For the back part I already said that and the number isn't even close to 10 fold its 6.5 times more closer to Half the amount then what you said.nlsme wrote:
Sorry bout not "educating" myself, but here you go. Airbus total delivered fleet as of 2006, 4,500. Boeing's as of 2007, 27,220. Not quite 10 fold, but well on its way. And again, many of the crashes were of aircraft built before 1972. And again, RARELY the manufactures fault, RATHER, the airlines.
Poll
Airbus or Boeing?
| Airbus | 37% | 37% - 89 | ||||
| Boeing | 62% | 62% - 146 | ||||
| Total: 235 | ||||||
Still more than the ratio of crashes, and go back to english class. More closer? And, when you tried to say the reasons for crashes, you put the manufacturer first. It really should have been last.
Hah I wasn't born in an English speaking country so I guess you can go stick it, I don't know if you can interperet word's properly but it says keep a level head and no personal attacks. Because you just proved your own stupidity you tried to take it somewhere else. Guess what mate that was a stupid thing to do. You're like Bush the more you try to fix up something the more you screw it up. Go ahead please.nlsme wrote:
Still more than the ratio of crashes, and go back to english class. More closer? And, when you tried to say the reasons for crashes, you put the manufacturer first. It really should have been last.
Last edited by spray_and_pray (2007-01-20 01:13:33)
What did i screw up? Sorry for the attack on your poor English (not personal, and more advice then an attack!!!!!!!!!). But, this is an American based website. You just can't take the fact that even though they have "6.04" (NOT 6.5 seeing how you wanted to correct my GUESS) times as many jets in the air, they have only 3.9 times the fatalities.
P.S. Thanks for the personal attack on me. I am nothing like "Bush", hence the "F*ck the Government" in my sig.
P.S. Thanks for the personal attack on me. I am nothing like "Bush", hence the "F*ck the Government" in my sig.
Last edited by nlsme (2007-01-20 01:33:37)
American based forum* yet internationally used if you cant respect the fact that others dont have such a priveliage to learn English at a younger age don't post in D&ST its a forum where ignorance isn't accepted. Your screw up was saying 10 fold then saying that 6.04 is close to 10 times you then tried to cover it up by *attempting to attack my english speaking skill's. I however sadly for you had to do English until year 12 in highschool its a law here.nlsme wrote:
What did i screw up? Sorry for the attack on your poor English (not personal, and more advice then an attack!!!!!!!!!). But, this is an American based website. You just can't take the fact that even though they have "6.04" (NOT 6.5 seeing how you wanted to correct my GUESS) times as many jets in the air, they have only 3.9 times the fatalities.
P.S. Thanks for the personal attack on me. I am nothing like "Bush", hence the "F*ck the Government" in my sig.
Still more than the ratio of crashes, and go back to english class. More closer?
No that looks like a personal attack you are trying to say I am un educated.
Thankyou for correcting that mathamatical error I did it off the top of my head it was close however. And no I think you are just stupid 6.04 suits me much better then 6.5 you however might have liked a higher ratio. You don't have to like Bush to act like him.
I never said that you were uneducated. I respect the fact that you are bilingual. And I was making an educated guess, as Boeing is ten times larger then airbus, but that also includes millitary and cargo aircraft.spray_and_pray wrote:
American based forum* yet internationally used if you cant respect the fact that others dont have such a priveliage to learn English at a younger age don't post in D&ST its a forum where ignorance isn't accepted. Your screw up was saying 10 fold then saying that 6.04 is close to 10 times you then tried to cover it up by *attempting to attack my english speaking skill's. I however sadly for you had to do English until year 12 in highschool its a law here.nlsme wrote:
What did i screw up? Sorry for the attack on your poor English (not personal, and more advice then an attack!!!!!!!!!). But, this is an American based website. You just can't take the fact that even though they have "6.04" (NOT 6.5 seeing how you wanted to correct my GUESS) times as many jets in the air, they have only 3.9 times the fatalities.
P.S. Thanks for the personal attack on me. I am nothing like "Bush", hence the "F*ck the Government" in my sig.
