My phobia is about to be tested.... eeeeeeeek!

[drron]

Well we are now on a 747.an extra reason to stay in the Flounge longer!

 

[TonyHancock]

27 sectors on an A380...all QF and I'm pretty happy. Not so sure I would want to fly on an Air France A380...if they have one.

 

[FuzzyAUS]

In just 4 days time we will also have our maiden scarebus eeeeeeek!380.
SYD-LAX though.

drron, which date/flight are you going on? i was on QF11 2/11 and was told a few months ago it was changed to a 747 so i was re-routed via Melbourne to pickup QF93

 

[FuzzyAUS]

Well we are now on a 747.an extra reason to stay in the Flounge longer!

OK, got me worried for a min, i went and looked at the QF site too as i was told a few months back that there is no 388's doing SYD-LAX for the first 15 days of November.. think due to refit and maintenance.

 

[ChrisFlyer]

27 sectors on an A380...all QF and I'm pretty happy. Not so sure I would want to fly on an Air France A380...if they have one.

They do - QF even have a codeshare (for now) on one of the CDG-SIN-CDG flights, which is usually operated by one of their A380s... There's still time to book the codeshare if you're game! haha


Sent from my iPhone using AustFreqFly app

 

[simongr]

Boeing hull losses:

747 - 53
757 - 8
767 - 42

Airbus hull losses

A380 - 0
A330 - 6
A320 - 23

 

[Greggsy]

Can someone prescribe the OP a teaspoon of cement please.


Greg.

 

[nlagalle]

Can someone prescribe the OP a teaspoon of cement please.


Greg.

A tablespoon might be more appropriate!

 

[simongr]

Boeing hull losses:

747 - 53
757 - 8
767 - 42

Airbus hull losses

A380 - 0
A330 - 6
A320 - 23

Re-reading this I certainly am even less inclined to fly JQ who operate 65 A320s.

 

[nlagalle]

Re-reading this I certainly am even less inclined to fly JQ who operate 65 A320s.

don't forget the 737 which has around 159 hull losses...

 

[simongr]

Trying not to think about that...

 

[simongr]

Updated to give total fleet numbers for context and added 737

Boeing hull losses:

747 - 53/1,435 - 3.7%
757 - 8/1,050 - 0.76%
767 - 42/1,083 - 3.9%
737 - 159/7,283 = 2.1%


Airbus hull losses

A380 - 0/87 - 0.0%
A330 - 6/908 - 0.66%
A320 - 23/5,264 - 0.43%

 

[mannej]

Numbers are just that - numbers.

You can add much more details to those stats, length in service, flying hours etc.

Where is the 777?

 

[simongr]

I was too lazy to pick the 777 - no hidden agenda (equally I didnt include the 707 or 717)

 

[NM]

And would be interesting to see current in-service models used for flights to/from/within Australia (eliminate 747-100, -200, -300, 737-100, -200, -300 etc) and eliminate freighters (lots of 747 losses have been freighters). After all, if looking for a risk profile as a passenger today, it should only considered aircraft types that could actually be experienced.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

I was too lazy to pick the 777 - no hidden agenda (equally I didnt include the 707 or 717)

The B717 stats would be a bit tricky as it's only been a 717 since Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas. In a previous life it was an MD-90, MD88 & MD-80.

 

[serfty]

The B717 stats would be a bit tricky as it's only been a 717 since Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas. In a previous life it was an MD-90, MD88 & MD-80.

... and the DC-9 ... over 2400 of the DC-9/MD-80/90/717 family were built over 4 decades.

'Twas first built in the mid sixties with the final of the series rolling out in the mid noughties.

 

[markis10]

No point looking at hull numbers versus loss without factoring active usage:

If we look at fatality rates per million miles flown:

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

The top 5 airplanes currently in production and flown in more than 10 million flights per year rank as follows:

1. Airbus A320 0.13
2. ATR 42/72 0.33
3. Boeing 737 0.36
4. Boeing 767 0.40
5. Boeing 747 0.76

Other airplanes no longer in production but still flying include the Boeing MD80/90 (0.26), the Boeing 757 (0.30), the Boeing 727 (0.49) and the Airbus 300 (0.54).

That data is from 2009 and strangely omits the 777/A340 purely on a lack of miles flown being under 10M, both have no fatalities, if we look at accidents per hour:

1. Airbus 340
The A340 has approximately the same number of flying hours as the 777 and remains accident-free, making it number one is safety.
Number in service: 355



2. Boeing 777
At one accident per eighteen-million hours of flying, the Triple-Seven is number two in safety. And, in that one accident, everyone survived.
Number in service: 792




3. Boeing 747
When Boeing first considered building a plane that would carry 500 passengers, the board of directors was skeptical. People had gotten used to hearing of an air crash with one-hundred or so fatalities. So, the thinking was, if Boeing invested all its resources in a 500-passenger plane a crash could so traumatize the public that passengers would refuse to fly it. "No problem," the engineers said, "We are going to build an uncrashable airplane." And they almost did. The record shows about seventeen-million hours per accident, but two of those had nothing to do with the quality of the plane: the collision of two 747s on the runway in the Canary Islands. Due to misunderstanding communications from the tower, a KLM 747 took off when not cleared for takeoff, striking a Pan Am 747, destroying both planes.
Number in service: 838



4. Boeing 737 NG
NG means "next generation" to designate the models -600 through the 737-900 models built starting in 1997. the Sixteen-million hours per accident.
Number in service: 2,925

http://www.fearofflying.com/resources/safest-airliners-and-airline-safety.shtml

 

[mannej]

Those details are wrong Markis.

AF did have an accident at Toronto with one of their A340's.

Would that not be the same as the 777 accident at LHR?

 

[markis10]

Those details are wrong Markis.

AF did have an accident at Toronto with one of their A340's.

Would that not be the same as the 777 accident at LHR?

The fear of flying mob must have overlooked the AF accident as well as the Iberia overrun, putting it behind the 777, the page is not dated re data so could be old. Not to mention EK at Mel........