MilesBuzz! - So much for thanksgiving travel bump

I had heard several travel pundits speculate that as Thanksgiving got closer, we'd see a lot more people decide that flying was safe again, and buy last-minute tickets for the holiday (a "bump" in bookings and travel). I was hoping the same thing -- that the airlines would wise up and blitz us with last-minute fare deals that would overcome the inertia and get america back in the saddle.

Now thanks to the crash, of course, I fear that most every casual traveler in the nation is going to be staying at home, even some who already HAVE purchased tickets.

I have a ticket for the holidays out saturday morning, and expect the delays will be worse than I had planned for, but I'll still fly. But I wonder how many no-shows we'll see this week and next?

Even if it's 100% determined to be a mechanical failure, how many travelers who wouldn't have thought twice will now refuse to board an Airbus? I'm on A3xxs for almost all of my schedule trips -- passengers will be thrilled at the choice between hoping there is a mechanical weakness vs a bomb!? Talk about your hangman's choice.

No real question or comment, just another guy staring at my navel instead of getting work done http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

edited to clarify: I'm not talking about bumping passengers, I'm talking about a "bump" in airline travel that was hoped for because of the holidays. A "bump" is a sudden and short-term increase, like the stock market or ticket bookings. As opposed to a "rise" or something else which would imply it was a more gradual or long-term trend upwards. Many poeple had been talking about an increase in travel for the holidays and hoping it would act as the beginning of a real long-term rise in travel again.

Sorry for the unfortunate phrasing! I'd edit the thread title if I could.

[This message has been edited by artboy (edited 11-13-2001).]

[This message has been edited by artboy (edited 11-13-2001).]

You know, the kind of thinking you're talking about is the exact kind of thinking that gets people to call the police when they see powdered sugar from a donut, worrying about anthrax, when the real risk to their health is the donut itself!

And if people have non-refundable tickets and don't fly over the holidays, that might actually be good for the airlines. They'll already have the revenue from the people who booked but won't fly. And on top of that, they will get some more cash -- which they need desperately -- from the folks who are flying standby that will get on the plane.

So now, we will see people drive instead of flying, thinking that they are safer on the roads when the facts are that they are not. Around 40,000 people die each year in car crashes, or around three times the number of the folks who died today each week.

It's still a hell of a lot safer to fly.

An article already on similar topic:
http://money.cnn.com/2001/11/12/travel/travel_cancel/index.htm

And I think it may be harsh to criticise people for not looking at the statistics. The truth is that its casual travelers who will probably think twice -- these are folks for whomje flying is still a great mysterious experience.

The statistics are on our side, but ultimately we're saying "trust us" when they at least feel confident in driving their own vehicle. We can drive under the illusion that the safety is completely in our own hands, while flying trusts other people entirely.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by artboy:

Even if it's 100% determined to be a mechanical failure, how many travelers who wouldn't have thought twice will now refuse to board an Airbus? I'm on A3xxs for almost all of my schedule trips -- passengers will be thrilled at the choice between hoping there is a mechanical weakness vs a bomb!? Talk about your hangman's choice.
(</font>
Taking this approach, people would never board any plane that ever crached - nonsense!.
Also, if an A300 crashed you would have fear boarding an A340 but would have less fear boarding a 767?

Those 246 people on board of that flight probably all had the same thought prior to departure. That is, people should not be afraid of flying. It's too silly to let recent events scare us from travelling.

Unfortunately, let's look at the fact. If they had this worry and chose not to fly, they would've been alive today.

So as unreasonable as this may sound, I am not ashamed to admit that I will not fly unless absolutely necessary, at least for another long while.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MoreMiles:
Unfortunately, let's look at the fact. If they had this worry and chose not to fly, they would've been alive today.</font>

And what would you say for the 700 to 800 people who die in car crashes each week? You know, if they choose to not drive, they would be alive, too.

