sensors and all 3 independent air data inertial reference units to command control movements. The issue was caused by one of the ADIRU CPUs corrupting valid sensor data to produce a series of very specific spikes, hitting a specific edge case in the AoA cross-check logic that made the flight computer behave as if the erroneous data it was seeing was valid. It's undoubtedly a serious design flaw, but it's not even remotely in the same ballpark as the Max's flagrant disregard for all process and well known design standards. http://code7700.com/accident_qantas_72.htm http://code7700.com/accident_qantas_72.htm

rsynnott 7y ago

I mean, it wasn’t a safety scandal, but the A380 was a huge disaster for the company. I’d be more comfortable getting on a notional A360 than a notional 797, but both companies have self-harmed recently.

CydeWeys 7y ago
It lost them money but it didn't hurt their brand. Those are great planes to fly in as a passenger, they're just not profitable in the end for Airbus. Boeing can't even keep its newest plane in the skies, and may have killed off the 737 line for good. Think another revision after the MAX is ever going to be approved?
- rsynnott 7y ago
  I think a more modest re-engine of the 737 would absolutely be approved. They’d have to sell it at a discount vs the a32x, obviously.
  - cameldrv 7y ago
    I think that the MAX was about as modest as they could make it. That was really the point of the whole exercise. A more modern engine core with a smaller fan wouldn't have moved the fuel economy needle enough to justify a new model I don't think, and Boeing would have lost a lot of orders to the A320neo. Everything would have been fine except there was so much pressure to make every change as modest as possible that it didn't quite all work. They needed to either make significant changes to the landing gear or significant changes to the flight control computer and they chose neither.
- joking 7y ago
  the a400m plane has been a brand failure, it's military and on a different league than civilian planes however.
  - throw0101a 7y ago
    And how has the KC-46 done compared to the A330 MRTT?
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      Per a quick check of Wikipedia it seems like they're about equal. The KC46 is being fielded by the US and a few nations that the US traditionally use the same arms. The A330 is fielded by the UK, a couple commonwealth nations and KSA Total number built is in the 30s for both.
      - throw0101a 7y ago
        The MRTT is being used in the field. The KC-46 not so much: * https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29933/air-force-says-it-will-be-years-before-boeings-faulty-new-tankers-are-fully-operational https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29933/air-force-says-i... * https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.charpentreau/24184-no-fix-before-months-for-kc-46-pegasus-cargo-issue https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.charpentreau/24184-no-fix-...
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >Boeing can't even keep its newest plane in the skies The 787 is the newest airframe and it's fine. The 737 is the Windows XP of the sky and there's only so much you can fix with service packs.
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
    The 787 is the newest airframe and it's fine. The 737 is the Windows XP of the sky and there's only so much you can fix with service packs. How about the KC-46 and 777X?
  - snickerbockers 7y ago
    787 doesn't fill the same role as 737 and A320, it's a much larger plane that carries more passengers. 737 and A320 seem to be much more popular for domestic flights within the US than larger planes.
    - philjohn 7y ago
      And the economics of a small single-aisle plane for medium haul, e.g. the East Coast, seems to be what is pushing the needle.
  - rsynnott 7y ago
    They need a replacement for it, then, tho. The 737/a32x size is hugely important. Nearly all the planes I’m on are one or the other.
- yardie 7y ago
  The 737 needs to go away. It's a great plane from a different era (staircases instead of jetways). That era has long passed. They've been trying to shoehorn it in. Rather than scale up the 737 cockpit flight controls they could have scaled down the 777 cockpit. Or even developed an all new one license cockpit in the same vein as the A320 series.
  - usr1106 7y ago
    One of the bigger 737 operators is Ryanair. They mostly fly to small airports, so it's staircases not jetways. Their product and their brand are worse than bad, but they make a lot of money. Yes, I agree the 50 year old design seems to have reached its end of life.
- philjohn 7y ago
  As well as being great to fly in (seriously, business class on the upper deck by the window is an absolute dream) they have that "WOW" factor that I haven't experienced since first seeing a 747 or Concorde.
PedroBatista 7y ago
The A380 was a bet that didn't payoff, it's a bit different than Boeing's complete rotten culture of the past 20/30 years.

alexis_fr 7y ago

Airbus scandal won’t come “in a month”: Boeing’s problems became public in 2013 and it is the same problem over and over. - The Ducommon airframes in 2013, problem is FAA delegated certification to Boeing, - The batteries, albeit smaller, - The MAX, 2 crashes due to oversight and to the FAA delegating certification to Boeing. Boeing’s problem didn’t come in a day, but in 20 years since the merge with MD, who had the same lose and fast culture. Airbus is safe for the time being, even if risks always exist, political instability for example. Not the case for the moment.

ahartmetz 7y ago
Well, for Airbus there is this where it looks like problems were swept under the rug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296 ... though from the same era, there is this for Boeing which seems much worse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues
- pdonis 7y ago
  > for Airbus there is this where it looks like problems were swept under the rug Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 This is the same basic design flaw that Boeing's MCAS has (allowing a single AoA sensor failure to cause the airplane to do unexpected and dangerous things), but unlike MCAS, it wasn't an ad hoc addition to deal with an issue in a redesign of an old airplane, it was designed into all Airbus fly-by-wire aircraft from the start.
  - slavak 7y ago
    You keep posting this, but it's simply not true- Qantas flight 72 did not experience an AoA sensor failure, and even if it had, the A330 uses all 3 independent AoA sensors and all 3 independent air data inertial reference units to command control movements. The issue was caused by one of the ADIRU CPUs corrupting valid sensor data to produce a series of very specific spikes, hitting a specific edge case in the AoA cross-check logic that made the flight computer behave as if the erroneous data it was seeing was valid. It's undoubtedly a serious design flaw, but it's not even remotely in the same ballpark as the Max's flagrant disregard for all process and well known design standards. http://code7700.com/accident_qantas_72.htm http://code7700.com/accident_qantas_72.htm