4 ms·

Well let's quantify it. How many crashes per miles are there for Boeing vs Airbus? And if per mile is not the correct metric, what is? I found this infograph

Well let's quantify it. How many crashes per miles are there for Boeing vs Airbus? And if per mile is not the correct metric, what is? I found this infographic after a quick search which implies Boeing is a lot worse than Airbus. https://i.redd.it/enzplrs6avvc1.jpeg https://i.redd.it/enzplrs6avvc1.jpeg

Alupis 2y ago
This graph doesn't say what you think it does. It's more naïve click-bait. An incident is anything abnormal, including low tire pressure or bird strike. The graph uses data from NTSB, a US agency - and the graph shows US data. In the US, vastly more Boeing aircraft are in the skies than Airbus. The graphics is effectively click-bait BS.
- OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
  If you have no data to support your argument, then you have no argument. I asked you how many crashes per mile and you ignored it. I asked if you have a better metric and you ignored it. I'm open to my infographic being misleading, but so far I'm the only person that brought data to this argument.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    Last I checked, a made-up sensationalist "graphic" from reddit doesn't count as data.
    - OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - Alupis 2y ago
        I asked you for data, and you provided a ragebait graphic from reddit.
        OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
        You never asked me for data, you were just implying Boeing isn't as bad as everyone says. So I said let's quantify it. And then you started getting upset with the data presented to you. I said to provide better data if you have it, and you still have provided no data. If you have data that supports Boeing being as safe as Airbus, please share it.
        Alupis 2y ago
        So you "quantify" something by presenting made up data? I can do that too. Boeing is 94848% safer - feel better? You are the challenger. Burden of evidence is on you. With that said, clearly this is an unproductive conversation... so enjoy.
        OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
        You were the one originally implying Airbus is as dangerous as Boeing, so the burden of proof is on you. I'll take this as confirmation you have no data to support your claim. Cheers.
vkou 2y ago
You've posted a case study of 'How to lie with statistics'. This is a chart of incidents, but it doesn't define what an incident is (did anyone get hurt? how many people were hurt? how badly? was it a near-miss, or did the many layers of redundancy in safety handle it fine?), and it doesn't normalize it to incident/flight or incident/mile. Does Malaysia Airlines having one airplane shot down by the Russians, and another sent into the drink by a pilot-mass-murder-suicide count as an incident? Are either of them Boeing's fault? Are anti-SAM missile defenses supposed to be a standard feature on commercial airliners? The MAX crashes obviously were, and the MAX has a very bad safety record as a result. The claim (Boeing is worse than Airbus) is probably correct, but that chart is horrible evidence for it, or for how much worse one is, compared to the other. If you're going to provide evidence for this claim, you need to find something better.
- OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
  I'm not trying to lie and I'm aware my data isn't perfect, but I'm the only one providing any data at all so far. I have repeatedly asked for better data and been denied. I can only analyze the data I have, imperfect though it may be. When someone is consistently asking for better data, criticizing that person's data is kinda dumb. > Does Malaysia Airlines having one airplane shot down by the Russians, and another sent into the drink by a pilot-mass-murder-suicide count as an incident? Are either of them Boeing's fault? Are anti-SAM missile defenses supposed to be a standard feature on commercial airliners? You're making the mistake of assuming Boeing's fault is what matters. If, for whatever reason, Boeing's planes are more likely to be shot down - regardless of whether or not they are at fault - they are still more dangerous. We are not at the why stage yet, we are at the what stage. Anyway, since then I've found better data that actually implies Boeing is safer than Airbus. > Boeing aircraft have a lower frequency of crashes per million flights compared to Airbus, with Boeing having a rate of one crash per 184 million flights and Airbus having a rate of one crash per 081 million flights. https://www.mightytravels.com/2024/04/comparing-airline-incident-rates-a-factual-analysis-of-boeing-vs-airbus-safety-records/ https://www.mightytravels.com/2024/04/comparing-airline-inci... I've also found a better breakdown comparing the events between the plane manufacturers from my initial graph. https://statwonk.com/are-boeing-planes-more-dangerous-than-airbus-planes.html https://statwonk.com/are-boeing-planes-more-dangerous-than-a...

