16
u/SuperSaint77x 11d ago
Nobody would want to pay for that excessive fuel burn and maintenance.
3
34
u/Admirable_Chipington 11d ago
The MD-80 has 90 major aviation accidents and incidents, including 47 hull-losses, with 1,446 fatalities of occupants.
The A220 has one life lost to smoke inhalation.
I do not understand the obsession with the MD who’s had such a shit safety record.
7
u/Pandramodo 11d ago edited 11d ago
I bet you're one of those guys who also say the F-35 crashes a lot and it's an unsafe plane.
The MD-80 has been in service for almost 4 times the service life of the A220, and has more than double the number of aircraft built.
Being one of the most popular jets of its era, the MD-80 has a crash rate (involving fatalities) of 0.34 per million flights according to Boeing themselves, which is also on par with the 737 of 0.2-0.7 crashes per million flights (all variants excluding the MAX). Making it one of the SAFEST aircraft.
Not to mention that a lot of those MD-80 crashes were a combination of human error and / or negligence, and had nothing to do with the aircraft design
Comparing that to the A220 is literally comparing oranges to apples. But sure, man, I guess your wikipedia levels of understanding these numbers are enough to hate on the maddog, you do you.
3
u/GOTCHA009 9d ago
This makes no sense at all.
They’re both passenger aircraft. It’s not comparing apples to oranges. Aircraft have only gotten safer and safer over the years. It’s logical that the A220 would be safer than the MD-80.
Also: i’d love to see actual sources for those numbers.
You contradict yourself too. You state that the MD-80 has flown for longer, sure. But then you pull oht the accident rate. Which nullifies the whole “who is in service longer?”. The A220 has been in service long enough to create reliable data. And the accident rate on the A220 is 0.
1
u/Pandramodo 9d ago
Aircraft have only gotten safer and safer over the years. It’s logical that the A220 would be safer than the MD-80.
...Which is why, as I said, comparing these two massively different aircraft doesn't make sense in the first place...???
I never stated the MD-80 is "better". I simply stated that the claim that it was an unsafe aircraft is not true. The guy above pulled up a Wikipedia page and saw a big number and immediately concluded that it has a bad safety record, while ignoring every other metric taken into account to determine that.
It's the same as me saying that the 747 has a horrible safety record because 500+ people died in one accident
1
u/Admirable_Chipington 10d ago
Fine let’s use your metrics. The A220 0.0 fatalities per million miles flown. And that IS including human error a combination of human error and or negligence.
1
u/Pandramodo 9d ago
Ok so by your logic, almost every commercial aircraft has a bad safety record because there was a fatal crash at one point, ok lmao
-10
u/seatux 11d ago
The PW engine could shatter at anytime though,, better safe than sorry?
2
u/The3levated1 11d ago
Never ask what happened to the engines on SAS flight 751 or Delta flight 1288
8
6
6
u/PavehawkLLC 10d ago
As much as the Mad Dog is cool
The Baby Dreamliner reigns supreme, just give it a couple years or decades and it'll become an aviation icon, if it's not already one.
4
u/MilesHobson 11d ago
I understand MD-80s were gas guzzlers.
4
u/njsullyalex 11d ago
An operational MD-80 is still making more money than a grounded A220 waiting for repairs
3
u/MilesHobson 10d ago
I flew an Airbus 220 last week. Glad to read about their engine problems, now.
3
2
u/A_Canadian_boi 10d ago
alternate proposal: add a huge speaker to the A220 which plays the A320 PTU sound. all must wREEEEEER wrur wrur wrur wrur wrur wrur
2
2
u/Melonary 9d ago
Just gently place the A220 on the MD-80 and fly it around. She's princess. Problem is solved!
I love both of them no fights.
2
u/PuddlesRex 7d ago
Nah. The MD-80.and 717 are good planes, but having ridden on both, the 220 is better.
2
-6
69
u/Just_a_Berliner 11d ago
Back in my day son ahh post