Yeah, I want Yuxi to lock this stupid topic...

hes dead

your member title is very applicable here

For me, the reason I join an alliance is to get the reputation rating up. I honestly don't even check whether the people I'm competing with are in my alliance.

http://www.nbcbayare...-285432071.html

rip in pieces yuxi you will be mist

What is the point of this post?

he needs to up his post count

You are a complete and utter fanboy.

so are you tbf

I would like to disagree on comfort in economy. The inch in seat width makes a huge difference, even for someone with a really skinny frame. Hence why I would rather fly an A320 than a 737. I would prefer almost any widebody to either though. 737s are absolute rockets though, their performance is insane. I've never seen the Boeing factory, but I can tell that it is an impressive thing. I want to visit the place at some point. 

 

However, I have very limited respect for Boeing since they claimed harm from Bombardier selling aircraft which were in a completely different market segment (125 seats, which is much smaller than anything Boeing makes). I hope Bombardier get plenty of money in damages. It was a poor move on the part of Boeing.

Weren't Bombardier selling their aircraft at a loss to begin with?

If it's like that, what the difference between a full-size SUV like the Yukon or Suburban compared to a minivan. Toyota Sienna and Honda Odyssey can seat 8 or 7 people. And, the minivans are a lot cheaper than the SUVs, something like about 30,000 to 50,000.

 

 

 

Are they used for different purpose? Or why do people choose each one?

A suburban can do things a minivan can't. It has much more engine power than a sienna, so it can actually tow things. A suburban can also handle rough terrain, a sienna cannot. A suburban also has a tiny bit more storage space. minivans are also not cool at all

The new version of the Suburban/Yukon XL gets 16 mpg which isn't the greatest, but is an improvement over the old 13 mpg. BTW, the Suburban can fit 9 people in a 3-3-3 layout.

You can't fit three people in the front row of a suburban. Not only are there only two seats, but to carry 8 passengers (so 9 including driver) you need a special drivers license, at least in North Carolina and i assume in many other US states. 

Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT):
 

Eastern Flight 212 (1974): Very foggy, attempting an instrument approach, flew into the ground 3 miles from the airport in a DC-9-31. (72 fatalities, 10 survivors)

USAir Flight 1016 (1994): Another DC-9-31, crashed on approach during a thunderstorm. The crash was attributed to windshear. 37 fatalities, 20 serious injuries.

Air Midwest Flight 5481 (2003): Stall after takeoff in a 1900D, all 21 occupants died. 

Okay - since this is about me in the first place, I'm going to settle it. Cabin is totally irrelevant pretty much, that's just operator. I was just saying that in my experience, Delta A320 cabins have consistently been a lot worse than their 737 cabins. About the A321, whatever, that could be done with a 737 easilly, Malaysian is doing something like that with the 737 MAX 10 possibly if they ever release the goddamed interiors. I realize that some of you (ahem, not naming names here), prefer the A320 while flying, but may I remind you that the A320 has has a few incidents due to it being difficult to understand and fly. The Air France flight which was a flyover at an air show, the air Inter flight, and the AirAsia flight. I'm sure those of you who are educated in this would know what I'm talking about. There was once an incident blamed on airbus' fly-by-wire, which was QF72 i believe is the flight number, uncommanded pitch excursions if i'm not mistaken. There was also AF442 which was partly because of no AOA indicator in the cockpit. Finally, as you mentionned yourself, the 737 is a more agile and enjoyable plane to fly. I'm not blaming Boeing for RyanAir's bullsh** as well. Now - the numbers: Boeing 737-700 has 740 nmi more range than the A319, while having a similar seating capacity. When comparing max to neo: MAX 8 has 15nmi range more than 320neo. MAX9 has 15nmi more range than A321neo. The max7 has 75nmi more range than the 319neo. Also - I'm comparing fly-by-wire planes here, not the classic to the nextgen, I don't care how new the nextgen is or isn't. When you use a ratio of age to crashes A320 to 737 nextgen, the 737 wins by a long shot. Now: Operators. I can't pick who flies what, but in this case, it does favor boeing quite a bit. A320 is operated by IndiGo, Go Air, EasyJet, Spirit, Frontier, and many other terrible LCCs. LCC 737 operators include SouthWest, Alaska, and others, which are quite less terrible than their counterparts. Not to say that there aren't exceptions - JetBlue A320s are pretty nice, and Ryanair 737s aren't the best, but still. In terms of the TransCon config on American's A321s, anyone can, as I already said. I could make a similar config on a 737-900/ER, 737 MAX9 or 10, or on a 757, or even a 767 if I wanted to, or possibly a 787, much nicer plane. Anyhow, Delta and United both operate quite premium-ified 757s transcon, so that point is pretty invalid. 737 also uses a Yoke, which is better than a sidestick, although I'm sure many will disagree on that one. The yoke is easier to control, and you can use your left hand for other operations if you want (as captian), instead of needing it to fly with. The SideStick also favors people who are able to easily control a plane with their left hand as captain, while the yoke permits both left-and-right handed people to fly easily. (see, I told you I give long and nasty arguments stop arguing )

