Why hasn't aviation "retired" the 9/11 flight numbers?

[Robb]

I mean, I know they're just numbers, but for cryin' out loud... I can't believe anyone would want to board Flight 77 or Flight 175 to anywhere, but I'm reading this morning that JetBlue has a Flight 93, and that it had to make an emergency landing to deplane a passenger with a medical emergency.

Am I overly sensitive, or should this be a no-brainer? :shrug:

[bowens43]

1. You're overly sensitive.

Kind of reminds of the folks who were insisting that the movie 'The Two Towers' should have it's title changed.

[skippysmom]

2. okay, call me a freak

but I was booking a vacation to Arizona and changed my choice of flight because one of the legs of the flight was flight 93.

I think they're retired on United and American -- I think that's SOP when a plane crashes -- but not on other flights.

[catzies]

3. That's what I thought too.

An airline can retire a flight number if it was on one of its own planes that crashed. I never thought it was meant to be an industry-wide retirement.

BTW, that's what they do with hurricane names too. If it makes landfall and causes death and destruction it's retired so no one has to say, "Hey, which Hurricane Andrew wrecked your house? The 1992 one or the 2008 one?"

FWIW, a "cursed" flight number wouldn't make me think twice. Just me.