That issue on the 737 being vastly inferior to the A320 family...

[Virgin Serbia]

It looks like the issue has been solved (at long last). Airbus (not AM) decided to change

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14222042

260 firm and 365 options for Airbus. Only 97 firm and 103 "intentions" for Boeing, that coming from a prime Boeing customer...

[GPWestjet]

If you read some of the other news articles it states that the Boeing 737RE is 10% beater in terms of fuel efficiency then the A320NEO, Boeing is better.


I personally think they only took Airbus to see which aircraft is better, so they can pick which one they like more when both Boeing and Airbus build replacement aircraft in the 2020-2030 decade.

Airbus is better in the game, but if the maintence formula would be better then the Boeing 737 would be better.

But personally I think the best aircraft is the Bombardier C series, it is going to be available in 2013, 3 year before the other re-engines.


Go Boeing!!!

[Virgin Serbia]

Sure, Boeing might say that the 737RE will be 10% better than the A320NEO. But...

...the 737NG was also slightly better than the A320 Classic. However it came 10 years too late, after Boeing's arrogance lost them EasyJet, United, US Airways and British Airways. What good is it to have a plane that is 10% better if they haven't even launched it yet? American Airlines, once considered Boeing's best customer is now going to operate more A32Xs than 737s. Whats next, Delta or United? They already operate the A320 Classic. Or maybe even Southwest and Ryanair...  

Heads will certainly roll at Boeing. Hopefully they will weed out the entire management that was left over from the 1990s. They don't seem to have learned the lesson since the demise of Boeing in the late 1990s.

[SomedayTrijet]

260+365 for Airbus = 625 total 

If you read some of the other news articles it states that the Boeing 737RE is 10% beater in terms of fuel efficiency then the A320NEO, Boeing is better.

I'm sure a lot of these statistics (from both manufactures) are BS. For example, Boeing has said that the current 737NG has better economics then the future A320NEO, which just isn't true (and the airlines seems to agree here)

I'm also sure that the operating cost of the A320NEO vs the 737NG is exaggerated.

Almost all of the statements made by the manufactures are just PR that one shouldn't put much weight in. We won't know until the airplanes are up in the air.

I personally think they only took Airbus to see which aircraft is better, so they can pick which one they like more when both Boeing and Airbus build replacement aircraft in the 2020-2030 decade.

I think the reason for a split order was that AA really, really needed to replace the MD-80. As no manufacture could possibly cover all that in a reasonable time frame, a split order was the only reasonable thing to do. With the A320 already in the fleet, it was a no-brainer to add "some" A320NEOs. This is Boeing's loss, because I believe that if Boeing could have won this order if the 737RE had been launched earlier. What Boeing really needs now is to just officially launch and get some orders for the plane (preferably from big Boeing customers like UA, WN, KL...

Delta

In the DL case, I wouldn't be too surprised if they also would make a split order. They have said they wanted new planes soon, and I think Airbus still should have some A320 classic slots left.

[Cipher53]

I almost believe that this belongs in the Aviation Discussion forum, since it's more about the real world performance of the aircraft much rather the ingame performance of the aircraft..

Regardless, from what I've been reading elsewhere (They seem to be more knowledgeable about things, especially considering a number of them are actually in the aviation community via working in the airlines), I wouldn't take this as a black and white interpretation to say that Boeing sucks. I brought up the point that Airbuses sell like hotcakes in comparison to the B737, and they responded with the following points;

• Airbus A320 series aircraft have a service life of 10 years according to Airbus, and thus they sell the aircraft with a 10 year liability limit. Compare this to the service life of many of Boeing's products, and I think you'll find that's a bit lacking.
• Airbuses are selling better because they can go from initial order to delivery faster. There's more overall demand for Boeing products, and coupled with the economic issues that have been plaguing the US as of late I imagine that EADS and Airbus can deliver quite a bit faster. This doesn't mean that their product is any better, it just means you can get it in a shorter timeframe. (They also made the point that Airbus has a lot of A320 series aircraft in reserve just waiting to sell, enabling them to sell them at lower prices, but I'm putting that on the questionable side of things)
• Pilots and ground crew alike hate the A320 family, saying that they're unreliable as heck. There's a reason the adage "If it's not Boeing, I aint going" exists, and I imagine that this is likely why, on top of the performance issues they cited.
• On a side more relatable to the passenger (Which is most typically what we all are), the Airbuses are cramped as all heck apparently.. or at least with Delta Airlines..

There's also the adage "Just remember when you're relying on your equipment that it was made by the lowest bidder"...

[GPWestjet]

Delta

In the DL case, I wouldn't be too surprised if they also would make a split order. They have said they wanted new planes soon, and I think Airbus still should have some A320 classic slots left.

