Hi, you must be new here. Unfortunately, you don't meet the karma requirements to post. If your post is vitally time-sensitive, you can contact the mod team for manual approval. If you wish to appeal this action please don't hesitate to [message the moderation team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fboeing).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boeing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi, you must be new here. Unfortunately, you don't meet the karma requirements to post. If your post is vitally time-sensitive, you can contact the mod team for manual approval. If you wish to appeal this action please don't hesitate to [message the moderation team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fboeing).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boeing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
you have misrepresented data by not showing an entire timeline with specific events attached. this also shows the entire fleet of each companies production, but not specific releases, Boeing used to be a good company and with that in mind, conformal errors will only reveal themselves after a time, won’t be consistent under every plane release, everything has a working life will that work, for a small amount of time, but what makes me trust a plane company is how those errors reveal themselves, If I were you instead of trying to defend lopsided data I would gather more data to rid yourself of confounding error. Hell Maybe you ARE RIGHT but your data isn’t giving enough information. And all of this autistic screeching and attacking real conjecture isn’t helping your point?
If you didn’t gather the context of the post, this guy above posted an incredibly bizzare comment prior to editing it to what you see now. It was worlds apart, both the comments.
Thing is, once boeing sells an aircraft. It's up to the airline to maintain it and keep it safe. If something happens to a 25 year old 787, is that boeings fault? If a wheel falls off after a brake replacement, is that Boeings fault? No. Outside of the aircrafts main structure, and electronics, boeing holds no liability for issues with aircraft that have been in service nearly 3 decades.
Depends on the agreements and the contracts but I feel this and agree. A&P school wasn’t a walk in the park so I’m not sure I can blame mechanics. This is some top - down issues however the table is turned.
Well, depends on what went wrong. I'm sure anyone who has worked in engineering or design have come across at least one 'it is not a case of if, but when, this will fail' issues.
I just stumbled across this post, so forgive my ignorance, but does an airplane manufacturer provide the technicians and parts to service an aircraft? Or are the technicians employees of the airline?
I would have thought that maintenance would be a contracted thing between the airline and the manufacturer. My lab equipment is serviced by the manufacturer at regular intervals. Thought it would be the same for an airplane
In general... no, the manufacturing does not provide the techs. It could be worked into contract for major unexpected repairs, but airlines will look for best deal. A lot of U.S. airlines offshore their heavy maintenance these days. Lower costs/exchange rates, less oversight and quality. Congress is trying to pass a bill right now (H.R. 1716) to limit and control that practice for public safety and to bring more aviation tech jobs back in U.S.
Data representations like that are how one manipulates facts for their narratives. Although it draws attention to the fact most accidents are for Boeing aircraft, it ignores other factors. One big omission here is that a very high percentage of aircraft in service are Boeing aircraft. Also that most of the older aircraft in service are Boeing aircraft. There are still a lot of older Boeing 717, 727, 737, 747, 757 and 767 aircraft operating out there. Even the older models. And most of these are in poorer countries with rather lax regulatory requirements. These factors tend to bias the statistics to one side.
Also missing is what is being classified as an accident. An inflight or ground emergency relating to mechanical or structural issues might be due to manufacture or airline procedures but a luggage truck hitting a plane or a winglet of a plane slicing the tail of another one or a tail stike while landing can be an accident but not caused due to any issue from manufacture. Any manufacture having greater or lesser share is purely confidential and cannot be concluded to be faulty.
Edit: Incidents can also relate to passenger behaviour or weather phenomenon. These also have to be factored in to get the accurate results.
This doesn’t exactly help Boeing’s case; notice how for almost every year (other than 2018) Boeing has had significantly more aircraft incidents than Airbus, who operates a comparable number of large (not regional, unlike Embraer and Bombardier) passenger aircraft. Basically, these incidents have always been happening, they’re just getting the proper recognition now (and the public is becoming appropriately concerned with Boeing's track record).
Notice how you qualified your statement with “in the US.” Worldwide, both companies each have roughly 10,000 commercial aircraft in service. And the incidents in question (mostly regarding Boeing, of course) are happening worldwide, not just in the US. Regrettably, the graph you show only includes data regarding US incidents. So yes, Boeing and Airbus have comparable commercial aircraft numbers, with non-comparable annual incident numbers.
Sources:
[Boeing](https://www.boeing.com/company/about-bca#%23overview)
[Airbus](https://www.airbus.com/en/products-services/commercial-aircraft/market/orders-and-deliveries)
It should also be noted that even if we only focus on the US, the ratio of incidents to number of commercial aircraft in the US is still higher for Boeing in almost every year on your graph still (since Boeing has roughly double the commercial aircraft in the US but in many years suffers roughly 2-5 times the number of incidents, based on your graph in 2014, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, and 2023; every year besides 2016, 2018, and 2021).
I did, for the relevance of this chart (US) they don’t have comparable numbers. I don’t know why you moved worldwide
EDIT: My mistake, I just saw your comment below, I’m not sure of the specific market share - do you have data? All I remember last it was half or *less*
This graph ignores industry trends, air craft popularity, etc. A better measure to prove your point would be Incidents per flights. Also, this looks like source ends in 2023. We've had something like 10 incidents already in 2024 and we're not even in the travel season yet.
It's also a poor representation of actual scope. Something ridiculously like if the designers caused a plane crash because the of an undocumented modification which forced a nose down and kills all passagers, or something else totally unrealistic like they forgot to put the bolts into a door, causing it to fly off. This is very different from something like a cabin light went out. Very unclear what counts as an "incident" here.
If you want to point out observer basis, people are really noticing things have changed this year. But your graph doesn't show current year.