have you ever flown a plane

Have you ever seen a Delta A320 cabin?

 

 

Really, if you compare 737s and A320s that have had their cabins installed around the same time, you'll find that they're pretty similar.

 

Also if we're going to discuss the "best" cabin based on whatever the airline has installed in it, I think you'll find that American's A321s are probably the best narrowbody aircraft in commercial service:

 

 

Only a select few of american A321s look like that. Flew one recently from CLT-PHX and it was pretty boring, regular economy class, same as the 738s.

If you want to change the seat configuration of an aircraft, but have already ordered new aircraft in the old configuration, you should be able to change the configuration of the ordered aircraft at no cost.

I've said this before, but surely the comfort level says more about the airline than the aircraft. Flying a Ryanair 737 will be much less comfortable than a mainline A320, same as an Easyjet A319 will be much less comfortable than a mainline 737.

Well a person from the Vancouver/Seattle area would logically love Boeing more than Airbus, would they not? Plus, Boeing has a better range on its fleet than Airbus, the 737 can go all the way from 140-220 seats, while the A320 series goes from 160-220 (not counting the A318, which is like a wider slower not-at-all-like-a-Concorde Concorde). Besides, AE doesn't really matter as far as aviation goes.

The A318 is like the same size as the 736, the 319 like the 737, the 320 like the 738 and the a321 like the 739. I don't understand what you mean by better range.

nah - they wouldn't

naive

Those are actually the same airline

Just look at the amazing Cessna 172. Isn't it beautiful?

I've never flown on a Cessna 172, but I have to agree it's one of the true artistic masterpieces of the 21st century.

Fly a 777. your opinion will change. 340 is so much louder, and it just isn't as good. plus, aging cabins won't help it's case.

i blame most of the interior comfort stuff on the airline rather than the airplane, so this was just a judge of looks to me.

lol. 

thank you for your meaningful contribution to this thread that no one has posted in in a month

The A340 is the only airbus plane that looks good, and the 777 is one of the uglier Boeings (imo) so ill take the A340. Plus I've flown on one of those but never a 777.

True - It was never Boeing's intention to have 3-3-3 on a 787 or 3-4-3 on a 777, or 3-4-3 on a 747. That was all the airlines. Same with 3-4-3 on the A350. It's sad what the airlines do to us passengers.

Its a balancing act: Make each seat wider to keep customers happier BUT charge more for tickets or add another seat and lower prices.

yes, but the 764 doesn't come out until the late 90s or so, and the 707 is in the '60s. The 767 anyhow is a great replacement for the 707.

He is saying the reason why everyone hates the 777-200 is because it isn't much better than the 767-400 for 30% more cost. Nothing to do with the 707.

it can do nonstop, they just don't because there isn't enough demand. 

According to wikipedia, the range of a 77W is about 100 miles less than the shortest distance from JFK-MNL, and wikipedia ranges are often more than operational limits. 

Find a nesh and stick to it I done this several times my current airline no one would think of it and it makes $15M a month not bad ah

Think you mean a niche.