james -- I apologize for missing your comments on an earlier thread in reference to the concorde. There are so many threads regarding this matter, it is difficult to keep track of them all. If you could provide a link to the previous thread, it may be interesting to go back and read through your comments.

Judging from your comment, it is apparent that we all comprehend articles differently.

I posted the article simply because it provided an interesting take. Is it surprising that we -- the aviation community -- find holes in a journalist's reporting? Good Lord, I hope not! (I still have vivid memories of the CBS "expert" holding a model of a DC-9 when describing the characteristics of Swissair 111.)

However, I think it brings up an interesting point regarding the number of cycles and statistics. To me, the article is concurring with your statement about the MD-11. After all, it says "At first glance, the MD-11... appears to be the least safe subsonic aircraft now flying... However, a more careful examination tells a different story."

My take on the article is simply that it shows how skewed statistical analysis can be regarding aviation safety. It says, despite 77 crashes the 737 has a fantastic safety record because of the commonality of the aircraft. Using similar analysis, Boeing concluded that the concorde went from the safest to worst aircraft with one crash.

In essence, it is simply stating what we all learned in our Research Analysis coursework -- you can make the numbers illustrate whatever you want them to illustrate. It is exactly what Boeing did in its analysis.