Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Yemeni plane crash

andrewsd said:
I am flying on July 4th. That said alone its on an American holiday our independence day and I said I would never fly on such a holiday after 911 and I have to fly outta washigton dc to Germany. And my dillema is I am supposed to fly on a airbus a330 or a340. Both similar just the latter is 4engines not two and a tad bigger. But the a330 is the same one that airfrance was flying that went down. Apparently all the electronic gizmos that might have been the cause of the crash have been replaced but now I'm trying to reschedule my flight so I can take a trip 7 Boeing. I think I'm just being paranoid.


Posted quickly from my iPhone so don't bash to hard if there are a few typos. Also has anyone flown with united or lufthansa airlines And if so which one did you like better?
Click to expand...


I flew United (767) to Europe, flew Lufthansa (A340) back and would take Lufthansa any day of the week. In fact, I would pay more and have more inconvenient scheduling to take Lufthansa.

Thousands of Airbuses have successfully completed a flight today. Thousands more will successfully complete their flight tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that. The chances of anything happening are slim to none, and this Yemeni flight is looking like it could very well be human error if the aircraft was poorly maintained, so you can't even fault Airbus for that. An airplane is only as good as the people maintaining it and flying it, and Lufthansa has one of the best safety records in the world, much better than United.

I actually just did a little research and some number crunching (OK, Excel did the number crunching since I suck at math) and Boeing has a higher rate of hull losses (the aviation term for total loss):
Picture1.png


Now, I will admit that those numbers may be a bit flawed as hull loss doesn't necessarily mean any fatalities (US Airways 1549, Air France 358, Continental 1404) and those numbers also include things outside of the airplane manufacturer's control such as hijackings and pilot/ATC error, but that's just to give you an idea, and I'm sure the human factor's effect on Airbus' and Boeing's numbers are probably about even.
 
iShater said:
For international flights, US carriers are not too bad actually. I have flown AA to London, it was pretty decent.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have almost 100,000 AA ff miles, so I'm pretty stuck with them. Plan to use some of those this next year for a trip to Asia. But I never fly through O'Hare - that place ought to be shut down. Worst airport ever, IMO. I think the job applications for O'Hare must have on them: You must be rude, uncivilized and a bitch or bastard to work at our beloved airport. :eek:

yg17 said:
I actually just did a little research and some number crunching (OK, Excel did the number crunching since I suck at math) and Boeing has a higher rate of hull losses (the aviation term for total loss):

Now, I will admit that those numbers may be a bit flawed
Click to expand...

They're substantially flawed because of the fact that Boeing's been making jets since the start when air travel was still a bit dicey. The 707 was the first wide-production jet at the dawn of commercial jet travel. If you were to look at the numbers since Airbus started deliveries in 1973, I suspect the rate would be statistically identical, particularly if you exclude the pre-1973 Boeing aircraft (707, 727, neither of which had avionics by today's standards, 737, 747). Granted, the 737 is substantially different than when it was first produced, so you can include those from 1973 on for your analysis. ;)
 
Cave Man said:
Yeah, I have almost 100,000 AA ff miles, so I'm pretty stuck with them. Plan to use some of those this next year for a trip to Asia. But I never fly through O'Hare - that place ought to be shut down. Worst airport ever, IMO. I think the job applications for O'Hare must have on them: You must be rude, uncivilized and a bitch or bastard to work at our beloved airport. :eek:



They're substantially flawed because of the fact that Boeing's been making jets since the start when air travel was still a bit dicey. The 707 was the first wide-production jet at the dawn of commercial jet travel. If you were to look at the numbers since Airbus started deliveries in 1973, I suspect the rate would be statistically identical, particularly if you exclude the pre-1973 Boeing aircraft (707, 727, neither of which had avionics by today's standards, 737, 747). Granted, the 737 is substantially different than when it was first produced, so you can include those from 1973 on for your analysis. ;)
Click to expand...


