It's definitely a coincidence, but from a 3 second Google I could see headlines from the New York Post, Yahoo News and the Evening Standard saying that a 2nd whistle-blower had died so I'm not sure what that reply is about.
Boeing in trouble again
- Thread starter Foxbatt
- Start date
oh so they’re just supposed to build planes that don’t fall out of the sky, at shareholder expense?
People just don’t understand business, mate.
All of these mishaps (to put it mildly) with Boeing….and Airbus’s share price has dropped about 4% in recent months. Somewhat frustrating that it’s not doing a bit better
Airbus have their own issues with certain engine types and they also contract Spirit Aerospace for work
Thanks - guess I’ll just sit on the bugger till they sort themselves out
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. This wouldn’t be happening if we had stuck with blimps instead of planes.
The first reply is odd since I found a number of articles addressing it. Even if we allow for time of tweet being before those articles (and I haven’t checked the time they were published) The wording he quoted doesn’t appear in the headline of the article he linked
That’s a deepfake.
It’s a typical point of criticism for people who are terminally online. They often seem to think that reputable outlets taking their due time to confirm news is a sign of something wrong. I guess it happens when you are used to get everything into your timeline immediately.The first reply is odd since I found a number of articles addressing it. Even if we allow for time of tweet being before those articles (and I haven’t checked the time they were published) The wording he quoted doesn’t appear in the headline of the article he linked
Like something out of a movie.
That’s an even deeper fake.No Photoshop back then
How about the MRSA thing?The first reply is odd since I found a number of articles addressing it. Even if we allow for time of tweet being before those articles (and I haven’t checked the time they were published) The wording he quoted doesn’t appear in the headline of the article he linked
Life was in colour back then, not black and white. That's just a stereotype. Therefore this is clearly a fake image made by someone who doesn't know the world was in colour back then.No Photoshop back then
I'm amazed at how some people are still fooled by this sort of thing
I'm guessing he visited the UK and needed an A&E visit
Thats the 737 max?No Photoshop back then
No the acronyms, so weird.
One of the early iterations, yes.
Shouldn't the graph be based on a flight ratio? How many flights are with a Boeing or Airbus plane.
The graph is a graph of total incidents. Incidents per flight or per flight hour would definitely be interesting as well, but it probably would look quite similar. As mentioned, both Airbus and Boeing built roughly the same amount of planes in the last two decades for roughly the same markets.
Roughly 115,000 commercial airplanes take off and land every day, and a significant number of them are made by Boeing, which holds a 42 percent market share in the industry.
This is not really a valid answer though. A proper statistical interpretation would take all those factors into account.
this is an insta graphic not a proper statistical interpretation...
since boeing market share is roughly half, including in narrowbodies which make up the majority of these take offs/landings, we can assume the "incident" numbers on that graph are directly comparable. all "proper statistical interpretations" will 100% say this is a massively significant result.
that said i find it a little hard to believe that there is such a big disparity for so many years which has gone totally under the radar.
But doesn't the graph show that both companies incidents roughly doubled at a similar rate through the same period of time? Not sure what this is supposed to convey.
Ok, well you have Google mate, I dunno what else to tell ya.
I imagine you're thinking that there is say 85,000 Boeing flights and like, 1100 Airbus flights so the instances are skewed, alas flights across both manufacturers are likely very close.
First of all, what is being classified as an incident.
I agree. this graph is nothing representative
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
What I don't get is everyone is apportioning blame onto the carriers, as if they don't get their maintenance guidance from Boeing?
Likewise Airbus supply planes to carriers who aren't having these level of "maintenance" issues.
Likewise Airbus supply planes to carriers who aren't having these level of "maintenance" issues.
Whenever this thread gets bumped I expect either an accident or another dead whistleblower.
2 more case this week
1st 737 Jet skidded off runway at Senegal. 10injured
2nd front tyre busting upon landing in turkey.also a 737
1st 737 Jet skidded off runway at Senegal. 10injured
2nd front tyre busting upon landing in turkey.also a 737
Beyond the better safety stats. Airbus planes seem more spacious, which works out better on the seating/legroom front.
Quieter too.
Few likely reasons for that.
Airbus haven't been around as long as Boeing and they only reached parity on sales a few years ago. Put simply there are more old Boeings flying around than there are old Airbuses. As a result there are also more of them in the dodgier corners of the world.
Very basic description but Airbus are designed to fly themselves with a pilot monitoring them, Boeing are designed to be flown by the pilot with the aircraft monitoring them. Put poorly trained pilots in there and you'll get more problems with the Boeing model.
Get this but a modern manufacturer will likely see more issues as they have less experience?
Airbus have still been around a few decades. They're not new, just newer than Boeing. Helps that they totally nailed it with one of their first aircraft the A320.