Which plane is better, more popular, more comfortable – Boeing 737 or Airbus A320? Or are you an Airbus or Boeing fan? We have covered these topics so many times in our articles, but this time, we’ll compare these two very popular aircraft from another perspective – the pilot’s one! Flying an airliner may look the same from a passenger seat, but to the pilots at the controls, there can be striking differences depending on whether they’re flying an aircraft from Boeing or Airbus. These differences go beyond liveries or cabin ambiance: they affect the feel of the controls, the pilot’s workload, the cockpit space, and even how landings and takeoffs are managed. In our article, we will analyze what longtime Boeing pilots notice when they step into an Airbus cockpit, and vice versa, especially comparing a classic Boeing narrowbody (such as the Boeing 737NG and MAX) to an Airbus workhorse (such as the Airbus A320ceo and A320neo).

Usually, pilots spend their entire careers on one family of aircraft. When someone trained on Boeing hops over to Airbus, even in a simulator, the differences hit hard. Understanding these contrasts helps explain why airlines choose one over the other, how pilot training works, and why each aircraft “feels” different, even though both transport passengers and, for passengers, everything looks and feels almost the same.

Cockpit Controls And Philosophy: Yoke Vs. Sidestick

Flying a Boeing and an Airbus can feel like piloting two entirely different machines, mainly because their control philosophies are fundamentally different. If you enter the cockpit of both aircraft, you’ll immediately notice one big difference – the control panel. Boeing’s 737 series uses a traditional control yoke (control column) that mechanically, via cables/hydraulics, activates control surfaces such as ailerons and elevators, with some limited fly-by-wire (FBW) elements introduced on the MAX only. In contrast, the A320 pioneered the use of FBW controls with a sidestick rather than a yoke.

With the sidestick, pilot inputs are translated into electronic commands — the aircraft’s computers handle the actual control-surface movements. The result? On Airbus, the side-stick feels ‘synthetic’, resulting in smoother, more consistent inputs across speeds. As one Boeing pilot trying out an A320 in this video put it: « The stick felt strange at first, but auto-trim made for a smoother takeoff. »

In the Boeing, control remains direct and mechanical: at low speeds, large control inputs are required; at high speeds, it becomes lighter and more responsive.

The difference in control philosophy reflects deeper design priorities: Airbus aims to reduce pilot workload through automation, envelope protection (systems preventing stalling or dangerous attitudes), and consistency. Boeing preserves more direct, hands-on control, often appreciated by more “old-school” pilots who value tactile feedback and control “feel.”

Cockpit Space, Ergonomics, And Pilot Comfort

Once you step into an Airbus cockpit after a Boeing cockpit, you will notice how much more spacious and modern the Airbus feels, and this extends across the entire range of aircraft from both manufacturers. This feeling is confirmed by many of the pilots we interviewed. And this was my exact feeling, too, when I entered the cockpit of a small Airbus A319 for the first time: to my surprise, it felt more spacious and less cramped than that of a Boeing 737, and even some larger birds, such as the 747.

And here is an explanation of why. Because the Airbus aircraft were designed with FBW and sidestick from the ground up, Airbus had the freedom to build a broader forward fuselage, giving the cockpit more breadth and making it noticeably more roomy than Boeing’s compact, tube-derived cockpit, especially that of a Boeing 737 as described by this pilot from AOPA.

Inside the Airbus cockpit, there’s often more comfort: a better-defined layout, modern displays, more storage space, optional amenities (like foot warmers, a fold-out table, better air ventilation), and more generous jump-seat/baggage space. The Boeing pilot, Captain Croft, who tried the A320, described the cockpit as “roomy,” though she still preferred Boeing’s layout for specific conditions (e.g., windy weather).

By comparison, the 737 cockpit feels more “classic”: it is narrower, more utilitarian, and can feel cramped on long flights. For pilots who spend many hours behind the controls, that extra space and ergonomic smoothness on Airbus can make a difference in daily comfort.

Flight Handling & Feel: Automation, Fly-by-Wire, And Pilot Input

One of the biggest differences for pilots transitioning from Boeing to Airbus, and vice versa, is how the airplane responds during different phases of flight.

With the Airbus A320, thanks to fly-by-wire, the controls behave almost uniformly across the speed envelope. The side-stick and flight computers handle trimming automatically (“the airplane trims itself”), and the pilot doesn’t need to adjust trim as speed changes manually. This makes manual flying, especially in cruise or climbs, smooth and predictable.

In contrast, the 737 requires more manual input at lower speeds (e.g., during takeoff, climb, and approach): larger control deflections are needed initially, then, as speed builds, control forces lighten, and finer inputs suffice. Trim control remains under pilot responsibility throughout. It’s no surprise that there is more interaction between Boeing and a pilot, since the 737 traces its origins to a 1960s design, with rudimentary automation.

Some pilots say this gives the 737 a “hands-on” feel: you sense the air-flow over control surfaces, and the aircraft responds more like a traditional airplane. Meanwhile, Airbus feels more “managed”: you give the command, and the aircraft executes under computer supervision. This automation can be a boon for reducing workload, but it also reduces the sense of direct “flying.”