Delta has said that they might pick the Bombardier C series, the C series is available 3 year earlier then any other option.

I personally think they only took Airbus to see which aircraft is better, so they can pick which one they like more when both Boeing and Airbus build replacement aircraft in the 2020-2030 decade.

I think the reason for a split order was that AA really, really needed to replace the MD-80. As no manufacture could possibly cover all that in a reasonable time frame, a split order was the only reasonable thing to do. With the A320 already in the fleet, it was a no-brainer to add "some" A320NEOs. This is Boeing's loss, because I believe that if Boeing could have won this order if the 737RE had been launched earlier. What Boeing really needs now is to just officially launch and get some orders for the plane (preferably from big Boeing customers like UA, WN, KL...

For the split order why idn't they go with the C series then, Bombardier is advertising it as an MD-80 replacement.

[SomedayTrijet]

Delta has said that they might pick the Bombardier C series, the C series is available 3 year earlier then any other option.

That's a possibility. C-Series would be a good DC-9/MD replacement. They could combine that with an A320/A320NEO order, or a 737/737RE order. Or they might buy Embraers instead of the C-Series. I'm just saying that it won't be from one manufacturer, but two (or possibly even more.)

For the split order why idn't they go with the C series then, Bombardier is advertising it as an MD-80 replacement.

Well, they apparently preferred the A320s and 737s instead. They are also good planes to replace the MD-80s

[GQfluffy]

What always kills me (which no, hasn't happened in this thread) is people think Airbus sells more than Boeing because Airbus always saves a good chunk of their announcements for the Paris Air Show, whilst Boeing just lets the airline of choice announce their own orders. Airbus finally wised up and let AA do the talking here. You notice both manufacturers are giving away these aircraft at VERY decent terms.

[Virgin Serbia]

• Airbus A320 series aircraft have a service life of 10 years according to Airbus, and thus they sell the aircraft with a 10 year liability limit. Compare this to the service life of many of Boeing's products, and I think you'll find that's a bit lacking.

This is not true. Many A320s are operating today, despite being over 20 years old. Delta Airlines has some of the oldest A320s in service today. Check airfleets.net.
This myth is based upon the fact that the A320 is certified only for a lower number of cycles. But even then, some of the A320s have been able to operate well over 20 years. Most are retired because they are simply worn out (just like any 737 would be after 20 years), and they are worth more as spares than as a single peice. Just recently a handful of 6 year old 737-700s were scrapped for the same reason.

• Airbuses are selling better because they can go from initial order to delivery faster. There's more overall demand for Boeing products, and coupled with the economic issues that have been plaguing the US as of late I imagine that EADS and Airbus can deliver quite a bit faster. This doesn't mean that their product is any better, it just means you can get it in a shorter timeframe. (They also made the point that Airbus has a lot of A320 series aircraft in reserve just waiting to sell, enabling them to sell them at lower prices, but I'm putting that on the questionable side of things)

Hardly. Up until this year when the NEO was launched, orders were actually tied between the Airbus and Boeing delivery times. They were both sold out to within a month of each others. The last few months have shown an increase in orders for the A320 in over 1500 planes, and only 200-300 for the 737. The A320 is now sold out further than the 737.
I don't know what you mean about A320's in reserve. Airbus doesn't build them unless somebody buys them.    

• Pilots and ground crew alike hate the A320 family, saying that they're unreliable as heck. There's a reason the adage "If it's not Boeing, I aint going" exists, and I imagine that this is likely why, on top of the performance issues they cited.

I don't know who those pilots are, but i know plenty of pilots who say the same about the 737NG. It's a personal opinion. Apparently the cabin crew with SAS hate the 737 galley, but love the A320 galley...

• On a side more relatable to the passenger (Which is most typically what we all are), the Airbuses are cramped as all heck apparently.. or at least with Delta Airlines..

That depends on how the airline configures the plane. If Delta (Northwest) made a bad configuration, thats not Airbus' fault. And more A320s than 737s feature PTV/IFE.

There's also the adage "Just remember when you're relying on your equipment that it was made by the lowest bidder"...

Not relevant in aviation. You need to take into account financing and costs of operating the product over time. I'm sure AA could have gotten a bargain deal for 260 second hand MD-80s ;) But they won't make them any money over time... (liewise, they could have gotten a deal on 600 XXX-XXXs at a low price, but if you don't have the money to pay with, and the deal doesn't include a loan, you can't order them.)

