“Had that happened, they would have glided to the nearest suitable airport and given that they were at cruising altitude, they would have had plenty of time and range to do so.”
Yeah ..maybe. Southern Airways Flight 242, not so much. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Airways_Flight_242
Very different scenario. They were at a much lower altitude, flying through severe thunderstorms, and were likely distracted by heavy hail damage to the aircraft, especially cockpit windows blown out by the hail. The aircraft in the present-day situation had none of those distractions, was at much higher altitude, and would also benefit from modern avionics that make it simple to quickly find the nearest airport and navigate to it. At the approximate altitude this aircraft was flying at, they would have been able to glide for over 100 miles, giving them plenty of options for a landing at an airport, as opposed to the road that Southern Airways 242 attempted to use.
I’m a sailplane pilot and am often amazed at how many airline passengers believe that engine failure will cause the aircraft to fall from the sky. It doesn’t work that way. The aerodynamic principles are exactly the same for any fixed-wing aircraft, whether a single engine Cessna, or a sailplane, or a commercial jet. The only differences are the respective glide ratios and the speed at which best L/D (lift to drag ratio) occurs. While a jet can’t come close to the glide ratio of a high performance sailplane (typically over 40:1 - 40 feet forward for every 1 foot of altitude lost), a typical commercial jet still has a glide ratio of around 17 to 1, meaning that a jet at 35,000’, for example, can glide for about 112 miles (in still air and assuming the airport is at or near sea level).
Among the passengers killed was rhythm and blues singer Annette Snell.