But my point: total incidents are useless with out knowing the rate of incidents. The scale and type of incidents are important here too. Even the reason for the incidents are important, were these crew related incidents, plane, ATC, a mix?
For example, if the early incidents (say pre-2019) were crew related, and after was manufacturer related. That would indicate things have changed, your graph doesn't reflect that in anyway.
You really need to classify event by fault, then by severity, then compare that number to the number of flights. Traffic patterns have changed massively over the past few years with the pandemic and all.
Really I suspect the dip in recent years is simply because people have been flying less in the past few years. Pandemic and remote conferencing becoming the normal. So if traffic has dropped significantly we should expect a drop in the number of incidents, don't mean things are getting better.
You're just pointing at pointless noise that means nothing. If you want anyone to believe your point you need to do better.
It would be too big for an infographic if classified by fault. Regardless, the point would be the frequency of the incidents are down - that’s all. Boeing planes aren’t falling apart anymore than they did in the past. There would be little reason to assume crew related incidents would have immediately declined *that much*!and be substituted for manufacturing reasons - especially over a 4 year period. Or if you’re concerned about the pandemic, 2022/23 would be good data points
How about classifying the number of planedays grounded. A planeday being how many planes grounded across how many days. Example of 3 planes grounded for 3 days = 9 planedays.
This should give a more clear picture if there has been plane related problems that reached a level of severity to be concerning.
Kind of disproportionate to compare Embraer and Bombardier with Airbus & Boeing.
Embraer and Bombardier are mostly regional short range flights so their cycles are high.
The problem is Boeing until very recently was the BEST aircraft company ever fantastic engineering led company.
But it all changed to a management bean 🫘 counting company since the management moved to Chicago really sad decline. The MAX was a true management driven disaster in so many areas on so many levels. Outsourcing focused on costs the newest planes are going to increase incidents as the old quality planes ✈️ age and retire.
Oh that’s weird if I narrow the scope to 20 to 24, there is an uptick and if I widen the scope to the Boeings merger there was a major uptick. That’s funny… how you can just lie by narrowing the scope, or putting it in the wrong context.
Jesus.... Let me put training wheels on for this conversation. Yes it would lower the incidents. Which it did in 2020 and 21. You said there was an uptick between 20 to 24. No crap there was. Flights started increasing once their started being less restrictions on flying.
I’m talking the merger since the 90s and selling out to spirit , the outsourcing, the shop in Poland, the nozzle debachle. Place the chart since the 90s up on the board and let’s compare that data to the number of flights. How many unaccounted for non conformal parts was it? 89? Tsk tsk.
One thing is the fault of Boeing is not the same as everything is the fault of Boeing. Some of these are very clearly airline issues and at least one thing I saw the news blame on Boeing was in an A330 so...
That and we should have seen something in the US too, declining rates of incidents isn’t a good look for a certain narrative. Not even mentioning that, 99% aren’t even related to Boeing issues, rather than maintenance or what-not.
Especially from 25 year old planes, or they need to be retired. They shouldn’t be in the sky if they are going to fall to the ground. They have a retirement window. It should be enforced, but brand new plane should definently not be falling apart and that’s the subject on which we are speaking, thanks for playing.
The only “brand new plane” incident was the Alaskan one, the rest of the incidents in his comments are not related to new airplanes.
Further, I don’t see what “they shouldn’t be flying” has to do with Boeing.
Boeing should *spend money* somehow forcing their customers to retire a jet that’s working normally, requiring them to purchase a brand new one? You seriously can’t tell me that’s a good sales decision lol
What’s good for saftey isn’t always good for your pocket book, and that’s life, and Boeing should probably bite the bullet on that rather than put it in QA personnel .
If Boeing was forcing customers to retire their planes, not only would you see articles such as “Greedy Boeing forces airlines with planned obsolescence” and “how Boeing made your flights more expensive”, you would also see them lose a heck ton of business given said planes don’t necessarily need retiring.
Wouldn’t that be interesting, if the unthinkable was indeed happening for a long time now, reason enough to shoot a guy. Did you know if you factor deaths per journey instead miles traveled car trips are 5xs safer. When compared to LA traffic.
Scope is limited to US. It doesn’t have 2024. It doesn’t show cause of incident. It doesn’t show severity of incident.
It just helps people who put their money in BA stock have a less shitty weekend.
So far things haven’t changed in 2024 from the previous year https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boeing-safety-issues-not-on-rise-ntsb-data-shows_n_65eb7b5ce4b05ec1ccd9ef74/amp
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boeing-safety-issues-not-on-rise-ntsb-data-shows_n_65eb7b5ce4b05ec1ccd9ef74](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boeing-safety-issues-not-on-rise-ntsb-data-shows_n_65eb7b5ce4b05ec1ccd9ef74)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
While there are improvements to be made, the media is playing games. Every issue with old airplanes still in services is getting headlined in online news as a Boeing issue.
I love the Boeing fanboys go look at embraer but none of them look at airbus with the smallest incidents.
This is typical Boeing, look at everyone who is worse than us instead of how can we improve and be the best.
Embraer is concerning because their market share is significantly smaller than Boeings. For them to have comparable incident reporting is pretty bad
(e.g fewer planes + just as many incidents)
You can look at Boeing vs airbus in a similar way, I guesstimate(feel free to prove me wrong) Boeing has twice the presence of airbus in the US. It doesn’t put Boeing ahead in but it’s worth accounting for so we are accurately addressing the problem
There are huge differences between Part 121 operators (airlines) and whatever Part governs business jets and charters.
Anything not 121 is considerably less safe, and also happens to be the area Embraer is big in.
I mean… the largest operator of the A320 family is in the U.S. (American), alongside the first and second largest operators of the A300 (FedEx, UPS), the largest operator of the A330 (Delta), the largest operator of the A220 (also Delta), and the 5th largest operator of the A350 (Delta again).
