Inspired by the question Can a commercial airline pilot, flying either A320 or B737, ...? I wonder if it is common for pilots to actually fly both Airbus and Boeings? "Common" as in "one week this, the other week that".

I'd consider it difficult to mentally switch between the different behaviour of these two families in a short time because I assume very much of a pilot's interaction with an aircraft is "muscle memory": if X happens, press the Y button and pull the Z lever. But in another aircraft (different manufacturer) the levers and buttons might be at different positions, behave differently, or even be absent. This would void the "muscle memory".

@PerlDuck: see: How frequently are airline pilots switching between aircraft types (e.g. Airbus, Boeing, etc)?

@ymb1 Thank you. I was just preparing a "real" question about this topic. The question you linked to is not exactly what I'm after but close enough.

@ymb1 At least, let me show the pic that I intended to decorate my post with to clarify my concerns related to the transition between the different aircraft:

Hey, I hope the BA pilots who will bring me back from EGLC to my place the next week in an E-190 have more than that single switch on their dashboard. I'd very much appreciate a "left/right" dial. :-)

via xkcd.com/1669

@ymb1 LOL. No idea about the controls of AB vs. Embrear, but I'd really love to depart from EGLC with an Airbus operated by BA, in particular with their (one and only!) A318.

@PerlDuck that would be a flight to JFK, you can then catch another flight from JFK back home :D

@ymb1 Exactly. But in an A318 usually equipped with ~120 seats in a 32 seat configuration. That must be awesome. It's quite expensive (regular price is in the ballpark of 10,000 € two-way) but also quite exclusive. The flight number is BA001 (just like the Concorde flights). Very British.

yep it's a fancy ride

but not ~120, the 18 is the baby bus, 90 perhaps, let me check

nah you're right, 117 in single-class, 107 two-class

lovely photo planespotters.net/photo/592037/…

@PerlDuck there'll be an extra stop, seems they stop in Shannon before heading to JFK

short hop: flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-euna#222ca6b4

Yes, from London to JFK it does a tank stop at Shannon (Ireland) after an hour or so because it cannot start with full fuel tanks in LCY (MTOW exceeded for the given RWY). But from JFK to LCY it flies non-stop.

MTOW or westerly jetstream slowing down the ground-speed?

>150 knots jetstream:

that's flying 33% slower; my money is on winds, not MTOW

the '18 got plenty of thrust:weight ratio, especially with the few pax / small payload

Actually I don't know. But LCY has some specialties: it's located in the vicinity of many skyscrapers (the largest in the UK). The RWY length is just 1,500 metres/4,900 ft long and aircraft need special certification to be allowed to use it (it's not really STOL, but close to it). From Wiki: "Only multi-engine, fixed-wing aircraft with special aircraft and aircrew certification to fly 5.5° approaches are allowed to conduct operations at London City Airport"

I'll check the performance charts in a bit for the A318 and let you know

indeed in-city airports are convenient

so 5,000 ft runway would allow ~65 tonnes TOW

The A318's MTOW is 68 tonnes

via airbus.com/content/dam/corporate-topics/publications/… (PDF)

correction re MTOW, wikipedia says 65 t, but the manual gives two options: 59 and 68 t

assuming a 4-tonne payload, then the range (wind unaccounted for) would be ~3,600 NM, and the great circle distance is 3,017 NM

Yes, but LCY requires 5.5° approach path (as opposed to the usual 3°) and I'd assume the equreiments for take-off are similar.

this is a rudimentary back-of-the-enevelope figures check, I'd say it is both the runway and winds, because that range figure assumes MTOW, and our A318 might need to leave behind 3–5 tonnes of fuel

might because I now need to check the fuel capacity

climb is always steeper than the approach

but for that I'll need another set of performance charts, which I don't have for the A318 -- namely the obstacle clearance weight charts

Oh, that's new to me. TIL :-)

well, unless there's an engine out I suppose :D

Naaah, don't spend too much effort in that. You already did and I already feel guilty

regulations only require a certain gradient for the engine-out climb

all-engine climb gradients are hard to come by, wrote a long answer on that point: aviation.stackexchange.com/q/56036/14897

@PerlDuck don't be :D it intrigued me

:-) Btw, the German Wiki lists the aircraft certified to use LCY. No idea why the English Wiki doesn't.

I find the German Wiki community more enthusiastic when it comes to aviation articles, and I like how the French Wiki lists the spex in the infobox

or, they used to? fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

bummer

You are from Canada then?

lol no, this is what I meant about the infobox on the French wiki, they have it for the Concorde

here fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde_(avion)

Well, sometimes I get more information from the German Wiki, sometimes from the English version. I often switch between them if I'm not satisfied.

example where the German wiki was helpful: aviation.stackexchange.com/a/35192/14897

The French version never comes to my mind because I cannot really read it. I learned French in school but forgot almost all of it.

google translate to the rescue :) here I used the Swedish wiki: aviation.stackexchange.com/a/35124/14897

re "I learned French in school but forgot almost all of it." ditto

:-) Funnily, I upvoted your first example (in the past). Presumably because it also is about LCY. Indeed: When the aircraft comes to stillstand, you can just step out and enter the terminal. No buses, no jetways, just the stair and the apron.

@ymb1 I'm going off now to re-fuel myself with some Curry dish. Have a good night (or whatever is appicable in your timezone).

@PerlDuck I know this one! bon appetit! :) good night