Regardless, from what I've been reading elsewhere (They seem to be more knowledgeable about things, especially considering a number of them are actually in the aviation community via working in the airlines), I wouldn't take this as a black and white interpretation to say that Boeing sucks. I brought up the point that Airbuses sell like hotcakes in comparison to the B737, and they responded with the following points;

They are not really knowledgable about this issue. Which is shocking since they actually work in the industry. Many of my points can be proven through a simple search on the internet.

[Virgin Serbia]

For the split order why idn't they go with the C series then, Bombardier is advertising it as an MD-80 replacement.

Because it isn't. It's just the bloated PR department of Bombarbier making wild statements.

The C-series, as good as it is, will seat at most 145 passengers in a 1 class config. The MD-81, 82, 83, 88 and 90 all seat 172 passengers. It will be good for replacing the MD-87 though, which seats 139 in 1 class. It will also be a valid replacement for the DC-9-50, which seats 135. Too bad only 76 MD-87s were made. And the only DC-9-50 operator in the west, Delta, is already replacing theirs with the MD-90. 

As for Delta Airlines, i think this order will be for A320NEO, possibly with some 737X thrown in. They need to replace following types:

• MD-88: 117
• 757-200: 165

• A320: 69
• DC-9-50: 31

The DC-9 replacement has already been ordered, secondhand MD-90s.
The MD-88s and A320s can only be replaced by the 737-800X or A320NEO.
The 757-200s can be replaced with the A321NEO. The 737-900ER is a possibility, but it is slighty too small and under-ranged.

Due to the high number involved, i think it will be a mix. But i think the A320NEO will have the upper hand yet again, because it is the best 757 replacement. The MD-88s and A320s will be 50/50 Boeing/Airbus.   

[GPWestjet]

The C-series, as good as it is, will seat at most 145 passengers in a 1 class config.  

Right now with current models, but they might build a 150 model, if theyn did it would be great for delta and would be a good replacement for most of Southwest's fleet.

[Cipher53]

"They are not really knowledgable about this issue. Which is shocking since they actually work in the industry. Many of my points can be proven through a simple search on the internet."

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the opinions that I've read elsewhere regarding the Airbus family. While many of them are perspectives from pilots and ground crew, they are the people actually using the planes, while most of what you're going to find on the internet is going to be some sort of aviation "expert" or marketing team member's writings to attempt to convince you one way or another on what's better.

If anything, the A320 family "selling out" faster doesn't mean that they have more longevity than the 737 family, it could mean the exact opposite. Sure there could be aircraft out there serving just as long as the Boeings, but why are there so many orders in comparison to Boeing if the aircraft are supposedly just as reliable? (Keep in mind that I'm writing this without researching it like you have apparently, too many demands on my time ATM)

"I don't know what you mean about A320's in reserve. Airbus doesn't build them unless somebody buys them."

Hence why I said that I was questionable about when they said that.

"Not relevant in aviation. You need to take into account financing and costs of operating the product over time."

Yea, and they made the point that Airbus is more fair to airlines that just want to get out there, make a short dash at profits, and then declare bankruptcy shortly after. Airlines that don't intend to be around by the time their aircraft start wearing out, etc.. Additionally it seems that at least for some airlines keeping their older Boeings is more affordable than buying new ones or buying other aircraft, so it would seem that the 737 should have some sort of edge.

[SomedayTrijet]

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the opinions that I've read elsewhere regarding the Airbus family. While many of them are perspectives from pilots and ground crew, they are the people actually using the planes, while most of what you're going to find on the internet is going to be some sort of aviation "expert" or marketing team member's writings to attempt to convince you one way or another on what's better.

If you're talking about the plane itself, and how you fly it, then I have great respect for those pilots, as they are much more knowledgeable on the subject then I am. But...

1. As a passenger, I have just much knowledge about how cramped an airliner is (in a passengers perspective.) But, as Virgin Serbia said, this is not about the airplane itself, it's about the airline. Ryanair flies crowded 737s, but that doesn't mean all 737s are cramped.

2. I don't believe those pilots know that much about how Airbus and Boeing sells and produce those plane

There's more overall demand for Boeing products, and coupled with the economic issues that have been plaguing the US as of late I imagine that EADS and Airbus can deliver quite a bit faster.

First, there is not more demand for Boeing products, and second - It's not only the US that has had trouble with the economy. I don't think Airbus can deliver much faster then Boeing.

Yea, and they made the point that Airbus is more fair to airlines that just want to get out there, make a short dash at profits, and then declare bankruptcy shortly after. Airlines that don't intend to be around by the time their aircraft start wearing out, etc.. Additionally it seems that at least for some airlines keeping their older Boeings is more affordable than buying new ones or buying other aircraft, so it would seem that the 737 should have some sort of edge.

