Yeah, I'm waiting too. Interestingly, last year there were many (at least 8) accidents involving Boeings and none involving Airbus. Some are still under investigation but at least LOT 16 (landing gear failure) and SouthWest 812 (in-flight structural failure) can be attributed to technical failures. The accident rate seems to be quite similar, based on some observations.
First of all I would like to say sorry for my english. My family has been involved in the airline industry for 40 years. My Dad was a engineer at Airbus france facility and a former engineer at Iberia. He always told me that Boeing was a superior company in every single way. In fact, most pilot choose boeing because you can fix problems manually in a flight emergency. Another problem with Airbus is that they use plastic for much of their chasis and thats could be dangerous soon, cause energy dont flow with plastic. Anyways. Boeing is selling less commercial planes, because they are too focus making top technology for the NASA and the US military complex. And yess, boeing recieve more subside than Airbus if you take into account the tax breaks and money they take on the military proyects.
Same reason Wal-mart sells more lead-clad cheesy poofs than fresh fruit. The cheaper and more consumable something is the more disposable it is, and the more volume it can do.
I'm a pilot too. And a plane owner. I'm sure you're not a pilot, or at least not a good one. In wake turbulence you dont't use rudder to recover. it's POWER â PUSH â ROLL â GO AROUND. You have never been in wake turbulance right? the pitot static wasn't build by airbus and was partly human error, the same for that air france accident you're probably referring too lookup the crash death statistics by hours flown per year, Airbus is safer
I would be happy to PM that to you but your pm is disabeled? anyway it startswitha K and ends with a R
I wouldn't have asked if I'd realized it was top secret. LOL I'll enable PM. Oh, do I have to swear an oath of secrecy?