>>1442295Airbus has always gone high tech solutions to problems. Boeing is the more conservative company that goes with tried and proven tech. Exceptions to rule being 787 Dreamliner and original A350, that was supposed to be rather conservative upgrade over A330, until Airbus understood what Boeing was doing with Dreamliner. At that point Airbus basically restarted A350 development as clean sheet design.
Passenger experience on Airbus or Boeing plane is mostly defined by seats, inherently evil thing called passenger entertainment system and food you are potentially served during the flights. Very little of that comes from the airplane itself. Both Airbus and Boeing get their seats and passenger entertainment systems same suppliers, actual supplier being selected by airline ordering the plane.
>>1442431>only because of the regulations.. otherwise most carriers would go the route of delta and operate reliable md-80s and shitAncient planes that are expensive to maintain and operate.
>they only get away with that because REGULATORY CAPTURE created a duopolyDuopoly is result of competition to Boeing and Airbus being even more incompetent than they are. McDonnell-Douglas merged with Boeing because the other option was the lowest bidder side of that company dragging down the profitable parts. Former Douglas aircraft that didn't have money to develop twin jet widebody replace to MD-11 or modern replacement for MD-80 that was at the end upgrade path. Like 737 now, in 90's DC-9-derived designs were heading into territory of one major upgrade too many. Fighter side of MDC was healthy, former McDonnell, and same goes with attack helicopter business they bought from Hughes. Lockheed went out of airliner business in 80's because they only managed sell half of TriStars they needed sell to make that program profitable.
For fucks sake Lockheed managed to cause the last genuine Japanese kamikaze attack, done by porn actor that went full /pol/ and TENNO HEIKAI BANZAI!!!!
