Airbus reputation, is it becoming tarnished?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus reputation, is it becoming tarnished?
Having read few responses on various news websites, it seems many people are associating many of the recent accidents and Airbus.
The Yemeni now, Air France from Brazil, US airways in the Hudson river, all relative big headline accidents recently.
Now I am asking the question, does anyone believe there is an agenda to associate bad press and bigger headlines in the news when there is an Airbus involved in such accident, then when Boeing has similar accidents.
The Turkish Airlines accident, also got large headlines, but I do not seem to see similar headlines when Boeing aircrafts are involved.
I also do not read people saying I am never going to fly a Boeing, while you can see many threads of normall passengers who are saying I never want to fly an Airbus. (Even though they probably would not know the difference)
The question must be asked, how solid is Airbus reputation today? Are they treated equal by the press and the media? It seems Airbus's advanced technology is an argument used against them.
I have met several retired airline pilots, who have said they are not to impressed with the Airbus, maybe this is just "old fashioned" mentality for new technology.
However have Airbus taken their technology to far, trying to make the pilot a passenger? I do not want to claim any expertise regarding this, as I am only a PPL holder, who is reading for my ATPL exams, so I might be way of the mark, however observations are based on what I have discussed with other pilots, non pilots and read in newspapers.
Lately there have been many tragic and sad headlines for aviation, not only with Airbus, but it seems Airbus headlines are much bigger then the others! It seems Boeings reputation is more solid, it seems someone in the background makes sure the spin gets greater when an Airbus is involved, or am I just paranoid?
The Yemeni now, Air France from Brazil, US airways in the Hudson river, all relative big headline accidents recently.
Now I am asking the question, does anyone believe there is an agenda to associate bad press and bigger headlines in the news when there is an Airbus involved in such accident, then when Boeing has similar accidents.
The Turkish Airlines accident, also got large headlines, but I do not seem to see similar headlines when Boeing aircrafts are involved.
I also do not read people saying I am never going to fly a Boeing, while you can see many threads of normall passengers who are saying I never want to fly an Airbus. (Even though they probably would not know the difference)
The question must be asked, how solid is Airbus reputation today? Are they treated equal by the press and the media? It seems Airbus's advanced technology is an argument used against them.
I have met several retired airline pilots, who have said they are not to impressed with the Airbus, maybe this is just "old fashioned" mentality for new technology.
However have Airbus taken their technology to far, trying to make the pilot a passenger? I do not want to claim any expertise regarding this, as I am only a PPL holder, who is reading for my ATPL exams, so I might be way of the mark, however observations are based on what I have discussed with other pilots, non pilots and read in newspapers.
Lately there have been many tragic and sad headlines for aviation, not only with Airbus, but it seems Airbus headlines are much bigger then the others! It seems Boeings reputation is more solid, it seems someone in the background makes sure the spin gets greater when an Airbus is involved, or am I just paranoid?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, you hear it on all channels: "This is a disaster for Airbus," they say. Most of them don't even get that these are two different aircraft types.
Based on the probability theory, half of all airliner accidents will be Airbus while half of them are Boeings. There were a few Boeings before so now it's Airbus turn.
There's nothing obscure here. And with the worldwide growth of aviation, there will be some accident every few weeks. That's also probability. So you will have an Airbus falling from the skies every month or so. I really don't believe that anyone in his right mind and with at least some insight will see this "series" of accident as a problem or even as a failure of the industry.
Dani
Based on the probability theory, half of all airliner accidents will be Airbus while half of them are Boeings. There were a few Boeings before so now it's Airbus turn.
There's nothing obscure here. And with the worldwide growth of aviation, there will be some accident every few weeks. That's also probability. So you will have an Airbus falling from the skies every month or so. I really don't believe that anyone in his right mind and with at least some insight will see this "series" of accident as a problem or even as a failure of the industry.
Dani
Last edited by Dani; 1st Jul 2009 at 10:51.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldnt go as far as to say you are paranoid but inevitably the big events will generate the big headlines ; and Airbus have popped up in a run of them. I truly dont think there is a hidden agenda to discredit the technology and if there is, it will be the 787's turn next as Boeing are taking the next big technology step.
I do however think there may be some contibutory factor from the nature of some of Airbus's customers. Could you imagine a US based operator breaking a journey to utilise an aircraft that cant get in to certain countries ? Im not saying this is the whole reason but Airbus have sold to a lot of fledgling airline/ state start-ups and this may be having an impact now their fleets are tiring.
I do however think there may be some contibutory factor from the nature of some of Airbus's customers. Could you imagine a US based operator breaking a journey to utilise an aircraft that cant get in to certain countries ? Im not saying this is the whole reason but Airbus have sold to a lot of fledgling airline/ state start-ups and this may be having an impact now their fleets are tiring.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Calgary
Age: 63
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was watching CNN for awhile today and so far there's been little mention of this tragedy. Certainly not like the latest Air France crash. Mind you, they are still going on & on about Michael Jackson so I guess they have their priorities set.
If it is a case of bad maintenance, as it having been banned from French airspace would tend to indicate, then it doesn't matter who made the plane, everything from a lawnmower to a big jet will fail if not maintained properly.
Steam locomotives had to be constantly lubricated or they would seize up, and least we have made some progress in that direction!
Steam locomotives had to be constantly lubricated or they would seize up, and least we have made some progress in that direction!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Age: 52
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that the two very unfortunate incidents are connected only by the name of the manufacturer.
Even more unfortunate seems to be the headlines that news agencies nowadays try to come up with to try and 'out shock' each other.
It seems that the public nowadays wants their news delivered in 30 second bursts. All whizzbang headlines but with very little substance to follow.
If you spend more than just a few seconds reading the stories behind the headlines then you will see:
Different Aircraft types.
Different Operators
Different Flight profiles
Different Controlling agencies
Different Controlling Aviation Authorities
So we have had two recent accidents both involving Airbus types. They hype and paranoia would be the same if it were two Boeing types that crashed.
Lets hope that the 787 program; if and when it gets into the air isnt accident prone, as the press will then turn on the 787 and composit use in Aircraft. They would probably also damm the A350 too, even though it wont have come off the line yet.
Steve
Even more unfortunate seems to be the headlines that news agencies nowadays try to come up with to try and 'out shock' each other.
It seems that the public nowadays wants their news delivered in 30 second bursts. All whizzbang headlines but with very little substance to follow.
If you spend more than just a few seconds reading the stories behind the headlines then you will see:
Different Aircraft types.
Different Operators
Different Flight profiles
Different Controlling agencies
Different Controlling Aviation Authorities
So we have had two recent accidents both involving Airbus types. They hype and paranoia would be the same if it were two Boeing types that crashed.
Lets hope that the 787 program; if and when it gets into the air isnt accident prone, as the press will then turn on the 787 and composit use in Aircraft. They would probably also damm the A350 too, even though it wont have come off the line yet.
Steve
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: East of LGB
Age: 69
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TMJ,
I wouldn't suggest that you are paranoid. We've only just met. That said, you need to factor in the following.
1. Every OEM has their day in the sun (putting it nicely)
2. AB builds a fine product (and I work for the other guys)
3. AB has had some tough breaks lately (no stones being cast, glass house and all)
4. Twenty-four hour news cycles and uninformed media "experts"
5. Lastly, it depends on the news source as some are biased.
No "respectable" OEM employee wishes bad for the competitor. We are all in the same business, moving people safely. When something happens to one of us, it affects us all.
In the interest of self disclosure, I usually fly with Airlines that operate Boeing Products but it is simply because they are my customer.
You're going to find good and bad in every product if you look hard enough. It's the nature of the beast.
Good luck with your studies.
11Fan
I wouldn't suggest that you are paranoid. We've only just met. That said, you need to factor in the following.
1. Every OEM has their day in the sun (putting it nicely)
2. AB builds a fine product (and I work for the other guys)
3. AB has had some tough breaks lately (no stones being cast, glass house and all)
4. Twenty-four hour news cycles and uninformed media "experts"
5. Lastly, it depends on the news source as some are biased.
No "respectable" OEM employee wishes bad for the competitor. We are all in the same business, moving people safely. When something happens to one of us, it affects us all.