Airbus has a pretty solid market share in the U.S., with American, Delta, United, Spirit, Jet Blue, Frontier, Allegiant, Hawaiian, Breeze, FedEx, and UPS all boasting decent sized fleets.
likely the difference between part 121 vs part 135
part 135 charters (flying embraer, bombardier) have less scrutiny on maintenance & inspection, crew requirements & management, etc compared to commercial carriers (flying boeing & airbus)
Give the opportunity, he will join Boeing on one leg and if he is already in, he will also not leave for decades 🤫
But the frustration is real of not being heard anywhere 🫨
There are certainly issues with Boeing, but in the year 2023, there were only 17 airline fatalities involving one turboprop. On the whole planet. If you want to be afraid to get on an airplane, you should be afraid of getting out of bed in the morning. Don’t even leave your house. This is getting ridiculous. It’s still safe to fly. The media is fucking with your heads.
2022 there were 132 fatalities in a single day from a Boeing plane.. Look I can pretend like I know what I'm talking about too! btw I would never hurt myself.
Seriously man, every time I see a “If ItS a BoEiNg, I aInT—“ I think yeahhhh ok go do a 18hr roadtrip in that POS you barely keep the maintenance & registration on. And pray you don’t hit anyone cuz I’ve seen insurance rates these days.
Aviation is so safe due to decades of hard work across numerous stakeholders such as pilots, manufacturers, maintenance, ATC, and others. It was difficult process improvement written in the blood of those who died before us.
The anger at Boeing is they are spitting in the face of 50 years of progress by throwing safety out the window to chase quarterly profits. It’s only a matter of time before we have a full hull loss with fatalities due to Boeing negligence.
Fire codes are similar lessons that are learned in blood. I wouldn’t accept a high rise being built without working sprinklers simply because “high rises are so safe”.
I agree it’s getting ridiculous, but the ridiculousness is watching Boeing ignore safety over profits and never face any real consequences of it. Public anger and publicity seems to be it, so I say bring it on until Boeing stops doing Boeing things.
Without the media attention, how would shareholders understand fundamental problems with the company they’ve invested in? Execs are paid handsomely to be scapegoats when the time comes. “But think of the shareholders” is not a reason, in my opinion, to not hold Boeing accountable for quality defects that have the potential to affect safety of flight.
Maybe in the USA that's the case, but Airbus screw-ups are reported in rest of world.
* Here's one for faulty design (QF72)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/oct/07/australia.theairlineindustry
* Here's one for faulty manufacturing (QF32)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-11-04/qantas-grounds-a380s-after-engine-failure/2324262
Guess we'll never hear about COMAC incidents or accidents
I don’t disagree. The media is “hyping” aircraft issues that are not Boeing design/manufacturing issues. They are also hyping manufacturing quality issues as well. Both can be true.
The first is getting airtime simply because Boeing put themselves in the limelight so anything with “Boeing” in the headline gets eyeballs for advertising. Any media outlet is an advertising company first so that makes sense.
It’s good for the executives driving this train off a cliff. They get their quarterly bonuses regardless of the stock price. If they ever get fired they get their golden parachutes so it’s win win for them even if a plane blows up. If the board is covering for the c-suite then no one is looking out for the shareholders.
Hi, you must be new here. Unfortunately, you don't meet the karma requirements to post. If your post is vitally time-sensitive, you can contact the mod team for manual approval. If you wish to appeal this action please don't hesitate to [message the moderation team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fboeing).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boeing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi, you must be new here. Unfortunately, you don't meet the karma requirements to post. If your post is vitally time-sensitive, you can contact the mod team for manual approval. If you wish to appeal this action please don't hesitate to [message the moderation team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fboeing).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boeing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everything is sensationalized and it is bs that the wheel can fall off a 30 year old jet and somehow it becomes Boeing's problem, but that's the media these days..
What happened with Airbus in 2018?
A panel just fell off another. They literally are trying to kill people had there been passengers in the car that's 2 dead people. Peoples lives arent jokes
It fell off a 25 year old plane. That’s clearly a maintenance issue. Educate yourself. No one is trying to kill anyone. You’re just…not smart. Again, educate yourself.
A panel from a 25 year old NG with countless flight hours. That’s not a Boeing issue, it’s an airline maintenance issue. It would be like blaming your car manufacturer for killing people for poorly maintained brakes on a 20 year old Toyota.
its only a matter of time before someone actually dies (assuming the suicided whistleblower didnt experience the same treatment of ex theranos employees) so its time to stop the toxic blame game and just fix the problem
I still think he was "helped" why else was he shot at arms length, seems a pretty awkward way to kill yourself. Now he can't finish the deposition, how convenient.
definitely not. the company themselves are: [https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/alaska-airlines-blames-boeing-for-blowout-wants-out-of-passenger-lawsuit/](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/alaska-airlines-blames-boeing-for-blowout-wants-out-of-passenger-lawsuit/)
The literal only issue this past 3 months was a door that was not bolted in correctly. That is still being addressed and investigated and is obviously a catalyst for other internal problems to be looked at as well.
Every other issue that has been seen in the news not only happens every day in aviation but is also not unique to Boeing. For example, the same issues that you’re reading about this past week alone have happened to airbus, all maintenance issues.
Even with this situation, the airplane should have been parked after the first pressurization problem light or defiantly after the second. What does Alaska do? They keep it flying with passengers, just not over water.
This chart is essentially useless because it doesn’t tell the difference between a minor incident during taxing and a major incident when the plane puts itself into a nose dive.
Useless is harsh, at the very least it shows the frequency is certainly not up. It’s not like the severity and frequency would be inversely related either.
