Airbus VS Boeing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Twice in the last 6 months I've had QF180 NRT-MEL cancelled on me due to technical failure. These antique B767s are the oldest in the QF fleet - heading for 18 years old. Two pilots (one QF, one an Aussie flying for a domestic Japanese carrier) have told me 'no suprise' as this is stretching the plane to its limit. I fly J class (15 times to Japan last year I think), and it is amazing that on this business-focused route there is no in-seat power (I lug my own spare batteries), and no sleeper bed. Only reason is that there is zero competition on this route so QF screws us for big airfares and no service (literally, when the planes break down!). So I would love to see A330s back on the NRT run (we had them for a couple of months in early 2005, but they disappeared off to Beijing and Shanghai, where there is competition.)

Bit hard to compare geriatric B767s with modern A330s. But, in general, if the plane is used on the right sort of mission, I think Boeing still has the edge for new'ish aircraft. For example:

Consider the Dreamliner 787 - it has a lower altitude cabin airpressure, making the flight more comfortable. OK, that may increase the pressure on the hull for more wear and tear, but that's QFs problem.

I was stuck in JFK on the famous 'flight from hell' in February on QF108. Part of the delay was due to an A340 (Turkish) which had performed a 180 degree spinning skid on landing, bogging itself and blocking the second last available runway. Our QF captain pitied his Turkish counterpart, explaining that the fly-by-wire Airbuses give zero feel through the stick for the last few meters of descent, making it much easier to 'lose it' than on direct cable Boeings. In a blizzard, this makes a big difference - as the dizzy Turkish passengers discovered.
 
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

needaholiday said:
One point to note on turnaround at the airports for the 787; the increased wingspan of the 787 will cause problems for the airports where multiple side by side gates are designed to accomodate 737's, as the space between the domestic gates designed for 737's will have to increase accomodate the same number of 787's.

Stats

737 - Wingspan: between 28.3 m and 34.3 m (36 m for winglet -700, -800, -900)

787 - Wingspan: between 51.6 m and 60.0 m
But the 787 will be operating as a replacement for the 767 and A330-200 on domestic routes. The 737-800 will continue to occupy those space-impaired domestic terminal gates. The 787 would be expected to operate from the same gates as currently used by 767 and A330 aircraft.

767-300ER wingspan is 47.6m. A339-200 wingspan is 60.3m. So the 787 comes in between the wingspan dimensions of the two current aircraft operating wide-body domestic services for QF. Hence I assume no difference in the gate/terminal requirements for the 787.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top