3 ms·
And the best comment on the article points out that this is even worse than it appears: ========= "I'm sorry, but it's just wrong to say that. Yes, it may hav
by darkarmani 13y ago
And the best comment on the article points out that this is even worse than it appears:
=========
"I'm sorry, but it's just wrong to say that. Yes, it may have technically been a ComAir flight that crashed in 2006 in Lexington, killing all 50+ people aboard (aside from the first officer), but those people booked a Delta flight, not a ComAir flight, so why make the distinction? And, yes, it may have been a Colgan flight that crashed in Buffalo in 2009, also killing 50 people, but they booked their flight on Continental. Major airlines ferret out their regional connections to these airlines all the time, and you don't know you're on one unless the flight attendant announces it (or you just happen to know about aviation), so why on Earth is this guy making a distinction?
I'm a fairly frequent flyer on USAir (enough for mid-level status) and I can't tell you how often I book a USAir flight but I'm actually flying Republic or Chautauqua. Yes, air travel is safe, but let's not ignore reality just to make a (false) point. There have been recent and very deadly crashes since 2001."
- ryanhuff 13y agoMy experience is that the typical online flight booking websites show when a flight is serviced by an affiliate. That's typically a clue that the flight will be on a smaller regional jet.
- baddox 13y agoEvery regional flight I have booked through a major airlines has prominently shown both the affiliate airline and the type of aircraft.
- anthemcg 13y agoI think the point remains though. The average consumer doesn't know the difference between a "major" airline and a "regional" one and shouldn't need to. Their safety record is just as applicable. Its not as if a consumer will see a regional affiliate and change their reservation because of it; its effectively the same experience.