4 ms·

"The greatest number of passengers ever carried by a commercial airliner is 1,088, by an El Al Boeing 747 during Operation Solomon, which involved the evacuatio

by mentos 9y ago

"The greatest number of passengers ever carried by a commercial airliner is 1,088, by an El Al Boeing 747 during Operation Solomon, which involved the evacuation of Ethiopian Jews from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and started on 24 May 1991." http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-passengers-on-an-aircraft/ http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-passe...

throwaway30yo 9y ago
When it took off, it was only 1086.
- uniformlyrandom 9y ago
  I had to skim the article to make sure you were not kidding. In retrospect, this is not so unusual - this was a rescue operation, so regular no-flying constraints did not apply. And normally, ~4% of women are pregnant, so EV for number of pregnant and ready to give birth women is 10860.04(percentarge pregnant)0.5(percentage of women)/9(only 9-month pregnant are ready to give birth) ~= 2.41. What surprising is that they gave birth during the flight, and not on any other day of the month. TRansition from danger to relative safety, I guess?
  - whatever_dude 9y ago
    A rescue operation probably prioritized "women and children first" so I'd assume there's a higher likelihood of pregnant women in flight, therefore higher likelihood of births.
  - mesofile 9y ago
    and/or change in atmospheric pressure?
  - nly 9y ago
    Maybe they evacuated a maternity unit.
  - FabHK 9y ago
    Yes, so if time of birth is uniformly random (haha) across the final month, then, assuming the flight took, say, half a day, you'd still have to multiply by 0.5/30, so have only ~0.05 expected child births. Still surprising, in other words. Good chance pregnant women were prioritised.
    - tzs 9y ago
      It was also probably a stressful and frightening flight. A lot of people believe that this can increase the chances that a woman will go into labor [1], although a quick round of Googling didn't turn up anything convincing on whether or not that is true or just a myth. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyRrz9Soutw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyRrz9Soutw
  - avip 9y ago
    500 women in age give ~10 birth/year. Probability of birth in a given day is therefore 100 * (1 - (364 / 365.0) ^ 10) ~ 3%
  - Banthum 9y ago
    I feel fairly comfortable saying that in a group of Ethiopians in 1991, probably more than 4% are pregnant. For comparison, I've read that 10% of Syrian women in the refugee camps were pregnant at any given time. Doing the math (with world bank stats): Ethiopia fertility 1991: 7.2 Ethiopia female life expectancy 1991: 49 Total pregnancy time: 7.2 * 0.75 years = 5.4 years Lifespan proportion spent pregnant: 5.4 / 49 = 11%
antongribok 9y ago
This was part of "Operation Solomon". If the Wikipedia article is to be believed, there were actually 1,122 passengers on board. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Solomon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Solomon Either way, an impressive number!

by mentos 9y ago

throwaway30yo 9y ago

When it took off, it was only 1086.

uniformlyrandom 9y ago
I had to skim the article to make sure you were not kidding. In retrospect, this is not so unusual - this was a rescue operation, so regular no-flying constraints did not apply. And normally, ~4% of women are pregnant, so EV for number of pregnant and ready to give birth women is 10860.04(percentarge pregnant)0.5(percentage of women)/9(only 9-month pregnant are ready to give birth) ~= 2.41. What surprising is that they gave birth during the flight, and not on any other day of the month. TRansition from danger to relative safety, I guess?
- whatever_dude 9y ago
  A rescue operation probably prioritized "women and children first" so I'd assume there's a higher likelihood of pregnant women in flight, therefore higher likelihood of births.
- mesofile 9y ago
  and/or change in atmospheric pressure?
- nly 9y ago
  Maybe they evacuated a maternity unit.
- FabHK 9y ago
  Yes, so if time of birth is uniformly random (haha) across the final month, then, assuming the flight took, say, half a day, you'd still have to multiply by 0.5/30, so have only ~0.05 expected child births. Still surprising, in other words. Good chance pregnant women were prioritised.
  - tzs 9y ago
    It was also probably a stressful and frightening flight. A lot of people believe that this can increase the chances that a woman will go into labor [1], although a quick round of Googling didn't turn up anything convincing on whether or not that is true or just a myth. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyRrz9Soutw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyRrz9Soutw
- avip 9y ago
  500 women in age give ~10 birth/year. Probability of birth in a given day is therefore 100 * (1 - (364 / 365.0) ^ 10) ~ 3%
- Banthum 9y ago
  I feel fairly comfortable saying that in a group of Ethiopians in 1991, probably more than 4% are pregnant. For comparison, I've read that 10% of Syrian women in the refugee camps were pregnant at any given time. Doing the math (with world bank stats): Ethiopia fertility 1991: 7.2 Ethiopia female life expectancy 1991: 49 Total pregnancy time: 7.2 * 0.75 years = 5.4 years Lifespan proportion spent pregnant: 5.4 / 49 = 11%

antongribok 9y ago

This was part of "Operation Solomon". If the Wikipedia article is to be believed, there were actually 1,122 passengers on board. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Solomon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Solomon Either way, an impressive number!