A rather well-done site, I'll admit, but one that looks as though it was produced in a spotter's back bedroom.
I tried to look for some evidence to support your original contention that: "Airbus = frequently fall out of sky for no readily explained reason." and found none. There is no evidence of either any undue frequency nor of any lack of explanation for those accidents that have occurred. And before getting mired in argument about detailed stats, that was the crux of your original post.
The statistics presented are inadequately analysed and inadequately weighted and factored. Despite the points made by BEagle, with which you agree, Concorde appears from these statistics to be about twelve times more dangerous than (say) the A300.
Of the 'events' listed for the A320, one killed three people, and one killed two - whereas they are treated (in these statistics) in exactly the same manner as accidents which kill the entire complement of an aircraft. A tendency to run off the end of runways while landing is unacceptable and deadly serious, but it may not be quite as serious as the kind of rudder problems that have caused several 737s to be lost with everyone aboard.
In other words stats based on events per 10,000 flying hours may be less reliable or less useful than stats based on passenger fatalities per passenger mile. But though such figures would show the A320 to be safer than the 737, I will admit that any statistics are open to misinterpretation and misuse.
Just as there is no data on the 777, the data on the 737 and the A320 (for example) cannot be directly compared. At an early stage in its career, an aircraft type will almost inevitably suffer a higher accident rate, which should reduce and stabilise as operating experience is gained and as technical problems are resolved. But more importantly, the statistics will be skewed because the sample is too small, and while the flying hours amassed by the A319, for example, are still so very low, a single accident would make it (apparently) the most unsafe aircraft in the world. As it is, however, it's nominally safer than the 737, as is the A321. One can't simply compare accident rates during the first 1,000,000 flying hours, either, since accident rates differ with time, and it wouldn't be fair (for example) to compare the A340 with the Boeing Stratoliner.
With regard to the YS-11 breaking even it wasn't a military programme, though a handful were sold to military operators.
Like you I "struggle to retain even a facade of respect for anyone who replaces informed, reasoned and reasonable argument with unnecessary and pointless personal attacks".....
Like: "Airbus = made by Europeans. This not good. Machines should be made only by Yanks, Poms, Swedes and Japs.....Europe should stick to making things it is good at, ie food, wine, and love. Yes, I know the Germans are an exception."
I'm also slightly intolerant of people who deliberately misrepresent what I say. I didn't present Concorde as an example of an aircraft that has Never Crashed, only as an example of a successful aircraft, like the F27, F28 etc.
I thought I remembered previous posts by you on things like the war on terror, the Middle East etc. which were characterised by a contempt for liberal attitudes, which is why I asked the question. Do I owe you a grovelling apology, then?