Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses

From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
Date:         28 Oct 96 03:06:33 
References:   1 2 3 4
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Jean-Francois Bosc <bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr> wrote:
>May I connect the fact that 99% of the contributors on this group are American
>with the other fact that comments appearing in "Airbus vs Boeing" threads are
>often single-sided, and sometimes obviously biased ?

You may conclude anything you like, even in utter disregard of the
facts.  Since you prefer your emotional tirades to cold reality, you
most likely won't be interested in the next paragraph.  However,
others might find the numbers interesting and useful in evaluating
the quality of your argument.  (Does the DGAC do such shoddy work in
its accident investigations?)

For the first nine months of this year, 2014 articles were posted to
sci.aeronautics.airliners by 720 individuals.  1536 articles or 76.3%
came from 531 (73.8%) e-mail addresses with domains which could be
associated with the US.  An additional 208 articles (10.3%) were
posted from 73 (10.1%) e-mail addresses in the de, fr, and uk domains,
representing the countries of the three largest partners in Airbus.
(The smallest partner, CASA, is from Spain.  None of the posts came
from within the es domain.)

In France, does 76 equal 99?

>My (limited) "technical" knowledge comes down to this : airlines still buy
>Airbus and ATR, which seems to indicate that they are run by idiots.

If you say so.

>Quite surprisingly however, these airlines usually don't collapse
>shortly after making such a bad move.

A less hysterical view would be that they are run by financial folks
who go for the cheapest deal.  That's what kept the DC-10 in the game.
The stockholders came out ahead, and perhaps most passengers came out
slightly ahead by paying lower fares.  Those who weren't killed, that
is.

>However, if some "USnationalist" can provide me with clear significant stats
>showing that I should better not set foot on a European aircraft ...

While you're apparently too irrational for it to have sunk in, nobody
has ever suggested anything like this.  The pre-A320 Airbus models are
fine planes, as are many other European planes.  In many regards the
A320 is a decent plane, too.  One of the biggest pieces of junk in the
air (or splattered in a field) is the US-built DC-10 -- not a European
plane at all.

Your own whining about nationalism is baseless, much as you might like
to think otherwise to provide your vacuous arguments with a crutch.

Now, since this is supposed to be a technical group, will you please
stop whining and try contributing some substantive arguments based on
at least an attempt at facts?  I've been extra tolerant of some of the
pro-Airbus ranting, in hopes that some more technically savvy Airbus
supporters might not feel threatened, but that hasn't happened and I'm
growing wearing of rubbish.  So are many readers of the newsgroup.

--
Karl Swartz	|Home	kls@chicago.com
		|Work	kls@netapp.com
		|WWW	http://www.chicago.com/~kls/
Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills