The 737 has also been around a lot longer. The 737NG has a rate of 0.07 compared to the A32x's 0.09. The A330 is 0.19 while the 777 is 0.18. But even this is kind of misleading. All but three of the fatalities (total fatalities, not accidents) due to the 777 come down to intentional acts that would have destroyed any aircraft.

It depends which you are comparing. Rates are usually expressed in average per 100k hours of block time (slightly rosier than wheels up time). Classic 737's serviced and flown by major American carriers and 739's on small foreign carriers today are entirely different beasts.

The 737 spans almost 60 years. The earlier planes had a much higher rate of accidents, which skews the overall numbers given that today you'd have a hard time finding one of those in the sky, especially on a passenger route. The 737NG has one of the best safety records of any class of plane flying today. Aside from a 737 MAX, right now if you find yourself on a 737 it's nearly guaranteed to be an NG, which is just about the safest airplane currently in use.

The 737 NG has a lower crash rate than any Airbus on the list at 0.07. Hop on a 737 in the US and this is probably what you'll be on.

Are you trolling? Using 737 NG would be like using Airbus NEO variants, which ALL were excluded from the list in the single aisle category for having a 0.00 crash rate…

The NG has been produced since 1997 and there are essentially no pre-NG aircraft in Western service. The NEO is equivalent to the MAX.

Equivalent to the MAX perhaps except no hidden suicide system on board..

> The NEO is equivalent to the MAX

In what way? That they both have new engines?

I'm pretty sure the similarities stop there. The A320, due to higher wing position, did not require massive overhauls to get the NEO functioning - so the NEO offers overwhelming airframe similarity and flight characteristics.

The MAX, on the other hand, put the engines in a new position, introduced an all new fly-by-wire system to prevent the obviously necessary reclassification of the aircraft, and then cut corners on safety despite the huge amount of re-engineering they had to do.

The NEO has also been out longer, and has never had a fatal crash event...

Airbus makes safer planes, I can't believe people are misinterpreting statistics this hard. "If you simply include Airbus stats from the decade before 737 NG, ignore their NEO and decide it's equivalent to the MAX despite being on the absolute opposite ends of the safety scales, and then argue it's reasonable to compare the two drastically different data sets you've constructed with unjustifiable exclusions, Boeing has better fatal crash statistics!"

Pathetic.

The NEO is a much newer plane with much less history than the NG which has been around since the mid 90s. I'm sure it's safe too.

It is fair to compare the A320 family with the NG. They are comparable planes and have comparable crash stats too. (0.09 vs 0.07)

That’s such a misleading number. The numbers you post EXCLUDE both NEO and MAX crash rates, but meanwhile the MAX would grossly inflate 737-NG rates and NEO flights would slightly depress A320 rates

I highly suggest not citing those numbers

There are 6 times more "events" listed for the 737-NG variants as there are for the MAX, so there wouldn't be much inflation.

(There's also more than 100x more flights with the NG than the MAX)

1/6 the events in a vanishing amount of samples would probably imply the number to be 7/6, and given the passenger counts I imagine that’s an undercount. Therefore the crashes would look more like 0.085 for both Single Aisles in aggregate…

The planes are grouped the way they are because they are mechanically of the same generation, not because they have similar names. The NEO and MAX are newer generation planes than their predecessors.

NEO is not a new generation plane, it’s a new engine option with some engineering work to support the bigger engines but overwhelmingly similar airframe and flight characteristics. They also put sharklets on the wings by default

MAX is not just a new engine option, it’s an entirely overhauled configuration and position which accordingly drastically altered flight characteristics masked by all new fly-by-wire systems and previously half-baked safety monitoring in order to prevent Boeing from needing recertification.

Which speaks perfectly to the culture of safety at Airbus vs the new Boeing management approach that is the hallmark of American late stage capitalism

What matters is Boeing MAX vs everything else. It needs a few years more of testing at least until we can trust that it's safe.

Who is we? Basically every aviation safety regulator has tested and verified that the MAX fixes are sufficient and have returned them to service. Even China.

They also certified them prior to the fatal incidents.

As it is with every commercial jet.

Early 737s had a rare, transient rudder hard-over failure mode that defied analysis for a long time. When it triggered on final result was a quick spiral-dive into the ground.