Airbus sucks. Their planes are crud and they don't even look nice. When will they ever stop killing people? Buy and fly Boeing, everybody - the experiment is over.
Printable View
Airbus sucks. Their planes are crud and they don't even look nice. When will they ever stop killing people? Buy and fly Boeing, everybody - the experiment is over.
The chance of the plane crashing is about zero anyway, so I honestly couldn't care less what kind of plane I'm flying. Nothing bad is going to happen.
This website lists less crashes for Airbus than for Boeing.
Wikipedia and pretty much any other website I could find stated that the amount of crash is quite similar, both in the short term and in the long run.
There are many airlines that are not even allowed to land in the USA / Europe etc. Old, ill maintained planes either Chinese / Russian or ancient Western origin.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Of the ones that are allowed to fly in and land in Europe I'm not concerned, but I'd not fly in these others without damn good reason.
~:smoking:
Well....Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Since I'm living in Europe, that's not really an issue....
Considering the enormous forces exerted during take-off and landing, it's a wonder commercial jets survive more than 2 or 3 flights. Hence maintenance is key, which I put on the airline operators, not the manufacturers.
Good, fully-funded, fully-staffed maintenance crews = safe flights. Skimp on them = disaster waiting to happen.*
*except for Canadian Geese.
Boeing was started in 1916, Airbus in 1970. I'd hope that, since the dawn of flight the company that has been around since the beggining would have more crashes than the newbie.
Does anyone know about carbon fiber airframes? Do they change their chemical structure when hit by lightning? I'm concerned because all of the new airframes seem to be pursuing this material due to its lowered fuel consumption/lower cost. Is the trade off worth it? It seems that even the dream liner is planning to use carbon rather than titanium.
I was talking to some people and they had suggested that lightning makes carbon frames more brittle and allows them to shatter without warning. Some believe that this had more to do with the Air France/Brazil flight's mid air evaporation than the computer failure did.
I wouldn't be suprised if it comes out that Airbus is getting kickbacks from sea monsters. They won't be satisfied until they've killed us all.
If you bothered to check the website I linked to, you would have seen that crash before 1970 (1969 precisely) aren't listed.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
So, once again. What are your sources? All mines say that both companies have a pretty good safety history, and about as many accidents.
So, that a company has been around for a long time makes it a better company???
Compare GM or Ford with Toyota or Nissan.
The latter might have been delayed in starting up, but these days the former are desperately playing catchup.
~:smoking:
Ok, just for the heck of it, I checked Airdisaster.com.
Number of Airbus crashes listed (all models): 33
Number of Boeing crashes listed (only counted after 1970, and only for 377, 707, 727, 737 and 747): 190.
Obviously, this is by no mean representative, since on the first hands, I didn't count 757 and 767, and because on the other hand, Boeing has (had?) much more planes flying. I'm trying to look up for some more statistics, but so far, the whole idea that Boeing is much better than Airbus sounds like mumbo-jumbo.
I could also count the deathtoll on each side (each crash listed has it), but it wouldn't be representative either, as long as we don't know how many people flought in a boeing and in an airbus.
Overall, it seems quite obvious to me that both companies have an excellent record. That's precisely why neither of them bash the other on that aspect. They know they have pretty similar numbers and can't really point the finger without being completely hypocrits.
So yeah, 2 airbus crashed lately. It's not as if it never happened to Boeing (there are several instances of 2 747 crashing and killing all passengers within two months on the website). Rather than trying to push forward your simplistic eco-nationalism, you'd better pray for/respect the memory of the victims.
You just bought shares in Boeing?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Call me cynical, but did you get this from some 'buy American' site? Are they, or is Boeing itself, trying to cash in on last month's high-profile crash/explosion/octosquid attack off the coast of Brazil?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Actually, Boeing probably would. When there is an unresolved issue with a plane from the competitor, I guess you would use it to spread doubt. Do we have any airline industry experts here? It's a very small and competitive world, with only a handful of players. I'd be interested in knowing how it works.
Edit:Ah, that makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Edit2: Goodness. A plane crashed today in Yemen. That explains a lot. Sorry to hear.
Have Boeing fixed the problem they had with engines falling off due to cost cutting in manufactiure and terrible training of their maintainance technicians?Quote:
Buy and fly Boeing, everybody - the experiment is over.
Yeah, and the fact that there are who knows how many times more Boeing planes than Airbus used these days. Boeing has a larger market share than Airbus.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
"Had". Either way, I love Boeing. I should own stocks. My dad worked for British, so naturally I'm a lifelong Boeing fan.
Gotta love kneejerk reactions.
Both Boeing and Airbus do wonderful jobs of designing planes that are safe, sturdy, easy to maintain, and cost effective. Some hard lessons were learned early on in the jet age, the de Havilland Comet comes to mind.
Most all crashes these days are due to two major factors. The first is pilot error. The second is poor maintenance. Flying is very safe, generally speaking. I don't remember the statistics, but one is far, far more likely to be killed or maimed in a car accident than in a flight. The thing about plane crashes are that they are generally far more deadly when it does happen.
