60 replies to this topic

[Stevphfeniey]

Based solely on names, I like the the NEO better (it just sounds cooler to me). But based on a projected preformance standpoint, I'm going with the MAX and it's 4% cost advantage over the NEO

[sviridovt]

737 MAX, why? Well I always liked 737

but seriously, its better

[Sheepy]

320NEO. Sharklets look good. Wider fuselage. Beats the 737NG/MAX in almost every aspect.
I also have an unexplained hatred for the later 737s. Looking at costs, the 737MAX projects lower costs than the 320NEO, but the MD-11 also PROJECTED more range at a greater payload than in actuality...

[egwrhw3rhwrh]

Airbus and Boeing?! No F***king way... They already corrupted aviation together.

So... To say randomly... I liek Lockheed better
Lockheed produces great military aircraft that are also bada**

[egwrhw3rhwrh]

Im sorry, but the A320neo just wins my heart. The 737 MAX is boeing's attempt to copy Airbus. Airbus will always be the greatest .

It will fall eventually
Just like anything on Earth.
Let's call it "Replacement".

[dwight looi]

All our patriotic biases aside, let's look at the fundamental advantageous of both.

A320 NEO

• Will have a more efficient engine by virtue of its ability to adopt a 78" fan
• Will be marginally quieter thanks again to the larger, slower, fan and reduced exhaust velocity
• Has slightly wider cabin and seats, hence slightly better passenger comfort
• Has a uniform cockpit with the A330/340/350 and hence the possibility of common ratings for the pilots*

* This is rarely relevant in the 100~200 seat class; Airlines generally don't use A320 pilots on larger types or vice versa.

B737 MAX

• Has the lighter and more aerodynamic (narrower fuselage) airframe
• Will be marginally louder due to the faster turning 66" fan and higher corresponding exhaust velocity
• Is lower to the ground promoting easier ground servicing
• Has a higher payload / fuel load (lower empty weight / higher maximum take off weight)

As far as operating economics, Boeing is claiming that the 737 MAX will continue the 737's current advantage over the A320 -- that it is cheaper to buy (slightly lower price) and cheaper to operate (lower fuel and service costs). They believe that despite the 66" LEAP-X 1B engines having slightly higher thrust specific fuel consumption, the differences are at their greatest during full power situations (takeoff and initial climb) while cruise economy is similar. On the other hand, the 737 airframe and engines are both lighter and less draggy (mainly because they are narrower and displace less air). They assess a 4% advantage over the A320 NEO. This of course is their assessment and may or may not pan out. And, even if it does, the current 737's marginal operating cost advantages -- which are proven -- over the A320, has not stopped Airbus from winning more orders than Boeing it the last 5~6 years for the type over the 737.

[Mr Tree]

Airbus and Boeing?! No F***king way... They already corrupted aviation together.

So... To say randomly... I liek Lockheed better
Lockheed produces great military aircraft that are also bada**

I love Lockheed!

[und_mike]

All our patriotic biases aside, let's look at the fundamental advantageous of both.

A320 NEO

• Will have a more efficient engine by virtue of its ability to adopt a 78" fan
• Will be marginally quieter thanks again to the larger, slower, fan and reduced exhaust velocity
• Has slightly wider cabin and seats, hence slightly better passenger comfort
• Has a uniform cockpit with the A330/340/350 and hence the possibility of common ratings for the pilots*

* This is rarely relevant in the 100~200 seat class; Airlines generally don't use A320 pilots on larger types or vice versa.

B737 MAX

• Has the lighter and more aerodynamic (narrower fuselage) airframe
• Will be marginally louder due to the faster turning 66" fan and higher corresponding exhaust velocity
• Is lower to the ground promoting easier ground servicing
• Has a higher payload / fuel load (lower empty weight / higher maximum take off weight)

As far as operating economics, Boeing is claiming that the 737 MAX will continue the 737's current advantage over the A320 -- that it is cheaper to buy (slightly lower price) and cheaper to operate (lower fuel and service costs). They believe that despite the 66" LEAP-X 1B engines having slightly higher thrust specific fuel consumption, the differences are at their greatest during full power situations (takeoff and initial climb) while cruise economy is similar. On the other hand, the 737 airframe and engines are both lighter and less draggy (mainly because they are narrower and displace less air). They assess a 4% advantage over the A320 NEO. This of course is their assessment and may or may not pan out. And, even if it does, the current 737's marginal operating cost advantages -- which are proven -- over the A320, has not stopped Airbus from winning more orders than Boeing it the last 5~6 years for the type over the 737.

and now after stating all that which do you prefer..? lol

[X-Wing @Aliciousness]

All our patriotic biases aside, let's look at the fundamental advantageous of both.