Such differences can influence pilot preferences: some enjoy the tactile, “raw” feel of Boeing; others appreciate the smooth, easier handling and less workload of Airbus. As one commenter said on Reddit:

“A320 = comfortable video game. No physical feedback … 737 = flying dump truck, fly it like an airplane.”

Takeoffs, Landings, And Flight Envelope Behavior

Flying under different philosophies also affects takeoffs, landings, and how the aircraft handles in demanding situations (such as gusty crosswinds).

For instance, on A320 (and other Airbus FBW jets), the flight envelope protections and automated trim often make takeoff smoother, easier, and safer, especially in “normal law” operations. The system helps prevent stalls, restricts some extreme inputs, and generally stabilizes control. Landing, however, brings its own nuances. Because the A320’s sidestick doesn’t provide the same tactile feedback and because inputs are computer-mediated, some pilots find crosswind landings more challenging on Airbus than on the physically direct 737.

For the 737, pilots often talk about “greasing” a landing – a smooth, soft touchdown. The conventional controls, manual trim, and direct feel allow experienced pilots to refine the flare, manage energy, and carefully control runway contact. But it also has a downside: approach speeds tend to be higher (especially on longer 737 variants), which can make consistent smooth landings harder and increase the risk of tail-strike or runway overrun. But one airline seems to have turned this bug into a feature with the so-called hard Ryanair landings, which use a fast approach for quick turnarounds; a firm landing stops the plane faster, reducing taxi time.

In Airbus, the constant “protection” often means the airplane won’t allow a truly dramatic stall, which is a comfort for many pilots, but in very gusty or windy conditions, the limited tactile feedback and side-stick dynamics may make fine control trickier.

Pilot Transition: Training, Familiarity, And Mental Model

For pilots accustomed to Boeing, switching to Airbus (or vice versa) is more than just learning new checklists; it’s about completely changing the mindset. Because the systems and philosophies differ so much, pilots need a full “type rating” to fly a different aircraft family.

Some former Boeing pilots who tried Airbus describe the side-stick as alien at first, slow to provide feedback, and less physical, and even uncomfortable. Others find the Airbus automation liberating, especially on long flights or busy traffic days.

In communities of pilots (real or simulated), there’s a recurring sentiment: Airbus is easier, more predictable, more “office-like.” Boeing is more demanding, more hands-on, but also more satisfying for pilots who enjoy active flying.

For example, according to this Reddit forum:

“The 320 is just different as it’s all fly by wire … but the 737 does feel like you have the whole jet in your hands.”

Another pilot from a similar forum said:

“The Airbus is far superior if you’re investing many hours in the cockpit each day; the 737 is more fun if you just want to hand-fly.”

Such opinions reflect profound psychological and ergonomic differences, not just which plane is faster or more efficient, but which feels more like “real flying.” I would also put in my two cents, even though I’m not a professional pilot, but an amateur one, flying small planes like a Cessna. I am pretty familiar with both cockpits, as I was lucky enough to visit almost all Airbus and Boeing aircraft at numerous airshows, and I also tried the A320 and Boeing 737NG full-flight simulators (FFS).

Airbus was definitely a much more intuitive plane to fly, and it was easier to spot all the necessary commands and buttons more quickly because it was less cluttered. But I disliked the sidestick because it was difficult to “feel” the aircraft with only one hand. The most shocking thing for me was that each Airbus sidestick operates independently; moving one doesn’t move the other. I would definitely prefer a military-style center stick so I can see what my copilot is doing (like the one on the Tupolev Tu-160). Boeing, on the other hand, seemed more complex and cluttered, especially its very asymmetrical and overloaded overhead panel (compared with a neat, symmetrical and user-friendly Airbus one), but overall, the 737 was much more responsive and easier to handle with a good old-fashioned yoke.

So, Which Is “Better”? (Spoiler: It Depends On What You Value)

When pilots compare Boeing and Airbus, there is seldom a definitive winner. Instead, the preference often comes down to what the pilot values: control-feel and “hands-on” flying, or automation, comfort, and simplicity.

• If you value direct control, tactile feedback, dynamic feel, and enjoy actively “flying” the airplane, particularly in challenging conditions, Boeing (e.g., the 737) tends to appeal more.
• If you prefer consistency, a lower workload, an ergonomic cockpit, and smoother handling, especially over long duty days or in busy airspace, Airbus (e.g., the A320) often comes out ahead.

Airlines, likewise, may choose one over the other based on operational philosophy: predictable handling, crew commonality, and ease of training vs. pilot skill, flexibility, and tradition. At the end of the day, both aircraft families are safe, reliable, and widely used, and the fact that both continue to dominate the narrowbody market suggests there’s no “wrong” choice, just different preferences. And for pilots, each philosophy offers different advantages and trade-offs. Understanding these differences helps explain why switching from Boeing to Airbus (or vice versa) isn’t trivial, even for experienced pilots: it requires retraining, a shift in muscle memory, and adapting to a new “mental model.”

If you ask a pilot who has flown both, you’ll often hear: “Both are excellent. I fly what I’m trained on — but if I ever had to choose purely by feel, it would depend on the weather, the flight, and whether I feel like flying the airplane, or letting the airplane fly me.”