It's no big secret. Your life is worth about a million bucks when you step on a plane.
If you want someone or something to direct your ire at, direct it at the airlines. They are the ones who are do all the cost cutting measures. They are the ones who would overwork pilots like crazy if it weren't for the FAA regulating activity. They are the ones who are relatively free to "ignore" manufacturer safety bulletins and whine and piss and moan at the government for "forcing" them to spend money fixing things.
Yes, of course, ANY problem is quickly solved once the legal department confirms that you'll lose more money in court than you would by making the needed changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
If you want a good comparison, it should be crashes by type per flight and/or by passengers carried. We'll all "discover" that Airbus AND Boeing are less likely to kill you than are Ford, Fiat or Peugot.
I remember hearing the statistic that your more likely to be kicked to death by a donkey than die in a plane crash...
Not sure how true it is... especially as more and more people take up air travel but i like to quote it generally to prove a point, usually when im talking to a friend or something that is worried about flying...
The way to do it would be to take the total amount of flights flown by Boeing and Airbus then divide it by amount of crashes and you have a crash per flight ratio...
Of course then you could split it up into the very dangerous crashes (were most or all die) and the not so dangerous were maybe one or two die... or you could skip this and go for a deaths per flight ratio...
Of course for a deaths per flight ratio isn't that great... a few too many variables....
What would be a more effecient score would be deaths per passenger.... add up all the passengers and divide by the number of deaths...
I think both those scores have some validity, one will tell you how often X's planes crash, the other will tell you what the chances are (or were in the last 30 odd years) of dieing whilst flying with X
Of course to make this even better maybe just concentrate on the last 10-20 years, if one company happened to have a bad recored back in the 80's but has since changed this it would be no reason to not fly with them now...
I love statistics!
All those statistics about low chances of dying in an air crash are true, but first of al, of course, people are not rational, nor do statistics quiet them. Secondly, plane crashes kill people en masse while auto accidents are usually low-casualty due to the limited capacity of an average private vehicle. I do believe that fact increases you chances of dying in an air crash. Although when compared to auto accidents, the rate for air crashes is still laughably small (but still just as tragic).
Anybody have statistics since 1970 on the ratio of aircraft in service to aircraft crashed? Also, ratio of flights to fatalities since 1970? I beleive that these would be more telling.
The plane that crashed today near Yemen was banned from flying to or in France. For not meeting maintenance requirements. :furious3:
Yet, unsuspecting travellers started their travel in Paris, flew to Yemen, and there were transferred into this plane. Possibly expecting their entire trip to meet European standards and regulation, instead of being herded into this flying coffin. :furious3:
That's a very interesting point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I would not have considered that changing planes in a different country might mean that standards and safety margins might be binned too.
~:smoking:
Thats shocking!
I wouldn't have thought that would be the done thing either...
I would have assumed european tour operators... selling to european customers... have to maintain european safety standards...
Certainly is worrying... will any heads roll over this you think ?
It is Yemen Airways. So possibly we'll see some heads rolling indeed. Or hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
I was more thinking of the European tour operator who planned the trip... I would certainly be calling my lawyer if i had a relative on board...
Im guessing though this thing its not technically illegal... somewhat against the spirit of the law but not actually illegal...
Saying all this i would probably be happy to risk a little safety for a cheaper price.. though only my own safety, if i had a family or anything then no way..
You mean, this?Quote:
Airbus is a bus with wings
So, as I expected, this topic is a pure kneejerk 'omg' reaction, mixed with some 'our stuff is soooo much better' and not backed up by any fact or statistics.
Way to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
That is correct. I never pretended it wasn't.
But in one month?Quote:
there are several instances of 2 747 crashing and killing all passengers within two months on the website
Is that bad luck on Airbus' side, or luck on Boeing's side? Tough choice. :thinking:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caius
I believe it's bad luck on the flying public's side. Circumventing and skimping on maintenance procedures is playing russion roulette with your customers, eventually it's gonna go bang instead of click. All Yemen Airways planes should be boycotted from major airports till they clean up their act. :whip:
I am certain you know yourself how unrealistic it is. But yes, not a bad idea. But then you would also have to ban the Russian Airlines. Russian Roulette is a Russian thing, and our Russian Aeroplanes offer the ultimate Roulette experience! Well, it does depend on the airline, but the AeroFlot, the largest Airline Company in the World in terms of routes and planes pays for the quantity with quality. Typical Russian behaviour. Quite efficient in the economic and practical sense, but go tell that to the victims of the crashes...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
Interesting article...
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/07/01/...-air-disaster/Quote:
The crash of a Yemenia Airbus A310 on its second attempt to land at the Moroni airport on Comoro Island yesterday had all the classic early jet age prerequisites for an air disaster.
It was a crappy airline flying an old jet in the middle of the night in bad weather into a strip with a short runway where the approaches are impinged upon by big hills.
The flight sounds like a re-run of any of too many 60s British charter holiday catastrophes involving killer carriers like Dan-Air, which became gruesomely infamous for its clean-up processes involving large common graves, bags of quick lime and platitudes in the cut-throat budget package market it dominated, despite its record, in those times.