2. I'd like to hear some concrete examples from them that Airbus is more fair to those airlines. Which are those airlines?

1. I don't really get this about keeping Boeings. Airbuses usually have just as long life cycle as Boeings.

[Virgin Serbia]

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the opinions that I've read elsewhere regarding the Airbus family. While many of them are perspectives from pilots and ground crew, they are the people actually using the planes, while most of what you're going to find on the internet is going to be some sort of aviation "expert" or marketing team member's writings to attempt to convince you one way or another on what's better.

737 pilots/crew members are rarely qualified on A320s as well, so where do they get their knowledge? They may be the ones using the 737s, but they certainly aren't the ones using the A320s.

If anything, the A320 family "selling out" faster doesn't mean that they have more longevity than the 737 family, it could mean the exact opposite. Sure there could be aircraft out there serving just as long as the Boeings, but why are there so many orders in comparison to Boeing if the aircraft are supposedly just as reliable?

Simply because the A320NEO is a better plane than the Boeing 737? This is like suggesting that the 777-300ER has a short longevity, and the A340-600 has a long longevity, therefore no A340-600s are sold today. Airlines want planes that last more than 10 years, or else they won't buy them.

Over 1500 A320s are still flying today, despite being over 10 years old. The A320 has a longevity as good as any 737NG. 

Yea, and they made the point that Airbus is more fair to airlines that just want to get out there, make a short dash at profits, and then declare bankruptcy shortly after. Airlines that don't intend to be around by the time their aircraft start wearing out, etc..

A myth based on the Skybus failure. Skybus ordered 65 A319s, but went bankrupt after 13 had been delivered. Every order has a risk involved.
Boeing sold a large order of 737-800, 737-900ER, 787-9, 777-300ER and 747-8I to the Nigerian airline Arik Air in 2008. The 747s and 777s have been cancelled, and the airline is bound to go bust any moment now.
Czech LCC SkyEurope has orders for a lot of 737-700s, but they went bust, and the orders were cancelled.

Additionally it seems that at least for some airlines keeping their older Boeings is more affordable than buying new ones or buying other aircraft, so it would seem that the 737 should have some sort of edge.

If you can't get the financing, you will have to make do with old planes. Some airlines even find it more profitable to lease older 737s rather than new planes, as the lease will be cheaper. But this won't help Boeing, so it isn't an edge for the 737.

The C-series, as good as it is, will seat at most 145 passengers in a 1 class config. 

Right now with current models, but they might build a 150 model, if theyn did it would be great for delta and would be a good replacement for most of Southwest's fleet.

No, I don't think so. A 145/150 seat CS300 will only be able to replace the 737-500 and 737-300. Remember, Southwest is currently upsizing by ordering 737-800s, as is most of the industry. Whereas most LCCs would order the 737-700 or A319 in the past, nowadays they find the A320 and 737-800 more profitable. The CS300 is too small to cater for the 180 seat market.
EasyJet decided to order A320s, and hasn't placed any orders for the A319 since.
Frontier decided to replace the A318s with A320s.
LAN decided to replace A318s with A320s.
Airport congestion doesn't help the C-series either.

The market Bombardier should seek for the C is the regional market. Just as the A320/737 operaters, the regional airlines are also upsizing.

[GPWestjet]

The C-series, as good as it is, will seat at most 145 passengers in a 1 class config. 

Right now with current models, but they might build a 150 model, if theyn did it would be great for delta and would be a good replacement for most of Southwest's fleet.

No, I don't think so. A 145/150 seat CS300 will only be able to replace the 737-500 and 737-300. Remember, Southwest is currently upsizing by ordering 737-800s, as is most of the industry. Whereas most LCCs would order the 737-700 or A319 in the past, nowadays they find the A320 and 737-800 more profitable. The CS300 is too small to cater for the 180 seat market.
EasyJet decided to order A320s, and hasn't placed any orders for the A319 since.
Frontier decided to replace the A318s with A320s.
LAN decided to replace A318s with A320s.
Airport congestion doesn't help the C-series either.

The market Bombardier should seek for the C is the regional market. Just as the A320/737 operaters, the regional airlines are also upsizing.

I meant that the CS500(If produced) would be a good replacement for the Boeing 737-300,-500 for Southwest. And there 737-700,-800 are very new so they don't need replacement for awhile, probably when Boeing launches a replacement aircraft, (NOT the re-engine).

Whereas most LCCs would order the 737-700 or A319 in the past, nowadays they find the A320 and 737-800 more profitable.

Why does Westjet then have an order for Boeing 737-700, very few 737-800. Source:  http://www.westjet.com/pdf/ourFleet/fleetpdf_en.pdf