airbus again

[kinell]

i was recently mocked on ab for my inability to understand why any person should choose to fly...

the old chestnuts.................safest way to travel etc.

well, another glorified cigar tube has failed.

i know, i know, its the safest way...keep believing it,

theres 400 of your type who probably at some stage recently told some other person 'its the safest way to travel, i am not worried in the slightest'.

look, there happens to be a bit of a problem globally in financial terms and if you are happy paying less for an international flight than a trip to town on a bus, thinking it is the safest way to travel.....................

[Gromit]

You may get one or two air crashes like this a year.

The same number die in cars every two hours.

[kinell]

of course,

but to some greater extent your destiny is in your hands,

i could quite easily be involved in any mixture of "on earth contact" incidents and walk away,

the chances of walking away from one of these aircraft is very very small indeed,

they go through the pointless motions of giving passengers a life jacket, as if that will make a difference, why not decent seatbelts and a crash helmet?

because the operators know you have no chance, they might as well give all passengers a kite!

its about risk and reward, and taking a chance on flying is in my view a risk not worth taking.

[kinell]

well done again gromit,

i will write to the dead passengers relatives and suggest your response as a suitable epitaph.

[Gromit]

Or you could write to the 1 million car fatalities relatives.

[Gromit]

they go through the pointless motions of giving passengers a life jacket, as if that will make a difference

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/ 06/29/danger-of-airplanes-birdstrike-115875-21 480066/

[ludwig]

Having an irrational fear is nothing to be proud of.

[R1Geezer]

I think what Gromit and others mean is that in pure probability terms you have more chance of winninng the lottery than dieing in an air crash. Though I accept that it is cold comfort if it happens to be you.

All other forms of transport are much more dangerous especially roads.

So what are you actually asking here? Are you saying that we should ignore the stats and start instilling fear of flying generally? Or are you saying that somehow cost cutting is causing more crashes?

I'm not the biggest fan of flying myself so I do have to talk myself into it and the statistical arguments are one of the things I tend to take comfort from.

I just don't understand what you are getting at.

[The Sherman]

I think what they are actually saying is that since another plane has crashed they have been proven right that flying is not safe?

which is so stupid and idiotic it doesn't really warrant a reply.

also the safest form of transport is trains by the way then followed by planes

[kinell]

dont we all love the statistics?

ok, one of you clever lot how about pasting in the figures for "how many people are involved in car accidents per year?"

and of these how many die?

what percentage is the death rate per accident?

and what is the death percentage rate per air accident?

R1
i am merely putting into discussion that flying is to most people something that if avoided will not affect your normal course of life,

i am not advocating cotton wool life at all, everyday travel by normal means is necessary to live and work,
so the risk and reward are acceptably proportional,

of course i agree with 'the statistics' as does every aircrash victim, but unless you absolutely have to fly? my view is that the risk and rewards are not acceptable.

i am not saying that cost cutting is causing more crashes, but it certainly isnt making crashes less likely is it?

apply one basic rule of business...

'the most expensive is not necessarily the best,
but the cheapest is never the best'.

[R1Geezer]

"dont we all love the statistics?" - Yes you can pick the ones that suit your arguments. For example:
"what percentage is the death rate per accident?" ie it seems to you that total deaths are irrelevant but deaths per plane crash are in someway more significant.

"i am merely putting into discussion that flying is to most people something that if avoided will not affect your normal course of life" - Well I would consider my time here "affected" if I could not have holidays and travel generally, and I only get a certain amount of hols and ships take too long. not to mention being far more dangerous.

"i am not advocating cotton wool life at all, everyday travel by normal means is necessary to live and work,
so the risk and reward are acceptably proportional" - yes but crossing the street is considerably more dangerous than flying as is driving so you're ok with what you call "Normal" means, that kill as many in a matter of hours that flying does in years. Believe it or not there are air crew that fly every day that's their job. Should we just put a stop to all this aviation? unnatural activity that it is!

"of course i agree with 'the statistics' as does every aircrash victim, but unless you absolutely have to fly? my view is that the risk and rewards are not acceptable." - So you agree with the statistics but say it's ok to do the more dangerous things because we need to live and work, but it's not ok to do the safest things because that's unnecessary. Right oh!

Listen mate I'd sit down and think about what you are saying here you are not making a lot of sense and more brutal posters than me will soon start taking the pi55 using the ammo you have provided above.

[Gromit]

1.2 million people worldwide die annually as a result of car accidents

Thats 3000 a day or 20 Yemeni type plane crashes every day.

http://www.inquisitr.com/16429/crash-boom-3000 -people-die-in-car-accidents-daily/

I've got some other bad news for you as well. Ships sometimes sink. The Titanic killed 1,500, the Zeebrugge Ferry killed 193. Strangely, people do still board ships.

[kinell]

arent most of you a tunnelled vision serious lot?

you accept most things on face value only that suits you.

devils advocate discussion i know is treated with comtempt by guardian types....lighten up.

wasnt it bono who stood on stage and, clapping very slowly stated that 'every time i clap a child dies of (whatever)'

then Fic�ing stop clapping!

no matter what the statistics are and no matter how you interpret them to suit your argument the simple facts are that if you dont get on a plane you wont die as a result of being an air traveller.

oh and gromit,

yes the titanic did sink but was poorly designed and poorly driven into an iceberg,

the herald of fe left port with the front end wide open,

perhaps more attention to design and operation would have made the tickets more expensive, you get and deserve what you are prepared to pay for.

[kinell]

i think R1 geezer has got some airbus shares

[Gromit]

It is probably a good thing you don't leave the country.

We wouldn't want Johnny Foreigner thinking the British are all as dumb as you.

[sp1814]

kinell

I totally don't agree with your hypothesis, but in another way I totally see where you're coming from.

Travelling by air is scarier than travelling by foot, bike or car.

Reason being - air crashes make big news. You are always aware of the danger of air travel because when you get on a plane, you are reminded of charred and mangled bodies.

When you get into a car, because it's such an everyday occurance, you simply don't think about the danger.

Also, if you die on a plane...and this is going to read very badly...but if you die on a plane, more likely than not, there will be an extended period after the accident happens and before you die...where you will be aware that you're going to die.

In a car accident, you rarely ever know you're about to die...it just happens.

[ludwig]

"... the simple facts are that if you dont get on a plane you wont die as a result of being an air traveller. "

On second thoughts you do make a very convincing argument. I can't fault your logic.

[paraffin]

"mocked on ab"??? 'ckin' 'ell, kinell!!!

You'd be the odd one out had you not been. Welcome to the club.