Still more than the ratio of crashes, and go back to english class. More closer?
No that looks like a personal attack you are trying to say I am un educated.
Thankyou for correcting that mathamatical error I did it off the top of my head it was close however. And no I think you are just stupid 6.04 suits me much better then 6.5 you however might have liked a higher ratio. You don't have to like Bush to act like him.
You, my friend need to realize that my "10" was a GUESS. I don't need to cover that up. You still have not addressed the fact that they have fewer casualties per jet. Which is really strange, because the manufacturer's fault, but the numbers hint that Boeing IS the better manufacturer, especially if you care whether or not you might die when flying.
The only reason (other then the fact that you made no sense) I even commented on your grammar is because you so rudely said I was uneducated in the matter. Sorry to inform you, I am a highly educated person.
OH, btw. My neighbor owns an aerospace supplier factory. They make brackets, supports, and various other Aluminum, and titanium products, on virtually every major aircraft (Boeing, Airbus, and McDonald Douglas). Guess who has the highest tolerances, and use the best material. Guess what, it isn't Airbus, in fact they have the lowest of the 3!
P.S. I will educate you on something right now. It is called "spell check", use it, love it. It will make you "look" like a more educated person.
So you are not educated enough so you doubt your own ability to spell? My argument isn't who is the best airliner manufacturer but who is the best airline with the best training. After posting this about 3 times you still haven't got it ignorantly enough. Crashes depend on PILOTS and MAINTENANCE and AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL. When you get that stuck in your head you might learn something. Great your neighbour produces aircraft parts and I fly aircraft I will tell you all air crashes are maintenance or pilot error. When I worked with C152's the pilot does the pre flight maintenance and the flying. Being an instructor I see all the mistakes of people when they either RUSH or just simply FORGET, these two are associated and are the biggest dangers. They are normally simple things like not thecking the front hydraulics or not checking the oil. Even though these two things might take under 30 seconds and are normally done one after another people might forget one or both. If you didn't know checking the hydraulics on the front of a aircraft which relies on the wheels to keep it from lighting up on fire when it touches the ground is quite a major thing that is forgotten. If the oil is old you run the risk of fuel poisoning which shuts down the engine. This is small time maintenance. The big company airlines have checklist's yes but they can still RUSH to STAY ON TIME. RUSHING is also a mistake done by pilots and such a mistake can be seen when two 747's crashed on the runway after a pilot started taking off after clearance to get on the active.nlsme wrote:
I never said that you were uneducated. I respect the fact that you are bilingual. And I was making an educated guess, as Boeing is ten times larger then airbus, but that also includes millitary and cargo aircraft.spray_and_pray wrote:
American based forum* yet internationally used if you cant respect the fact that others dont have such a priveliage to learn English at a younger age don't post in D&ST its a forum where ignorance isn't accepted. Your screw up was saying 10 fold then saying that 6.04 is close to 10 times you then tried to cover it up by *attempting to attack my english speaking skill's. I however sadly for you had to do English until year 12 in highschool its a law here.nlsme wrote:
What did i screw up? Sorry for the attack on your poor English (not personal, and more advice then an attack!!!!!!!!!). But, this is an American based website. You just can't take the fact that even though they have "6.04" (NOT 6.5 seeing how you wanted to correct my GUESS) times as many jets in the air, they have only 3.9 times the fatalities.
P.S. Thanks for the personal attack on me. I am nothing like "Bush", hence the "F*ck the Government" in my sig.
Still more than the ratio of crashes, and go back to english class. More closer?
No that looks like a personal attack you are trying to say I am un educated.
Thankyou for correcting that mathamatical error I did it off the top of my head it was close however. And no I think you are just stupid 6.04 suits me much better then 6.5 you however might have liked a higher ratio. You don't have to like Bush to act like him.
You, my friend need to realize that my "10" was a GUESS. I don't need to cover that up. You still have not addressed the fact that they have fewer casualties per jet. Which is really strange, because the manufacturer's fault, but the numbers hint that Boeing IS the better manufacturer, especially if you care whether or not you might die when flying.
The only reason (other then the fact that you made no sense) I even commented on your grammar is because you so rudely said I was uneducated in the matter. Sorry to inform you, I am a highly educated person.
OH, btw. My neighbor owns an aerospace supplier factory. They make brackets, supports, and various other Aluminum, and titanium products, on virtually every major aircraft (Boeing, Airbus, and McDonald Douglas). Guess who has the highest tolerances, and use the best material. Guess what, it isn't Airbus, in fact they have the lowest of the 3!
P.S. I will educate you on something right now. It is called "spell check", use it, love it. It will make you "look" like a more educated person.
Takeoff clearance and clearance to the runway are two very different things. For this mistake 500-600 people died in the biggest air disaster in history. Companies after they create an aircraft are put under a lot of pressure to test them. Hours upon hours of stall testing speed testing flaps ailerons gear etc testing is an aircraft allowed out. All aircraft are released in a safe condition to fly. Accidents start to happen with RUSHES. So now that you are EDUCATED, on air disasters go do the world some good and spread the message. The aircraft doesn't count but the airline and their policies do. Every single crash to ever happen in history is human error. I would know I fly aircraft and the only thing that will bring me down would be my own mistakes.
This is a forum I see you're a grammar Nazi so I don't really give a damn on what you might say on spelling to try avoiding soaking in some information I see you haven't been here long and have a lot to learn. Im writing in a debate section not writing my resume rules are to keep it legible which I have. If you dont like my English don't read my posts and act like a fuckwit.
Whatever man, I would be willing to lay money that my educatio far surpasses yours. No, I haven't been registered long, but have been around these forums since day one. And as far as YOU educating me, I'll save that for the professionals.
Now for the the topic. There has been crashes as a result of the manufacturer. Ever heard of the DC-10? You, my friend take ingorance to a whole new level.
Now for the the topic. There has been crashes as a result of the manufacturer. Ever heard of the DC-10? You, my friend take ingorance to a whole new level.
Which one? I know you do not mean the Chicago one.nlsme wrote:
Now for the the topic. There has been crashes as a result of the manufacturer. Ever heard of the DC-10? You, my friend take ingorance to a whole new level.
Yes I know, but there are more spacy exit seats on a Boeing than on a airbus.usmarine2007 wrote:
Leg room and seating configuration is up to the airline, not Boeing or Airbus.delta4bravo*nl* wrote:
nice stats, but there are far more Boeing's then airbuses........
I'm a Boeing fan all the way, the new airbuses are cramped only view seats with leg space outside business or first class.
Just flew another 12000 miles on 2 diffrent airlines 2 of the same airbusses, business was fully booked so I had to take economy.
Fat change in getting any of the 4 exit seats on the A330.
KLM has less legroom then NWA and the Dutch being tall by nature I find that very strange.
http://www.klm.com/travel/nl_nl/travel_ … 30-200.htm
http://www.nwa.com/travel/trave/seatm/a … ndex.shtml
At least five of them. They were plagued with problems.
Seating arrangements and exits are up to the airline.delta4bravo*nl* wrote:
Yes I know, but there are more spacy exit seats on a Boeing than on a airbus.usmarine2007 wrote:
Leg room and seating configuration is up to the airline, not Boeing or Airbus.delta4bravo*nl* wrote:
nice stats, but there are far more Boeing's then airbuses........
I'm a Boeing fan all the way, the new airbuses are cramped only view seats with leg space outside business or first class.
Just flew another 12000 miles on 2 diffrent airlines 2 of the same airbusses, business was fully booked so I had to take economy.
Fat change in getting any of the 4 exit seats on the A330.
KLM has less legroom then NWA and the Dutch being tall by nature I find that very strange.
http://www.klm.com/travel/nl_nl/travel_ … 30-200.htm
http://www.nwa.com/travel/trave/seatm/a … ndex.shtml
Fuck you are stupid ill try explain it a little better IF the aircraft was FAULTY on delivery IT should have NEVER got off the GROUND. All AIRCRAFT have a MAINTENANCE check by their respectible AIRLINES before a FLIGHT. HUMAN ERROR for fuck sake.nlsme wrote:
At least five of them. They were plagued with problems.
