Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Airbus A320 Outshines Boeing‘s 737
http://www.localnewsleader.com/brocktown/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=149623 ^ | February 26, 2006 | GILLIAN WONG,

Posted on 02/27/2006 7:47:04 AM PST by ConservativeStatement

SINGAPORE - Boeing‘s 737 passenger plane, which has seen deliveries top 5,000 since it entered service 38 years ago, has always been touted by its U.S. makers as the world‘s most popular commercial jet.

Last year, Toulouse, France-based Airbus had a 62 percent market share of the single-aisle plane market with 918 orders for the A320. The 737 had 569 orders.

(Excerpt) Read more at localnewsleader.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: 737; 777; a320; airbus; aircrafts; airplanes; avaiation; ba; boeing; business; chicago; planes; toulouse
This headline deserves a barf alert but the Boeing stock is at another post 9/11 high today.
1 posted on 02/27/2006 7:47:07 AM PST by ConservativeStatement
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MassRepublicanFlyersFan

one would certainly hope that a new airframe would "outshine" a 38 uear old one.


2 posted on 02/27/2006 7:48:04 AM PST by camle (Keep your mind open and somebody will fill if full of something for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MassRepublicanFlyersFan

...And the Airbus A380 snapped a wing off during stress testing. If I were investing now, I would be buying Duct Tape manufacturers.


3 posted on 02/27/2006 7:49:03 AM PST by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MassRepublicanFlyersFan

So this is how far Airbus has fallen -- they have to troll for news that some 38 YEAR OLD Boieng aircraft are being phased out and replaced by A320's.


4 posted on 02/27/2006 7:52:07 AM PST by commish (Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: commish
The 320 came of age in the 1980s...
I think the 737 was designed in the mid 60s and has undergone fantastic variation and innovation.
5 posted on 02/27/2006 7:57:27 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: camle

LOL. If given the choice, I'd prefer airworthiness to shine myself.


6 posted on 02/27/2006 7:58:17 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MassRepublicanFlyersFan
Airbus A320 Outshines Boeing‘s 737

One would hope so.  The 737 is 30+ years old. 

7 posted on 02/27/2006 7:58:17 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Proud to be a cotton-pickin' Republican on the GOP Plantation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MassRepublicanFlyersFan
The one thing Scarebus has over the Boeing 727, 737 and 757 is the width of the fuselage is over 7" wider on the scarebus.
I'd still rather fly the Boeing plane.
8 posted on 02/27/2006 8:02:11 AM PST by Lx (Do you like it, do you like it. Scott? I call it Mr. and Mrs. Tennerman chili.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
"Airbus A380 snapped a wing off during stress testing"

For real? That does not sound good, hard to believe.

9 posted on 02/27/2006 8:05:23 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MassRepublicanFlyersFan
What this article fails to mention is the 787, which has debuted as the most succesful airliner launch in history (or so says Boeing). This plane is moving the goal line and will eventually replace the 737 as the 737 replaced the 727 somtime ago. Airbus has no answer to this plane as of yet. Their proposed A350 is a poor attempt to compete and the only buyers are airlines that are being forced into buying it due to "relationships" or if they are being given huge discounts on this plane as well as the A380.

The 787 eventually will replace the 737, 757 and 767. Currently the 787 is being offered in a number of variations and looks quite flexible as to its capacity. There is even a fear that it could impede on the 777 market.

10 posted on 02/27/2006 8:08:41 AM PST by NYCRebublican (No more Slimes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

Your post is misleading. All new wings are tested to failure. The 380 wing failed a little short of it's design specification. I remember that the C-17 wing also failed short of it's design specification but production went on anyway. Here's a related article



On Friday came the shocking report that the wings on an Airbus A380 had ruptured and failed during testing. That led to lurid reports like "Airbus: On a wing 'n' a prayer?" in the Financial Times of India.

But the fact is that the wings were supposed to fail during the tests. Both Boeing and Airbus test key components (like wings) "to failure." Basically, they put them in big monster machines and torque the suckers until they snap. I've seen videos and it's pretty dramatic, and my inner 8-year-old is seriously hoping to be on hand when Boeing does that kind of test on the 787.

What the test is designed to prove is that the wings will withstand 1.5 times the stress that they'll encounter during normal operations, and that's what's significant about the news - the A380 wings ruptured 3.3 percent short of the target.

Airbus downplayed the event. Alain Garcia, Airbus' executive vice president for engineering, told an industry publication that "essentially no modifications" would be required to production aircraft as a result of the tests.

And Airbus spokeswoman Barbara Kracht told the Associated Press that while the wing may need to be tweaked, that shouldn't be a major issue.

Airbus engineers and officials from the European Aviation Safety Agency and U.S. Federal Aviation Administration will decide what if any modifications are required, she told AP. "We will need to find out from the data what is really needed, but it's certainly not a redesign of the wing."

But that is the issue. If U.S. or European regulators require changes, that will send Airbus back to the digital drawing board to design and build a new wing, which means further delays for a program already running six months late.