A320 NEO

• Will have a more efficient engine by virtue of its ability to adopt a 78" fan
• Will be marginally quieter thanks again to the larger, slower, fan and reduced exhaust velocity
• Has slightly wider cabin and seats, hence slightly better passenger comfort
• Has a uniform cockpit with the A330/340/350 and hence the possibility of common ratings for the pilots*

* This is rarely relevant in the 100~200 seat class; Airlines generally don't use A320 pilots on larger types or vice versa.

B737 MAX

• Has the lighter and more aerodynamic (narrower fuselage) airframe
• Will be marginally louder due to the faster turning 66" fan and higher corresponding exhaust velocity
• Is lower to the ground promoting easier ground servicing
• Has a higher payload / fuel load (lower empty weight / higher maximum take off weight)

As far as operating economics, Boeing is claiming that the 737 MAX will continue the 737's current advantage over the A320 -- that it is cheaper to buy (slightly lower price) and cheaper to operate (lower fuel and service costs). They believe that despite the 66" LEAP-X 1B engines having slightly higher thrust specific fuel consumption, the differences are at their greatest during full power situations (takeoff and initial climb) while cruise economy is similar. On the other hand, the 737 airframe and engines are both lighter and less draggy (mainly because they are narrower and displace less air). They assess a 4% advantage over the A320 NEO. This of course is their assessment and may or may not pan out. And, even if it does, the current 737's marginal operating cost advantages -- which are proven -- over the A320, has not stopped Airbus from winning more orders than Boeing it the last 5~6 years for the type over the 737.

I think part of the reason Airbus wins more orders is that the other airplanes in the A320 family are better than the equivalent 737 family. specifically, the A321 can fit 220 passengers vs. the 737-900s 180-something, while having slightly more range and slightly better effieicnce. I think the situation is similar with the A319, and both are about the same price as the equivalent Boeing. Also, while they may not be typerated the same, transitioning from a A320 to an A330/A340 takes much less time and money than from a 737 to a 767, as with airbus, all the switches are in the same place, so all that is learned is size specific. Boeing has a totally different panel, arranged in a completely different way. Also, the A330 and A340 DO have the same typerating, while the 767/777 don't. so pilot training is significantly less with an Airbus fleet than a Boeing fleet, and I think maintenance is the same story. A330/A340 same class. A321 similar enough that it does not require completely different equipment. Boeing fleet is the opposite.

[james767]

the 737 max is the best

[bolli]

[quote name='dwight looi' timestamp='1315078718' post='91654']

B737 MAX

• Has the lighter and more aerodynamic (narrower fuselage) airframe

I was under the impression that the A319 has a wider fuselage but because it has a much better structure is lighter?

[QK Flight Industries]

Are they? I thought Airbus was French, German, British, Sweedish, Spanish, American, Chinese... etc...

American? American? You want American, go Boeing! (There's an employee quote: "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going!")


Airbus is a France, Germany and UKgovernment supported aerospace company.

[PC Will]

A320NEO FTW

[Stevphfeniey]

Actually had the US Government gone with the KC-45 instead of the KC-46, they would've been indirectly contributing to Airbus. Just saying.

PS: Obvious troll is obvious

[sviridovt]

All our patriotic biases aside, let's look at the fundamental advantageous of both.

A320 NEO

• Will have a more efficient engine by virtue of its ability to adopt a 78" fan
• Will be marginally quieter thanks again to the larger, slower, fan and reduced exhaust velocity
• Has slightly wider cabin and seats, hence slightly better passenger comfort
• Has a uniform cockpit with the A330/340/350 and hence the possibility of common ratings for the pilots*

* This is rarely relevant in the 100~200 seat class; Airlines generally don't use A320 pilots on larger types or vice versa.

