I wonder when companies flying Airbus will start advertising that they are not flying Boeing. At this point it wouldn't feel weird for a customer to choose the flight also based on the plane.
It's also nice to support European manufacturing but I wouldn't actually pay for that.
More worried about the Southwest/Alaska fleet than anything cross-atlantic.
But I'm sure it must be on someone's backlog
One should ask how much I fly before one would make an assumption. I can count on a single hand how many times I have had a plane change at the last minute.
There's likely to be some variability from airline to airline and whether or not you're flying out of a big hub with lots of equipment present; as with most things, YMMV. If you're terrified of flying on a 737-MAX to the point of wanting a refund if one gets swapped in, though... take the train.
So maybe your experience is not the norm and one could be self reflective as I am?
Example terms: https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html#r...
> Times shown on tickets, timetables, published schedules or elsewhere, and aircraft type and similar details reflected on tickets or UA’s schedule are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract. UA may substitute alternate carriers or aircraft, delay or cancel flights, and alter or omit stopping places or connections shown on the ticket at any time.
That's a lot of lawyer-speak for "Our core business model has absolutely no guarantees and we can change it at any time for any reason and if our failure to serve our customers causes us to go bankrupt you rubes get to pay for it in the form of government bail-outs"
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.
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.
with Comac coming soon
In a two class layout it's got fewer seats than a MAX 7 and the extended range version's got less range than a MAX 10. Even if COMAC managed to build a bunch of them, they're not competitive with current generation airliners. The C919 is least a generation behind and COMAC has basically no logistics infrastructure. They've a long way to go before being competitive outside of the captive domestic market.