A friend tells me his brother, a retired pilot, will not fly on Airbuses because of some mechanic problem he doesn't think they've adequately solved.<BR><BR>Does anyone know anything about this? What could be the problem, and how big a problem is it?

I found this great website that will tell you everything you ever wanted to know about plane crashes. Its got a database that you can search by date or make of plane. It will give you the scoop on the Airbus.<BR><BR>http://www.airdisaster.com/

Why can't your friend's brother answer these questions?

Thanks for reference, &quot;x,&quot; but that website concentrates so thoroughly on the catastrophic crashes that it really isn't set up to say anything specific about Airbuses as a class of craft. I tried searching on &quot;airbus,&quot; but it wasn't all that helpful about detected vulnerabilities.<BR><BR>&quot;how&quot; -- I don't know my friend's brother.

They sell more Airbus planes than Boeing planes now, so do you really believe the airlines would buy Airbuses if they had a serious structural problem? I fly about twice per month in an Airbus (A300, A310, A319, A320, A321, A330, A340) and they are fine aircraft.

I think the problem being referred to is the one that led to the AA crash over Long Island last year. The tail surfaces were abnormally buffeted by what examiners think was a rapid back and forth correction manuver by the plane. If my memory serves me, there was concern that some other Airbus planes had the same problem and there was to be a fleetwide inspection/correction of the problem.<BR>The problem here was that the entire tail assembly tore off, unlike the Alaska Air crash off Los Angeles a couple years back when poor maintenance/poor design of the giant ratchet that controlled the tail pitch was found to be the cause -- the screw gear was stripped or something like that and the tail wing assembly broke loose of the device and flapped up and down causing the plane to loose control and crash.<BR>If I remember correctly.

Thanks, Airframe. That sounds like it.

A pilot friend of mine calls Airbuses &quot;beer cans with wings.&quot; He says the airlines buy them rather than Boeings because they are cheaper. However, since the FAA has to certify them, I doubt they are any less safe than any other plane currently flying.

I think a lot of the concerns are directed at the earlier model airbuses (eg. A300). I recall an article describing the numerous technical difficulties that American Airlines had with these planes when they were first added to the fleet.<BR><BR>One key difference between Boeing and Airbus is that Airbus has always tended to use more composite materials in construction to save weight (lo-cost carrier Westjet cited this as a reason for going with the Boeing 737 since in the event of a problem with a part, it is much easier and quicker to replace a metal part than a composite one). <BR><BR>That said, the newer Airbuses are great. I'd fly an A330 or 320 over a Boeing 767 or 737 anyday... Boeing needs to renew their product line rather than rehashing airframes from the 60s and 70s.

This address will tell you about anything you want to know regarding flying on various aircrafts or airlines.<BR><BR>http://airsafe.com/

There was some question as to why AIr Canada bought Airbus.<BR> <BR>Coincidentally, a close friend of the former prime minister supposedly allegedly received a $20M &quot;commission&quot; about the same time.<BR><BR>The former prime minister (Brian Mulroney, a.k.a. &quot;Mud&quot; in Canada) sued the Canadian government for suggesting that he himself had been an owner or recipient of foregin account that received some of that money. He won, after a lengthy investigation showed no evidence...<BR>

After reading an excellent article in Vanity Fair, I will avoid Airbuses if I can.

&quot;fyi&quot; -- which issue of Vanity Fair?<BR>

We need to be very careful about what we read about Airbus vs. Boeing -particularily in the North American Press. Most articles are VERY slanted in one direction simply because both companies have an extremely active public and political PR campaign. Their reach extends well into the print media. The simple way is to compare accidents/deaths per million passenger miles. I have no idea what the stats would be. I prefer the Airbus because the ceilings seem higher thus making the cabin appear larger. Don't really know if it is though. About the only commercial US jet that I absolutely do not like is the MD-80. Nothing wrong with it I am sure, just seems like a very cramped interior.

I agree w/Marchon about wondering why people get so defensive, but I'm grateful for the info here. One point, however: just providing crash and fatality stats doesn't tell you much about the specific traits of a given craft. If there are 10 crashes in 15 years of a particular type of plane but, as it happens, 9 of the crashes had to do with weather or pilot error and the 10th is inconclusive, we have no reason to think the plane itself has problems. <BR><BR>We'd need more narrow stats, not only about cause of crash but about repeated maintenance problems that involve the same failures that might have caused crashes.

Airbus is fine but not great!

There is no problem with Airbus. This whole controversy really is about an American product (Boeing) versus a European product (Airbus). American protectionism is back again.

Donald is wrong!

I started a thread about &quot;What problems with Boeing&quot;, with some perfectly legitimate questions about Boeing's safety. Fodor's deleted that thread, can't have ANY counteracting arguments against &quot;America is Best&quot;, right?<BR>Fodor's forums are so biased in so many ways, that it makes these forums really quite worthless.

Donald is right on the money. Airbus is now outpacing their competitor. Protectionism, a full scale PR campaign, and intensive lobbying are the watchwords of the day.