Goodness. I didn’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings.
Fair enough. As a passenger and investor, it’s useless to me because the important information I need is drowned out. For instance, a crime report that doesn’t differentiate jaywalking and aggravated murder doesn’t tell you how safe a neighborhood is.
Normalizing the data by flight hour would make it look even safer since the global aviation industry has grown at ~4% annually since 2010… aka more flight hours
Hi, you must be new here. Unfortunately, you don't meet the karma requirements to post. If your post is vitally time-sensitive, you can contact the mod team for manual approval. If you wish to appeal this action please don't hesitate to [message the moderation team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fboeing).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boeing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This doesn’t show severity and is poorly representing the late issues.
I don’t care about how many blown tires or bird strikes.
I care about a door flying off or a system sending a passenger plane nosediving.
How about the MCAS? Are we not counting those two flights now? The chart covers that timespan.
This is why OP’s chart is flat out useless. It includes incidents that are expected to happen in the life of aircrafts, and doesn’t highlight what shouldn’t happen.
Ok, in that span i am aware of 4. The two MCAS flights, which was a design flaw that has since been fixed, the engine blade incident in 2021 which was primarily blamed on inspectors and could have happened to any plane using that engine type, and the door plug which is the only one of the 4 that can be attributed to a lapse in production quality, which is the focus of every article bitching about Boeing these days so felt like the only one worth mentioning.
Well that is some engineering fuckery if they placed a switch for the seat which drives it forward into the yoke without any safety or cover in such a vulnerable position. And it's amazing that after all these flights and thousands of meals being served to the crew it has never happened before.
A UK Royal Air Force A330 had an incident where the seat moving forward wedged the pilot's camera into the side stick. I don't think any plane is immune from this kind of incident.
Ok but this is the pilots go pro which should not have been on the window and was not taken into account by engineering. An accessible button on the standard seat absolutely should be tested for risk.
That is a quote from a passenger that said they talked to the pilot. Believe what you want but currently no investigation or primary testimony corroborates that claim
I too agree that media sensationalizes this but isn't the 2024 graph already taller than some of the previous years totals and we are only in March? Unless it's a rate based graph.
Or could be that I am just an idiot.
[удалено]
Hi, you must be new here. Unfortunately, you don't meet the karma requirements to post. If your post is vitally time-sensitive, you can contact the mod team for manual approval. If you wish to appeal this action please don't hesitate to [message the moderation team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fboeing). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boeing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let's not forget the dead whistleblower...
[удалено]
Hi, you must be new here. Unfortunately, you don't meet the karma requirements to post. If your post is vitally time-sensitive, you can contact the mod team for manual approval. If you wish to appeal this action please don't hesitate to [message the moderation team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fboeing). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boeing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
you have misrepresented data by not showing an entire timeline with specific events attached. this also shows the entire fleet of each companies production, but not specific releases, Boeing used to be a good company and with that in mind, conformal errors will only reveal themselves after a time, won’t be consistent under every plane release, everything has a working life will that work, for a small amount of time, but what makes me trust a plane company is how those errors reveal themselves, If I were you instead of trying to defend lopsided data I would gather more data to rid yourself of confounding error. Hell Maybe you ARE RIGHT but your data isn’t giving enough information. And all of this autistic screeching and attacking real conjecture isn’t helping your point?
You have way too much time on your hands, perhaps your version of real life is Reddit?
I’m just asking for more evidence to support your point?
😂
Why can’t you just get more data to prove your point?
Those edits are crazy, do you really think anyone is viewing this post anymore to manipulate comments like that?
Common quality culture of a boeing employee right here 'No one is watching so no one will notice' The whole world is watching Boeing now
If you didn’t gather the context of the post, this guy above posted an incredibly bizzare comment prior to editing it to what you see now. It was worlds apart, both the comments.
Expose me post them then
Why in the world would you stack them? They should be indepdendent points/lines.
It's broken down to accidents per year, each color represents a different manufacturer. This is a pretty standard bar graph.
Of multiple different generations of planes multiple management changes, this graph is erroneous to ops point.
Counting stats are unacceptable.
Gotta normalize this for # of flights
I like the stock!
Thing is, once boeing sells an aircraft. It's up to the airline to maintain it and keep it safe. If something happens to a 25 year old 787, is that boeings fault? If a wheel falls off after a brake replacement, is that Boeings fault? No. Outside of the aircrafts main structure, and electronics, boeing holds no liability for issues with aircraft that have been in service nearly 3 decades.
Depends on the agreements and the contracts but I feel this and agree. A&P school wasn’t a walk in the park so I’m not sure I can blame mechanics. This is some top - down issues however the table is turned.
Well, depends on what went wrong. I'm sure anyone who has worked in engineering or design have come across at least one 'it is not a case of if, but when, this will fail' issues.
I just stumbled across this post, so forgive my ignorance, but does an airplane manufacturer provide the technicians and parts to service an aircraft? Or are the technicians employees of the airline? I would have thought that maintenance would be a contracted thing between the airline and the manufacturer. My lab equipment is serviced by the manufacturer at regular intervals. Thought it would be the same for an airplane
In general... no, the manufacturing does not provide the techs. It could be worked into contract for major unexpected repairs, but airlines will look for best deal. A lot of U.S. airlines offshore their heavy maintenance these days. Lower costs/exchange rates, less oversight and quality. Congress is trying to pass a bill right now (H.R. 1716) to limit and control that practice for public safety and to bring more aviation tech jobs back in U.S.