You will die of something, and it's far more logical and wiser to worry about the things that are likely to kill you instead of the things that are not.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">You will die of something....</font>

And as I always like to say
"You only live until you die"
Sorry for quoting you out of context mdtony but the first part of your statement reminded me of the saying that a very good friend gave to me many years ago when I was going through a very difficult time.
Yes I will be flying next week to sea and the following weekend to zrh and I will continue to live until I die.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by apirchik:
Taking this approach, people would never board any plane that ever crached - nonsense!.
Also, if an A300 crashed you would have fear boarding an A340 but would have less fear boarding a 767? </font>

I'm just suggesting that people will be more sensitive today to the notion of a mechanical failure than they would have 2 months ago. It used to be easy for the FAA to tell the public, "oh, it was just a fuel line problem, all that series of planes are being fixed" and people would go on about their flying.

I'm doubtful that the public will be as willing to take the FAA's word for the safety of the fleet, because people are more sensitive to the (widespread) fear of flying today in general.

Many more people have a fear of flying than do of driving. It has nothing to do with statistics, only with familiarity. In the 1900's, driving was considered a reckless sportsman's hobby, and it had nothing to do with driving statistics.

[This message has been edited by artboy (edited 11-12-2001).]

Excluding the WTC and Pentagon/Pennsylvania flights, when was the last major crash of a US airliner? Was it TWA off Long Island? How many years ago? While one can only hope to achieve 100% safety, given all the things that can possibly go wrong with an airplane, or with the humans flying and directing that airplane, commercial aviation is still extraordinarily safe. Terrorist hijacks are one thing, systemic forms of accidents quite another. It is each person's choice to fly or not. Afterall, if the Lord had meant us to fly, she'd have given us wings...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by magic111:
You will die of something....</font>
"You only live until you die"


"I'll eat when I'm hungry,
And I'll drink when I'm dry.
And if moonshine don't kill me,
I'll live 'til I die."

Sorry for going further off-topic but I was reminded of the Clancy Brothers. Maybe it should be:

"I'll fly in seat 2E.
Any drink I will try.
And if terror don't kill me,
I'll live to I die."

Although I am a person who loved to be bumped, but hastn't been lately...

COME ON!

250+ PEOPLE DIED TODAY!!

At least wait a couple days until you start worrying about potential bumps http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Pascha? Please don't take this amiss, but I don't believe this thread is about getting "bumped" at all....

It appears to me that Artboy was just expressing what we are all probably thinking--his upset regarding the AA crash yesterday, and fear for the recovery of the airline industry following the events of last September.

I think that everyone of us here at Flyertalk has in the forefront of his/her mind the people who died yesterday, as we are still remembering the victims of 9/11.

In this world, truly, we must continue to live until we die. We can do nothing else; unfortunately, we are never far from the pain of living. And so, while we, the living MUST go on, "il pleut dans nos coeurs".



[This message has been edited by ShuttleBug (edited 11-13-2001).]

I too had wondered quite what he meant by "bumped". If the thread is about people thinking twice before getting on an aircraft and refusing to do so, then I think that is a valid and accurate comment (although I can't totally reconcile the thread with the title).

If, however, it is about not being bumped off a flight and being compensated, that would be heartless given the loss of life and the pain and grief this has occasioned many. I am sure that the former is the true thread, as I am certain that artboy would not be so callous.

May all of us who did not lose anyone that we loved yesterday or before give true Thanks this Thanksgiving. This is why I am coming to your country on Thanksgiving to be with americans on this very special day, and to thank God for sparing me and mine.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
And what would you say for the 700 to 800 people who die in car crashes each week? You know, if they choose to not drive, they would be alive, too.

You will die of something, and it's far more logical and wiser to worry about the things that are likely to kill you instead of the things that are not.</font>

I agree with you sooo much! I wanted to ask him:
Just out of curiosity, how was your walk to work? It's way too dangerous on the roadways to drive. I imagine you had cream farina for breakfast, cereal posing that choking risk and all.

Was the walk up to your office tiring - those pesky elevators are always falling.....

See my point - you really shouldn't have even left your house - so few people are struck by lightening when not outdoors. But there is the carbon monoxide risk. But I hate changing the CO alarm battery - it could leak, get acid on me and I could die.

