Looking at the source, he seems to be lumping shorter plane rides in with the long-distance (safer) ones. The danger is largely in takeoff and landing, as far as I understand. I also can't tell if the source takes into account private jets, which are less regulated and likely more risky than passenger jets. I'd also imagine the statistic varies a lot of you limit yourself to flights involving the US and our colonies[1].
Or the source could just be wrong - he could have mistakenly used the chance of being involved in a crash, rather than the chance of dying. That would put it in the right order or magnitude, I think.
[1] With all the "evil empire" rhetoric flying around lately...
There are no reliable statistics for the safety of commercial air travel in the US these days.
It's not for lack of trying. It's simply that commercial air travel in the US is so safe that there isn't enough data to compile anything like a reasonable risk figure. Prior to the Asiana crash, the last fatal airliner crash in the US was in 2009, and there were no fatalities in 2008 or 2007.
So, yes, they're much safer than that number would imply, but it's hard to say exactly how much.
Looking at the source, he seems to be lumping shorter plane rides in with the long-distance (safer) ones. The danger is largely in takeoff and landing, as far as I understand. I also can't tell if the source takes into account private jets, which are less regulated and likely more risky than passenger jets. I'd also imagine the statistic varies a lot of you limit yourself to flights involving the US and our colonies[1].
Or the source could just be wrong - he could have mistakenly used the chance of being involved in a crash, rather than the chance of dying. That would put it in the right order or magnitude, I think.
[1] With all the "evil empire" rhetoric flying around lately...