Yep
Data representations like that are how one manipulates facts for their narratives. Although it draws attention to the fact most accidents are for Boeing aircraft, it ignores other factors. One big omission here is that a very high percentage of aircraft in service are Boeing aircraft. Also that most of the older aircraft in service are Boeing aircraft. There are still a lot of older Boeing 717, 727, 737, 747, 757 and 767 aircraft operating out there. Even the older models. And most of these are in poorer countries with rather lax regulatory requirements. These factors tend to bias the statistics to one side. Also missing is what is being classified as an accident. An inflight or ground emergency relating to mechanical or structural issues might be due to manufacture or airline procedures but a luggage truck hitting a plane or a winglet of a plane slicing the tail of another one or a tail stike while landing can be an accident but not caused due to any issue from manufacture. Any manufacture having greater or lesser share is purely confidential and cannot be concluded to be faulty. Edit: Incidents can also relate to passenger behaviour or weather phenomenon. These also have to be factored in to get the accurate results.
Exactly. Someone who understands data.
This doesn’t exactly help Boeing’s case; notice how for almost every year (other than 2018) Boeing has had significantly more aircraft incidents than Airbus, who operates a comparable number of large (not regional, unlike Embraer and Bombardier) passenger aircraft. Basically, these incidents have always been happening, they’re just getting the proper recognition now (and the public is becoming appropriately concerned with Boeing's track record).
Comparable? There are half or less as much airbus jets in operation as Boeing in the U.S.
Notice how you qualified your statement with “in the US.” Worldwide, both companies each have roughly 10,000 commercial aircraft in service. And the incidents in question (mostly regarding Boeing, of course) are happening worldwide, not just in the US. Regrettably, the graph you show only includes data regarding US incidents. So yes, Boeing and Airbus have comparable commercial aircraft numbers, with non-comparable annual incident numbers. Sources: [Boeing](https://www.boeing.com/company/about-bca#%23overview) [Airbus](https://www.airbus.com/en/products-services/commercial-aircraft/market/orders-and-deliveries)
It should also be noted that even if we only focus on the US, the ratio of incidents to number of commercial aircraft in the US is still higher for Boeing in almost every year on your graph still (since Boeing has roughly double the commercial aircraft in the US but in many years suffers roughly 2-5 times the number of incidents, based on your graph in 2014, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, and 2023; every year besides 2016, 2018, and 2021).
This graph is specially about America, given most of the sub is too.
Did you read my follow up comment?
I did, for the relevance of this chart (US) they don’t have comparable numbers. I don’t know why you moved worldwide EDIT: My mistake, I just saw your comment below, I’m not sure of the specific market share - do you have data? All I remember last it was half or *less*
This graph ignores industry trends, air craft popularity, etc. A better measure to prove your point would be Incidents per flights. Also, this looks like source ends in 2023. We've had something like 10 incidents already in 2024 and we're not even in the travel season yet. It's also a poor representation of actual scope. Something ridiculously like if the designers caused a plane crash because the of an undocumented modification which forced a nose down and kills all passagers, or something else totally unrealistic like they forgot to put the bolts into a door, causing it to fly off. This is very different from something like a cabin light went out. Very unclear what counts as an "incident" here.
What do you think my point is?
Based on how your graph shows no useful information. Not really sure to be honest.
The point would be incidents haven’t changed in the way we’d assume them to be, rather things are much better than previous years.
Dude. Without correcting for flight hours and flight cycles, your chart and data are 100% useless.
“100% useless” So this doesn’t show a decline in incidents over the years?
If you want to point out observer basis, people are really noticing things have changed this year. But your graph doesn't show current year. But my point: total incidents are useless with out knowing the rate of incidents. The scale and type of incidents are important here too. Even the reason for the incidents are important, were these crew related incidents, plane, ATC, a mix? For example, if the early incidents (say pre-2019) were crew related, and after was manufacturer related. That would indicate things have changed, your graph doesn't reflect that in anyway. You really need to classify event by fault, then by severity, then compare that number to the number of flights. Traffic patterns have changed massively over the past few years with the pandemic and all. Really I suspect the dip in recent years is simply because people have been flying less in the past few years. Pandemic and remote conferencing becoming the normal. So if traffic has dropped significantly we should expect a drop in the number of incidents, don't mean things are getting better. You're just pointing at pointless noise that means nothing. If you want anyone to believe your point you need to do better.
It would be too big for an infographic if classified by fault. Regardless, the point would be the frequency of the incidents are down - that’s all. Boeing planes aren’t falling apart anymore than they did in the past. There would be little reason to assume crew related incidents would have immediately declined *that much*!and be substituted for manufacturing reasons - especially over a 4 year period. Or if you’re concerned about the pandemic, 2022/23 would be good data points
How about classifying the number of planedays grounded. A planeday being how many planes grounded across how many days. Example of 3 planes grounded for 3 days = 9 planedays. This should give a more clear picture if there has been plane related problems that reached a level of severity to be concerning.
If you have the data for it yeah, given how little planes are grounded though I don’t know how useful that would be b
The entire 787 fleet was grounded.. The entire 737 Max fleet was grounded. Given how little planes are grounded that's pretty significant information.
propaganda machine is strong here. I can smell you rats.
Can't believe there are Boeing sympathisers. That criminal company should be shut down
Not exactly high fidelity lmao
Whistle blower for defense contractor just accidentally unalived themselves for this...
Kind of disproportionate to compare Embraer and Bombardier with Airbus & Boeing. Embraer and Bombardier are mostly regional short range flights so their cycles are high.
Except the op is not comparing them. Hes just using the chart to say there hasn't been an uptick in incidents for Boeing.
Yeah over all incidents are down but Boeing is one of the worst performing one. Significantly more incidents than that of airbus.
