There are also a hundred or more passengers on a transpacific flight. If planes and humans were equally reliable, we'd expect to see medical diversions to outnumber mechanical ones by more than 100:1....
"Apparently there was an airline that managed to save tens of thousands of dollars per year by removing a single olive from the salads in their meals, because it was hardly noticed by customers it was a massive win, tens of thousands of dollars without anyone noticing.
Another reason is to keep passengers occupied. Keep'em fiddling with stuff and it keeps them out of the hair of the flight crew.
Trying to fit an airline meal into the terribly limited space of an airline tray, and unwrap things that need unwrapping, and keep the trash under control, and find places for the small things they include that you don't even eat or need - and still manage to partake of the comestibles - this requires skills in spatial management that for some may lead to an unrewarding career in solving infernal Chinese wooden puzzles.
By quite a bit, right? Assuming passenger malfunctions were statistically independent, I guess passenger malfunctions would follow the binomial distribution.
Any one malfunctioning passenger is sufficient to fail the overall flight. Assume each is independently probable of malfunction. If we know nothing else about the passengers, we can only model them as having some average rate of successful flight without malfunction, say 99.9%.
Say there are 100 passengers. We roll the dice 100 times, once for each passenger.
The success rate for the overall flight would be 0.999 ^ 100 = 90.4% -> About a 10% chance of flight failure.
If there are 400 passengers, we get 67.0%, about a 33% chance of flight failure.
Given enough passengers per flight, few or no flights reach their destination.
