Tragity

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"N93332" wrote in message
...
I'm not a parent so ignore this if you wish. I would think if you
have your (say) 10 and a 15 year old kids along with their friends
for YE flights that the each of the kids would prefer to fly with one
of his friends of the same age than with his sibling.

It really depends on the kids. Some siblings love to do stuff
together. Some do not. The point here is that what the kids would
prefer to do should probably guide the decision, not some morbid fear
of killing two kids at once.

If killing two kids at once is bad, then each flight should only take
one kid. Of course, that increases the exposure of the hazard to the
pilot, but probably not in a significant way. Screwing around with
silly rules about not putting related children on the same airplane is
just that: silly.

It would still be a major tragedy if something should happen in
another YE flight with siblings or non-siblings. I hope it's at least
another 1.2 million YE flights before the next tragedy.

Me too. But I think it's important to keep in mind that accidents do
happen, people do die, and there's precious little anyone can do to
*completely* prevent that from happening. A handful of fatalities
(whether 2, 4, whatever) in over a million flights is a pretty good
safety record, IMHO. Great? No, probably not. But in context it's
good.

I used to work for a company that had a policy that prohibited
several people from the same department to fly on the same airline
flight. When a group of us would fly to Singapore, we would fly 2
separate days. I usually flew on the first day but my luggage would
arrive the next day.
:-(

I've heard of similar policies at other companies. I think it's
similarly misguided. Employees traveling together may be able to
accomplish business while on the flight, and the risk of even one
being killed in an accident is remarkably small. There is greater
hazard in allowing employees to drive to lunch together in the same
car every day, or to carpool to work for that matter (activities that
are generally not prohibited by those same companies). Some companies
not only allow employees to travel by air together, they pay for the
airplane! How can it be so important to one company to keep their
employees apart, and yet another is willing to put them together on a
higher-risk mode of transportation?

Frankly, a company that cannot withstand the loss of a couple of
employees is a company that has a pretty weak business plan.

Pete



Well, we don't know what caused this, but taking only one child at a
time COULD reduce risks.... less weight in the plane....

FWIW

--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

"ET" wrote in message
...
Well, we don't know what caused this, but taking only one child at a
time COULD reduce risks.... less weight in the plane....

My thoughts ignore the effects of the passenger count on the safety of the
flight. Not flying at all is obviously the safest approach, if one is going
to start down that road.

But even so, the conversation here is primarily about whether to put a pair
of siblings on the plane together. I did point out the question of why put
two kids on the same plane at all, if one is worried about killing a pair at
the same time. But that's not the primary focus of what I wrote.

Pete