Is Airbus Safer Than Boeing? No, And That's Not The Point

When a Boeing 787 Dreamliner crashed in Ahmedabad last week, the fallout extended far beyond the scorched wreckage. For Air India, it was a devastating blow, as it was engaged in a long-overdue brand revival. But for Boeing, it was something worse. It was a jolt that reopened wounds the company had barely managed to scar over after years of public scrutiny, software failures and shattered reputations.
This was no ordinary aircraft. The Dreamliner was Boeing's comeback symbol. Sleek, long-range, fuel-efficient and technologically advanced, it was meant to restore faith after the 737 MAX fiasco, a debacle that had cast a dark shadow over the American aerospace giant. But as flames lit up the sky over Gujarat, so did old questions and new doubts.
No one yet knows what went wrong. The black boxes will take time to yield answers. Was it pilot error? Mechanical failure? A freak accident? Until we know more, speculation will fill the void and fear will follow. This sentiment, which first gained traction after the 737 MAX crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia, when many travellers began saying, 'I'm not flying Boeing again, is being felt again.
For Boeing, the crash happened in Ahmedabad but the damage to trust could be felt around the world.
A Tale of Two Giants
Globally, there are just two most dominant aircraft manufacturers: America's Boeing and Europe's Airbus. The duopoly has shaped the global aviation landscape for decades. The two aerospace titans have forever locked in an eternal dogfight, their names stamped invisibly beneath our boarding passes.
Which one has better safety records? Between 2013 and 2022, Boeing aircraft were involved in 60 accidents, while Airbus had 50. On the surface, that makes Boeing look worse. But the catch is that Boeing also has more aircraft in service. When adjusted for the number of flights, the fatality rates are neck-and-neck. The difference is just a few hundredths of a point per million departures.
'In purely statistical terms,' says aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia, 'you are as safe flying an Airbus as you are flying a Boeing. The plane itself is rarely the problem.'
Still, perception isn't bound by data. Boeing's problems in recent years haven't just been mechanical, they have been moral. The 737 MAX disasters in Indonesia and Ethiopia killed 346 people. Investigations pointed to a flawed MCAS (Mast Cell Activation Syndrome) software system that overrode pilot commands. What truly damaged Boeing's brand was the revelation of a toxic internal culture - one that prioritised cost-cutting over safety.
Airbus, meanwhile, has avoided such intense scrutiny. But it hasn't been faultless. In 2009, an Air France A330 crashed into the Atlantic after a sensor failure caused the autopilot to disengage. The pilots stalled the plane fatally. In 2020, Airbus paid a $4 billion settlement over a global corruption probe.
A cynical industry insider once said, 'Airbus sins in boardrooms. Boeing sins in cockpits.'
A brutal summary, but one that sticks.
The Politics of the Skies
Boeing and Airbus aren't just competitors; they are geopolitical avatars. Boeing enjoys close ties with the US government and Pentagon contracts. Airbus, a European creation, was meant to counter American aviation dominance.
Their rivalry has spilt into trade disputes, WTO battles, and lobbying skirmishes. When Boeing's 737 MAX was grounded worldwide, some pointed fingers at a US regulator being too cosy with the manufacturer. Meanwhile, Airbus faced multibillion-dollar investigations across Europe for corporate bribery.
It's capitalism at 40,000 feet, and we passengers are mostly unaware of the backroom turbulence behind the polished check-in counters.
Boeing's Bruised Legacy
To be honest, Boeing has had a rough decade.
The 737 MAX saga was a crisis of design and ethics. Internal messages showed engineers mocking regulators. A new software system was quietly slipped in without adequate pilot training. The result? Two crashes, hundreds dead, and a global grounding that lasted nearly 20 months.
Even after its return, the MAX hasn't escaped turbulence. In early 2024, an Alaska Airlines MAX-9 suffered a mid-air blowout - a door plug, improperly bolted, flew off during ascent. Boeing was once again in the headlines for all the wrong reasons.
But here's what gets overlooked: In 2023, Boeing operated over 31 million flights with just 11 accidents - all non-fatal. That's a stellar safety record, even if media coverage suggests otherwise.
The Safest Way to Be Afraid
According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), in 2023, there was just one major accident for every 5.3 million flights. Your odds of dying in a plane crash are one in 11 million. For a car crash, it is one in 5,000. Statistically, you are more likely to choke on a vada pao or get struck by lightning than perish in a commercial airliner.
Aircraft today are marvels of engineering. They are built to survive lightning strikes, bird impacts, dual-engine failures and intense turbulence. Redundancy is their religion. And as YouTube-famous pilot Captain Joe puts it: 'If you knew how much backup is built into a modern jetliner, you'd sleep like a baby at 35,000 feet.'
Even so, aviation disasters feel apocalyptic. The rarity of crashes makes each one more horrifying. But they are not signs of systemic collapse, especially not with newer models like the Dreamliner.
The Human Variable
Aviation experts are never tired of explaining that planes don't crash, people do. Over 50% of aviation accidents are attributed to pilot error. Fatigue, miscommunication, poor judgment, all can be fatal. Mechanical issues account for only about 21%. Software glitches? Less than that.
Both Boeing and Airbus equip their cockpits with state-of-the-art tech. But pilots remain fallible. Long hauls and erratic schedules increase error risk fivefold after 13 hours in the air. And even the best aircraft can't override a miscalculated decision.
The Irony of Choice
Most passengers don't choose a plane, they choose an airline. But in a duopoly, the illusion of safety in one brand over another is often just that - an illusion. One could argue: 'I trust Airbus more.' Fair enough. But the next time you book a last-minute flight to Shanghai or Bengaluru, odds are you will fly on whichever jet is available. Because the real enemy isn't Boeing. It's emotion over data.
The question one might ask is: does the Ahmedabad crash signal a deeper rot? Possibly. It certainly warrants scrutiny. But the broader data shows something comforting: commercial aviation has never been safer.
In 2023, not a single passenger jet was lost in a fatal accident. That's unprecedented. Boeing's 787, until last week, had an impeccable record. Airbus's A320 family remains a workhorse across continents. Both companies, while battered by scandals, produce planes that are safer than any other mode of mass transport known to humanity.
At Heathrow
Two days after the Ahmedabad crash, I found myself at London's Heathrow airport, boarding a flight to Delhi. The airline? Air India.
Was I nervous? Absolutely. But I reminded myself of math and logic. Dreamliner had completed over a billion passenger journeys without a single fatal hull loss, until Ahmedabad. One tragedy, no matter how heartbreaking, should not negate that record.
So I stepped on board, settled into my seat and buckled in, not just out of habit, but out of faith in an industry that, for all its flaws, remains an astonishing modern miracle.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Mint

26 minutes ago

• Mint

US attack on Iranian nuclear sites roils oil market, India braces for possible price surge

New Delhi: Global crude oil prices may face sharp upward pressure when markets open for trade Monday, after the US launched air strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities — Natanz, Fordo and Isfahan — escalating tensions in the Middle East. The strikes have raised concerns of supply disruptions that could hit major importers like India, which depends on overseas oil for more than 85% of its energy needs. In a televised address on Sunday (India time), US President Donald Trump confirmed the direct American assault on Iran's nuclear programme, ending days of speculation about Washington's entry into the Israel-Iran conflict. He warned that further strikes could follow. Read this | Mint Primer: What if the US joins Israel's war with Iran? 'Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight was the most difficult of them all by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace doesn't come quickly we will go to those other targets with precision, speed and skill," Trump said. Hormuz threat puts India's energy security at risk The strikes have amplified fears of a possible Iranian response, particularly threats to block the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow chokepoint through which nearly 20% of global crude oil and liquefied natural gas flows. Energy markets have long feared that any disruption here could trigger a severe supply crunch. 'Concerns remain over whether supplies through the Strait of Hormuz would be blocked. Refiners are keeping a close watch and looking for alternate sources in case supplies through the strait are halted," said an official with a state-run oil marketing company. Read this | Mint Explainer | Strait of Hormuz: Will Iran shut the vital oil artery of the world? Iran currently produces about 3.3 million barrels per day (mbd) of crude oil, exporting 1.8-2.0 mbd. While Iranian oil facilities have reportedly been hit, the extent of damage remains unclear. But the larger risk lies in a broader regional conflict that could pull in other major oil producers in the Gulf, said ratings agency Icra Ltd in a recent report. India could face significant cost pressures even though it no longer buys oil directly from Iran due to US sanctions. Crude supplies from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, all routed via the Strait of Hormuz, account for nearly half of India's total imports. About 60% of its natural gas imports also pass through this critical passage. Since 13 June 2025, when the Israel-Iran conflict began, crude prices have risen from $64-65 per barrel to $74-75 per barrel. Oil is likely to average around $70-80 a barrel in FY26, and a sustained rise from current levels risks a reduction in India's growth forecasts, Icra Ratings Ltd had said on Friday. Read this | India concerned about crude oil supply disruptions in Strait of Hormuz as prices surge after Israel's attacks on Iran 'A sustained flare-up in the conflict poses upside risks for estimates of crude oil prices, and India's net oil imports and the current account deficit. A $10/bbl increase in the average price of crude oil for the fiscal will typically push up net oil imports by ~$13-14 billion during the year, enlarging the CAD (current account deficit) by 0.3% of GDP," Icra noted. India's import bill in FY25 stood at $137 billion, according to the Petroleum Planning & Analysis Cell. "Impact on the import bill will depend on how long the elevated prices sustain. However, a 10% increase in crude prices may lead to a 3% increase in the import bill given that crude oil comprises about 30% of India's total imports. With this, the trade deficit may increase to 0.1-0.2% of GDP. There would be some pressure on the currency but an impact on GDP is not seen as of now," said Madan Sabnavis, chief economist at Bank of Baroda. Icra had also said that changes in crude oil prices are likely to translate faster into higher wholesale and consumer inflation. For every 10% increase in crude oil prices, wholesale inflation could rise by 80-100 basis points, while consumer inflation may increase by 20-30 basis points, depending on the extent of pass-through into retail fuel prices. 'Only about 8% of the energy supplies moving through the strait can be rerouted via alternative corridors," said Prashant Vashisht, vice president at Icra. "If the strait is blocked, India would have to source more from regions like Russia and Nigeria." On Friday, Brent crude futures on the Intercontinental Exchange closed at $77 a barrel, down 2.33% amid earlier uncertainty over US military involvement. Oil market volatility is expected to spike when trading resumes, said Rahul Kalantri, vice president for commodities at Mehta Equities. 'We expect a knee-jerk rally potentially pushing Brent to the $80–$85 range or beyond if further conflict escalates," he said, adding that a full blockade of the Strait could drive prices 10–20% higher. Also read | Oil is warming up, but India's inflation may escape the heat Earlier this month, JP Morgan had warned that a major escalation could push crude oil prices as high as $120 a barrel. However, the bank noted that so far, despite multiple historical threats, the Strait of Hormuz has never been fully closed. 'Crucially, for all of recorded history, crude oil continued to flow," JP Morgan wrote. The Indian government is closely monitoring the evolving situation. The petroleum ministry has held consultations with oil marketing companies to assess the state of domestic supplies and build contingency plans.

India Today

28 minutes ago

• India Today

Aviation body launches safety audit framework after Air India crash

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has rolled out a new framework for Comprehensive Special Audits to strengthen India's aviation safety oversight. This audit came amid growing scrutiny of aviation safety standards following the recent Air India crash in Gujarat's Ahmedabad and aims to overhaul the country's safety mechanisms through a data-driven, risk-based, and globally aligned audit covered a wide range of aviation entities, including scheduled and non-scheduled airlines, Maintenance Repair and Overhaul (MRO) organisations, Flying Training Organisations (FTOs), Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs), and Ground Handling Agencies (GHAs), among others. advertisement The primary focus areas included Safety Management Systems (SMS), operational efficiency, adherence to regulatory frameworks, and crew and resource management DGCA has deployed multidisciplinary audit teams led by senior officials and supported by subject matter experts drawn from various domains within aviation. These teams are conducting rigorous inspections using a methodology that combines physical facility inspections, document reviews, personnel interviews, simulation assessments, and ramp checks at to officials, the audit was triggered by a range of factors including aviation accidents, serious incidents, recurring non-compliance issues, or findings flagged by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The process will unfold in three stages: a pre-audit phase lasting five to seven days, a three-to-five-day on-site audit, and a post-audit period of ten to fifteen days for analysis and from these audits will be classified based on severity: Level 1 for immediate safety risks, Level 2 for significant but non-critical issues, and a third category for long-term observations. Entities audited are required to submit Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) within 15 days of receiving findings. The DGCA will closely monitor the implementation of these findings will remain confidential, but the DGCA has made it clear that failure to comply with audit recommendations could attract penalties, suspension of operations, or even licence Watch

The Hindu

29 minutes ago

• The Hindu

Here's how Iran could retaliate after U.S. strikes on its nuclear programme

Iran has spent decades building multi-tiered military capabilities at home and across the region that were at least partly aimed at deterring the United States from attacking it. By entering Israel's war, the U.S. may have removed the last rationale for holding them in reserve. That could mean a wave of attacks on U.S. forces in the Middle East, an attempt to close a key bottleneck for global oil supplies or a dash to develop a nuclear weapon with what remains of Iran's disputed programme after American strikes on three key sites. U.S. strikes Iranian nuclear facilities LIVE updates A decision to retaliate against the U.S. and its regional allies would give Iran a far larger target bank and one that is much closer than Israel, allowing it to potentially use its missiles and drones to greater effect. The U.S. and Israel have far superior capabilities, but those haven't always proven decisive in America's recent history of military interventions in the region. Ever since Israel started the war with a suprise bombardment of Iran's military and nuclear sites on June 13, Iranian officials from the supreme leader on down have warned the U.S. to stay out, saying it would have dire consequences for the entire region. It should soon be clear whether those were empty threats or a grim forecast. Here's a look at what Iran's next move might be. Targeting the Strait of Hormuz The Strait of Hormuz is the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf, through which some 20% of all oil traded globally passes, and at its narrowest point it is just 33 kilometers (21 miles) wide. Any disruption there could send oil prices soaring worldwide and hit American pocketbooks. Iran boasts a fleet of fast-attack boats and thousands of naval mines that could potentially make the strait impassable, at least for a time. It could also fire missiles from its long Persian Gulf shore, as its allies, Yemen's Houthi rebels, have done in the Red Sea. The U.S., with its 5th Fleet stationed in nearby Bahrain, has long pledged to uphold freedom of navigation in the strait and would respond with far superior forces. But even a relatively brief firefight could paralyze shipping traffic and spook investors, causing oil prices to spike and generating international pressure for a ceasefire. Attacking US bases and allies in the region The U.S. has tens of thousands of troops stationed in the region, including at permanent bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, Arab Gulf countries just across the Persian Gulf from Iran — and much closer than Israel. Those bases boast the same kinds of sophisticated air defenses as Israel, but would have much less warning time before waves of missiles or swarms of armed drones. And even Israel, which is several hundred kilometers (miles) further away, has been unable to stop all of the incoming fire. Iran could also choose to attack key oil and gas facilities in those countries with the goal of exacting a higher price for U.S. involvement in the war. A drone attack on two major oil sites in Saudi Arabia in 2019 — claimed by the Houthis but widely blamed on Iran — briefly cut the kingdom's oil production in half. Activating regional allies Iran's so-called Axis of Resistance — a network of militant groups across the Middle East, is a shadow of what it was before the war ignited by Hamas' Oct 7, 2023, attack on Israel out of the Gaza Strip — but it still has some formidable capabilities. Israel's 20-month war in Gaza has severely diminished the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups, and Israel mauled Lebanon's Hezbollah last fall, killing most of its top leadership and devastating much of southern Lebanon, making its involvement unlikely. But Iran could still call on the Houthis, who had threatened to resume their attacks in the Red Sea if the US entered the war, and allied militias in Iraq. Both have drone and missile capabilities that would allow them to target the United States and its allies. Iran could also seek to respond through militant attacks further afield, as it is widely accused of doing in the 1990s with an attack on a Jewish community center in Argentina that was blamed on Iran and Hezbollah. A sprint toward nuclear arms It could be days or weeks before the full impact of the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear sites is known. But experts have long warned that even joint US and Israeli strikes would only delay Iran's ability to develop a weapon, not eliminate it. That's because Iran has dispersed its programme across the country to several sites, including hardened, underground facilities. Iran would likely struggle to repair or reconstitute its nuclear programme while Israeli and US warplanes are circling overhead. But it could still decide to fully end its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and abandon the the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. North Korea announced its withdrawal from the treaty in 2003 and tested a nuclear weapon three years later, but it had the freedom to develop its programme without punishing airstrikes. Iran insists its programme is peaceful, though it is the only non-nuclear-armed state to enrich uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. US intelligence agencies and the IAEA assess Iran hasn't had an organized military nuclear programme since 2003. Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East but does not acknowledge having such weapons.