Fair enough. When I get home later I'll remove pre 1973 aircraft and see what happens.

And add me to the list of people who hate ORD. Unfortunately I choose ORD most of the time since it's the closest hub to STL and minimizes my time on a regional jet, since that's about all that comes through here nowadays :(
 
yg17 said:
I flew United (767) to Europe, flew Lufthansa (A340) back and would take Lufthansa any day of the week. In fact, I would pay more and have more inconvenient scheduling to take Lufthansa.

Thousands of Airbuses have successfully completed a flight today. Thousands more will successfully complete their flight tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that. The chances of anything happening are slim to none, and this Yemeni flight is looking like it could very well be human error if the aircraft was poorly maintained, so you can't even fault Airbus for that. An airplane is only as good as the people maintaining it and flying it, and Lufthansa has one of the best safety records in the world, much better than United.

I actually just did a little research and some number crunching (OK, Excel did the number crunching since I suck at math) and Boeing has a higher rate of hull losses (the aviation term for total loss):
Picture1.png


Now, I will admit that those numbers may be a bit flawed as hull loss doesn't necessarily mean any fatalities (US Airways 1549, Air France 358, Continental 1404) and those numbers also include things outside of the airplane manufacturer's control such as hijackings and pilot/ATC error, but that's just to give you an idea, and I'm sure the human factor's effect on Airbus' and Boeing's numbers are probably about even.
Click to expand...

Since 1980 Airbus has a higher rate of hull losses but nearly 60% of all loses are a result of pilot error so they statistically identical (nearly).

Cave Man said:
Yeah, I have almost 100,000 AA ff miles, so I'm pretty stuck with them. Plan to use some of those this next year for a trip to Asia. But I never fly through O'Hare - that place ought to be shut down. Worst airport ever, IMO. I think the job applications for O'Hare must have on them: You must be rude, uncivilized and a bitch or bastard to work at our beloved airport. :eek:



They're substantially flawed because of the fact that Boeing's been making jets since the start when air travel was still a bit dicey. The 707 was the first wide-production jet at the dawn of commercial jet travel. If you were to look at the numbers since Airbus started deliveries in 1973, I suspect the rate would be statistically identical, particularly if you exclude the pre-1973 Boeing aircraft (707, 727, neither of which had avionics by today's standards, 737, 747). Granted, the 737 is substantially different than when it was first produced, so you can include those from 1973 on for your analysis. ;)
Click to expand...

Your right about O'Hare, Atlanta can be really bad also.
 
Alright, with aircraft produced since 1973, it's 0.81% for Boeing.

I don't have time right now to look at every single hull loss, but I'd be curious to remove human error (or goose error, in the case of the Hudson landing) from the Airbus and Boeing numbers and see what they are. That's tough to do though since I bet a lot of these crashes may have been a combination of plane malfunction plus pilot error, like maybe the plane could've safely landed with the malfunction had the pilot not screwed something up. It's tough to say if it should be removed from the calculations or not.
 
Abstract said:
Considering we're talking about airplanes, where an accident probably results in death, that's quite high!!! :eek:
Click to expand...

Well, these numbers include lesser developed countries where maintenance may not be up to par (which seems to be the case with the Yemeni jet), pilots may not be as well trained, and security may not be as good, resulting in more instances of terrorism. I would wager that if you pulled all of those out of the numbers, and included only the major airlines from first world countries, that percentage would drop by a huge amount.

Also, that means that .81% of Boeings will meet their fate in some sort of accident, not that .81% of flights on Boeing planes will crash, because through it's lifespan, one plane completes tens of thousands of flights. If you step onto a plane, there might be the .81% chance that the plane you're on will eventually end up in a crash, but the chance that crash will occur during your flight is a lot lower.

