5 ms·

As soon as you mentioned Comax which has no safety record at all as an alternate you undermined your credibility.

• pg_1234 3y ago
  Comac hasn't killed any passengers yet.
• Urahandystar 3y ago
  No safety record is better than a negative one. Especially if they have passed all check by external state backed regulators.
  • iso8859-1 3y ago
    Can't have a negative record. Let's say we measure based on fatalities per km flown/passenger. Now, the Superjet has had some fatal accidents so I'd bet it'd score worse than any prod Boeing. If the Comac had a single accident, if would score just as bad. But you'd be basing it on a low sample size, so one could still claim it's a freak accident.
  • fcantournet 3y ago
    No it's not. That's a common fallacy of safety.
  • nolok 3y ago
    > No safety record is better than a negative one. I would disagree with that idea that Boeing has a negative record. It's mostly only for the MAX series of plane, and it's still super safe overall. As-in, they've fallen far below the current accepted standard of Airbus, but it's still miles ahead better than "no safety record". > Especially if they have passed all check by external state backed regulators. This is exactly what the Boeing planes are in Europe, FAA certify them so they're grandfathered, so this means nothing. I wouldn't trust Chinese regulator certification. At this point, my trust is in the EASA regulators, for plane they certified themselves (aka, non Boeing), and I really wish we would untie their hand to let them certify Boeing plane from scratch. And Boeing would benefit from it too. And Airbus, because Airbus got so good because they needed to catch up and beat Boeing, the chauvinist french in me is glad Airbus is beating them, the realist in me knows the one that's one top always end up feeling to safe and slipping.