In the interest of self disclosure, I usually fly with Airlines that operate Boeing Products but it is simply because they are my customer.
You're going to find good and bad in every product if you look hard enough. It's the nature of the beast.
Good luck with your studies.
11Fan
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bangkok,Thailand
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure any one company would revell in the others misery. The shoe can pass to the other foot quite easily.
Airbus A330 and A340 had no fatalities aboard their flights until AF 447. This stellar safety record may have unfairly raised the publics expectations towards Airbus. Afterall, many Boeing aircraft have crashed over the years.
Airbus advanced technology had made flying so safe and comfortable.....
That said, and the mysterious way AF447 disappeared have really made the flying public nervous. How can a modern marvel of an aircraft, one that practically flies itself....vanish into thin air????
And now all of this information has been discussed about Airbus systems, and how complex they are and how the pilots are just along for the ride..
It's the 2001 Space Odyssey syndrome..."we cant control the computers"!
It has tapped into a very real Human fear....
Airbus A330 and A340 had no fatalities aboard their flights until AF 447. This stellar safety record may have unfairly raised the publics expectations towards Airbus. Afterall, many Boeing aircraft have crashed over the years.
Airbus advanced technology had made flying so safe and comfortable.....
That said, and the mysterious way AF447 disappeared have really made the flying public nervous. How can a modern marvel of an aircraft, one that practically flies itself....vanish into thin air????
And now all of this information has been discussed about Airbus systems, and how complex they are and how the pilots are just along for the ride..
It's the 2001 Space Odyssey syndrome..."we cant control the computers"!
It has tapped into a very real Human fear....
Guest
Posts: n/a
As k the right questions of statistical data
It is highly likely that this year's run of accidents is a statistical anomaly and there are few relevant conclusions reference the relative safety of specific aircraft makes, or models that can be inferred from this sample.
Boeing produced an interesting study summarising a number of safety metrics and statistics for the period 1988 - 2007 for those who like reviewing trends across a more meaningful set of data.
http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf
X number of incidents for a particular model over Y years due to a similar root cause (e.g. anomalous readings from a pitot system leading to ADIRU malfunctions leading to AP disconnects) would be significant however, but that is another statistical question.
Boeing produced an interesting study summarising a number of safety metrics and statistics for the period 1988 - 2007 for those who like reviewing trends across a more meaningful set of data.
http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf
X number of incidents for a particular model over Y years due to a similar root cause (e.g. anomalous readings from a pitot system leading to ADIRU malfunctions leading to AP disconnects) would be significant however, but that is another statistical question.
Last edited by Michael Birbeck; 1st Jul 2009 at 15:56.
Thre do seem to be one or two PPRuNers scattered around who seem (to put it tactfully) to have it in for Airbus.
I have no connection, having flown British aircraft, Lockheed and Boeing, other than an hour in an A320 sim for a little go at the other side.
I have no connection, having flown British aircraft, Lockheed and Boeing, other than an hour in an A320 sim for a little go at the other side.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lear, No but that makes three. All three black boxes haven't been recovered yet as I understand so lets see if another vertical stabilizer ends up floating in the Indian Ocean like the AA New York A300 in 2001 and the AF A330 which looked alarmingly similar.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always wondered about the statement "I'll never fly on XXX or YYY aircraft".
How many passengers do actually decide what aircraft type they will be flying on?
- People on a package tour? Most certainly not. I guess, they have to take what the travel agency puts them on.
- People on a budget? Maybe, maybe not.
- People flying for business or who, for whatever reason have to be at a certain place at a certain time? I would think convenient schedules is their major concern.
So how many does that leave?
And, yes tiger, you are right, most of the passengers in an aircraft have no idea what type they are sitting in. At least, they didn't 10 years ago, when I did a survey for a (non-aviation) customer.
How many passengers do actually decide what aircraft type they will be flying on?
- People on a package tour? Most certainly not. I guess, they have to take what the travel agency puts them on.
- People on a budget? Maybe, maybe not.