Note the important words in capitals.
FAA has a minimum width of an exit row, and a maximum pitch of the seat. Other than that, it is up to the airline. Spray is correct.spray_and_pray wrote:
Seating arrangements and exits are up to the airline.delta4bravo*nl* wrote:
Yes I know, but there are more spacy exit seats on a Boeing than on a airbus.usmarine2007 wrote:
Leg room and seating configuration is up to the airline, not Boeing or Airbus.
Just flew another 12000 miles on 2 diffrent airlines 2 of the same airbusses, business was fully booked so I had to take economy.
Fat change in getting any of the 4 exit seats on the A330.
KLM has less legroom then NWA and the Dutch being tall by nature I find that very strange.
http://www.klm.com/travel/nl_nl/travel_ … 30-200.htm
http://www.nwa.com/travel/trave/seatm/a … ndex.shtml
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2007-01-22 05:26:45)
Airbus, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more efficient
I think this debate could be closed on the final resolution that its up to human error and the aircraft manufacturer really doesn't count. Everything that is released is in flyable condition and shouldn't break unless the company or someone along the way does something to the airframe.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m … _n13786338
http://www.injuryboard.com/view.cfm/Article=2972
So you say it is never the manufacturers fault. Piss off. You are WRONG. Rarley, but it does happen, and if you want, I'll find some on the aircraft you "fly".
http://www.injuryboard.com/view.cfm/Article=2972
So you say it is never the manufacturers fault. Piss off. You are WRONG. Rarley, but it does happen, and if you want, I'll find some on the aircraft you "fly".
Sorry whats wrong the first one was an error in A300 hydraulics system which pumps the rudder to move. The 2nd one no aircrafts crashed because it was detected by aircraft maintenance. If it had been done with the A300's the crash wouldn't have happened. Not all parts are made by the airliner manufacturer but do you think that airliner manufacturers sell faulty aircraft or cut on costs? No any defect parts are the faul/problem of the person who manufactured it or the people that inspected it before sending it off HUMAN ERROR. The only part which is pretty much put together by the airliner is the airframe. The engines are bought from another company the avionics are bought and so is pretty much everything else except a small amount of the aircraft. Like said before the A300's were because of bad maintenance the rudder must be checked whoever was supposed to failed cause the whole entire tail fell off. You think the tails of aircraft fall off straight away or from years of neglect doesn't even take years probably just 1 bad maintenance check. If the tail is going to fall off the screws/bolts which hold it on have to be showing a visual sign that they are failing. They were basically blaming airbus because they didn't tell the pilots not to use the rudder when it starts jerking about. Its up to the airline to warn and train its pilots based on what airbus gives them. Give me all you got on the Dash 8-300 and 200 series.nlsme wrote:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CWU/is_2005_May_30/ai_n13786338
http://www.injuryboard.com/view.cfm/Article=2972
So you say it is never the manufacturers fault. Piss off. You are WRONG. Rarley, but it does happen, and if you want, I'll find some on the aircraft you "fly".
Well, humans build the damn things, so I guess you are right that it is always human error. And yes the boeing one did not result in a crash. But, the airbus did. Although we are arguing a mute point. We can both agree that it is up to the personal preferance. If the manufacturer was never at fault, there would never be lawsuits against them. Guess what, there have been.spray_and_pray wrote:
Sorry whats wrong the first one was an error in A300 hydraulics system which pumps the rudder to move. The 2nd one no aircrafts crashed because it was detected by aircraft maintenance. If it had been done with the A300's the crash wouldn't have happened. Not all parts are made by the airliner manufacturer but do you think that airliner manufacturers sell faulty aircraft or cut on costs? No any defect parts are the faul/problem of the person who manufactured it or the people that inspected it before sending it off HUMAN ERROR. The only part which is pretty much put together by the airliner is the airframe. The engines are bought from another company the avionics are bought and so is pretty much everything else except a small amount of the aircraft. Like said before the A300's were because of bad maintenance the rudder must be checked whoever was supposed to failed cause the whole entire tail fell off. You think the tails of aircraft fall off straight away or from years of neglect doesn't even take years probably just 1 bad maintenance check. If the tail is going to fall off the screws/bolts which hold it on have to be showing a visual sign that they are failing. They were basically blaming airbus because they didn't tell the pilots not to use the rudder when it starts jerking about. Its up to the airline to warn and train its pilots based on what airbus gives them. Give me all you got on the Dash 8-300 and 200 series.nlsme wrote:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CWU/is_2005_May_30/ai_n13786338
http://www.injuryboard.com/view.cfm/Article=2972
So you say it is never the manufacturers fault. Piss off. You are WRONG. Rarley, but it does happen, and if you want, I'll find some on the aircraft you "fly".