11 posted on 02/27/2006 8:08:50 AM PST by saganite (The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: camle
one would certainly hope that a new airframe would "outshine" a 38 uear old one.

I was thinking the same thing.

12 posted on 02/27/2006 8:09:32 AM PST by Squint (Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MassRepublicanFlyersFan
Considering that Airbus basically gives A320's away for free in order to win new customers, it is no surprise they "sell" more than Boeing does 737's.
13 posted on 02/27/2006 8:11:12 AM PST by COEXERJ145 (Pat Buchanan lost a family member in the holocaust. The man fell out of a guard tower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

All wings snap durng this test. That's the point. The only problem at this time is that the wing snapped before it was supposed to. The wing was not as strong as believed. However Aribus says the wing was not a production wing and the wings are now stronger. Of course that's what Airbus says. Anyway the planes development just got that much more expensive as they now to go break some more wings. Probably run them another $100 million or so more over budget. Just keeps adding up.


14 posted on 02/27/2006 8:11:55 AM PST by NYCRebublican (No more Slimes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

It's true. A car backfired in the parking lot the wing fell off and the French army surrendered.


15 posted on 02/27/2006 8:15:22 AM PST by ghitma (Lifter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYCRebublican

They were hoping the wing would handle 150% of the stress of a full plane, but it snapped at 147%


16 posted on 02/27/2006 8:18:20 AM PST by Mount Athos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NYCRebublican

Thanks for your explaination, seems the 380 has a lot of problems to solve.


17 posted on 02/27/2006 8:22:20 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All
The current 737 series (737-600/700/800/900) are almost totally new designs compared to the original 737's. They have a new wing, new landing gear, new engines, etc. The only major thing that didn't change was the fuselage width.

While the A320 does have a slightly wider cabin, this doesn't really translate to wider seats or more space for passengers. Most airlines simply have a wider aisle on the A320 and use the same seats as are used on the 737.

18 posted on 02/27/2006 8:26:13 AM PST by COEXERJ145 (Pat Buchanan lost a family member in the holocaust. The man fell out of a guard tower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Also,

Keep in mind that one benefit of testing to failure is that they learn WHERE it fails, and can strengthen that aspect, without the weight cost that a blind effort to add strength throughout would add.
19 posted on 02/27/2006 8:27:46 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: saganite
And Airbus spokeswoman Barbara Kracht told the Associated Press that while the wing may need to be tweaked, that shouldn't be a major issue.

That little admission probably means that instead of strengthening the wing, AirBus has decided to lower the gross weight rating for the aircraft. I don't blame them, since they are already way over budget for the aircraft, but it will cost them down the road.

20 posted on 02/27/2006 8:28:10 AM PST by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MassRepublicanFlyersFan

How many 737s has Boeing sold over the entire life of that model vs. how many A320 have been sold by Airbus?

As a French colleague told me, there is a large number of Airbus employees who commute from Paris to Toulouse every week -- leave on Monday, return on Friday. The plane they fly in is a Boeing 747.

He doesn't think much of the A380 either.


21 posted on 02/27/2006 8:28:36 AM PST by You Dirty Rats (I Love Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos
As a freely admitted Boeing proponent, anything that costs them more money and time works for me. However, I also freely admit that I will proudly explain away any shortfalls in the Boeing 787 or nee 747 Advanced.

I just can't wait to hear how they evacuate 800+ passengers out of that monstrosity in 90 seconds. I wonder if they plan on using the enitre French and German track and field teams. This should be intresting. I guarantee they have been practicing this test over and over until they can figure out how to get everyone out. My prediction, 800+ ejection seats. They cost about $500,000 each so that's another $400 million to the price of the plane.

22 posted on 02/27/2006 8:30:19 AM PST by NYCRebublican (No more Slimes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NYCRebublican

The 380 is a white elephant but Airbus seems to win in the middle category with the 320, hopefully that will turn around.


23 posted on 02/27/2006 8:32:54 AM PST by Mount Athos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: saganite

I wasn't being misleading. The Airbus A380 wing snapped between the engines and failed to make the 150% mark that is required. Period.


24 posted on 02/27/2006 8:34:22 AM PST by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MassRepublicanFlyersFan

Ask any pilot which aircraft they would rather fly. Even the french ones will tell you they prefer Boeing.


25 posted on 02/27/2006 8:35:01 AM PST by free_at_jsl.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos
Agreed. My point is the 787, which is currently more expensive, seems to be very modifiable (sp?). I think the techonology there will give Boeing the ability to compete effectively against the a320 in the future. Either the 737 will be redesigned to take advantge of the 787's techinology or the a 787 offering will come along that replaces the 737.

Airbus has spent it R&D budget on the A380 which does not give it the technology needed to compete with the 787. They will need to head back to the drawig board and reallocate funds in order to compete. They of course will. But how long will that take and what will it cost them.

They (Airbus) wrote the 787 off originally. Now they kow they need to get moving.

26 posted on 02/27/2006 8:38:38 AM PST by NYCRebublican (No more Slimes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

And what percentage of stress does a violent wind shere cause?


