The first conclusion of my statistical analysis of accident/incident reports: Taking the Concorde out of service, was a good one! There is a second obvious one, but I am not telling you it.
You should probably keep it for yourself as you don't even have an idea of the official definition of incident. This is without mentioning the "value" of your database as a comparison tool. Did you hear about a BA 747 crossing the pond on 3 engines, another one loosing altitude during an hijacking attempt, more recently a 747 taking of with retracting slats or an RJ100 ending on the nose? These are few examples of incidents which you obviously didn't include, and guess what, there are dozens more for all airlines. Are you only considering hull losses ? Fatalities ? Sometimes fatalities occurs with no hull losses and vice versa.
Flight safety is not based on incident/accident history, but on its forecasting. Until accidents happens they aren't in the airline's statistics. Evaluating an airline safety is not only being a Math Fox, it's mainly having a deep understanding of the internal safety culture, procedures, training and maintenance, to name a few.
You can still post your comments on some "daily sun" kinda blog as you'll get an audience for such deep analysis.