# Question about retiring flight numbers **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 19, 2014, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-retiring-flight-numbers/691179 "2014-06-19T22:32:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-retiring-flight-numbers/691179/1 "2014-06-19T22:32:16Z")
As mentioned in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=726370), it’s common for airlines to retire flight numbers after a major incident. So TWA will never have another flight 800, nor will United ever have a flight 93. My question: Does this happen across all airlines? Malaysia Airlines will certainly retire #370, but does that mean all the other airlines will retire that number as well? Also, how “major” does an incident need to be for the flight number to be retired? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c57346/32.png) [@Little\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Pig)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-retiring-flight-numbers/691179/2 "2014-06-19T22:39:54Z")
[This would be considered major.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191) ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-retiring-flight-numbers/691179/3 "2014-06-19T22:41:45Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > As mentioned in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=726370), it’s common for airlines to retire flight numbers after a major incident. So TWA will never have another flight 800, nor will United ever have a flight 93. > > My question: Does this happen across all airlines? Malaysia Airlines will certainly retire #370, but does that mean all the other airlines will retire that number as well? I’d say apparently not, since Alaska Airlines has a flight 93 still in operation daily. (SEA to ANC) ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-retiring-flight-numbers/691179/4 "2014-06-19T23:10:05Z")
TWA doesn’t have any flight numbers anymore because it hasn’t existed since 2001. Airlines don’t usually cross-retire flight numbers when a competitor’s flight with the same number crashes but maybe they should. Flight 191 was the number for two major U.S. airliner catastrophes just a few years apart - one for Delta and the other for American Airlines. > **[Delta Air Lines Flight 191](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_191)** > > Delta Air Lines Flight 191 was a regularly scheduled Delta Air Lines domestic service from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to Los Angeles with an intermediate stop at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW). On August 2, 1985, the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar operating Flight 191 encountered a microburst while on approach to land at DFW. The aircraft impacted ground over one mile (1.6 km) short of the runway, struck a car near the airport, collided with two water tanks, and disintegrated. 137 peop... > **[American Airlines Flight 191](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191)** > > American Airlines Flight 191 was a regularly scheduled domestic passenger flight in the United States from O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois to Los Angeles International Airport in California. On the afternoon of May 25, 1979, the McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 operating this flight was taking off from runway 32R at O'Hare when its left engine detached from the wing, causing a loss of control, and the aircraft crashed less than one mile (1.6 km) from the end of the runway. All 258... ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-retiring-flight-numbers/691179/5 "2014-06-20T14:06:05Z")
It isn’t necessarily permanent, either. American eventually reinstated [Flight 1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_1), for instance. The marketing value was too good to pass up, after memories of the crash faded. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-retiring-flight-numbers/691179/6 "2014-06-20T23:38:24Z")
United accidentally reactivated flights 93 and 175. After a blogger for Time magazine noticed this, it caused a bit of an uproar, forcing United to change its schedules. The full backstory, for those interested, United had two subsidiaries: Continental and United, that still operate their own planes. However, they both use United callsigns and flight numbers. United gave its Continental subsidiary flight numbers 1-199, 1000-1299, and 1400-1744. The Continental people did not have flight numbers 93 and 175 blocked out, so they just routinely assigned them.