mmichael453

Readywhenyouare has hardly been the only poster to express an anti-airbus bias. Does everyone else who prefers Boeing make the same safety based argument? In today's day and age it seems to me the airline that makes the difference on safety, and/or the nation or body that is regulating it, and not the manufacturer.

My sense though is this is similar to the anti-union sentiment so often aired on these boards: a deeply held bias not easily surrendered.

exwannabe

So hopefully we do not get those 3-3-3 787's. If used on t-cons that would suck to be stuck in the back.

As an aside, looking out onto the field at HND and see a couple ANA 787s. The "787" up near the nose is painted as large (or larger) than the "ANA" on the tail. I wonder how much Boeing dropped the price for that branding?

Will DL's new jets be painted Coke red or Amex gold?

Sabai

Is that the DL 739? It would seem that that the bean counters have got the seat density just right.

pbiflyer

Considering that they tout their recently acquired 717s as brand new, this shouldn't be a problem.

Domestically, it seems that Delta is just giving up on ever getting new planes. As a mostly domestic flyer, I am not their target market.

florin

Pot, meet kettle.

^

Beckles

You mean like the 737-900's they're taking delivery of now or the A321's they're taking delivery of starting in 2016?

Beckles

Between the Asiana 777 crash-landing and the 2009 Turkish 737 crash-landing in the news this month, I'm not sure I'd want to say that Airbus automation makes them less safe than Boeing aircraft, it seems to me maybe pilots are relying too heavily on automation in general.

brocklee9000

It's the sad reality. I've spoken with a lot of DL pilots (during boarding, after parking at the gate, etc) and a lot of the older guys, especially the pilots of Boeing aircraft, specifically talk about only relying on the autopilot when they have to, and they hand fly the planes as much as they (legally) can. I even had the chance to chat with a 757 check pilot and he told that when he flies checkrides, he requires all the pilots to fly manually. I've also heard quite a few of them bring up the Airbus pilots and how everything is so automated in the cockpit, and that so many of them start the takeoff roll, rotate, and then activate the autopilot and just sit there until the plane lands (yes, a bit of an exaggeration).

rylan

This ^

Beckles

While I can see how that sounds good, to a layman like me it seems like check rides should test not only a pilot's skill at manually flying an aircraft, but their proficiency in correctly using the automation tools that they will use on a day to day basis. For example, as I recall, the Asiana 777 incident was caused in part by the pilots not using the autothrottles correctly (i.e., they were set to an improper mode).

readywhenyouare

Please explain that comment. How exactly am I being a hypocrite? The post you referenced was in regards to a user who seems to pop up anytime I make any reference to Boeing or Airbus. I don't follow anyone around waiting for them to comment on a particular subject. Again, please explain your comment.

Also, I'm not sure why people are defensive. I've said time after time that Airbus is not my preference and I give a reason why. I've never told anyone they wrong for disliking Boeing, MD, Embraer, or Bombardier.

squatch

i knew as soon as this thread started that this is where it would end up... sigh...

brocklee9000

Right. He didn't say or imply he wanted them to fly every segment without any autopilot (and they can't since they're required to use it). But when they're doing checkrides, he'll disengage the autopilot or ask them to hand fly a visual landing. They still have the nav radio tuned to the ILS and the autothrottle is used to maintain approach speeds. It's a test of multitasking, because when you engage the autoland sequence, the autopilot could adjust speed, track the ILS, and do pretty much everything; but when the AP is controlling some aspects and you control others, you still have to scan your gauges and make sure your altitude, airspeed, vertical speed, etc are in check for the approach. When I fly small aircraft, I don't have the option of automation, and I'm okay with that. They're easy to handle, and it takes all the fun out of flying. When I fly large jets in simulators, it's easy to just punch on the autopilot but, again, it really takes a lot of the joy out of. But it sure does make it a lot easier to land a 747 when at least some of the approach is handled by the autopilot.

And just a random thought related to the Asiana flight. So they're citing part of the problem with low airspeed/mismanaging the autothrottle. But even though it was that pilot's first flight on a 777, there should have been at least two people in that cockpit. I've overlooked things in simulators before, but...that's because I'm flying a simulator by myself, trying to land a commercial jet in instrument conditions and fighting bad weather and winds. It amazes me that the seasoned pilot who was training him also didn't notice the low airspeed. Oh well, just my ramblings.

Beckles

I believe there were three pilots in the Asiana cockpit including a jumpseater (which I believe is pretty common on such longhaul flights because they have relief crews).

WestSideBilly

Yeah, the 747-8i is unlikely to get many more orders and Boeing will have to hope the freighter can keep getting orders (iffy, given the current air freight market). The 777-9X and to some degree the A350-1000 will eat away what little market there is for 350-400 seat long range planes.

Exactly my point... they would be cheap, which is what Delta usually chooses when it comes to buying planes.

Not sure that replacing DL's high mileage 744s with BA/LH/CX's high mileage 744s makes any sense, but I don't disagree... the 4 engine planes are a lot more expensive to fly/maintain.