[David]

I tend to go with the cheapest fare – even if it endangers my life – but I do have a policy of refusing to fly in early DeHaviland Comets.

[FDOS_UK]

[quote quote=864253]I tend to go with the cheapest fare – even if it endangers my life – but I do have a policy of refusing to fly in early DeHaviland Comets.[/quote]

Quality.

My first flight was on a Comet and I’m still here 😉

[DavidGordon10]

With most airlines linear regression of accidents against time will be meaningless, because there will not be enough data. There are too few crashes. I think the interesting analysis is to look at step changes to see if they are statistically significant, and then trying to work out why. Aeroflot is the obvious case of a step change: around the early 1990s, to zero accidents from a previously dire record in the Soviet era.

In the case of other airlines, is there any point when the airline has got much better in a short space of time? If so, why? Political change, economic factors, change in management, new fleet? If we know why some airlines get better, then we know more about what should be done for the bad ones.

[FDOS_UK]

[quote quote=864361]With most airlines linear regression of accidents against time will be meaningless, because there will not be enough data. There are too few crashes. I think the interesting analysis is to look at step changes to see if they are statistically significant, and then trying to work out why. Aeroflot is the obvious case of a step change: around the early 1990s, to zero accidents from a previously dire record in the Soviet era.

In the case of other airlines, is there any point when the airline has got much better in a short space of time? If so, why? Political change, economic factors, change in management, new fleet? If we know why some airlines get better, then we know more about what should be done for the bad ones.[/quote]

But you are assuming that step changes only go in one direction.

Also crashes are a data point, step changes are perception.

[IanFromHKG]

I am curious to know why DavidGordon10 reported FDOS’s post as inappropriate. One can take a position on its relevance – as DavidGordon10 has done to some extent in his later post – but inappropriate? I read it three times and thought it was a very balanced response to DavidGordon10’s earlier post, and didn’t see anything offensive.

Good that BT are now identifying the reporting person – I thoroughly approve of that!! If only we could now dispense with the CATCHA process which is a real pain in the a**e…

[DavidGordon10]

I never reported FDOS’ reply as inappropriate. We are having a perfectly civilised dialogue. I have no idea how that has got there, unless it is because the “reply” and “report” buttons are too close together and I hit the wrong one. His reply was perfectly appropriate.

[philsquares]

I have been a 777/787 Captain and TRE (Type Rating Examiner) but now retired. I still do some “consulting” in the simulator just to keep my hand in and to fight off boredom. But I am just laughing at this thread and some of the comments about the 787. What a load of c**p!

My first commercial airliner as a Captain was the 727. I have flown everything Boeing has made with the exception of the 767 and 737 (Flew a Boeing in the USAF) and have flown the 320 series. Given the choice I’d take a Boeing any day. That is just a personal preference not a hit at Airbus. Both Boeing and Airbus build very good aircraft. It’s just I like the approach Boeing has taken on their designs.

Getting back to the 787, the comments on here just amaze me to no end. From a user’s perspective the only problem with the 787 is the same as the problem with the 777 and 747-400 is it holds to much fuel! Flying long haul for the past 20 years is a killer. But, the 787 is no different than any other new aircraft. I remember the 757 when it first came out. Tons of trouble, delays at the gate due to power problems, computer resyncs. But the teething problems were sorted out and it was/is still a great aircraft. The 744 had similar issues. But all those issues are long forgotten due to our fallible “selectible memory”.

There are comments on here about various airlines/aircraft/countries. I can tell you, right up front, there are airlines I wouldn’t get on even if it was for free. When I worked for SQ, there were certain airlines we were not allowed to position on due perceived or real safety issues.

Anyhow, I love the 787 and wouldn’t hesitate to put my family on one at all.

[FDOS_UK]

I like the 787, too, but there was some dreadful publicity in the early days – no need for you to mock subscribers on here.

Ethiopian at Heathrow

JAL at Boston

ANA in Japan

[philsquares]

[quote quote=864517]I like the 787, too, but there was some dreadful publicity in the early days – no need for you to mock subscribers on here.

[/quote]

Mocking???? Surely, you gest!! Awful thin skins then. But when there is no rational reasons that makes no sense at all.

[FDOS_UK]

[quote quote=864524]

FDOS_UK wrote:

I like the 787, too, but there was some dreadful publicity in the early days – no need for you to mock subscribers on here.

Mocking???? Surely, you gest!! Awful thin skins then. But when there is no rational reasons that makes no sense at all.[/quote]

Another piece of evidence that the locked cockpit door is to protect the pax from the occupants.

[philsquares]

[quote quote=864549]

philsquares wrote:

FDOS_UK wrote:

I like the 787, too, but there was some dreadful publicity in the early days – no need for you to mock subscribers on here.

Mocking???? Surely, you gest!! Awful thin skins then. But when there is no rational reasons that makes no sense at all.

Another piece of evidence that the locked cockpit door is to protect the pax from the occupants.[/quote]

And you have the audacity to comment on my remarks! You really need to grow up.

[Henryp1]

[quote quote=864524]

FDOS_UK wrote:

I like the 787, too, but there was some dreadful publicity in the early days – no need for you to mock subscribers on here.

Mocking???? Surely, you gest!! Awful thin skins then. But when there is no rational reasons that makes no sense at all.

+1

[CathayLoyalist2]

Having read philsquares post alongside FDOS-UK post his, that is philsquares, is a factual overview based on 20 years at the sharp end in the cockpit. His view is very persuasive and carries a lot of weight. The “locked door” comment FDOS-UK was disingenuous.

[IanFromHKG]

It seems odd that in a thread asking questions about flyers’ perception of the safety of different aircraft, some posters should attack those who express concerns – based on genuine problems and significant problems – of particular aircraft. While I also respect philsquares’s undoubted experience, he has exhibited (honestly, which is commendable) prejudices of his own. We all have them. So could we please avoid attacking each other on the basis of our preferences (be they for or against particular aircraft) and get back to the issues?

Personally, in the light of recent events, I would try to avoid the 737 if there were a viable alternative. For similar reasons I avoided the B787 in the early years when the problems were unquantified and unaddressed. I would happily fly the B787 now (well, with sanguinity, anyway, I am not a particular fan of the aircraft) and I am sure that in the future I will fly the B737 happily.

While the B737 has not been grounded, there are clearly identified problems with the CFM engine. When problems arise which seem to be systemic – as they were on the B787 and as they now seem to be on the B737 – then I feel entirely justified in waiting for the authorities to confirm they are comfortable with the aircraft’s safety and take them off the watchlist before I put them back on my own “no worries” list.

[DavidGordon10]

Dear Ian

+1 absolutely.

Also, we must allow ourselves other prejudices. For example, my main prejudice against the 787 is the centrally-controlled window blinds. Trivial, I know. In another thread, one of our forum members said that in his airline, the “dreamliner” is known as the “binliner”. I would love to know why.

[Author]

Posts