- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://jlai.lu/post/6262433
Airline Incidents: How Do Boeing and Airbus Compare?
You must log in or register to comment.
Graph is shitty useless clickbait without proportionality — e.g. If Airbus planes only flew 1/6th the distance as Boeing, they’d be more dangerous than Boeing.
This however is implying that the distance traveled is the metric to measure against, which might skew data. It plays a role, but in aviation, other factors play important rules as well, like starts, landings, touch-and-gos, bad weather conditions flying hours, (as opposed good weather flying hours which relates to distance traveled) and so on. For military aircraft, even more metrics might exist, like contour flying hours, desert flying hours and whatnot.
If (accidents / distance traveled) was the only important metric, the safest means of transport would possibly be space travel.
Still - a very odd choice of graph. Don’t really account for the market share - and it looks like the two things being compared are stacked?
Not saying the conclusion is wrong. But an odd choice.
Not a great viz and also not a clear conclusion. Boeing is the top in North American sales and we are looking at incidents in the US and international waters. So we’re comparing apples and oranges here. And, as you suggest, there’s really no specifics on how many planes are being flown. Even revenue, which isn’t really accounted for, is a bad metric. Are Boeing planes more expensive (eg do they sell more large planes?), do they fly more miles, etc.
Also, what does incident mean here? Death? Injury? Warning light in the cockpit?
Airbus also in my experience is a better time, when it comes to comfort. Obviously safety takes priority, but I’m just saying the experience is better as well.
