But do you know anything specific and credible to suggest that the Boeing offering is better than the Airbus offering in this particular contract?lowing wrote:
I am an aircraft mechanic who spent the better part of 20 years working on Boeing aircraft, and a few Airbuses at a few airlines. From my experience my opinion is Airbus does not have a superior product. There were also parts availability issues.mikkel wrote:
How would you know?lowing wrote:
It may be a better "deal" but it ain't a better product by a long shot.
I do not wanna fly on anything that the tail tears off for no other reason than the pilot pushed the rudder pedals too much.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- USAF Awards Tanker Contract to EADS and Northrop-Grumman
Nope, I have no idea about any of it. It is just my opinion that Boeing aircraft are a superior product. ESPECIALLY the B767's. This is based on my experience working these aircraft and nothing more.mikkel wrote:
But do you know anything specific and credible to suggest that the Boeing offering is better than the Airbus offering in this particular contract?lowing wrote:
I am an aircraft mechanic who spent the better part of 20 years working on Boeing aircraft, and a few Airbuses at a few airlines. From my experience my opinion is Airbus does not have a superior product. There were also parts availability issues.mikkel wrote:
How would you know?
I do not wanna fly on anything that the tail tears off for no other reason than the pilot pushed the rudder pedals too much.
seems to me most of you are pre taking spots anyway,
most Americans favour Boeing, and the Europeans said Airbus or it is a good deal,
man these things haven't even been build yet and some of you are already saying 'crapbus' or whatever, about the rudder thing Iowing, pretty sure it had happened to a … McDonnell-Douglas too (maybe not) but that was a procedure that was in a American Airlines handbook (the case I remember)... and most crashes are because of crap maintenance.( and or pilot error).
but of course everything Airbus builds is crap
I couldn't careless if I had to fly with a Airbus or Boeing, I will be put in that damn thing like sardine in either case anyway.
the things will be build in Alabama (creating +- 7,000 jobs) for you Americans/Mexicans
most Americans favour Boeing, and the Europeans said Airbus or it is a good deal,
man these things haven't even been build yet and some of you are already saying 'crapbus' or whatever, about the rudder thing Iowing, pretty sure it had happened to a … McDonnell-Douglas too (maybe not) but that was a procedure that was in a American Airlines handbook (the case I remember)... and most crashes are because of crap maintenance.( and or pilot error).
but of course everything Airbus builds is crap
I couldn't careless if I had to fly with a Airbus or Boeing, I will be put in that damn thing like sardine in either case anyway.
the things will be build in Alabama (creating +- 7,000 jobs) for you Americans/Mexicans
Marine, who works in the airline industry called them shitbuses, figure he would know?
1 guy working in the industryCommie Killer wrote:
Marine, who works in the airline industry called them shitbuses, figure he would know?
..................must.................jump......on........... the wagon.
if Airbus now would be making a super plane with state of the art technology and some sources would say they are better then Boeing, wouldn't you(usmarine this case) still be saying they're "shitbusses".
maybe they have lesser quality, the passenger planes, I wouldn't know (at that level),
but these planes (tankers) for the US Army, which aren't even build yet, will be build in America.
"EADS has sold versions of the tanker jet to Britain, Australia, the UAE and Saudi Arabia."
but of course all those countries are buying "shitplanes".
I am not flaming anyone here, I just find some of you too judgemental. (My opinion)
I dont have a opinion on them, in truth, I hardly know anything about them besides the fact they give up a SMALL amount of quality of price.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
1 guy working in the industryCommie Killer wrote:
Marine, who works in the airline industry called them shitbuses, figure he would know?
..................must.................jump......on........... the wagon.
if Airbus now would be making a super plane with state of the art technology and some sources would say they are better then Boeing, wouldn't you(usmarine this case) still be saying they're "shitbusses".
maybe they have lesser quality, the passenger planes, I wouldn't know (at that level),
but these planes (tankers) for the US Army, which aren't even build yet, will be build in America.
"EADS has sold versions of the tanker jet to Britain, Australia, the UAE and Saudi Arabia."
but of course all those countries are buying "shitplanes".
I am not flaming anyone here, I just find some of you too judgemental. (My opinion)
I love free trade, very capitalistic, but the products produced for our men and women server I think belong in America. I dont believe things like that should be left to a foreign company.
everyone of these things I had said "made in sweden"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/PEQ-2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/PEQ-2
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-03-01 07:08:25)
Actually they are more commonly called SCARE-busesCommie Killer wrote:
Marine, who works in the airline industry called them shitbuses, figure he would know?
Silly smelly Europeans that managed to build a aircraft that the USAF bought ,for shame Europe for taking american jobs
Why should they only chose american built equipment/aircraft? big deal
Why should they only chose american built equipment/aircraft? big deal
not even taking American jobs, like 7,000 are created in Alabama, but I am sure 7,000 European engineers will fly over now.... /coughMagpie wrote:
Silly smelly Europeans that managed to build a aircraft that the USAF bought ,for shame Europe for taking american jobs
Why should they only chose american built equipment/aircraft? big deal
Ummm. It doesn't really make a difference. Parts for your F35's are made a few miles down the road, I should know. Point is it isn't Russia building these parts that are going to be sabotaged and blow up in mid air. You'd be surprised on how much Europe/America exchange military equipment.Commie Killer wrote:
I love free trade, very capitalistic, but the products produced for our men and women server I think belong in America. I dont believe things like that should be left to a foreign company.
the main gun on the Abrams is german.
