Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

164

is a graph of NTSB investigations for Boeing and Airbus with all recorded incidents. Yes, I know I'm "trusting the science" with NTSB. So they have a system called which allows you to query investigations and includes investigations not completed.

Here's a chart since 2015 with total incidents involving Boeing and Airbus with low/high outlier limits. I scaled up the 2024 value for a full year and that last point is a bullshit number. If we believe the bullshit number then Boeing is on track for a normal year and Airbus is on track for a good year.

Anyhow, I have more confidence in Boeing than Airbus based on this. Boeing is generally around 100/year for their fleet without too much upward variation except for 2023. Airbus has three times as many "bad years" in this range, and a bad year for Airbus looks more off of trend than Boeing's single bad year. You have to account for the different fleet sizes - there is not a 1:1 population ratio between Airbus and Boeing. Last I checked the 737-800 was the most common airplane in the sky. This chart does not account for severity - an open cargo door counts as much as a nose-dive into the ocean. Of course you can't have many incidents when the FAA grounds all of your 737-MAX, so who knows.

[Pic related](https://www.imgbly.com/ib/9i3VqzrUQ5.png) is a graph of NTSB investigations for Boeing and Airbus with all recorded incidents. Yes, I know I'm "trusting the science" with NTSB. So they have a system called [CAROL](https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-main-public/landing-page) which allows you to query investigations and includes investigations not completed. Here's a chart since 2015 with total incidents involving Boeing and Airbus with low/high outlier limits. I scaled up the 2024 value for a full year and that last point is a bullshit number. If we believe the bullshit number then Boeing is on track for a normal year and Airbus is on track for a good year. Anyhow, I have more confidence in Boeing than Airbus based on this. Boeing is generally around 100/year for their fleet without too much upward variation except for 2023. Airbus has three times as many "bad years" in this range, and a bad year for Airbus looks more off of trend than Boeing's single bad year. You have to account for the different fleet sizes - there is not a 1:1 population ratio between Airbus and Boeing. Last I checked the 737-800 was the most common airplane in the sky. This chart does not account for severity - an open cargo door counts as much as a nose-dive into the ocean. Of course you can't have many incidents when the FAA grounds all of your 737-MAX, so who knows.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (18).
[–] • 10 pts

Boing hired a CEO who was more interested in shareholder price, and literally called the engineers that loved aircraft "Phenomenally talented assholes." He then outsourced engineering of parts to suppliers who would build to print, but had no experience designing parts, at the same time taking work away from and getting rid of those "assholes.". Boing also has the issue that they're so afraid of being called a bad name that they'll cut their legs off to save face with the alphabet pronoun crowds. They are rapidly running up against a talent void where they may not be able to make aircraft again - at least not until the DNA gets back in the system, and that could take years.

On the other side of the house, they got fat on cost-plus contracts and got good at lying to the government. They let experienced people retire without any replacements. They don't care, and they don't have to because the money flows no matter what. They're scared to death of firm-fixed-price contracts because that would kill their defense business.

[–] • 6 pts

Exactly. These big companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin have been bleeding engineering talent for years. All the top young engineers are going to companies like Tesla, Space X, Apple, etc. Even woke-ass millenials are more interested in designing new rockets or satellites rather than working in Quality Control for commercial aircraft that haven't changed much in 50 years.

[–] • 6 pts

It's not just the aircraft side of the house, who wants to go work for a defense contractor that can't get out of their own way?

[–] • 3 pts

Expecting very intelligent savants to have great people skills is kinda funny. CEO put 9 points into people skills and 4 into intelligence.

[–] • 2 pts

Article about that dickhead CEO for reference.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39856413

[–] • 3 pts

Yep. The problem with the company is in the blood at this point. They have a long road ahead if they want to get back to the Boeing of yesteryear.

[–] • 2 pts

Yes. Boeing is at the stage where the smart people realize something is about to happen but there's not enough data to show it. It's like the moment when you start to realize there's something wrong with your car but the check engine light hasn't come on yet.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

We should let them die and a competitor take their market share. In a sane world it'd happen quick.

Too big not to fail

[–] • 2 pts

They have a lot of unique contracts. They're going to continue in some capacity, unfortunately.