3 ms·
What I'm saying is, you're saying this was a case of the airline trying to get out as many people as they could, without much regard for the risk and costs. But
by throwaway613834 9y ago
What I'm saying is, you're saying this was a case of the airline trying to get out as many people as they could, without much regard for the risk and costs. But from what I see, they seemed to have optimized for the risk and the cost extremely well, to the point where it made perfect sense to do what they did, both business wise and humanitarian. Meaning those seem contradictory.
(In no way am I playing down what they did though. I'm only commenting on your analysis.)
- DigitalJack 9y agoI'm sure they did their best to calculate it as precise as they can. Other airlines tried and failed. They had to turn back or were stuck on the island. So the realized risk is fuel and cost of a grounded plane.
- 21 9y agoThey could have lost the plane according to the Wired article: > Once the plane landed in San Juan, the alternative—leaving the plane on the tarmac or in a hangar—would probably have destroyed the airplane ... If the plane had gotten stuck, Delta probably could have gotten the humans out safely. But it almost certainly would have lost a plane.
- bharath28 9y agoThere is such a thing as being heroic & not stupid.
- throwaway613834 9y agoI didn't say otherwise? Are you responding to my actual comment, or something else?