@ronaldbuffalo2 I really dont care with which aircraft type i fly ;). you can just stop being arrogant, and start working with things from other parts of the world.
airbuses are uncommon in the US. i dont know about Boeings in europe, but id bet you dont use boeings as much. both have their safety problems, and part of it can be regional weather patterns, so you cant base which is better by crash statistics, it would be unfair.
Airbus at least tries innovative technologies unlike boeing who have always waited to see what other makers do and then put it in their aircraft and still manage to cock it up
You actually believe that crap! Boeing has had the 787 concept long before Airbus even knew what composites were. And, when the 747-200 came out, look who designed a new aircraft 20 years later! AIRBUS! With the crappy climb rate A340. Airbus lost during the 60's.
Yes I know that airbus wasn't around in the 60's you twonk. I really laughed when I read that word. Lol. Anyway, even though aircraft have glass cockpits, fly-by-wire, (even though Boeing introduced that system into their aircraft following Airbus) and winglets doesn't guarantee you flight safety. A300 over queens ring a bell? Air France Flight 447? Boeing has such a better safety record than Airbus. They have ruled the skies since the PT-17 Stearman. Have a nice day you twonk!
All of those accidents by airbus above all had a problem that was relatively the same. Airbus tends to overload their aircraft and engineer a slimmer safety margin.
boeing has an absolute crap safety record what about the thy airlines 737 crashed due to faulty altimeter or the british airways 777 crashed due to frozen fuel lines why design an aircraft to fly that high if it freezes the fuel lines at altitude it was only luck that prevented the frozen fuel from entering the lines until they were close to the airport
And all aircraft manufacturers engineer slim saftey margins its good for their bottom line
Not true. Look how many Boeing 737's are flying. And most of the crashes are on planes that are VERY old, or due to pilot error. So many more Boeing's are flying that Airbus ones that it's no surprise there is more pilot error.
@Mav1843 Airbus didn't even exist in the 60s ... read the facts before spouting. BTW "crappy climb rate" is immaterial because the aircraft is optimized for long distance cruising. The A340-600 address the "issue" of slow climb rate. The -300 had to use the only engines available at the time.
@Mav1843 So you've got some arbitrary cutoff point for message age after which you don't respond?
Once again ... Airbus did not even exist in the 1960s. " Airbus lost during the 60's. " What?
Also why are you singling out the A300 accident over Queens? That's one accident. I don't get what you're trying to say - you're making some muddled reference to winglets not guaranteeing safety or something. Fucking ludicrous.
is anyaircraft safe these days, i love planes,boeings and airbuses,i gettin all excited going abroad but as soon as i get on the god dam thing i fuckin shit myself,all i keep repeating in my head is,were gona crash,but then again ive never flown on an airbus so.
that hudson crash was caused by birds, and the 320 that crashed into trees at the end of the runway was caused by the autopilot (those stupid designers want the pilot eliminated from the cockpit, so the autopilot checks the pilot, instead of having the pilot check the autopilot)!
So it doesn't necessarily (i don't know how you write it) have anything to do with the plane itself. but then.... why doe anybody for god sake fly airbus???
what a load of bollocks ! you clearly have no conception of numbers of crashes I suggest you check out how many Boeing's have crashed compared to Airbus and get your facts right before you post
im just wondering, what is different between this airbus and all the others, i hope they weren't testing just a regular plane if so, im not flying on an airbus
I said the same thing..then my parents decided to go to canada 4 a holiday!and so we HAD 2 FLY ON AN AIRBUS!!! it in fact was good except 4 the turbulence!!there was a lot of that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There was a news report in Europe that suggested instruments may have been damaged (or covered) when the aircraft was repainted to Air NZ colours in readiness for handover...
LOL planes aren't always flying on autopilot, just because this airbus crashed doesnt mean airbus isnt safe anymore. the cause of th crash could be anything
RIP
alex25isrory 7 months ago
@willbaguley9000
but they just crashed i rather Boeing !
ronaldbuffalo2 1 year ago
@ronaldbuffalo2 boeing had more crashes then airbus, but you rather fly with a boeing ? -_-
dutchbhproduction 1 year ago
@dutchbhproduction
you cant blame human error on the manufacture.... so you can go fly on your deformed airbus... and im flying my American BOEING!!!
