Airbus is a bus with wings

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[Meneldil]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

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.

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

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.

Well....

Since I'm living in Europe, that's not really an issue....

[KukriKhan]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Meneldil]

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.

If you bothered to check the website I linked to, you would have seen that crash before 1970 (1969 precisely) aren't listed.

So, once again. What are your sources? All mines say that both companies have a pretty good safety history, and about as many accidents.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Meneldil]

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.

[Andres]

Buy and fly Boeing, everybody -

You just bought shares in Boeing?

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

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?

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:

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.

Ah, that makes sense.


Edit2: Goodness. A plane crashed today in Yemen. That explains a lot. Sorry to hear.

[Tribesman]

Buy and fly Boeing, everybody - the experiment is over.

Have Boeing fixed the problem they had with engines falling off due to cost cutting in manufactiure and terrible training of their maintainance technicians?

[Aemilius Paulus]

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.

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

"Had". Either way, I love Boeing. I should own stocks. My dad worked for British, so naturally I'm a lifelong Boeing fan.

[Whacker]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Have Boeing fixed the problem they had with engines falling off due to cost cutting in manufactiure and terrible training of their maintainance technicians?

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.


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.

[LittleGrizzly]

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!

[Aemilius Paulus]

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).

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The plane that crashed today near Yemen was banned from flying to or in France. For not meeting maintenance requirements.

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.

[rory_20_uk]

The plane that crashed today near Yemen was banned from flying to or in France. For not meeting maintenance requirements.

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.

That's a very interesting point.

I would not have considered that changing planes in a different country might mean that standards and safety margins might be binned too.

[LittleGrizzly]

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 ?

[Louis VI the Fat]

will any heads roll over this you think ?

It is Yemen Airways. So possibly we'll see some heads rolling indeed. Or hands.

[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..

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Airbus is a bus with wings

You mean, this?

[Meneldil]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

That is correct. I never pretended it wasn't.

[Caius]

there are several instances of 2 747 crashing and killing all passengers within two months on the website

But in one month?

[Viking]

But in one month?

Is that bad luck on Airbus' side, or luck on Boeing's side? Tough choice.