Last edited by nlsme (2007-01-22 08:04:33)
Re read on what I wrote about airbus then reply again please. If you cant understand ill try re type what I meant.nlsme wrote:
Well, humans build the damn things, so I guess you are right that it is always human error. And yes the boeing one did not result in a crash. But, the airbus did. Although we are arguing a mute point. We can both agree that it is up to the personal preferance. If the manufacturer was never at fault, there would never be lawsuits against them. Guess what, there have been.spray_and_pray wrote:
Sorry whats wrong the first one was an error in A300 hydraulics system which pumps the rudder to move. The 2nd one no aircrafts crashed because it was detected by aircraft maintenance. If it had been done with the A300's the crash wouldn't have happened. Not all parts are made by the airliner manufacturer but do you think that airliner manufacturers sell faulty aircraft or cut on costs? No any defect parts are the faul/problem of the person who manufactured it or the people that inspected it before sending it off HUMAN ERROR. The only part which is pretty much put together by the airliner is the airframe. The engines are bought from another company the avionics are bought and so is pretty much everything else except a small amount of the aircraft. Like said before the A300's were because of bad maintenance the rudder must be checked whoever was supposed to failed cause the whole entire tail fell off. You think the tails of aircraft fall off straight away or from years of neglect doesn't even take years probably just 1 bad maintenance check. If the tail is going to fall off the screws/bolts which hold it on have to be showing a visual sign that they are failing. They were basically blaming airbus because they didn't tell the pilots not to use the rudder when it starts jerking about. Its up to the airline to warn and train its pilots based on what airbus gives them. Give me all you got on the Dash 8-300 and 200 series.nlsme wrote:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CWU/is_2005_May_30/ai_n13786338
http://www.injuryboard.com/view.cfm/Article=2972
So you say it is never the manufacturers fault. Piss off. You are WRONG. Rarley, but it does happen, and if you want, I'll find some on the aircraft you "fly".
I see what you are saying yes, but if the manufacturer still chooses to use said parts, it is then the manufacturers fault. They are contracted with the supplier to stay within tolerances and specs. if a suppliers delivers the defective parts, they actually have to PAY the customer a penalty fee. Wich is up to $3000 U.S.D. per part. So why wouldn't they return the part to begin with. Instead THEY chose to ignore it. Wich puts them to BLAME for putting it on THEIR product. Notice the lawsuit was on Boeing, and not their SUPPLIER. And as for the airbus incident, WHO chose to NOT report the defect, RESULTING IN FATALITIES?
Since when should have airbus reported a defect they didn't possibly know about. Most thought it was a bomb that did it at first. No matter who found out the FAA would have done a report on it and released it to other airlines with an A300 also if there was a design error the whole A300 fleet would have to be closed and inspected. Not the fault of airbus but the FAA the people who conduct the investigation. Like I said it is a big airliner 3000USD is not much at all to them considering they sell their aircraft at about 50Million AU+ each. The smaller variants not as much. If they knew a part was defective they simply would have returned the parts or sued the company for selling fauly parts your logic does not work out. If a company sells faulty parts which will fail after a while its their fault. Airbus only does simple test flights to check if the aircraft works. Such an error came up after hundreds or so flight hours. If the FAA did a proper investigation to the first airline crash then there wouldn't have been another. It had to happen two times for them to wake up. Have you got results on those law cases?nlsme wrote:
I see what you are saying yes, but if the manufacturer still chooses to use said parts, it is then the manufacturers fault. They are contracted with the supplier to stay within tolerances and specs. if a suppliers delivers the defective parts, they actually have to PAY the customer a penalty fee. Wich is up to $3000 U.S.D. per part. So why wouldn't they return the part to begin with. Instead THEY chose to ignore it. Wich puts them to BLAME for putting it on THEIR product. Notice the lawsuit was on Boeing, and not their SUPPLIER. And as for the airbus incident, WHO chose to NOT report the defect, RESULTING IN FATALITIES?