; )
ronaldbuffalo2 11 months ago
@ronaldbuffalo2 I really dont care with which aircraft type i fly ;). you can just stop being arrogant, and start working with things from other parts of the world.
dutchbhproduction 11 months ago
why mention a crash over 10 years ago???
RobinPMac 1 year ago
@RobinPMac Because it was uncanny that it happened almost to the day that NZ had its worst plane accident.
saltydog45 1 year ago
@willbaguley9000 Depends of the company, really...
darwincity 1 year ago
I've recently heard that it was the NZ pilots who pressured the German pilots to do risky maneuvers which was a major cause of the planes crash.
sungmoon1987 1 year ago
airbuses are uncommon in the US. i dont know about Boeings in europe, but id bet you dont use boeings as much. both have their safety problems, and part of it can be regional weather patterns, so you cant base which is better by crash statistics, it would be unfair.
Crypt1cmyst1c 2 years ago
i work on boeings..they r cool...u need good engineers as well to maintain the aircrafts...and of course not too old planes
someszti 2 years ago
Airbus at least tries innovative technologies unlike boeing who have always waited to see what other makers do and then put it in their aircraft and still manage to cock it up
gcoll75 2 years ago
You actually believe that crap! Boeing has had the 787 concept long before Airbus even knew what composites were. And, when the 747-200 came out, look who designed a new aircraft 20 years later! AIRBUS! With the crappy climb rate A340. Airbus lost during the 60's.
Mav1843 2 years ago
Comment removed
pierreuk 2 years ago
Yes I know that airbus wasn't around in the 60's you twonk. I really laughed when I read that word. Lol. Anyway, even though aircraft have glass cockpits, fly-by-wire, (even though Boeing introduced that system into their aircraft following Airbus) and winglets doesn't guarantee you flight safety. A300 over queens ring a bell? Air France Flight 447? Boeing has such a better safety record than Airbus. They have ruled the skies since the PT-17 Stearman. Have a nice day you twonk!
Mav1843 2 years ago
All of those accidents by airbus above all had a problem that was relatively the same. Airbus tends to overload their aircraft and engineer a slimmer safety margin.
Mav1843 2 years ago
boeing has an absolute crap safety record what about the thy airlines 737 crashed due to faulty altimeter or the british airways 777 crashed due to frozen fuel lines why design an aircraft to fly that high if it freezes the fuel lines at altitude it was only luck that prevented the frozen fuel from entering the lines until they were close to the airport
And all aircraft manufacturers engineer slim saftey margins its good for their bottom line
gcoll75 2 years ago
Not true. Look how many Boeing 737's are flying. And most of the crashes are on planes that are VERY old, or due to pilot error. So many more Boeing's are flying that Airbus ones that it's no surprise there is more pilot error.
scaremenga 2 years ago
Airbus did not introduce Fly-by-wire, glass cockpits, or winglets..
duk309 2 years ago
the airbus came witha come back. the airbus 380 sooothey did not lose anything
lsaastig 2 years ago
?????
Mav1843 2 years ago
@Mav1843 Airbus didn't even exist in the 60s ... read the facts before spouting. BTW "crappy climb rate" is immaterial because the aircraft is optimized for long distance cruising. The A340-600 address the "issue" of slow climb rate. The -300 had to use the only engines available at the time.
HaggisPowah 6 months ago
@HaggisPowah you really didn't even read what i said...try again..and I hate people who respond to comments that are more than a YEAR old...
Mav1843 6 months ago
@Mav1843 So you've got some arbitrary cutoff point for message age after which you don't respond?
Once again ... Airbus did not even exist in the 1960s. " Airbus lost during the 60's. " What?
Also why are you singling out the A300 accident over Queens? That's one accident. I don't get what you're trying to say - you're making some muddled reference to winglets not guaranteeing safety or something. Fucking ludicrous.
HaggisPowah 6 months ago
Comment removed
Mav1843 6 months ago
the man talking at 00:40 likes to say "ARGH" or "Ahh"
Mandingalouca 2 years ago
like me lol
XRenimeX 2 years ago
I will not fly on an airbus.
Not that boeing is much better.....
TwoEyeCyclops 2 years ago
I totally agree! I won't fly on any "scare-bus"planes again! The saying is.... IF IT AINT BOEING - I AINT GOING!!!!!!