"Good point from a reader who e-mails, “Boeing is responsible for designing the virtual border fence which is a virtual disaster. They did not even consult the border agents on the software that was to be used and now has to go back and redesign the software for military style usage. So Boeing may not be the best people to trust with national security at the moment."
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/29/th … an-uproar/
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/29/th … an-uproar/
Xbone Stormsurgezz
omg whats the big deal then? if any european country would buy such aircraft/equipment from the US there would not be a chance in hell that anything would be manufactured in europe geeez^*AlphA*^ wrote:
not even taking American jobs, like 7,000 are created in Alabama, but I am sure 7,000 European engineers will fly over now.... /coughMagpie wrote:
Silly smelly Europeans that managed to build a aircraft that the USAF bought ,for shame Europe for taking american jobs
Why should they only chose american built equipment/aircraft? big deal
The US free trade platform?<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
Just for a talking point, what do you think about a number of American senators, especially from the Chicago area, as mentioned in the Reuters article, saying that the planes should be built by an American company, with American workers, in America?
Is that fair enough, or a contradiction to the Free Trade platform the US tries to push on the world stage and at the WTO, especially with reference to China. Can you really justify all defence spending being done at home if there is / may be a better product out there?
Is that a joke?
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Airbus is cheaper because their customer support is WAY less than Boeing. Plus the planes are about as sensitive as a high school chick.Mek-Izzle wrote:
Well if it beat Boeing in the competition, then it's better. Quite simple no?
This is not a case of America vs Europe for me. I love the Canadian built CRJ. Great airplane.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
if Airbus now would be making a super plane with state of the art technology and some sources would say they are better then Boeing, wouldn't you(usmarine this case) still be saying they're "shitbusses".
I am sure these tankers will be built better since they will be under a microscope. But all I know is I take delivery of new aircraft off the line in Germany (this Tuesday again actually) and they start off with so many issues it amazes me. Leaking water, inop emergency lights, etc.
Wait, NG/EADS offer was cheaper? I've seen this twice now:usmarine wrote:
Airbus is cheaper because their customer support is WAY less than Boeing. Plus the planes are about as sensitive as a high school chick.
That savings thingy means Boeing took that off the price tag, and was still more expensive that NG/EADS plane? Or that Boeing plane was that much cheaper than the competitor?IHT wrote:
Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. analyst Troy Lahr said in a research note it was surprising the Northrop-EADS team won given the estimated $35 million per-plane savings offered by Boeing. Lahr estimated the Boeing aircraft would have cost $125 million apiece. "It appears the (Air Force) chose capabilities over cost," Lahr said.
Can't argue about quality, since I'm not in the know...
P.S. - So does that mean that Boeing is closing down the 767 line?
They aint even built yet, so those numbers are kind of.....in the air. I just go off of my personal experience.Sorcerer0513 wrote:
Wait, NG/EADS offer was cheaper? I've seen this twice now:usmarine wrote:
Airbus is cheaper because their customer support is WAY less than Boeing. Plus the planes are about as sensitive as a high school chick.That savings thingy means Boeing took that off the price tag, and was still more expensive that NG/EADS plane? Or that Boeing plane was that much cheaper than the competitor?IHT wrote:
Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. analyst Troy Lahr said in a research note it was surprising the Northrop-EADS team won given the estimated $35 million per-plane savings offered by Boeing. Lahr estimated the Boeing aircraft would have cost $125 million apiece. "It appears the (Air Force) chose capabilities over cost," Lahr said.
Can't argue about quality, since I'm not in the know...
P.S. - So does that mean that Boeing is closing down the 767 line?
But you are also looking at the price of the airplane. You need to look at the financing and TSP. In most cases, Airbus is cheaper in the long run.
Last edited by usmarine (2008-03-01 12:16:19)
don't you think this is the case with Boeing also, can't really think that Boeing doesn't have these issues, sure Airbus may still be behind when it comes to quality, but they're closing in when it comes to commercial planes.usmarine wrote:
This is not a case of America vs Europe for me. I love the Canadian built CRJ. Great airplane.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
if Airbus now would be making a super plane with state of the art technology and some sources would say they are better then Boeing, wouldn't you(usmarine this case) still be saying they're "shitbusses".
I am sure these tankers will be built better since they will be under a microscope. But all I know is I take delivery of new aircraft off the line in Germany (this Tuesday again actually) and they start off with so many issues it amazes me. Leaking water, inop emergency lights, etc.
p.s. whats this thing about anti military with Boeing I've read in the link from Kmarion anyway?
I don't know about the military and Boeing. Sure Boeing has the same problems, but not the the extent I have seen.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
don't you think this is the case with Boeing also, can't really think that Boeing doesn't have these issues, sure Airbus may still be behind when it comes to quality, but they're closing in when it comes to commercial planes.
p.s. whats this thing about anti military with Boeing I've read in the link from Kmarion anyway?
You are an idiot. We have free trade with a lot of people. Do you have some proof of this not being the case, or are you just talking out of your ass?FatherTed wrote:
The US free trade platform?
Is that a joke?
I think it can land on any major Airport, the only thing it has it needs special terminals or whatever for loading/unloading, but if in an emergency it would divert I honestly think everybody will get off the plane via the slides...usmarine wrote:
Something I always wondered with the A380. Say it was flying to the US and wanted to land in NY. What if it had to divert because of weather. Where would it divert to?
it needs less runway with take off then a Boeing 747 (A380 2,750 meters.. 747 3,018 meters)
don't think I will be very worried how I would get off. seeing it can load off 873 people in 77 seconds. (test isn't reality I know)
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- USAF Awards Tanker Contract to EADS and Northrop-Grumman