Alupis 2y ago

This graph doesn't say what you think it does. It's more naïve click-bait. An incident is anything abnormal, including low tire pressure or bird strike. The graph uses data from NTSB, a US agency - and the graph shows US data. In the US, vastly more Boeing aircraft are in the skies than Airbus. The graphics is effectively click-bait BS.

OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
If you have no data to support your argument, then you have no argument. I asked you how many crashes per mile and you ignored it. I asked if you have a better metric and you ignored it. I'm open to my infographic being misleading, but so far I'm the only person that brought data to this argument.
- Alupis 2y ago
  Last I checked, a made-up sensationalist "graphic" from reddit doesn't count as data.
  - OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Alupis 2y ago
      I asked you for data, and you provided a ragebait graphic from reddit.
      - OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
        You never asked me for data, you were just implying Boeing isn't as bad as everyone says. So I said let's quantify it. And then you started getting upset with the data presented to you. I said to provide better data if you have it, and you still have provided no data. If you have data that supports Boeing being as safe as Airbus, please share it.
        Alupis 2y ago
        So you "quantify" something by presenting made up data? I can do that too. Boeing is 94848% safer - feel better? You are the challenger. Burden of evidence is on you. With that said, clearly this is an unproductive conversation... so enjoy.
        OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
        You were the one originally implying Airbus is as dangerous as Boeing, so the burden of proof is on you. I'll take this as confirmation you have no data to support your claim. Cheers.

vkou 2y ago

You've posted a case study of 'How to lie with statistics'. This is a chart of incidents, but it doesn't define what an incident is (did anyone get hurt? how many people were hurt? how badly? was it a near-miss, or did the many layers of redundancy in safety handle it fine?), and it doesn't normalize it to incident/flight or incident/mile. Does Malaysia Airlines having one airplane shot down by the Russians, and another sent into the drink by a pilot-mass-murder-suicide count as an incident? Are either of them Boeing's fault? Are anti-SAM missile defenses supposed to be a standard feature on commercial airliners? The MAX crashes obviously were, and the MAX has a very bad safety record as a result. The claim (Boeing is worse than Airbus) is probably correct, but that chart is horrible evidence for it, or for how much worse one is, compared to the other. If you're going to provide evidence for this claim, you need to find something better.

OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
I'm not trying to lie and I'm aware my data isn't perfect, but I'm the only one providing any data at all so far. I have repeatedly asked for better data and been denied. I can only analyze the data I have, imperfect though it may be. When someone is consistently asking for better data, criticizing that person's data is kinda dumb. > Does Malaysia Airlines having one airplane shot down by the Russians, and another sent into the drink by a pilot-mass-murder-suicide count as an incident? Are either of them Boeing's fault? Are anti-SAM missile defenses supposed to be a standard feature on commercial airliners? You're making the mistake of assuming Boeing's fault is what matters. If, for whatever reason, Boeing's planes are more likely to be shot down - regardless of whether or not they are at fault - they are still more dangerous. We are not at the why stage yet, we are at the what stage. Anyway, since then I've found better data that actually implies Boeing is safer than Airbus. > Boeing aircraft have a lower frequency of crashes per million flights compared to Airbus, with Boeing having a rate of one crash per 184 million flights and Airbus having a rate of one crash per 081 million flights. https://www.mightytravels.com/2024/04/comparing-airline-incident-rates-a-factual-analysis-of-boeing-vs-airbus-safety-records/ https://www.mightytravels.com/2024/04/comparing-airline-inci... I've also found a better breakdown comparing the events between the plane manufacturers from my initial graph. https://statwonk.com/are-boeing-planes-more-dangerous-than-airbus-planes.html https://statwonk.com/are-boeing-planes-more-dangerous-than-a...