Skuksy 2 years ago 2
is anyaircraft safe these days, i love planes,boeings and airbuses,i gettin all excited going abroad but as soon as i get on the god dam thing i fuckin shit myself,all i keep repeating in my head is,were gona crash,but then again ive never flown on an airbus so.
loko1701 2 years ago
@Skuksy Yaya... its isn't Boeing - I ain going, running, jumping , crapping and STFU!!!
Chris58851 1 year ago
@Skuksy LOL What a Fairy, Check the stats, more Boeings have crashed than Airbus.
happymana 1 year ago
@happymana what a fag you are - we aint talking 20 - 30 years ago u homo, we talking now! and airbus aint cuttin it! fucken retard!
Skuksy 1 year ago
@Skuksy Just wondering: at the age of 29, which you claim to be, aren't you supposed to have already moved beyond the 'internet tough guy' stage?
Smoznizjev 10 months ago
This is why I felt unsafe on my first flight on an Airbus.
OakCreekProductions 2 years ago
Airbus always seem to be the ones in the news for the wrong reasons the last ten years. Not good.
RUBBERMOOG 2 years ago
french technology at its best...err...worst
lavakava 2 years ago
Comment removed
AviationNation787 2 years ago
that hudson crash was caused by birds, and the 320 that crashed into trees at the end of the runway was caused by the autopilot (those stupid designers want the pilot eliminated from the cockpit, so the autopilot checks the pilot, instead of having the pilot check the autopilot)!
So it doesn't necessarily (i don't know how you write it) have anything to do with the plane itself. but then.... why doe anybody for god sake fly airbus???
crazymonkeyVII 2 years ago
because its quiet.
bigfleabag 2 years ago
what a load of bollocks ! you clearly have no conception of numbers of crashes I suggest you check out how many Boeing's have crashed compared to Airbus and get your facts right before you post
g4snu 2 years ago
exactly , i flew 12 hours on an A320 and only 2 engines set on fire and 4 windows blew out , its safe as houses !
Ultramarine998 2 years ago
ur a fag. airbus sucks period. no bitching.u dont hear about boeing these days idiot. all u hear is airbus. its a shitty plane and shitty company
dylanhelmer 2 years ago
It was'nt Airbus' fault for birdstrikes to happen. Air France A320 was the airshow. It was thepeople who told the pilots to do the stunts.
robert0joe 2 years ago
Comment removed
AviationNation787 2 years ago
What the hell does her last comment have to do with anything.
zenrising 2 years ago
u know i think i heard this a couple days ago
MRmatthieu49 3 years ago
im just wondering, what is different between this airbus and all the others, i hope they weren't testing just a regular plane if so, im not flying on an airbus
cjracer1000 3 years ago
really??
I said the same thing..then my parents decided to go to canada 4 a holiday!and so we HAD 2 FLY ON AN AIRBUS!!! it in fact was good except 4 the turbulence!!there was a lot of that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
muffinmix123 2 years ago
yea like i have nothing agains airbus but what were they testing on this airbus?
cjracer1000 2 years ago
Comment removed
killer00493 3 years ago
All bodies have been found now.
R.I.P everyone who was on the flight
westlifefan15 3 years ago
I use to operate on that aircraft in the Freedom Air days so sad:(
saturnskys 3 years ago
=[ so sad! im from nz and this sucks
loulrox94 3 years ago
There was a news report in Europe that suggested instruments may have been damaged (or covered) when the aircraft was repainted to Air NZ colours in readiness for handover...
origin8 3 years ago 3
Nobody Knows!
CaptainFaisal 3 years ago
there is no evidence that it was running on one engine, lets just wait until they know everything
uploader1010 3 years ago
LOL planes aren't always flying on autopilot, just because this airbus crashed doesnt mean airbus isnt safe anymore. the cause of th crash could be anything
uploader1010 3 years ago
no they aren't
uploader1010 3 years ago
bullshit, who the hell said that it isnt pilot error ?
uploader1010 3 years ago
It was running on one engine, and when it failed, they had no choice but to avoid crashing somewhere where people could get hurt.
Took tier lives for others.
calypse550 3 years ago
Lets just wait for the official outcome rather than spreading rumours without the facts
s340q300 3 years ago
Lol I basically quoted that from NZ news.
calypse550 3 years ago