Originally Posted by
tdracer
Facts:
Hull loss rate (through 2019) for the 737NG series: 0.18/million departures. For the A320 series: 0.18/million departures.
Fatal hull loss rate (again through 2019) for the 737NG series: 0.08/million departures. For the A320 series: 0.08/million departures.
Now explain to me how the 737 is an unsafe design compared to the A320 series...
We live in a world, where we continuously "improve" (sometime outright stupid, like coins). There is little place to stick to old-mechanisms, when suitable new technologies exist, which make life easier and less complicated and in the same time, improve the productivity. Just fly the A350 and the B777 as a passenger, and you will notice the difference. Both will bring you to your destination, though the difference in comfort level and wearing out a significant. By limiting the "wearing-out", you in general improve safety.
I like classic stuff, cars, the traditional six-pack, but in modern times, applied at a large scale, there is no longer a place for that stuff, other than to dream about and use for nostalgic reasons.
Comparing the same generation B737/A320 you get comparable figures. From there, the A320 could be improved, since the infrastructure to do so is available, whereas the B737 MAX just did stick to its roots (with unfortunate MCAS lipstick).
And, TBH, I think, the stats for the A320 somewhat deteriorated due to the "somewhat less direct connection with flying" using a lot of automation vs. basic hand flying skills, resulting in somewhat deteriorated basic (IMC) flying skills. For example, the QZ8501, where, after a not-allowed-in-the-air computer reset, the co-pilot was not able to fly just basic glass-sixpack in IMC for only a few minutes (until the computers would be back online).
As
chuboy wrote, compare the MAX and NEO and you get the answer. Lipstick can be very dangerous.