3 ms·
That is the wrong way to look at this. The only apples to apple comparison is miles/hours/people. How many miles over how many hours for how many people.
by myrandomcomment 6y ago
That is the wrong way to look at this. The only apples to apple comparison is miles/hours/people. How many miles over how many hours for how many people.
- ashtonkem 6y agoI was not able to find official statistics on 737 Max flight hours, which is why I fell back to percentage of aircraft as a means of comparison. But to continue down this path, let's compare the 737 Max to its predecessor, the 737NG. Out of the 7,065 737NGs delivered, 22 have been completely destroyed, for a rate of 0.3%. If we only look at fatal accidents, we find 12 (0.16%). If we limit this to accidents that were caused by some failing of the aircraft, even if it was made worse by pilot error, you end up with two fatal accidents (0.027%). So in order to believe that the 737 Max is no more or less dangerous than the 737NG, you have to believe that the 387 delivered 737 Max aircraft were flown enough in 2 years to cover the massive difference in their fatal hull loss rate. I'm sure that the 737 Max was flown a lot, the reduction in fuel consumption means that airlines would want to use it as much as they could, but there is over an 18x difference between the rate of fatal accidents caused by those two aircraft; do you really think that the 737 Max flew 18x more on average than the 737NG has? Oh, and Airbus has delivered 1,499 airplanes in their a320neo series. None have crashed so far.