B737 MAX

• Has the lighter and more aerodynamic (narrower fuselage) airframe
• Will be marginally louder due to the faster turning 66" fan and higher corresponding exhaust velocity
• Is lower to the ground promoting easier ground servicing
• Has a higher payload / fuel load (lower empty weight / higher maximum take off weight)

As far as operating economics, Boeing is claiming that the 737 MAX will continue the 737's current advantage over the A320 -- that it is cheaper to buy (slightly lower price) and cheaper to operate (lower fuel and service costs). They believe that despite the 66" LEAP-X 1B engines having slightly higher thrust specific fuel consumption, the differences are at their greatest during full power situations (takeoff and initial climb) while cruise economy is similar. On the other hand, the 737 airframe and engines are both lighter and less draggy (mainly because they are narrower and displace less air). They assess a 4% advantage over the A320 NEO. This of course is their assessment and may or may not pan out. And, even if it does, the current 737's marginal operating cost advantages -- which are proven -- over the A320, has not stopped Airbus from winning more orders than Boeing it the last 5~6 years for the type over the 737.

it does look a little biased to me

[violetQueen]

I think part of the reason Airbus wins more orders is that the other airplanes in the A320 family are better than the equivalent 737 family. specifically, the A321 can fit 220 passengers vs. the 737-900s 180-something, while having slightly more range and slightly better effieicnce. I think the situation is similar with the A319, and both are about the same price as the equivalent Boeing.

Ok, let me pick apart your utter tripe. First off, let's compare the A321 and the 737-900...

I'm not saying the 737 is more capable on all missions, but it certainly is more capable on SOME missions, my ignorant friend.

The original 737-900 was limited to 189 pax due to exit limitations, but the ER has fixed this with an extra emergency exit, bringing capacity to 215 (only 5 short of the A321 (220), which is better than the A320 (180) compared to the 737-800 (189)...

The cargo volumes of each aircraft is identical... the A321 carries more payload than the 737-900ER by 2 tons IIRC, but the advantage of the A321 increases at longer ranges, on shorter ranges the 737-900ER catches up and takes the lead against the A321 in operating economics.

Again, the A319 versus the 737-700... A319 has a maximum capacity (with the standard exit configuration) of 134, but with the extra set of doors it fits 156, the 737-700 (with the standard exit configuration) seats 149... if someone plopped an extra set of exits and removed the galleys, I reckon it could beat the A319.

It is generally accepted that the 737family beats the A320family on shorter distances. The 737 was designed for high cycles throughout a 20 year life, and this is obvious through the number of jurassic 737s still in service in third world countries... it is simple, light and more capable then the A320 in such situations.

Don't get me wrong, I accept that the A320 trumps the 737 when you go into longer-range routes, but seriously how many airlines buy the aircraft because it's better at longer routes where they wont necessarily fly?

easyJet brought the A320 family because they cut prices lower than Boeing was prepared to. jetBlue bought the A320 family because they offered a sale and lease-back package that Boeing wasn't prepared to match. Air Asia brought the A320 family because Airbus offered a bigger discount and support package that Boeing wasn't prepared to match... what you airbus fanboys fail to understand is that Airbus is a loss-leader. They gain their "big" sales "stealing" Boeing customers by making a loss. Due to those airlines changing sides, so to speak, other airlines follow suit, at a slight premium in comparison. It works, and I don't begrudge them. If Boeing was half as active in its sales and marketing as Airbus is then, believe me, Airbus' market share would've remained around 20%. Boeing have been nonchalant about Airbus since they were formed and that is where they are wrong. The aircraft are pretty much evenly matched and all the new engines have done is maintained this equilibrium for another decade or so.

It's no news, asking 737Max vs A320Neo is like asking 737 vs A320, they're both capable in certain segments. They both have advantages and disadvantages. Delta just ordered 100 737-900s (not with the new engines) so they obviously know something you don't about it's economics in comparison to the A321 that you don't agre.

[dwight looi]

B737 MAX

• Has the lighter and more aerodynamic (narrower fuselage) airframe

I was under the impression that the A319 has a wider fuselage but because it has a much better structure is lighter?

Boeing 737-800

• Operating Empty Weight: 41.4 tons
• Maximum Takeoff Weight: 79.0 tons
• Fuel Capacity: 26,020 L
• Crusing Speed: Mach 0.785
• Range: 3115 nm
• Cabin Width: 3.54m
• Passengers: 189 (1-class; Maximum)

Airbus A320-200

• Operating Empty Weight: 42.6 tons
• Maximum Takeoff Weight: 78.0 tons
• Fuel Capacity: 30,190 L
• Crusing Speed: Mach 0.780
• Range: 3200 nm
• Cabin Width: 3.70m
• Passengers: 180 (1-class; Maximum)

[Stevphfeniey]

Damn, this guy knows his s***

[n.x.w.m]

Are they? I thought Airbus was French, German, British, Sweedish, Spanish, American, Chinese... etc...

Chinese? Sheesh, you offend me.

[QK Flight Industries]

You sure have a nack for bumping old topics

So? Personally, I believe that he bumps the interesting ones to keep them active, intentional or not.