A re-examination through a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology indicates that there is a greater threat of contracting a coronavirus if the central seat of an aircraft is full. He says the threat of contracting the virus on an airplane is 1 in 7700 if the middle seats are left empty and 1 in 4300 if the intermediate seats are occupied. Assuming a 1% mortality rate, this would mean that your threat of dying from a coronavirus is 1 in 430,000 if the center seat is occupied. These two rates are higher than that of dying in a plane crash, estimated at approximately 1 in 34 million. But this particular article addresses the effects of the threat of empty seats in the airline industry and their numbers that are 2.4 times less likely to be struck by lightning, so why does everyone talk about this test?
This test is causing other people to talk because of headlines who say things like “filling the seats in the airplane industry doubling the threat.” This kind of sensational name has no context and “sells copies” as the press used to say, but “now creates clicks”. I read the test and found that it’s consistent with persuasive, and I guess it’s methodologically sound and I’m ready for the results. What I unexpectedly discovered was Professor Arnold Barnett’s comment: “Everything is more dangerous in those days, so the question is what do you compare it to?” Barnett said. “I don’t know if we need to treat the threat as low or not.” He admitted that the exam was “rude,” so an MIT professor doesn’t really know if anyone deserves to treat this threat as a casualty. As an economist who considers the threat in many contexts, I think comparing that is precisely what you want to do. In fact, Professor Barnett nuanced his findings in the article by stating: “However, knowledge by the end of June 2020 means that approximately 1 in 120 Americans suffer from Covid-19 on a given day (i.e. 40,000 showed instances consistent with the day x 10 x 7 days, approximately 1/120 of the U.S. population of 330,000,000). Therefore, it is not transparent if the threat of inflamed adaptation during a flight is more consistent than the threat related to daily activities during the pandemic. This is fair and precise and puts this threat in coherence with perspective.
Of course. Those who provide a superior forward-looking threat due to underlying medical situations should be more careful not to put themselves in forward-looking situations. But given the rates of this test, blocking the middle seats would not replace their behavior, since even with empty middle seats, those other people will likely continue to avoid flying. Further, the examination did not take into account two-seat aircraft in two, where there is no central seat. On those flights, which are not unusual in the United States because all regional aircraft are configured that way, others sit side by side and what the effects would be of blocking part of the seats on the planes to do so. Doesn’t it happen? JetBlue is the only airline I know that does this today.
My biggest fear with this test is that it diverts attention from the maximum vital factor to ensure the protection of air travel, which is that everyone wears a mask. Airlines require it, however, there are no federal laws or regulations that require it at this time, and some passengers still decide not to use it. The mixture of dressing with the mask, HEPA filtering, recycled airflow, sitting in front and having a seat or bulkhead in front of you mix to make the aircraft a low threat of contracting the virus compared to other overcrowded spaces. Safer, for example, than work buildings and restaurants. United Airlines stated that blocking intermediate seats is a PR strategy and the MIT review necessarily confirms this, as it shows that the difference with the occupied seat is or is not small in terms of actual relative threat. We settle for far greater threats in many of the things we do every day. I previously wrote why some airlines block intermediate seats while others don’t, and help the concept of seat locking today as a way to generate greater customer confidence.
Let’s say Las Vegas created a game where someone was asked to call any number between 1 and 430,000, and then throw a roll at 430,000 faces. If they get the number they chose, they win. What kind of odds would you like to play this game? This shows how low this threat is, and again, in the context of things we do like driving a car, walking or eating, the glorious 1988 e-book Innumeracy through John Allen Paulos shows, as establishments and individuals, we make bad policies and bad policies. because we don’t perceive the numbers well enough. I am sure that Professor Barnett and everyone at MIT is very familiar with their numbers, which also gives them and the media the duty to the effects of their studies in a way that leads to wise policies and non-public decisions. His grades in his article were clear, however, that did not save the media from pointing out the catchy point without the comparisons stated by the professor.
I am the former CEO of Spirit Airlines, where my strong team transformed the company into the highest margin airline in North America and created a new model for air
I am the former CEO of Spirit Airlines, where my strong team redesigned the company to become the largest airline in North America and created a new air style in the United States. Now I sit on the forums of several public and personal companies, I am an assistant professor of economics at George Mason University and co-host of the popular weekly podcast Airlines Confidential.