MAXs for QF?

Old Feb 27, 20, 1:38 am
  #31  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SYD-NYC
Programs: |QF Gold|
Posts: 1,711
Originally Posted by mikalee View Post
I will fly the max without hesitation when it returns. statistically i will be safer than driving a vehicle on a public road with all sort of uncontrollable, unvetted idiots driving 2 tonne machines at 100km/h+ some of them drugged up on roads at the same time as me.

What is it with car travel that makes our decisions irrational compared to the standard we apply to air travel.

All the naysayers above are still driving on public roads aren’t you?
That is not an analogous comparison - using the driving analogy, it's about whether to take a drive in a car which has been recalled to fix a potentially fatal design flaw, versus driving a car which has been in general release for years without such a recall. The general level of idiots behind the wheel remain the same, you're just adding an additional hardware risk to the equation.

Post written very carefully from my bed.
Doddles likes this.
Supersonic Swinger is offline  
Old Feb 27, 20, 5:16 am
  #32  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Newcastle, Australia.
Programs: QF Plat+ LTG/ OW Emerald, VA Plat, NZ Gold, HH Diamond, Hyatt Whatsit. Taxation is theft.
Posts: 2,549
Originally Posted by Supersonic Swinger View Post
That is not an analogous comparison - using the driving analogy, it's about whether to take a drive in a car which has been recalled to fix a potentially fatal design flaw, versus driving a car which has been in general release for years without such a recall. The general level of idiots behind the wheel remain the same, you're just adding an additional hardware risk to the equation.

Post written very carefully from my bed.
More accurate would be a car recalled because people couldn't handle accelerating with their right foot and braking with their left foot...
shillard is offline  
Old Feb 28, 20, 4:29 pm
  #33  
Moderator: Asiana & Qantas Frequent Flyer
Aman Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: STR/SYD/SMF
Programs: QF SG, LH SEN, OZ D+, HH D, SPG P
Posts: 14,110
Originally Posted by mikalee View Post
I will fly the max without hesitation when it returns. statistically i will be safer than driving a vehicle on a public road with all sort of uncontrollable, unvetted idiots driving 2 tonne machines at 100km/h+ some of them drugged up on roads at the same time as me.

What is it with car travel that makes our decisions irrational compared to the standard we apply to air travel.

All the naysayers above are still driving on public roads aren’t you?
Actually, the chance of dying though an accident of a commercial aircraft or while driving a car are quite similar.
DownUnderFlyer is offline  
Old Feb 28, 20, 8:05 pm
  #34  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Newcastle, Australia.
Programs: QF Plat+ LTG/ OW Emerald, VA Plat, NZ Gold, HH Diamond, Hyatt Whatsit. Taxation is theft.
Posts: 2,549
Originally Posted by DownUnderFlyer View Post
Actually, the chance of dying though an accident of a commercial aircraft or while driving a car are quite similar.
Maybe if you only fly on the worst airlines!

Measured per million pax km, road travel is hundreds of times more dangerous than air travel.

Air and rail are pretty much the same.
shillard is offline  
Old Feb 28, 20, 8:56 pm
  #35  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 3,473
This is where we get into “you can prove anything with statistics” territory. In this case, how are we defining chance? (Per passenger KM? Per occurrence ie take off/landing cycle or car journey from ignition off to ignition off?) how are we defining “commercial aircraft”? Adding in Australian GA would obviously negatively impact the air stats although I don’t *think* most of the dodgy ones run RPT services- does charter count as well or only scheduled ops? What about aeromed? Etc etc

Last edited by nancypants; Feb 28, 20 at 9:15 pm
nancypants is offline  
Old Feb 28, 20, 9:57 pm
  #36  
og
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SYD
Programs: QF WP/LTG | UA P
Posts: 13,072
Likewise do the former companies absorbed into the greater QANTAS count in the statistics eg TAA which certainly did have fatalities. Also, does QF acknowledge fatalities in propeller aircraft (eg the Connie at Cocos) when it is boasting “safety”. No wonder they were so keen to repair OJH (the Bangkok bunker buster) to avoid an airframe loss statistic.

And for pure statistics, a google search for “How to Lie with Statistics” might be of use.
shillard and nancypants like this.
og is offline  
Old Feb 28, 20, 9:59 pm
  #37  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 3,473
Originally Posted by og View Post
Likewise do the former companies absorbed into the greater QANTAS count in the statistics eg TAA which certainly did have fatalities. Also, does QF acknowledge fatalities in propeller aircraft (eg the Connie at Cocos) when it is boasting “safety”. No wonder they were so keen to repair OJH (the Bangkok bunker buster) to avoid an airframe loss statistic.

And for pure statistics, a google search for “How to Lie with Statistics” might be of use.
I have it on good authority that the 717 that hard landed at either GOV or DRW was a technical write off as well
og likes this.

Last edited by nancypants; Feb 28, 20 at 10:29 pm
nancypants is offline  
Old Feb 29, 20, 12:35 am
  #38  
Moderator: Asiana & Qantas Frequent Flyer
Aman Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: STR/SYD/SMF
Programs: QF SG, LH SEN, OZ D+, HH D, SPG P
Posts: 14,110
Originally Posted by shillard View Post
Maybe if you only fly on the worst airlines!

Measured per million pax km, road travel is hundreds of times more dangerous than air travel.

Air and rail are pretty much the same.
If you fly the best airlines measured in accidents per hour spent in a car / train / plane the difference is small. Measuring in KM makes space travel the safest transportation method even if you have a 1 in a 100 chance of not coming back.
og likes this.
DownUnderFlyer is offline  
Old Feb 29, 20, 12:59 am
  #39  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Newcastle, Australia.
Programs: QF Plat+ LTG/ OW Emerald, VA Plat, NZ Gold, HH Diamond, Hyatt Whatsit. Taxation is theft.
Posts: 2,549
Originally Posted by DownUnderFlyer View Post
If you fly the best airlines measured in accidents per hour spent in a car / train / plane the difference is small. Measuring in KM makes space travel the safest transportation method even if you have a 1 in a 100 chance of not coming back.
I'd roll the dice on space travel!
pandaperth likes this.
shillard is offline  
Old Feb 29, 20, 5:39 pm
  #40  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Programs: QF Gold, VA Plat, IHG Plat Amb, LCAH Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 3,749
Originally Posted by og View Post
Likewise do the former companies absorbed into the greater QANTAS count in the statistics eg TAA which certainly did have fatalities. Also, does QF acknowledge fatalities in propeller aircraft (eg the Connie at Cocos) when it is boasting “safety”. No wonder they were so keen to repair OJH (the Bangkok bunker buster) to avoid an airframe loss statistic.

And for pure statistics, a google search for “How to Lie with Statistics” might be of use.
As far as I know, the no fatalities thing has referred to the jet age.
nancypants likes this.
perthite is offline  
Old Feb 29, 20, 5:41 pm
  #41  
og
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SYD
Programs: QF WP/LTG | UA P
Posts: 13,072
Originally Posted by perthite View Post
As far as I know, the no fatalities thing has referred to the jet age.
Agree. It is very careful word crafting.
shillard and nancypants like this.
og is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: