Originally Posted by
BoeingDriver99
Cherry picking statistics is pretty poor form. Deciding to choose only the 737NG to compare it with the A320 series is frankly embarrassing. How about comparing the 737NG to the A318 alone? Zero hull losses for the A318. You would agree that is an unfair and unrealistic comparison?
The discussion is about the 1960s era 737 that is a dead horse that continues to be beaten by Boeing. So compare apples to apples. The Boeing 737 is demonstrably less safe than the Airbus A320. Boeing’s own statistics show it, you even acknowledge the rate of the 100/200 being so much worse than the NG. What about the 3/4/500? Again much worse than the A320 family. And look at the Max - 1.48! So how about we compare that to the A320 NEO for most modern variants?
A320 NEO 0.11/0.11 versus 737 Max 1.48/1.48. Your own data confirms it. Do better.
https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/b...df/statsum.pdf
Talk about cherry picking stats! There are
substantial systems differences between the various 737 versions (-1/200, -3/4/500, -6/7/8/900NG, and MAX). The -1/200 really was a 1960s design, and it's hull loss stats are comparable to other models from that period. Newer versions of the 737 incorporated various safety systems that simply were not available or feasible with then existing technology of the early versions. Newer technology has made aircraft safer, and the various 737 models have incorporated newer technologies that were available at the time the various models were designed - making them safer. That's why aircraft in general are so much safer today than they were in the 1960s - it's new systems such as TCAS and GPWS, along with improved crew training and ATC improvements.
The basic issue is - are derivative aircraft certified under the Changed Product Rule (CPR) meaningfully less safe than all-up new designs of
the same vintage. By that metric, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the 737NG.
Yes, mistakes were made with the MAX, and Boeing deserves criticisms for the way they designed and certified it. But those are not related to the grandfathered aspects of the cert that were allowed by CPR (nearly all of the grandfathered cert aspects of the 737 are related to structures, not systems).