And one more thing to consider, these numbers date back to planes produced since 1973. Most airlines (at least the major ones) aren't flying that planes that old. Their fleets are newer and more modern with better safety features, or if they are flying planes that old, they've been retrofitted with new safety equipment as mandated by the FAA (or the aviation administration in whatever country they're based in). So remove the undeveloped country airlines, and remove any hull losses that could've been prevented with the latest technology, and that percentage is going to be a lot closer to zero.
 
andrewsd said:
I am flying on July 4th. That said alone its on an American holiday our independence day and I said I would never fly on such a holiday after 911 and I have to fly outta washigton dc to Germany. And my dillema is I am supposed to fly on a airbus a330 or a340. Both similar just the latter is 4engines not two and a tad bigger. But the a330 is the same one that airfrance was flying that went down. Apparently all the electronic gizmos that might have been the cause of the crash have been replaced but now I'm trying to reschedule my flight so I can take a trip 7 Boeing. I think I'm just being paranoid.


Posted quickly from my iPhone so don't bash to hard if there are a few typos. Also has anyone flown with united or lufthansa airlines And if so which one did you like better?
Click to expand...

Lufthansa destroys United when it comes to service. I used to fly Lufthansa quite a bit until I got tired of the shoddy service of their American partners (US Air and United) on connecting flights. Now I try to utilize Air France/KLM/Delta as much as possible.

Deciding to switch flights because of the type of airplane that generally has a very good safety record is as irrational as trying not to fly on national holidays for fear of terrorism. In fact I'm flying an Air France A340 to Dulles next week and not remotely concerned.
 
Have to agree. Would take Lufthansa over any US carrier any day as long as it's financially sound to do so.

However, BA is my nr.1 choice when it comes to transatlantic flights.
 
Cave Man said:
Yeah, I have almost 100,000 AA ff miles, so I'm pretty stuck with them. Plan to use some of those this next year for a trip to Asia. But I never fly through O'Hare - that place ought to be shut down. Worst airport ever, IMO. I think the job applications for O'Hare must have on them: You must be rude, uncivilized and a bitch or bastard to work at our beloved airport. :eek:
Click to expand...

LOL. I guess I got used to O'Hare and never noticed people issues. :D


The flight delays is what kills me there. Flying in the winter through ORD is a major pain.
 
jb1280 said:
Deciding to switch flights because of the type of airplane that generally has a very good safety record is as irrational as trying not to fly on national holidays for fear of terrorism. In fact I'm flying an Air France A340 to Dulles next week and not remotely concerned.
Click to expand...

And I've flown into and out of Washington National on both Memorial Day and 4th of July and had no concerns either.
 
yg17 said:
Also, that means that .81% of Boeings will meet their fate in some sort of accident, not that .81% of flights on Boeing planes will crash, because through it's lifespan, one plane completes tens of thousands of flights. If you step onto a plane, there might be the .81% chance that the plane you're on will eventually end up in a crash, but the chance that crash will occur during your flight is a lot lower.
Click to expand...

Well I realised that. ;)

Some of the rest was a surprise, although I didn't really follow the source of your info, so I guess that's probably why.
 
New Airbus Model

Airbus Announces New Airbus
Paris, France
July 1, 2009; Associated Press

In response to growing concern with Airbus flights over open waters, Airbus Industries has announced a new aircraft designed for such flights. The A200 ('A' for Aqua) will begin flight testing later this week.
 

Attachments

  • airbus.jpg
    airbus.jpg
    79 KB · Views: 63
Cave Man said:
Airbus Announces New Airbus
Paris, France
July 1, 2009; Associated Press

In response to growing concern with Airbus flights over open waters, Airbus Industries has announced a new aircraft designed for such flights. The A200 ('A' for Aqua) will begin flight testing later this week.
Click to expand...


At least when the A/C breaks apart in mid-air, you'll have the floats floating on the surface of the water to tell you where the wreckage is... :eek:

Nice....
 