27 posted on 02/27/2006 8:39:34 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

Up to the 100% of load predicted in the flight envelope. The planes are designed for that. They are supposed to be designed to a point that is 50% greater than what they should ever experience in actual operation.


28 posted on 02/27/2006 8:41:55 AM PST by NYCRebublican (No more Slimes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

I may be nitpicking but you said a wing snapped of. Off of what? It wasn't attached to anything but the test machinery.


29 posted on 02/27/2006 8:52:28 AM PST by saganite (The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: saganite

Navagator: The wings are crevulating Captain

Mitty: Let them crevulate


30 posted on 02/27/2006 8:59:51 AM PST by wildcatf4f3 (Islam Schmislam blahblahblah, enough already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

A failure short of a goal is a still a failure.


31 posted on 02/27/2006 8:59:55 AM PST by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: saganite

Okay. How's this? A wing snapped under stress test, short of the stated goal.


32 posted on 02/27/2006 9:00:49 AM PST by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

I agree. It doesn't bod well to the customer. Our wings only break ALMOST at our goal.


33 posted on 02/27/2006 9:01:02 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Squint

I would still rather fly in a DC3


34 posted on 02/27/2006 9:01:49 AM PST by wildcatf4f3 (Islam Schmislam blahblahblah, enough already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

Perfect


35 posted on 02/27/2006 9:03:06 AM PST by saganite (The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
"For real? That does not sound good, hard to believe."

It was like a "laboratory test", not a flying or working airplane.
36 posted on 02/27/2006 9:08:52 AM PST by AlexW (Reporting from Bratislava, Slovakia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: saganite
I may be nitpicking but you said a wing snapped of. Off of what? It wasn't attached to anything but the test machinery.

Actually it was attached to a static airframe. During certification tests, two or more airframes are built and then tested to destruction.

37 posted on 02/27/2006 9:11:48 AM PST by COEXERJ145 (Pat Buchanan lost a family member in the holocaust. The man fell out of a guard tower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145

It's actually attached to a test rig, not an airframe. I would post a pic for you but I'm html challenged. Let me see if I can find a link.


38 posted on 02/27/2006 9:14:49 AM PST by saganite (The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Then Airbus did it differently. Boeing actually uses and entire air frame.

Oh, if you want to post a pic, do this.

< img src="" >

Just put the URL for the picture into the "" and remove the spaces between the < >

39 posted on 02/27/2006 9:18:15 AM PST by COEXERJ145 (Pat Buchanan lost a family member in the holocaust. The man fell out of a guard tower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MassRepublicanFlyersFan

I like a Boeing airplane that you can fly manually if something goes wrong.

No scarebus for me.


40 posted on 02/27/2006 9:25:11 AM PST by aviator (Armored Pest Control)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145

Thanks. I'll give it a try. I haven't found any so far but I did find this info on the C-17 wing test failure. It failed at a much earlier point than the A-380.


Static Wing Test Failure. A potentially serious problem was revealed in October 1992 when the wings of a C-17 used in static ground testing failed during loads testing -- the wings buckling on both sides of the plane at the same spot when a load approximating 130% of maximum was placed on the aircraft. Contract specifications and military standards call for a 150% capability, and the Air Force has made this a strict benchmark. The company corrected the 1992-93 wing problems without redesigning and replacing the entire wing structure. Once a suitable fix was determined, it was retrofitted on planes already delivered or on the production line, and further changes for ease of production were engineered into the production line.

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/93-041.htm


41 posted on 02/27/2006 9:28:09 AM PST by saganite (The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: saganite
It's actually attached to a test rig, not an airframe.

Partial airframe.

Photos © Airbus

Photos © Airbus

42 posted on 02/27/2006 9:40:08 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

I'm partially righ then. LOL!


43 posted on 02/27/2006 9:48:19 AM PST by saganite (The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: saganite

44 posted on 02/27/2006 3:21:46 PM PST by saganite (The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: saganite
Image Hosted at ImageHosting.us
46 posted on 02/27/2006 3:30:54 PM PST by saganite (The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MassRepublicanFlyersFan

47 posted on 02/27/2006 3:36:01 PM PST by wjcsux (I would prefer to have the German army in front of me than the French army behind me- Gen. G. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wildcatf4f3

All of the patents have expired, so you're free to ramp up production again. I used to love flying in those old girls.


48 posted on 02/27/2006 3:37:18 PM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: commish
A real shame

Airbus (A320) sold only 20% of the complete 737 production in one year. They must be in a real panic because of the A320.

The 737 has been modernized many times in the 38 years.

You can not blame a company for having a new fresh and modern product as an excuse for the other company that is not willing or able to develop a newer product.


You can do as others here and start bashing the A380 and the several failures or the A340 that did not perform very well in the last year or the A330 ( in general the complete widebody segment) but do not bash the best selling plane of the last years and the upcomming years. this is not very clever.

by the way the headline refers to the success of the A320 at an asian airshow where the A320 outperformed the 737 and for example Adam Air announced that they choose the A320 to replace their older Boeing planes.
49 posted on 02/28/2006 4:27:16 AM PST by stefan10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson