Looking at safety without also considering utility is a bad move.
If I want to be really safe, I should stay in bed all day. Merely going down my stairs is a remarkably dangerous activity, yet I consider the utility to be worth it.
Therefore the real metric to minimize is deaths per passenger mile.
Or, even better, take into account the lifetime 'used' to get that utility. So maximize miles travelled / total time spent travelling and waiting at departure gates, where a death counts as 100 years.
Airbus should not brag about that, as this is the basic expectation. That said, there is something cleary fishy happening in Boeing, something with accute dangerous follow-ups. I guess the US administration is investigating, because the warnings have been loud enough (and a lot of luck for the moment) and better "fix" that before something really nasty happens.
I beg to differ. It's about Airbus. The blurb reads like a compromise between one faction screaming "safety is a never-ending effort and preventing accidents is a constant quest for all those involved" and another screaming "well, some people let the effort end in their work and we should make clear that we're not like those fools."
I find it difficult to disapprove of people who do good and talk about it.
If I'm not mistaken the latest failures involving Boeing were all related to improper maintenance, so similar things could happen to Airbus just as well. is there already a pattern identified, like pointing to United Airlines or such?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUoT5AxFpRs