4 ms·

All of the airplanes that crash were approved for production by the FAA. I am not sure how you would measure the failure rate of the NTSB, other than by lookin

by nickff 10y ago

All of the airplanes that crash were approved for production by the FAA. I am not sure how you would measure the failure rate of the NTSB, other than by looking at the number of repeated failures, which is tough, as many incidents are one-offs, or can be categorized as distinct without being substantially different. In any case, one could regard the FAA's primary failure being that the airliner market is a duopoly. The FAA and its counterparts have helped make it so expensive to develop and approve new aircraft that only two companies can do it, and even they only design one new airplane every ten-twenty years. Bombardier, which is a large and established aircraft manufacturer could afford to develop an airliner, but not to get it approved; this results in slow progress, high prices, and little competition. It would be interesting, if impossible to know how safe aircraft would be if Boeing and Airbus were granted an unregulated monopoly. I would guess their aircraft would be very safe and expensive (as they currently are), just like 'Ma Bell's service was in the days of its monopoly.

colechristensen 10y ago
Every mistake, every crash is a failure and there are remarkably few of them. Mistakes happen and the mistake is always in not predicting the failure correctly. And there's quite a bit of competition; Boeing and Airbus are integrators, they don't build all of the parts and there are plenty of parties competing for the various parts. Likewise they both make the largest aircraft exclusively, but as you get smaller you add more and more alternatives to the mix. You're also wrong about no new models. They release updates and changes all the time. Completely new planforms just aren't needed. The basic design is fundamentally unchanged and doesn't need to be changed. There's just nowhere to go. Only small iterations of improvement.
- nickff 10y ago
  There are plenty of opportunities for new models; Boeing wanted to make 3 new aircraft, and had to settle for 1 new and 2 upgrades. The 737 has been flying for almost 50 years, and Boeing still can't give it long enough landing gear to properly accommodate properly-sized turbofans because of the regulatory burdens. Bombardier thought there was an opportunity for a new single-aisle airliner, but hasn't been able to come up with the money to get a certificate. The fact that there are no new aircraft manufacturers coming on-line only proves that the regulators have created a duopoly.
lukeschlather 10y ago
Looking around on the internet it sounds like the cost of the aircraft accounts for about 10% of the cost of a ticket. Frankly, airplanes sound downright cheap compared to the cost of staffing and fuel. Doesn't seem like the right place to start looking for cost-cutting measures.
- nickff 10y ago
  If you want to understand how important new aircraft are, you need to take more factors into account, such as turn times, average numbers of transfers, etc. into account. The airlines have been moving away from the hub-and-spoke model, towards point-to-point for quite some time; aircraft CPM plays a significant part in this shift (as well as in slowing it down).
throwaway_exer 10y ago
nickff's comment is some twisted libertarian rant about the airplane market that is only loosely based on reality. For example, the FAA certifies airplanes after a mfg. tests them to certain standards - the FAA doesn't do the testing itself. A much better case could be made about the FAA endangering safety by allowed low-cost regionals to exist in the USA, but they're not long for this world after the 1,500 hour training rule.
neurotech1 10y ago
The larger Embraer E-Jet series (E170/175/190/195) jets do somewhat compete with the Boeing 737 & Airbus A320 for the regional market. The E195 is smaller, and significantly cheaper than the 737. The E-Jet has a respectable safety record, and few major accidents. The DC-10 is notable for having several major crashes due to design flaws, which significantly reduced sales of that aircraft.

by nickff 10y ago

colechristensen 10y ago

Every mistake, every crash is a failure and there are remarkably few of them. Mistakes happen and the mistake is always in not predicting the failure correctly. And there's quite a bit of competition; Boeing and Airbus are integrators, they don't build all of the parts and there are plenty of parties competing for the various parts. Likewise they both make the largest aircraft exclusively, but as you get smaller you add more and more alternatives to the mix. You're also wrong about no new models. They release updates and changes all the time. Completely new planforms just aren't needed. The basic design is fundamentally unchanged and doesn't need to be changed. There's just nowhere to go. Only small iterations of improvement.

nickff 10y ago
There are plenty of opportunities for new models; Boeing wanted to make 3 new aircraft, and had to settle for 1 new and 2 upgrades. The 737 has been flying for almost 50 years, and Boeing still can't give it long enough landing gear to properly accommodate properly-sized turbofans because of the regulatory burdens. Bombardier thought there was an opportunity for a new single-aisle airliner, but hasn't been able to come up with the money to get a certificate. The fact that there are no new aircraft manufacturers coming on-line only proves that the regulators have created a duopoly.

lukeschlather 10y ago

Looking around on the internet it sounds like the cost of the aircraft accounts for about 10% of the cost of a ticket. Frankly, airplanes sound downright cheap compared to the cost of staffing and fuel. Doesn't seem like the right place to start looking for cost-cutting measures.

nickff 10y ago
If you want to understand how important new aircraft are, you need to take more factors into account, such as turn times, average numbers of transfers, etc. into account. The airlines have been moving away from the hub-and-spoke model, towards point-to-point for quite some time; aircraft CPM plays a significant part in this shift (as well as in slowing it down).

throwaway_exer 10y ago

nickff's comment is some twisted libertarian rant about the airplane market that is only loosely based on reality. For example, the FAA certifies airplanes after a mfg. tests them to certain standards - the FAA doesn't do the testing itself. A much better case could be made about the FAA endangering safety by allowed low-cost regionals to exist in the USA, but they're not long for this world after the 1,500 hour training rule.

neurotech1 10y ago

The larger Embraer E-Jet series (E170/175/190/195) jets do somewhat compete with the Boeing 737 & Airbus A320 for the regional market. The E195 is smaller, and significantly cheaper than the 737. The E-Jet has a respectable safety record, and few major accidents. The DC-10 is notable for having several major crashes due to design flaws, which significantly reduced sales of that aircraft.