Thank You

Ya I know I was just being paranoid. I't also helped that when I called Lufthansa and that the person I talked to was very nice and seemed reassuring.. I am flying on an AIRBUS 340-600 addition so its the big/long one. From the people I talked to yesterday and from what I have read on this forum board Lufthansa is defiantly the way to go. I have now only just begun flying overseas and what not as before last month I was always just skipping around the USA but it is nice to be a newer aircraft..Well at least a new and remodeled interior with the upgrades such as the airbus I will be flying on has and I HEAR there service is great as a long with other international carriers such as KLM. I will agree that the service on a lot of domestic flights does usually suck, although Southwest has always treated me well and I will be sticking with Lufthansa for here on out as long as it live up to expectations. As someone else stated above they have to use us airways and united because of there frequent fly-er miles .. Well I am in the same boat now since I have just started flying a good amount of long distances and all my miles are with-in the one alliance which includes Lufthansa, us airways, united and ect. Also I looked into some recors and Lufthansa has a great safty record and great service record on its planes as I to believe that poos service brought down this last airbus.

But I am sure I'll be fine and thanks for your guys and gals helped and reading the post calmed me down a little and I forgot to mention it in my previous post that is a tragedy when an accident of this magnitude occurs and it is awesome that some one survived the wreck and my the other souls rest in peace.

Again thanks and that chart was very interesting to look at. Sorry I would have "quoted" others but there were so many I wanted to and posting from my iPhone on 3g just would have taken way to long.. Well my thumbs hurt and I have to go pack. Thanks n Safe travels to all.
 
Lufty's A340-600s are great. The seats are fairly comfortable (my ass didn't hurt after 10 hours in one whereas 10 minutes on some planes is literally a pain in my ass) and the in flight entertainment is pretty good....a fairly large selection of movies, music and TV shows on demand. I also like the 340s because the lavatories are downstairs, it doesn't seem like a huge deal at first, but going up and down the stairs is a great way to stretch out your legs on a long haul flight, and you'll be going to the john a lot of you take advantage of the free booze Lufthansa gives you, even in economy :D
 
Drinks

Ya I have heard that Lufthansa gives you free drinks that is nice. I wounder how many you can ask for before they say no. Just curious. To bad I have to fly us airways for my domestic part of the flight. I could have taken Lufthansa for both flights but I perfered not to have a huge layover in washignton.
 
andrewsd said:
Ya I have heard that Lufthansa gives you free drinks that is nice. I wounder how many you can ask for before they say no. Just curious.
Click to expand...
Most cabin crews tend to stock the little table on the lower deck with orange juice, water, snack mix, and beer. It's unattended; take as many as you want..
 
Wow, let's argue over aircraft brands when a whole load of people just died :rolleyes:.

But yea. 1 survivor? That's just mindblowing. Was she travelling with family? If not I bet she feels like the luckiest girl alive right about now.
 
Pic

akonradi said:
Most cabin crews tend to stock the little table on the lower deck with orange juice, water, snack mix, and beer. It's unattended; take as many as you want..
Click to expand...

going off your profile pic I'm guessing if anyone would know it would be you.

Wow, let's argue over aircraft brands when a whole load of people just died .

Yes I agree I was simply paranoid and asking a question. How I stated before it is a tragedy and my thoughts go out to the families.
 
Heard on the radio today that this aircraft/airline were banned from flying within the EU due to poor or non maintenance of aircraft. There is a list on the net somewhere of rubbish/banned carriers. I'll see if I can find it (unless others beat me too it)
 
Kebabselector said:
Heard on the radio today that this aircraft/airline were banned from flying within the EU due to poor or non maintenance of aircraft. There is a list on the net somewhere of rubbish/banned carriers. I'll see if I can find it (unless others beat me too it)
Click to expand...

See post #18 in this thread. :)
arkitect said:
A Yemeni airline which crashed into the Indian Ocean was banned from France because of "irregularities", France's transport minister has said.BBC link
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back