Your own link doesn't back that up.
A Delta Connections commuter flight killed 49 in Lexington, KY in 2013.
A Delta Connections commuter flight killed 49 in Lexington, KY in 2013.
Note that this was a Bombardier plane, not a Boeing, and it was the pilot taking the wrong runway, not a plane issue.
(Whether to count it as "aboard a major airline" is a semantic question that isn't very interesting.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_airlines_of_the_United_S...
So, the word "major" means that the GP was at least technically correct. (You can argue that it doesn't matter, because if Delta relabeled it, they should own the results...)
Comair started a regional airline. They partnered with Delta. Then Delta bought 20% of them in 1986 and the other 80% of them in 1999.
If you want to call that a meaningful distiction then I don't know what to say.
It's like claiming Instrgram is distinct from Meta because ??? I don't even know, they kept the name separate? WhatsApp is separate?
Still, it doesn’t really change the upshot. No manufacturer was at fault here. And even if you include this flight in the data, flying in the U.S. is safer than any other form of travel.
I chose to limit it to airlines operating in the U.S. due to our generally higher expectations around maintenance, pilot training, and workload, amongst other things. I chose to limit it to major commercial airlines because that is what most people fly on, and it removes extremely small tourism operators who are often far less rigorous in their safety practices and which are crewed by relatively low-hour pilots who are working up toward qualifying for a major. It also eliminates cargo aircraft which are not relevant. And lastly, I’m choosing to include only passengers to eliminate things like people walking onto active runways.
Hopefully you can understand why I chose these limitations. Not to skew the data, but because it is most relevant to most people on this site, and because it’s not really insightful or helpful to point out that there are many more crashes in the many countries out there with lax safety practices.
Indeed it does not, which made the omission more strange or innocent. What was ridiculous was the apologia subthread.
> small tourism operators who are often far less rigorous in their safety practices, with relatively low-hour pilots.
There have been some improvements (in part due to these accidents) but this isn’t so far off from the regionals which was definitely a factor in both Comair and Colgan.
But crucially the majors are going to sell you a connecting ticket on them like any other, and they code share and mile just the same. Many of them are wholly owned to boot.
It was my intent to exclude microscopic commercial operators doing charter flights, tourism, and other similar activities.
I sincerely apologize for the omission, I did not recognize that that Comair flight was operating under the United banner.
I hope you can recognize that a company privately operating a fleet of seven floatplanes is not particularly relevant to a discussion about the safety of mass passenger air travel, in much the same way that a carnival operating a rollercoaster is not meaningful when discussing passenger rail.
They were, prior to the their closure, the oldest operating airline in the US and something like #3 worldwide, post-dating only KLM and one of the other European flag carriers. (Lufthansa, maybe? I don't have the list handy)
I'm also pretty sure that you, nor anyone you know, nor anyone they know has ever flown on Chalk's.
Your whole approach here feels rather bad faith/no true Scotsman-y. Of course you’ll have no fatal crashes if you say every fatal crash doesn’t count for some reason or another as not a real crash.
The high-quality training that resulted in a pilot being unable to discern the correct runway to use?
Your line of argument here and elsewhere in this thread is nonsense, especially because the very US authorities you're lauding disagree with you.
If the foreign operations of Boeing aircraft weren't relevant to their safety everywhere, then the FAA wouldn't have grounded the MAX worldwide due to crashes that happened in Indonesia and Ethiopia.
Is your argument that better-trained pilots are expected to be perfect? Because my argument is that better-trained pilots result in fewer overlapping holes in the Swiss cheese model.
> If the foreign operations of Boeing aircraft weren't relevant to their safety everywhere, then the FAA wouldn't have grounded the MAX worldwide due to crashes that happened in Indonesia and Ethiopia.
The FAA being extremely cautious and willing to take serious measures to protect passenger safety is strongly in line with my argument.