Did you even read the damn article? The faa is at fault that airbus FAILED to inform them of a NEAR crash, that they DID know about?
a major jetmaker failed to report vital information about a near accident in 1997 that may have prevented the fatal November 2001 crash of an American Airlines A300 jet. Airbus, a global manufacturer of commercial airliners, reportedly failed to inform government safety regulators that the 27-foot tail fin equipped on the jetmaker's A300 model nearly snapped off during a flight in May 1997,
As far as the lawsuits, heres a few. As lawsuits take many many years to conclude (unless settled out of court), they are still being heard.
And it is the suppliers fault that the defective products get through the customers quality control? Don't think so. I know that in my proffesion. I am held accountable for MY actions, not the person that gave me the information.
The mass disaster resulting from the crash of Swissair Flight 111 on 2 September 1998 near Halifax, Nova Scotia will certainly reach the US courts. While the initial focus of the media, press and TV, has been on the actions of the flight crew and the safety history of the aircraft, it is likely that the ultimate focus of the lawsuits, which arise from this crash which tragically took the lives of 229 people, will be on the aircraft itself.
in the case of Plaintiffs v. China Eastern Airlines and McDonnel, an in-flight upset of an MD-11 while at 33,000 feet and mach 0.82 over the Pacific Ocean on 6 April 1993, resulting in the death of two passengers and severe injury to 150 other passengers, it seems apparent that the quickly espoused good safety record of the MD-11 aircraft may be shown to be ephemeral. We learned in the China Eastern accident that the MD-11, manufactured by McDonnell- Douglas Corp., since succeeded by The Boeing Company, did not have a good safety record when it came to inadvertent deployment of the leading edge wing slats during flight. Inadvertent deployment of such a control surface in cruise flight is tantamount to hitting a brick wall; and, the aircraft had experienced more than 11 inadvertent leading edge slat incidents prior to the accident.
a major jetmaker failed to report vital information about a near accident in 1997 that may have prevented the fatal November 2001 crash of an American Airlines A300 jet. Airbus, a global manufacturer of commercial airliners, reportedly failed to inform government safety regulators that the 27-foot tail fin equipped on the jetmaker's A300 model nearly snapped off during a flight in May 1997,
As far as the lawsuits, heres a few. As lawsuits take many many years to conclude (unless settled out of court), they are still being heard.
And it is the suppliers fault that the defective products get through the customers quality control? Don't think so. I know that in my proffesion. I am held accountable for MY actions, not the person that gave me the information.
The mass disaster resulting from the crash of Swissair Flight 111 on 2 September 1998 near Halifax, Nova Scotia will certainly reach the US courts. While the initial focus of the media, press and TV, has been on the actions of the flight crew and the safety history of the aircraft, it is likely that the ultimate focus of the lawsuits, which arise from this crash which tragically took the lives of 229 people, will be on the aircraft itself.
in the case of Plaintiffs v. China Eastern Airlines and McDonnel, an in-flight upset of an MD-11 while at 33,000 feet and mach 0.82 over the Pacific Ocean on 6 April 1993, resulting in the death of two passengers and severe injury to 150 other passengers, it seems apparent that the quickly espoused good safety record of the MD-11 aircraft may be shown to be ephemeral. We learned in the China Eastern accident that the MD-11, manufactured by McDonnell- Douglas Corp., since succeeded by The Boeing Company, did not have a good safety record when it came to inadvertent deployment of the leading edge wing slats during flight. Inadvertent deployment of such a control surface in cruise flight is tantamount to hitting a brick wall; and, the aircraft had experienced more than 11 inadvertent leading edge slat incidents prior to the accident.