So please, I'm sooo sorry to hear that yet another American has allowed the terrorists to win. And don't kid yourselves, this is a classic win - when you trip and fall and look to see if you were pushed - thats terrorist anxiety, and America is full of it!

Afterall, if the Lord had meant us to fly, she'd have given us wings... [/B][/QUOTE]

Very sacreligious. Not that I think you care...



------------------
Control what you can control, the rest leave to God.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ShuttleBug:
[B]Pascha? Please don't take this amiss, but I don't believe this thread is about getting "bumped" at all....

My apologies to all. I guess I read the title and then interpreted the rest as I wanted, again, my bad!!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Shareholder:
Excluding the WTC and Pentagon/Pennsylvania flights, when was the last major crash of a US airliner?</font>

Here's the answer -- I stole this from today's Wall Street Journal.

1991
May 26 -- Austrian Lauda Air 767, 223 dead
July 11 -- Chartered DC-8, 261 dead

1994
April 26 -- China Airlines A300, 264 dead
June 6 -- China Airlines Tupolev 154, 160 dead

1995
December 20 -- American Airlines 757, 160 dead

1996
January 8 -- Antonov 32 cargo plane, 350 dead
February 5 -- Unspecified 737, 189 dead
May 11 -- Unspecified ValuJet plane, 110 dead
July 17 -- TWA 747, 230 dead
November 12 -- Saudi Arabian 747 midair collison, 349 dead

1997
August 6 -- South Korean Air 747, 227 dead
September 26 -- Indonesian Garuda Airlines A300, 234 dead

1998
February 2 -- unspecified crash, 104 dead
February 16 -- China Airlines A300, 202 dead
September 2 -- Swissair MD11, 229 dead

1999
October 31 -- EgyptAir 767, 217 dead

2000
January 30 -- Kenya Airlines A310, 169 dead
July 25 -- Air France Concorde, 113 dead
August 23 -- unspecified Gulf Air plane, 143 dead

2001
September 11 -- multiple aircraft, 246 dead
November 12 -- American Airlines A300, 260 dead

So, over the past ten years, around the world, there have been 4,686 deaths on airplanes. Take out the 246 due to a deliberate terrorist attack, and it drops down to 4,440 in ten years.

That's less people each year on average -- even with the terrorist attacks -- than die in a single week due to car accidents. Yet illogical people, hearing the media hysteria, think that it's safer to drive than to fly.

Today's Wall Street Journal had a woman who was quoted as saying she will drive nine hours each way for Thanksgiving instead of getting on a plane. Eighteen hours on the road is a hell of a lot more likely to kill her than getting on a plane, so if she really wants to be safe, she ought to just fly.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Pacha:
250+ PEOPLE DIED TODAY!!

At least wait a couple days until you start worrying about potential bumps http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif</font>

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif Thanks for putting that smiley in there! I edited my original post to make it clearer since people seem to have misinterpreted my comments. Too much stream of consciousness writing and not enough editing.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Thumper:
See my point - you really shouldn't have even left your house </font>

Actually, most accidents happen in the home! Being at home is one of the most dangerous places to be! But people feel safe there because its a controllable environment. Never try to reconcile human behavior with statistics, statistics will lose every time. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

Someone in one of the forums put it more eloquently a few weeks ago, but the saying goes something like this:

Statistically, I'm most likely to be injured within five miles of my house, which is why I'm moving.

Danski

Thank you for posting the list of fatal accidents. It makes my point that in NAmerica, one's safer in the air than on the ground. Only four of these accidents -- excluding 9.11 -- occured on US carriers claiming 760 people: an even more startling 76 per year! None occured on either Canadian or Mexican carriers, Considering the US has more scheduled aircraft movements than any other country in the world, this makes the US record even better. [Even if we include the Swissair in this tally, it supports the argument of safeness.]

By the way, the ATLANTIC Monthly has a fairly persuasive article about the cause of the Egyptair crash: a fundamentalistic Muslim pilot.

Also, I didn't see listed the Russian TU aircraft that was downed by Urkaine missile last month en route from Tel Aviv.

