Re: Should Some 737s Be Permanently/Temporarily Parked ?

In message <5irsl1psip5pu7nar0qhtl8uu9vdkg6ant@xxxxxxx> Mike
<dontemailme@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:12:32 -0400, "Robert J Carpenter"
><rcarpen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Look at http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf
>>wherein they compare the various generations of jets (including old vs
>>newer 737s).
>>
>>The 737/200-600 / A32x series have similar crash rates, about one per
>>2 or 3 million takeoffs worldwide. Much better in the USA & Canada.
>>Old DC-9s much worse, MD80/90 very good. 757/767 have a similar one
>>per 3 million takeoffs. A300s (all versions) and A310 are about one in
>>600.000 to 800,000 takeoffs. Fokker F28 MUCH worse.
>>
>>The newer types 737-700-900, A330/340. 717. 777, hadn't had any fatal
>>crashes at the time of the writing. The Cypriot 737-800 is the first
>>crash of that type AFAIK.
>>
>>The jumbos don't look as good on a per-takeoff basis.
>>
>>bob c.
>>
>The majority of jumbos are long-haul. Therefore, they much lower
>numbers of take-offs for the same amount of flying. A typical 747,
>767, or 777 crossing the atlantic will have 2 take-offs per day.
>However, a 737 flying from BOS to NYC will have many more take-offs
>per day.
>
>However, the information is very interesting.

So that's a good point, what's a more useful stat, crashes per flying
hour? Crashes per takeoff/landing? Crashes per mile? Or something
else?

--
do not creep a coconut
-- NANAE
.