- People flying for business or who, for whatever reason have to be at a certain place at a certain time? I would think convenient schedules is their major concern.
So how many does that leave?
And, yes tiger, you are right, most of the passengers in an aircraft have no idea what type they are sitting in. At least, they didn't 10 years ago, when I did a survey for a (non-aviation) customer.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Florida
Age: 60
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hiya - I'm all too often one of those poor saps sitting inside the tube while you're all up the pointy end.
In terms of manufacturer reputation I think:
- Yemeni A310 event is meaningless - older aircraft, "dodgier" operator, questionable maintenance, difficult place to land, bad weather;
- Hudson River event is actually positive. The Airbus "seal penetrations for ditching" feature worked after an unlucky double bird strike. A minor miracle IMHO;
- Rio-Paris A330 loss is very negative. Perceived hazard level for the general public (barring missiles and bombs) is that take off and landing are the most dangerous moments. Once you're cruising at 35 kft all is well, sleep, drink, etc.
In the wake of AF447 even the non-specialist press have realised that this terrible accident poses some new questions. The subsequent revelations are not good: repeated near misses related to common mode airspeed sensor failures, AB recommended but not obligatory pitot tube change outs, AF seemingly dragging their feet to effect the change outs despite incidents within their own fleet, etc.
AB (and AF) may not look good when the BEA report is issued. It seems feasible given the number of other A330 airspeed indication loss events associated with the Thales instruments that in the case of AF447 the same thing happened on a stormy night when the pilot/FO did not have the visual references for a sufficiently rapid seat of the pants response to catch it.
In terms of manufacturer reputation I think:
- Yemeni A310 event is meaningless - older aircraft, "dodgier" operator, questionable maintenance, difficult place to land, bad weather;
- Hudson River event is actually positive. The Airbus "seal penetrations for ditching" feature worked after an unlucky double bird strike. A minor miracle IMHO;
- Rio-Paris A330 loss is very negative. Perceived hazard level for the general public (barring missiles and bombs) is that take off and landing are the most dangerous moments. Once you're cruising at 35 kft all is well, sleep, drink, etc.
In the wake of AF447 even the non-specialist press have realised that this terrible accident poses some new questions. The subsequent revelations are not good: repeated near misses related to common mode airspeed sensor failures, AB recommended but not obligatory pitot tube change outs, AF seemingly dragging their feet to effect the change outs despite incidents within their own fleet, etc.
AB (and AF) may not look good when the BEA report is issued. It seems feasible given the number of other A330 airspeed indication loss events associated with the Thales instruments that in the case of AF447 the same thing happened on a stormy night when the pilot/FO did not have the visual references for a sufficiently rapid seat of the pants response to catch it.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know, the official report was the pilot reversed rudders until he broke the stab off. If he was that incompetent the captain would have intervened. I think Airbus used him as a scapegoat to blame him for the faulty vertical stabilizer. Doing what he did would have injured anybody in the back of the aircraft and if the captain didn't intervene he was asleep.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SPAIN
Age: 65
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
This particular plane or this company is not banned in any countries.
This particular plane made a flight to London sometime ago.
This is not particular signs of bad maintenance on this plane so far.
It's seem's it's just a go around who finished in tragedy.
Remind .. the airport is not equipped with navigation aid like JFK !
It was a wind of 60 km/h
It was night
It was (so far related) a second attempt to land ... and the plane was flying low.
It's not a good choice to concentrate on a eventual bad maintenance and not study or discard the others parameters.
Bye.
This particular plane or this company is not banned in any countries.
This particular plane made a flight to London sometime ago.
This is not particular signs of bad maintenance on this plane so far.
It's seem's it's just a go around who finished in tragedy.
Remind .. the airport is not equipped with navigation aid like JFK !
It was a wind of 60 km/h
It was night
It was (so far related) a second attempt to land ... and the plane was flying low.
It's not a good choice to concentrate on a eventual bad maintenance and not study or discard the others parameters.