In any case, I shall be flying over your Thanksgiving weekend, to NYC for that matter!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
Today's Wall Street Journal had a woman who was quoted as saying she will drive nine hours each way for Thanksgiving instead of getting on a plane. Eighteen hours on the road is a hell of a lot more likely to kill her than getting on a plane, so if she really wants to be safe, she ought to just fly.</font>

That's not entirely true. You have no control over the airline and an accident. However, if I go get in my car with airbags and put on my seatbelt and am not intoxicated and don't speed, my chances of dying are very slim (even if I do get in an accident).

The chance of dying in a car crash is more controlled by the actions of the driver/passenger than anything else, which is not true of an airplane crash where you have no control.

Earlier this year a bunch of teens died in car crashes here around Charlotte, but guess what, I'm not driving at excessive speeds on two lane highways not wearing my seatbelt, so are my chances of dying in a car crash the same as theirs? I don't think so. On the other hand, if we both fly this weekend, our chances are pretty darn similar.

That list would appear to only include "in flight" accidents. It's missing the Singapore accident last year, the accident just a month or two ago in Italy (not sure anyone on the airliner died in that one though, others did), and the AA accident in Little Rock a few years ago (11 dead), just off the top of my head.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Beckles:
On the other hand, if we both fly this weekend, our chances are pretty darn similar.</font>

You're right...they are practically non-existant.

Also, keep in mind that when you fly, those precautions have already been taken for you. The plane has been checked out thoroughly and maintained, the pilot is sober, and you've got all sorts of safety equipment just in case.

The website cbs.com had a similar list of major air disasters. It didn't include the accidents in which fewer than about 50 people were killed.

One thing that struck me is that the number of commercial air passengers killed by terrorist action (9/11/2001, Lockerbie, and one other suspected bomb in luggage) was about 800-850 in the last 25 years. The number of commercial air passengers killed by the military was in the same range -- about 700 (the TU-144 in Ukraine, the airplane shot down by the USS Vincennes, and the KAL plane shot down by the Soviets). The number of air passengers who were killed when their planes flew into mountains was much greater.


------------------
"Yes, but at least mine will be found in a first class seat." -- Peattie and Taylor

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
You're right...they are practically non-existant.

Also, keep in mind that when you fly, those precautions have already been taken for you. The plane has been checked out thoroughly and maintained, the pilot is sober, and you've got all sorts of safety equipment just in case.</font>

There's a big difference though that with a plane the focus is on avoiding an accident, 'cause no matter what, if you're in an accident, the chances of it being fatal are very high.

On the other hand, in a car, if you take reasonable precautions, even if you are in an accident the chances of it being fatal are very slim.

How many car accidents have you heard about where "the occupants were wearing their seatbelt and driving at the posted speed limit and lost their lives" as opposed to "the occupants were not wearing their seatbelts and were speeding."

As for the "precautions have already been taken", how about Silk Air and Egypt Air?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Beckles:
[B] There's a big difference though that with a plane the focus is on avoiding an accident, 'cause no matter what, if you're in an accident, the chances of it being fatal are very high.

On the other hand, in a car, if you take reasonable precautions, even if you are in an accident the chances of it being fatal are very slim.B]</font>

Well, a trip to the MADD web page victims tributes, besides being heartbreaking, underscores that you don't have quite as much control as you think you do when driving. Of course these are just anecdotes, but it's amazing how many of those people were killed while sitting at stop signs or red lights. When a drunk slams into you at 75 MPH and starts a fire, your seat belt or jumbo SUV doesn't always save you.

Besides, it doesn't really matter at all if each individual car crash is less likely to be fatal than each individual plane crash. Car crashes in general are so much more likely than plane crashes that your overall chance of dying is still a lot bigger in a car.

The illusion of control in a car is like the illusion of security at the airport - a nice comforting factor that may be of some use in certain situations, but that's all it is.

This does rather put our fusses about upgrades and lack of food into perspective doesn't it? Let go and fly.