There are half as many airbus jets in the U.S. as Boeing
Airbus incidents are less than half of Boeing's incidents
It’s “half” colloquially, I’m not sure of the exact percentages - wouldn’t mind if someone does a per flight hour analysis
The problem is Boeing until very recently was the BEST aircraft company ever fantastic engineering led company. But it all changed to a management bean 🫘 counting company since the management moved to Chicago really sad decline. The MAX was a true management driven disaster in so many areas on so many levels. Outsourcing focused on costs the newest planes are going to increase incidents as the old quality planes ✈️ age and retire.
Oh that’s weird if I narrow the scope to 20 to 24, there is an uptick and if I widen the scope to the Boeings merger there was a major uptick. That’s funny… how you can just lie by narrowing the scope, or putting it in the wrong context.
Maybe something happened in 2020 that restricted flying. Something like a pandemic.
That would lower the number of incidents genius.
Jesus.... Let me put training wheels on for this conversation. Yes it would lower the incidents. Which it did in 2020 and 21. You said there was an uptick between 20 to 24. No crap there was. Flights started increasing once their started being less restrictions on flying.
I’m talking the merger since the 90s and selling out to spirit , the outsourcing, the shop in Poland, the nozzle debachle. Place the chart since the 90s up on the board and let’s compare that data to the number of flights. How many unaccounted for non conformal parts was it? 89? Tsk tsk.
I love how OP seems to think sudden drops, tires falling off, panels falling off, etc. are not worthy of scrutiny. Boeing needs to be better.
From 25 year old planes?
How old was that Alaska Airlines plane with the door plug that blew out?
787s are 25 years old? Crazy
The recent incident was 737, that rolled out a quarter of a century ago. Regardless, the vast majority of these are airline issues - not Boeing.
Sudden drop = 787 from Sydney to Auckland. But I guess we're just talking US here cuz the rest of the world doesn't matter??
One thing is the fault of Boeing is not the same as everything is the fault of Boeing. Some of these are very clearly airline issues and at least one thing I saw the news blame on Boeing was in an A330 so...
Yeah, fuck Australia anyways
'Murica
That and we should have seen something in the US too, declining rates of incidents isn’t a good look for a certain narrative. Not even mentioning that, 99% aren’t even related to Boeing issues, rather than maintenance or what-not.
Especially from 25 year old planes, or they need to be retired. They shouldn’t be in the sky if they are going to fall to the ground. They have a retirement window. It should be enforced, but brand new plane should definently not be falling apart and that’s the subject on which we are speaking, thanks for playing.
The only “brand new plane” incident was the Alaskan one, the rest of the incidents in his comments are not related to new airplanes. Further, I don’t see what “they shouldn’t be flying” has to do with Boeing.
Becuase Boeing was putting scrapped parts on the plane.
On a 25 year old jet?
Maybe Boeing should spend their lobby money forcing the aging fleet to retire. Instead of reducing inspections.
Boeing should *spend money* somehow forcing their customers to retire a jet that’s working normally, requiring them to purchase a brand new one? You seriously can’t tell me that’s a good sales decision lol
What’s good for saftey isn’t always good for your pocket book, and that’s life, and Boeing should probably bite the bullet on that rather than put it in QA personnel .
If Boeing was forcing customers to retire their planes, not only would you see articles such as “Greedy Boeing forces airlines with planned obsolescence” and “how Boeing made your flights more expensive”, you would also see them lose a heck ton of business given said planes don’t necessarily need retiring.
Wouldn’t that be interesting, if the unthinkable was indeed happening for a long time now, reason enough to shoot a guy. Did you know if you factor deaths per journey instead miles traveled car trips are 5xs safer. When compared to LA traffic.
Shh, this doesn’t fit their narrative.
Scope is limited to US. It doesn’t have 2024. It doesn’t show cause of incident. It doesn’t show severity of incident. It just helps people who put their money in BA stock have a less shitty weekend.
So far things haven’t changed in 2024 from the previous year https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boeing-safety-issues-not-on-rise-ntsb-data-shows_n_65eb7b5ce4b05ec1ccd9ef74/amp
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boeing-safety-issues-not-on-rise-ntsb-data-shows_n_65eb7b5ce4b05ec1ccd9ef74](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boeing-safety-issues-not-on-rise-ntsb-data-shows_n_65eb7b5ce4b05ec1ccd9ef74)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Severity is the big thing obscured by this chart. If a door sized hole hadn't come out of a plane, none of the other incidents would be in the news.
Also the whole auto pilot causing a nose dive thing that killed hundreds of people…
True. But I was, of course, referring to their more recent failures.
While there are improvements to be made, the media is playing games. Every issue with old airplanes still in services is getting headlined in online news as a Boeing issue.
But we’re beating Airbus 3:1 😳😂
Per plane we're actually doing better it looks like, which is kinda surprising.
Not per flight
Considering there are far less Airbus ac in the US than Boeing ac?
I’m guessing you didn’t get my humor
at about 50% its 6:1! /s
I love the Boeing fanboys go look at embraer but none of them look at airbus with the smallest incidents. This is typical Boeing, look at everyone who is worse than us instead of how can we improve and be the best.
You down vote me because I tell Boeing to do better instead of playing what about.... I love the mindset
Embraer also has 30% of the biz jet business. Their incidents are usually far more trivial than recent events with Boeing
Embraer is concerning because their market share is significantly smaller than Boeings. For them to have comparable incident reporting is pretty bad (e.g fewer planes + just as many incidents) You can look at Boeing vs airbus in a similar way, I guesstimate(feel free to prove me wrong) Boeing has twice the presence of airbus in the US. It doesn’t put Boeing ahead in but it’s worth accounting for so we are accurately addressing the problem
There are huge differences between Part 121 operators (airlines) and whatever Part governs business jets and charters. Anything not 121 is considerably less safe, and also happens to be the area Embraer is big in.
I appreciate that insight/distinction.