The jet is reported as having abandoned an attempt to land in bad weather and crashed into the sea on its second approach. Of the 153 people on board only one passenger, a 14-year-old girl, has been found alive in the sea surrounded by bodies and debris.
The EU has been running a name and shame campaign against these sorts of carriers which hang on to the fringes of the travel market.
The Yemeni national airline jet in question had been banned from EU airspace for maintenance irregularities and the airline itself was on notice to lift its game or have its entire operations prohibited within Europe, and put on the same no fly list which includes dozens of small carriers and Garuda Indonesia.
The Airbus type involved, the A310, is a derivate of the first Airbus jet, the A300, and has none of the computer linked fly by wire systems found on contemporary Airbuses and to an extent on later Boeing designs.
It can’t be meaningfully compared with the Airbus A330-200 lost with 228 people on board in the Air France AF447 disaster of 1 June in the mid-Atlantic, or the string of control incidents involving similar A330-300 jets flown by Qantas and other carriers.
The Air France crash remains a mystery, but serious questions have been raised about unreliable air speed data experienced by the type because of icing of external air pressure measuring devices and other peculiarities in the service messages automatically transmitted from AF447 before it crashed after experiencing severe turbulence.
The differences between the A310, rarely seen in Australia, and the A330s, which are common, will not of course lessen the Airbusophobia filling talk back radio and other media.
Even the Christian Science Monitor is running hysterical reports.
However of at least 52 non-terrorist related fatal scheduled airliner crashes in the last ten years, only eight involved Airbuses and 23 were in Boeings, with the rest made up of Russian airliners, McDonnell Douglas jets and assorted commuter turboprops.
What a new term.Quote:
Airbusophobia
Big 'meh' to the airbusophobia talk radio. Nice to see the Christian Science Monitor Pred-Phelping about the misery and death of others. :no:
More importantly:
LinkQuote:
13-year-old plane crash survivor speaks to her father about plunging into the sea.
The teenage girl who is the only known survivor of the Comoros plane crash that killed up to 152 people has described how she floated in the Indian Ocean clutching a piece of debris for 12 hours before her rescue.
Bahia Bakari, who sustained just a fractured collarbone and cuts and bruises to her face, told her father how she was thrown clear of the Yemenia Airbus A310 when it crashed in poor weather at 2am on Tuesday. Her mother, who was traveling with her from Paris to visit relatives in the Comoros, is among those feared dead.
Kassim Bakari, the girl's father, told French news outlets that he had spoken to his daughter on the telephone. "I asked her what happened and she said: 'We saw the plane fall in the water. I found myself in the water. I was hearing people speak but I couldn't see anyone. I was in the dark. I couldn't see anything. Daddy, I couldn't swim very well. I grabbed on to something but I don't know what'."
Bakari, who has three other children, said that when he heard about the crash he thought he would never again see his wife and oldest daughter. "She is a very, very shy girl. I would never have thought she would have survived like this. I can't say that it's a miracle, I can say that it is God's will," he said.
He said his daughter had not yet been told that her mother was dead. "They told her she was in a room next door, so as not to traumatise her. But it's not true. I don't know who is going to tell her."
I've always wondered whether to call a sole airplane disaster survivor lucky or unlucky.
Either way, a very tragic story. The bit about 'daddy, I couldn't swim well', and her dead mother broke my heart when reading it. Poor thing.
If you are interested in buying shares in anything; buy low and sell high, you'll make the most money that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Now if we could just figure out when its the low and when its the high then we'll be millionaires!
Great argument... :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Yeah, it is of significant importance that your means of transportation look nice. So much more important than let's say comfort, safety, speed etc. This is why I ride Angelina Jolie to go to work every morning. :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Fly the airline that admits that they designed an aircraft based on a model that makes airplanes that break up into pieces in real life? And that they ll add bits and pieces of metal to stop it from happening? You gotta be joking...
Quote:
'The reason for the fifth delay is that the actual 787 did not behave the way the model predicted.
Specifically, Boeing found that portions of the airframe -- those where the top of the wings join the fuselage -- experienced greater strain than computer models had predicted. '
Indeed Airbus is a bus with wings, which is what an airplane is supposed to be.
Boeing is a Dodge with wings...not much different that the struggling US automakers and even more heavily subsidized.
However at the end of the day it is a matter of safety. Safety is mostly a matter of selecting a responsible airline.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/06/...7-safe-to-fly/
Is Airbus suck MORE than Boeing? Not really , both companies have come up with design flaw in thier production (Boeing's tail-fin weak screw was a cause for many accident in the 80's for example).Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
The design flaw that begin to be outlined in the latest Airbus model is IMHO :
- Totally fly by wire plane without any 'mechanical' instruments backup.
- Badly design emergency checklist.
- Weak tail-fin????
About carbon lightweight airframe of the airbus:
-I think it is a big bonus: there are a few of case where the plane had engines failure and the pilots managed to reach an airstrip and land the plane. A feat not possible with an aluminum airframe for something that big. Fortunately the battery didn't die or they would had been screwed.