Bye.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have all landed in that wind. It isn't that hard to do. You add whatever you or your company authorizes and land. Companies normally dictate max wind but the AC limitations tells you the crosswind component limits.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Saigon
Age: 44
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I drive for a lo-co, and I'm relative newbie to the game (two years now), and have absolutely no bias so post without prejudice. As such...
Ask yourself this: a Ford Focus crashes on the M1, then a few weeks later a Ford Fiesta crashes on the M42. Do you refuse to drive Fords? Or only the Ford Focus? Or the Fiesta? Or all cars? Are they ALL flawed?
I have personal friends who are afraid of flying so I really do sympathise with this, I honestly do, BUT there is a problem among the non-aviating public - a big problem and one that I'm getting increasingly cheesed off with.
I heard this today from a friend of my dad who is 62 and reads the Daily Mail avidly, those who are fond of seizing on titbits and reporting them as fact.
Here's what he said to me this evening (not verbatim)
Him: "I see another plane's gone into the sea."
Me: "Yes, terrible news."
Him: "The same type as that Air France one, wasn't it?"
Me: "No, that was an Airbus 330. This is a 310."
Him: "The Daily Mail says it's the same."
Me: "Well it's not, they're two different aircraft."
Him: "Both Airbus though. That seems coincidental."
I was VERY angry. Because of what he reads at "street level" he is of the firm opinion that all Airbus are now dodgy because the Mail dare to point out that both AF447 and this latest disaster are Airbus.
And remember that I'm a Boeing driver. The media are frigging USELESS at reporting these events and even though I have EVERY sympathy with nervous pax I really do wish that just ONE media outlet would do an equation that didn't involve AF447 + Yemani = Airbus are deathtraps.
Ask yourself this: a Ford Focus crashes on the M1, then a few weeks later a Ford Fiesta crashes on the M42. Do you refuse to drive Fords? Or only the Ford Focus? Or the Fiesta? Or all cars? Are they ALL flawed?
I have personal friends who are afraid of flying so I really do sympathise with this, I honestly do, BUT there is a problem among the non-aviating public - a big problem and one that I'm getting increasingly cheesed off with.
I heard this today from a friend of my dad who is 62 and reads the Daily Mail avidly, those who are fond of seizing on titbits and reporting them as fact.
Here's what he said to me this evening (not verbatim)
Him: "I see another plane's gone into the sea."
Me: "Yes, terrible news."
Him: "The same type as that Air France one, wasn't it?"
Me: "No, that was an Airbus 330. This is a 310."
Him: "The Daily Mail says it's the same."
Me: "Well it's not, they're two different aircraft."
Him: "Both Airbus though. That seems coincidental."
I was VERY angry. Because of what he reads at "street level" he is of the firm opinion that all Airbus are now dodgy because the Mail dare to point out that both AF447 and this latest disaster are Airbus.
And remember that I'm a Boeing driver. The media are frigging USELESS at reporting these events and even though I have EVERY sympathy with nervous pax I really do wish that just ONE media outlet would do an equation that didn't involve AF447 + Yemani = Airbus are deathtraps.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ex
Look at it this way. The Public is fascinated by air crashes because they are RARE. They also involve a conveyance that is not used by most of them, if so, rarely; the ones who are familiar are the ones posting here in support of Aviation.
Aviation is mysterious, if it was as mundane as auto travel, the problem would solve itself. When hasn't the Media pandered to fear and ignorance??
If two Ford Pintos rolled into a ball on M1 then subsequently caught fire, as they used to, before the tanks were modded, Ford would have some splainin' to do. (They Did).
When ingredients are present and the oven is on, Cake will be baked.
What could the industry do to fight back? Open question.
Look at it this way. The Public is fascinated by air crashes because they are RARE. They also involve a conveyance that is not used by most of them, if so, rarely; the ones who are familiar are the ones posting here in support of Aviation.
Aviation is mysterious, if it was as mundane as auto travel, the problem would solve itself. When hasn't the Media pandered to fear and ignorance??
If two Ford Pintos rolled into a ball on M1 then subsequently caught fire, as they used to, before the tanks were modded, Ford would have some splainin' to do. (They Did).
When ingredients are present and the oven is on, Cake will be baked.
What could the industry do to fight back? Open question.