4 ms·

If it’s government money it makes sense to save $10m here to apply it there (in theory). But when it’s Boeing’s money it makes no sense at all. Boeing isn’t goi

If it’s government money it makes sense to save $10m here to apply it there (in theory). But when it’s Boeing’s money it makes no sense at all. Boeing isn’t going to take the $10m they’re not spending and put guardrails on dangerous highways.

Johnny555 8y ago
It's not really Boeing's money, they aren't a charity, any increase in the price of an aircraft gets passed on to airlines (and from the airlines to passengers) If unlimited safety improvements are required without regard to cost, it could drive the cost of the aircraft so high that airlines can't afford to upgrade, so they keep their older fleet in service for longer. Which works for a while, but airframes do age and need to be retired.
- nollbit 8y ago
  That's only true if Boeing was the only manufacturer that builds this category of planes (they are not). Boeing has an issue in their planes that the A350 doesn't have. So if the price of 787's goes up because it needs to go from unsafe to safe, then airlines can buy A350s instead.
  - bcatanzaro 8y ago
    Or they can buy the 787-10 with the Rolls Royce engine that is already certified. (Check out the article!) In this case, the problem is with the engine, not with the plane, and the alternative engine is already approved and in service.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Smaller increases in cost also result in some passengers choosing alternate modes of transportation (for example, driving) which are invariably less safe.
SamReidHughes 8y ago
It's airline money and thus passengers' money. I'm perfectly happy to accept a higher risk if I can save a few bucks. It's like buying a used car.
- munk-a 8y ago
  That only holds if accepting the higher risk actually comes with the savings and if you are aware of the higher risk you're accepting. Mostly people don't do safety comparisons of different planes when booking trips overseas and, TBH, pushing that sort of investigation off on consumers creates huge inefficiencies in our economy. It's simply better for the government to hold all options to a certain safety level then try and rely on market forces to balance it out.
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    People do in fact do safety comparisons. Malaysia Airlines lost a lot of passengers after it lost two planes.

Johnny555 8y ago

It's not really Boeing's money, they aren't a charity, any increase in the price of an aircraft gets passed on to airlines (and from the airlines to passengers) If unlimited safety improvements are required without regard to cost, it could drive the cost of the aircraft so high that airlines can't afford to upgrade, so they keep their older fleet in service for longer. Which works for a while, but airframes do age and need to be retired.

nollbit 8y ago
That's only true if Boeing was the only manufacturer that builds this category of planes (they are not). Boeing has an issue in their planes that the A350 doesn't have. So if the price of 787's goes up because it needs to go from unsafe to safe, then airlines can buy A350s instead.
- bcatanzaro 8y ago
  Or they can buy the 787-10 with the Rolls Royce engine that is already certified. (Check out the article!) In this case, the problem is with the engine, not with the plane, and the alternative engine is already approved and in service.
mikeash 8y ago
Smaller increases in cost also result in some passengers choosing alternate modes of transportation (for example, driving) which are invariably less safe.

SamReidHughes 8y ago

It's airline money and thus passengers' money. I'm perfectly happy to accept a higher risk if I can save a few bucks. It's like buying a used car.

munk-a 8y ago
That only holds if accepting the higher risk actually comes with the savings and if you are aware of the higher risk you're accepting. Mostly people don't do safety comparisons of different planes when booking trips overseas and, TBH, pushing that sort of investigation off on consumers creates huge inefficiencies in our economy. It's simply better for the government to hold all options to a certain safety level then try and rely on market forces to balance it out.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  People do in fact do safety comparisons. Malaysia Airlines lost a lot of passengers after it lost two planes.