4 ms·

I'm French so I'm biased but I always try to take Airbus and fidget nervously when it's a Boeing. I simply dont understand why they're still allowed to operate

by xwolfi 3y ago

I'm French so I'm biased but I always try to take Airbus and fidget nervously when it's a Boeing. I simply dont understand why they're still allowed to operate outside the US: with Comac coming soon and Airbus having a better safety record, why both with the americans ?

cromwellian 3y ago
As soon as you mentioned Comax which has no safety record at all as an alternate you undermined your credibility.
- Urahandystar 3y ago
  No safety record is better than a negative one. Especially if they have passed all check by external state backed regulators.
  - iso8859-1 3y ago
    Can't have a negative record. Let's say we measure based on fatalities per km flown/passenger. Now, the Superjet has had some fatal accidents so I'd bet it'd score worse than any prod Boeing. If the Comac had a single accident, if would score just as bad. But you'd be basing it on a low sample size, so one could still claim it's a freak accident.
  - fcantournet 3y ago
    No it's not. That's a common fallacy of safety.
  - nolok 3y ago
    > No safety record is better than a negative one. I would disagree with that idea that Boeing has a negative record. It's mostly only for the MAX series of plane, and it's still super safe overall. As-in, they've fallen far below the current accepted standard of Airbus, but it's still miles ahead better than "no safety record". > Especially if they have passed all check by external state backed regulators. This is exactly what the Boeing planes are in Europe, FAA certify them so they're grandfathered, so this means nothing. I wouldn't trust Chinese regulator certification. At this point, my trust is in the EASA regulators, for plane they certified themselves (aka, non Boeing), and I really wish we would untie their hand to let them certify Boeing plane from scratch. And Boeing would benefit from it too. And Airbus, because Airbus got so good because they needed to catch up and beat Boeing, the chauvinist french in me is glad Airbus is beating them, the realist in me knows the one that's one top always end up feeling to safe and slipping.
- pg_1234 3y ago
  Comac hasn't killed any passengers yet.
inferiorhuman 3y ago
with Comac coming soon The C919's been coming soon for almost fifteen years. In that time COMAC's built five. Boeing builds more 737s than that in a week. Airbus builds twice that number of A320s in a week. In a two class layout it's got fewer seats than a MAX 7 and the extended range version's got less range than a MAX 10. Even if COMAC managed to build a bunch of them, they're not competitive with current generation airliners. The C919 is least a generation behind and COMAC has basically no logistics infrastructure. They've a long way to go before being competitive outside of the captive domestic market.

by xwolfi 3y ago

cromwellian 3y ago

As soon as you mentioned Comax which has no safety record at all as an alternate you undermined your credibility.

Urahandystar 3y ago
No safety record is better than a negative one. Especially if they have passed all check by external state backed regulators.
- iso8859-1 3y ago
  Can't have a negative record. Let's say we measure based on fatalities per km flown/passenger. Now, the Superjet has had some fatal accidents so I'd bet it'd score worse than any prod Boeing. If the Comac had a single accident, if would score just as bad. But you'd be basing it on a low sample size, so one could still claim it's a freak accident.
- fcantournet 3y ago
  No it's not. That's a common fallacy of safety.
- nolok 3y ago
  > No safety record is better than a negative one. I would disagree with that idea that Boeing has a negative record. It's mostly only for the MAX series of plane, and it's still super safe overall. As-in, they've fallen far below the current accepted standard of Airbus, but it's still miles ahead better than "no safety record". > Especially if they have passed all check by external state backed regulators. This is exactly what the Boeing planes are in Europe, FAA certify them so they're grandfathered, so this means nothing. I wouldn't trust Chinese regulator certification. At this point, my trust is in the EASA regulators, for plane they certified themselves (aka, non Boeing), and I really wish we would untie their hand to let them certify Boeing plane from scratch. And Boeing would benefit from it too. And Airbus, because Airbus got so good because they needed to catch up and beat Boeing, the chauvinist french in me is glad Airbus is beating them, the realist in me knows the one that's one top always end up feeling to safe and slipping.
pg_1234 3y ago
Comac hasn't killed any passengers yet.

inferiorhuman 3y ago

with Comac coming soon The C919's been coming soon for almost fifteen years. In that time COMAC's built five. Boeing builds more 737s than that in a week. Airbus builds twice that number of A320s in a week. In a two class layout it's got fewer seats than a MAX 7 and the extended range version's got less range than a MAX 10. Even if COMAC managed to build a bunch of them, they're not competitive with current generation airliners. The C919 is least a generation behind and COMAC has basically no logistics infrastructure. They've a long way to go before being competitive outside of the captive domestic market.