Boeing claims that the 787 with fly by the end of the year. Where's the A350?

The Airbus may fly first but based on past history it will probably also suffer the first crash. I haven't really studied the statistics but I do seem to have this perception that quite a few Airbus jets have crashed which have been relatively new planes.

It would lead one to certain conclusions about the process for working all the bugs out of them extending into live service.

Originally posted by ecoparity
The Airbus may fly first but based on past history it will probably also suffer the first crash. I haven't really studied the statistics but I do seem to have this perception that quite a few Airbus jets have crashed which have been relatively new planes.

It would lead one to certain conclusions about the process for working all the bugs out of them extending into live service.

Are you kidding me? Please this forum from the time that I've spent on it demands that claims be backed by substance. That is the most generalized untrue statement I've seen in a while that was backed up by no report or substance of any kind.

PS. Nice to see you again Harlequin

I would like to see some evidence to back up that bold claim about airbus.

Now we do know lives have been lost in a boeing due to a fault know to both boeing and FAA (FAA allowing to long for the problem to be fixed) the 747 cargo door latch fault

I don't fault you for having a opinion but in a forum like this we tend to want to back-up why we hold such a position.

In order to get a proper stat on accident vs each other rating it would be pretty intensive work. not only would you need the database of info but to sort it and come up with percentages since we can't go off of just pure number count due to time of airframes in service vs each other etc. Also there would be the need to eliminate accidents due to human error since you can't then classify that as airbus's fault.

Its all very interesting but prefer to do leg work and have facts to really pull the weight of my opinion. also I'm not sure I have enough time to devote to really figuring out enough of those facts.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Canada_EH]

I understand, Boeing takes the same hits and worse though given they have planes listed like the DC-9 and count them into the overall rates. We're talking about crashes from the 1950s-60s. There's a huge number of Boeing crashes by regional airlines in Africa, S America and so on. That's where all the retired Boeing planes like the DC-9/10 went after the 1st world airlines wore them out.

I like the way the website calculates the stats though, at least he's trying to allow for the differences in number of planes and age by using per million flights. I do have to say though, it is a bit concerning to see Airbus and a few other popular models having that many crashes with so few flights. When you look at some of the per million totals on the Boeing planes it gets wild.

On the other hand his top rated planes for safety include two Airbus models, slightly more Boeing and a commuter jet. The Airbus A340 had a perfect record going up until two planes in a row went down in short order this past year.

I did find it interesting that the Airbus fly by wire only allows pilot over ride as long as the plane is within the "operating envelope".

ETA: Looking over the stats I do have to admit the problem with Airbus is mostly "perceptual" though the numbers do add up in Boeing's favor. I think it's one of those things like "Don't fly Delta out of DFW" - they probably had a decent safety record from a national or even global standpoint but they had a strangely high number of incidents at DFW, one of them extremely grisly. I think that video of the Airbus flying into the forest at the airshow might impact people kind of like the Delta thing did (especially if you flew through DFW often enough).

I once spent a summer flying on a certain Phoenix based carrier twice per week on nothing but Airbus jets and I have to say, the quality was not impressive. A value carrier might have more maintenance issues than most but almost every flight was delayed for mechanical problems and the interior of the planes was trashed. For all that the airline had a perfect safety record at that time though so once again - perception has an effect.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by ecoparity]

The Boeing 777 has never had passenger fatalities. While the A320, A330, 737NG, A380, and A340 have been doing extremely well. We are a generation beyond them aircraft, therefore, I don't see the 787, or A350 going down, for a long, long time. Honestly, aircraft crashes seem to be based on much luck and are also highly dependent on factors that have nothing to do with the aircraft themselves.

[edit on 18/10/2009 by C0bzz]

The 787 is pretty damn sick.

Originally posted by C0bzz
I don't see the 787, or A350 going down, for a long, long time.

It'll be a long time before I (and an awful lot of fellow aero engs. I know) get on either.



Take from that what you will.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
It'll be a long time before I (and an awful lot of fellow aero engs. I know) get on either.

With Boeing's current record of anticipating design problems early in the process and before delaying the introduction of the aircraft I'd say that that Aero engineers aren't the only people who won't be riding on the 787 for quite some time.

And, I honestly expect Airbus to run into the same problems with the A350 as Boeing has on the 787, so I can happily lump them into the same pile.

i think airbus are really looking at the entire design process and trying not to make this mistake tbh - they arn`t actually using the same sort of processes