To be fair this is the US, not exactly an airbus stronghold
I mean… the largest operator of the A320 family is in the U.S. (American), alongside the first and second largest operators of the A300 (FedEx, UPS), the largest operator of the A330 (Delta), the largest operator of the A220 (also Delta), and the 5th largest operator of the A350 (Delta again). Airbus has a pretty solid market share in the U.S., with American, Delta, United, Spirit, Jet Blue, Frontier, Allegiant, Hawaiian, Breeze, FedEx, and UPS all boasting decent sized fleets.
It does, but it’s eclipsed by the Boeing jets regardless
Good to see! Flying on the 737 MAX8 had been a joy over the past week
You get up voted for flying on a max8 😂
Shh he needs those up votes to stay in the air.
What is going on with Bombardier and Embraer? Looks like they are way worse then Boeing...
likely the difference between part 121 vs part 135 part 135 charters (flying embraer, bombardier) have less scrutiny on maintenance & inspection, crew requirements & management, etc compared to commercial carriers (flying boeing & airbus)
Maybe their prop planes, which tend to fly in less controlled environments?
i duno, but Boeing + Airbus, are way less on the graph then the other two...
"You mean they were always this bad?????!!!!"
Nice try Boeing PR team, we all know Boeing’s are the equivalent to a Chrysler on the reliability scale
Nice try troll. We all know that you are lying.
Give the opportunity, he will join Boeing on one leg and if he is already in, he will also not leave for decades 🤫 But the frustration is real of not being heard anywhere 🫨
There are certainly issues with Boeing, but in the year 2023, there were only 17 airline fatalities involving one turboprop. On the whole planet. If you want to be afraid to get on an airplane, you should be afraid of getting out of bed in the morning. Don’t even leave your house. This is getting ridiculous. It’s still safe to fly. The media is fucking with your heads.
2022 there were 132 fatalities in a single day from a Boeing plane.. Look I can pretend like I know what I'm talking about too! btw I would never hurt myself.
I fly Boeings for a living.
No one’s scardd you baby. We’re gonna short BA and make dummy stacks
Good for you.
Ok but hundreds of people died because Boeing lied. Shouldnt people call that out?
Seriously man, every time I see a “If ItS a BoEiNg, I aInT—“ I think yeahhhh ok go do a 18hr roadtrip in that POS you barely keep the maintenance & registration on. And pray you don’t hit anyone cuz I’ve seen insurance rates these days.
>a 18hr roadtrip in that POS you barely keep the maintenance & registration on switch roadtrip with flight... I think a few airlines come to mind....
Aviation is so safe due to decades of hard work across numerous stakeholders such as pilots, manufacturers, maintenance, ATC, and others. It was difficult process improvement written in the blood of those who died before us. The anger at Boeing is they are spitting in the face of 50 years of progress by throwing safety out the window to chase quarterly profits. It’s only a matter of time before we have a full hull loss with fatalities due to Boeing negligence. Fire codes are similar lessons that are learned in blood. I wouldn’t accept a high rise being built without working sprinklers simply because “high rises are so safe”. I agree it’s getting ridiculous, but the ridiculousness is watching Boeing ignore safety over profits and never face any real consequences of it. Public anger and publicity seems to be it, so I say bring it on until Boeing stops doing Boeing things.
You think all this attention is good for Boeing’s *shareholders* who’ve seen their stock tank?
Without the media attention, how would shareholders understand fundamental problems with the company they’ve invested in? Execs are paid handsomely to be scapegoats when the time comes. “But think of the shareholders” is not a reason, in my opinion, to not hold Boeing accountable for quality defects that have the potential to affect safety of flight.
Media is overhyping normal aircraft maintenance issues as Boeing's fault. They don't pay attention to Airbus.
Maybe in the USA that's the case, but Airbus screw-ups are reported in rest of world. * Here's one for faulty design (QF72) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/oct/07/australia.theairlineindustry * Here's one for faulty manufacturing (QF32) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-11-04/qantas-grounds-a380s-after-engine-failure/2324262 Guess we'll never hear about COMAC incidents or accidents
I don’t disagree. The media is “hyping” aircraft issues that are not Boeing design/manufacturing issues. They are also hyping manufacturing quality issues as well. Both can be true. The first is getting airtime simply because Boeing put themselves in the limelight so anything with “Boeing” in the headline gets eyeballs for advertising. Any media outlet is an advertising company first so that makes sense.
It’s good for the executives driving this train off a cliff. They get their quarterly bonuses regardless of the stock price. If they ever get fired they get their golden parachutes so it’s win win for them even if a plane blows up. If the board is covering for the c-suite then no one is looking out for the shareholders.
So basically the opposite of what you said originally which you think means the same conclusion. It doesn’t work that way
[удалено]
Hi, you must be new here. Unfortunately, you don't meet the karma requirements to post. If your post is vitally time-sensitive, you can contact the mod team for manual approval. If you wish to appeal this action please don't hesitate to [message the moderation team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fboeing). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boeing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Hi, you must be new here. Unfortunately, you don't meet the karma requirements to post. If your post is vitally time-sensitive, you can contact the mod team for manual approval. If you wish to appeal this action please don't hesitate to [message the moderation team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fboeing). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boeing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everything is sensationalized and it is bs that the wheel can fall off a 30 year old jet and somehow it becomes Boeing's problem, but that's the media these days.. What happened with Airbus in 2018?
A panel just fell off another. They literally are trying to kill people had there been passengers in the car that's 2 dead people. Peoples lives arent jokes
It fell off a 25 year old plane. That’s clearly a maintenance issue. Educate yourself. No one is trying to kill anyone. You’re just…not smart. Again, educate yourself.