Last edited by nlsme (2007-01-22 09:13:25)
With swissair it was a wiring problem with the new TV's the airline installed it is airliners choice for certail leisurely items. That lit a fire in the wiring system suffocated the pilots and took out all electrical systems. Pilot error if they put on the safety mask the aircraft could have came down and landed safely. However there still was a plane on fire. This was due to too much voltage being used by the newly installed TV's etc. Company error for not creating some restriction on TV usage or how much TV's there are. Im not familiar with the China Eastern incident.nlsme wrote:
Did you even read the damn article? The faa is at fault that airbus FAILED to inform them of a NEAR crash, that they DID know about?
a major jetmaker failed to report vital information about a near accident in 1997 that may have prevented the fatal November 2001 crash of an American Airlines A300 jet. Airbus, a global manufacturer of commercial airliners, reportedly failed to inform government safety regulators that the 27-foot tail fin equipped on the jetmaker's A300 model nearly snapped off during a flight in May 1997,
As far as the lawsuits, heres a few. As lawsuits take many many years to conclude (unless settled out of court), they are still being heard.
And it is the suppliers fault that the defective products get through the customers quality control? Don't think so. I know that in my proffesion. I am held accountable for MY actions, not the person that gave me the information.
The mass disaster resulting from the crash of Swissair Flight 111 on 2 September 1998 near Halifax, Nova Scotia will certainly reach the US courts. While the initial focus of the media, press and TV, has been on the actions of the flight crew and the safety history of the aircraft, it is likely that the ultimate focus of the lawsuits, which arise from this crash which tragically took the lives of 229 people, will be on the aircraft itself.
in the case of Plaintiffs v. China Eastern Airlines and McDonnel, an in-flight upset of an MD-11 while at 33,000 feet and mach 0.82 over the Pacific Ocean on 6 April 1993, resulting in the death of two passengers and severe injury to 150 other passengers, it seems apparent that the quickly espoused good safety record of the MD-11 aircraft may be shown to be ephemeral. We learned in the China Eastern accident that the MD-11, manufactured by McDonnell- Douglas Corp., since succeeded by The Boeing Company, did not have a good safety record when it came to inadvertent deployment of the leading edge wing slats during flight. Inadvertent deployment of such a control surface in cruise flight is tantamount to hitting a brick wall; and, the aircraft had experienced more than 11 inadvertent leading edge slat incidents prior to the accident.
Considering thes aircraft have a 1,000,000 parts, I would say that $3000 a part would be an issue. So yeah, my logic does make since. No, they don't "sue" their suppliers. They are contracted with these suppliers. If the supplier delivers parts out of spec, The SUPPLIER pays the $3000. So, for the manufacturer to put faulty parts on the aircraft (after going through their OWN QUALITY CONTROL), how then is it the suppliers fault. Considering the manufacturer could have VERY EASILY REJECTED SAID PARTS, AND COLLECT THE $3000 per part (BTW the parts usually come in lots of 20 to 3,000[ between $60,000 and $9,000,000 worth of penalties]).spray_and_pray wrote:
Like I said it is a big airliner 3000USD is not much at all to them considering they sell their aircraft at about 50Million AU+ each. The smaller variants not as much. If they knew a part was defective they simply would have returned the parts or sued the company for selling fauly parts your logic does not work out.nlsme wrote:
I see what you are saying yes, but if the manufacturer still chooses to use said parts, it is then the manufacturers fault. They are contracted with the supplier to stay within tolerances and specs. if a suppliers delivers the defective parts, they actually have to PAY the customer a penalty fee. Wich is up to $3000 U.S.D. per part. So why wouldn't they return the part to begin with. Instead THEY chose to ignore it. Wich puts them to BLAME for putting it on THEIR product. Notice the lawsuit was on Boeing, and not their SUPPLIER. And as for the airbus incident, WHO chose to NOT report the defect, RESULTING IN FATALITIES?