The Wall Street Journal article failed to include among others the Sep 1994 USAir crash near Pittsburgh. Perhaps it was not included since the undisclosed cause was a bomb in cargo.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by topspinner:
The Wall Street Journal article failed to include among others the Sep 1994 USAir crash near Pittsburgh. Perhaps it was not included since the undisclosed cause was a bomb in cargo.</font>

Ummm ... yeah ... guess the rudder theory is just a cover up by the government ...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by topspinner:
The Wall Street Journal article failed to include among others the Sep 1994 USAir crash near Pittsburgh. Perhaps it was not included since the undisclosed cause was a bomb in cargo.</font>

Yeah, and a missile is what took out TWA 800 as well, right?

Shareholder - That was a great article in the Atlantic Monthly.

Posted by Beckles:
"How many car accidents have you heard about where "the occupants were wearing their seatbelt and driving at the posted speed limit and lost their lives" as opposed to "the occupants were not wearing their seatbelts and were speeding.""

According to the National Highway Transportation Saftey Administration, in 2000 1286 people were killed by drunk drivers. So, in 10 years when 4686 people were killed in airplanes, let's say 12,860 people were killed by drunk drivers (the number is actually higher since more drunk driving fatalities occured in the past).

While we don't have statistics on how many people were injured (but not fatally) on airplanes, the NHTSA says that 310,000 people were injured in alcohol related crashes.

Besides, everyone always thinks they're great drivers. This may be true, but a lot of times there isn't much you can do when someone else driving carelessly smashes into you.

d

You can't look at total numbers, because driving is a much more common activity than flying, you need to normalize it. The average person does a lot more driving than he does flying ...

Even normalized, it's commonly quoted that flying is safer than driving. The problem is that with flying there is almost nothing you can do to change the statistics, with the possible exception of your choice of airlines. However, all the US based major airlines are roughly comparable, as are most other major airlines.

On the other hand, there are many factors that I can control that affect my chances of getting in a fatal car accident, right off the bat:

1) Fasten my seatbelt
2) Drive a car with an airbag
3) Do not drive at excessive speeds
4) Do not drink and drive

Just by taking action number one I've literally cut in half the chance of having a dying in an accident.

Now, if you were to use a normalized accident rate over the past three months for airlines and compare that to a similarly normalized motor vehicle fatality rate for persons observing the four precautions I listed, I'm not sure there is a big difference in the safety of the two modes of transportation. I know that the last three months for air travel is a blip compared to the long term past statistics, but I certainly don't blame people for looking at more recent history.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Beckles:
On the other hand, there are many factors that I can control that affect my chances of getting in a fatal car accident, right off the bat:
...</font>

I think it was proven before that most of the people killed in car accidents are those who follow the rules as you described.
There are some situations that you do everything right and according to every safety rule, but something beyond your control will cause harm either to you or the people next to you. It can be caused by a reckless driver driving next to you, by weather or by any other thing.

The fact is that flying IS the safest method of transportation.

Driving is definitely more dangerous than flying. However, the WSJ list is obviously not complete, so any statistical analysis needs to be based on more complete data.

Also missing is the February 2000 crash of the Alaska Airlines flight on its way to San Francisco.

Jason Zweig, in his column in the December Money magazine writes on investing risk, but the thoughts are appropriate to the discussion in this thread.

“One oddity of human nature is that we underestimate risk when we think we are in control. We tend to feel a greater sense of invulnerability behind the wheel of own car than as passengers on a plane. The feeling of being in charge seems to statistically overwhelm our recognition that driving is statistically dangerous.”

According to Zweig, 115 Americans are killed each day in auto accidents.

“A sense of risk can infect you without your even being aware of it. Psychologists have found that merely reading about deaths caused by homicide or leukemia can lead people to overestimate the risk of hazards that have nothing to do with leukemia or homicide. Thus, in the wake of Sept. 11, an intangible feeling of risk fills the air.”

Finally, let me say thank you once again to all of you who post here at FlyerTalk. You comments on this thread (as well as many others in recent weeks) have been interesting, inciteful and thought-provoking. -- SuzanneSLO