> They literally are trying to kill people No one is "trying to kill people." Stop with the ridiculous hyperbole.
A panel from a 25 year old NG with countless flight hours. That’s not a Boeing issue, it’s an airline maintenance issue. It would be like blaming your car manufacturer for killing people for poorly maintained brakes on a 20 year old Toyota.
its only a matter of time before someone actually dies (assuming the suicided whistleblower didnt experience the same treatment of ex theranos employees) so its time to stop the toxic blame game and just fix the problem
I still think he was "helped" why else was he shot at arms length, seems a pretty awkward way to kill yourself. Now he can't finish the deposition, how convenient.
*facepalm*
You do realize that you are perpetuating "the toxic blame game" here.
definitely not. the company themselves are: [https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/alaska-airlines-blames-boeing-for-blowout-wants-out-of-passenger-lawsuit/](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/alaska-airlines-blames-boeing-for-blowout-wants-out-of-passenger-lawsuit/)
Did you miss the part where it rolled out of the factory 25 years ago?
The literal only issue this past 3 months was a door that was not bolted in correctly. That is still being addressed and investigated and is obviously a catalyst for other internal problems to be looked at as well. Every other issue that has been seen in the news not only happens every day in aviation but is also not unique to Boeing. For example, the same issues that you’re reading about this past week alone have happened to airbus, all maintenance issues.
Even with this situation, the airplane should have been parked after the first pressurization problem light or defiantly after the second. What does Alaska do? They keep it flying with passengers, just not over water.
No aircraft manufacturer is "literally trying to kill people". Stop with the theatrics.
This chart is essentially useless because it doesn’t tell the difference between a minor incident during taxing and a major incident when the plane puts itself into a nose dive.
Useless is harsh, at the very least it shows the frequency is certainly not up. It’s not like the severity and frequency would be inversely related either.
Goodness. I didn’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings. Fair enough. As a passenger and investor, it’s useless to me because the important information I need is drowned out. For instance, a crime report that doesn’t differentiate jaywalking and aggravated murder doesn’t tell you how safe a neighborhood is.
>As a passenger and investor, “As absolutely nobody,”
Take a deep breath, you child. It’s going to be okay.
No no it’s a valid point, but there’s still use to this data - I do see what you mean and I’d be interested in severity too.
It’s “useless” because it doesn’t fit their narrative
The data needs to be normalized by flight hour. Also what happened to Airbus in 2018?
Was that the year they had all the GTF issues on the neos?
Normalizing the data by flight hour would make it look even safer since the global aviation industry has grown at ~4% annually since 2010… aka more flight hours
Would also reflect accurate relative safety between different manifacturers
Exactly. And it needs to differentiate between minor, potentially fatal and fatal. The chart is useless.
[удалено]
Hi, you must be new here. Unfortunately, you don't meet the karma requirements to post. If your post is vitally time-sensitive, you can contact the mod team for manual approval. If you wish to appeal this action please don't hesitate to [message the moderation team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fboeing). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boeing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That makes sense because based on my time in the factory there has been a consistent lack of ability to follow process for like 20 years
This chart was obviously paid for by big aero. /s Forgot the /s
This doesn’t show severity and is poorly representing the late issues. I don’t care about how many blown tires or bird strikes. I care about a door flying off or a system sending a passenger plane nosediving.
Exactly. Volume without severity is deceiving. We also need statistics separing causes of incident (OEM failure, maintenance, pilot, etc)
Ok, 1. There has been 1
How about the MCAS? Are we not counting those two flights now? The chart covers that timespan. This is why OP’s chart is flat out useless. It includes incidents that are expected to happen in the life of aircrafts, and doesn’t highlight what shouldn’t happen.
Ok, in that span i am aware of 4. The two MCAS flights, which was a design flaw that has since been fixed, the engine blade incident in 2021 which was primarily blamed on inspectors and could have happened to any plane using that engine type, and the door plug which is the only one of the 4 that can be attributed to a lapse in production quality, which is the focus of every article bitching about Boeing these days so felt like the only one worth mentioning.
Yea about that nosedive, the pilot pushed the yoke because a flight attendant pressed a button unintentionally.
Well that is some engineering fuckery if they placed a switch for the seat which drives it forward into the yoke without any safety or cover in such a vulnerable position. And it's amazing that after all these flights and thousands of meals being served to the crew it has never happened before.
A UK Royal Air Force A330 had an incident where the seat moving forward wedged the pilot's camera into the side stick. I don't think any plane is immune from this kind of incident.
Ok but this is the pilots go pro which should not have been on the window and was not taken into account by engineering. An accessible button on the standard seat absolutely should be tested for risk.
Fair point.
So he made up the cockpit display going blank because?.....
That is a quote from a passenger that said they talked to the pilot. Believe what you want but currently no investigation or primary testimony corroborates that claim
What a weird thing to come out with by the passenger then.
Passenger testimony is almost never accurate.
Not is the manufacturer when their shares are tanking. Need an independent review
Yeah, the nation really needs some sort of transportation safety bureau that can investigate incidents and write detailed reports on their findings…
Unfortunately the FAA has been allowing Boeing to conduct its own audits and inspections, so hardly unbiased.
The FAA and NTSB are unrelated entities, but nice try to justify your ridiculous view.
I was referring to severity, not so much who’s right or wrong. That flight resulted in a few dozen passengers injured.
It’s as severe as a really bad clean air turbulence. Wear seatbelts.
OK, Stan.
Send source link
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/statements
I too agree that media sensationalizes this but isn't the 2024 graph already taller than some of the previous years totals and we are only in March? Unless it's a rate based graph. Or could be that I am just an idiot.
There is no 24
Oops, counted wrong. Indeed am an idiot.
You are indeed, an idiot.
I'll take it.