3 ms·

Yes but none of us want to die.

pdonis 8y ago
That's true. I'm not saying the safety regulations are a bad idea. I'm just saying that they have the side effect of giving the advantage to large airlines and posing a barrier to entry for new competitors. (And that, since they are indeed regulations and have gotten more stringent over time, it is a mistake to think of the airline industry as being "deregulated" in the sense of the term "regulation" that is being used in this discussion.)
conanbatt 8y ago
Depends on the price.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Yes but none of us want to die. This is the problematic false dichotomy. If you give someone a choice between "this specific set of onerous, expensive, competition-destroying regulations" or "you will be killed", they make the obvious choice. But those aren't the only options. Existing regulations are poorly optimized. It would be possible to save the same number of lives -- more lives -- by doing more work to improve the benefit:burden ratio of regulations. The problem is that people aren't interested in this. It's detail-oriented work that doesn't make for good sound bites, so the beneficiaries (the general public) aren't organized enough to know how to ask for it, and the organized incumbents don't want it because it would result in a larger number of viable competitors. And it's too easy for incumbents to make the sound bites go the other way, by pretending that not spending a billion dollars to save one life is irresponsible, even though the same billion dollars could save more than a thousand lives if saved here and used beneficially somewhere else.
- nradov 8y ago
  Could you give us an example of a specific FAA or NTSB regulation which has a suboptimal benefit:burden ratio?
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Could you give us an example of a specific FAA or NTSB regulation which has a suboptimal benefit:burden ratio? Sure. The air traffic control system is 20th century technology that has air traffic controllers doing things manually that could be done by computers. A better automated system would have the same or better safety while requiring significantly less labor.
    - nradov 8y ago
      The FAA has been actively working to modernise the air traffic control system for decades. It's a hard problem. I fail to see how that addresses the point?
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        The point is that it's a hard problem whose solution yields large returns, but we're expending resources to solve it at a rate that takes decades to produce the solution.
thucydidesofusa 8y ago
Very true. But we also don't want to overpay. Heck, no one wants to die but some people smoke cigarettes. Despite what people identify as their preference, their behavior reveals what really matters to them. In freer markets, people have the option to buy the safety that's appropriate for them. A person who's concerned about car safety may buy a Volvo and someone who'd rather have the money can buy a 90s Corolla. The analogy would be that regulations prohibit airlines from offering a lower safety at cost levels that consumers may find palatable. If airliners became an order of magnitude less safe, they'd still be on-par with the safety offered by other legal modes of transportation. A better analogy might be this - overly zealous regulations probably make it more expensive to achieve a given level of safety. Engine inspections are a great example - they have to be done on a regular schedule despite operating conditions and monitoring. These regulations disincentivize jet engine manufacturers from developing and deploying on board monitoring equipment that could flag engines for inspection when they need it and avoid unnecessary inspections.
aidenn0 8y ago
Driving is far less safe than flying, but people choose to drive all the time.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  Yes, and even after 9/11 there is clear data showing that people stopped flying en masse and took the wheel instead, resulting in increased overall death count. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/05/september-11-road-deaths https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/05/september-11-r... > However, Professor Gerd Gigerenzer, a German academic specialising in risk, has estimated that an extra 1,595 Americans died in car accidents in the year after the attacks – indirect victims of the tragedy.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  With driving people think they are in control and that safety is determined by their own skills. When you sit in a plane you are at the mercy of the airline and the pilot. I would more compare it to buying a car. And there are a lot of safety regulations on cars. When you buy a car you know that the steering or brakes won't fail randomly.

That's true. I'm not saying the safety regulations are a bad idea. I'm just saying that they have the side effect of giving the advantage to large airlines and posing a barrier to entry for new competitors. (And that, since they are indeed regulations and have gotten more stringent over time, it is a mistake to think of the airline industry as being "deregulated" in the sense of the term "regulation" that is being used in this discussion.)

conanbatt 8y ago

Depends on the price.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> Yes but none of us want to die. This is the problematic false dichotomy. If you give someone a choice between "this specific set of onerous, expensive, competition-destroying regulations" or "you will be killed", they make the obvious choice. But those aren't the only options. Existing regulations are poorly optimized. It would be possible to save the same number of lives -- more lives -- by doing more work to improve the benefit:burden ratio of regulations. The problem is that people aren't interested in this. It's detail-oriented work that doesn't make for good sound bites, so the beneficiaries (the general public) aren't organized enough to know how to ask for it, and the organized incumbents don't want it because it would result in a larger number of viable competitors. And it's too easy for incumbents to make the sound bites go the other way, by pretending that not spending a billion dollars to save one life is irresponsible, even though the same billion dollars could save more than a thousand lives if saved here and used beneficially somewhere else.

nradov 8y ago
Could you give us an example of a specific FAA or NTSB regulation which has a suboptimal benefit:burden ratio?
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Could you give us an example of a specific FAA or NTSB regulation which has a suboptimal benefit:burden ratio? Sure. The air traffic control system is 20th century technology that has air traffic controllers doing things manually that could be done by computers. A better automated system would have the same or better safety while requiring significantly less labor.
  - nradov 8y ago
    The FAA has been actively working to modernise the air traffic control system for decades. It's a hard problem. I fail to see how that addresses the point?
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      The point is that it's a hard problem whose solution yields large returns, but we're expending resources to solve it at a rate that takes decades to produce the solution.

thucydidesofusa 8y ago

Very true. But we also don't want to overpay. Heck, no one wants to die but some people smoke cigarettes. Despite what people identify as their preference, their behavior reveals what really matters to them. In freer markets, people have the option to buy the safety that's appropriate for them. A person who's concerned about car safety may buy a Volvo and someone who'd rather have the money can buy a 90s Corolla. The analogy would be that regulations prohibit airlines from offering a lower safety at cost levels that consumers may find palatable. If airliners became an order of magnitude less safe, they'd still be on-par with the safety offered by other legal modes of transportation. A better analogy might be this - overly zealous regulations probably make it more expensive to achieve a given level of safety. Engine inspections are a great example - they have to be done on a regular schedule despite operating conditions and monitoring. These regulations disincentivize jet engine manufacturers from developing and deploying on board monitoring equipment that could flag engines for inspection when they need it and avoid unnecessary inspections.

aidenn0 8y ago

Driving is far less safe than flying, but people choose to drive all the time.

ekianjo 8y ago
Yes, and even after 9/11 there is clear data showing that people stopped flying en masse and took the wheel instead, resulting in increased overall death count. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/05/september-11-road-deaths https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/05/september-11-r... > However, Professor Gerd Gigerenzer, a German academic specialising in risk, has estimated that an extra 1,595 Americans died in car accidents in the year after the attacks – indirect victims of the tragedy.
maxxxxx 8y ago
With driving people think they are in control and that safety is determined by their own skills. When you sit in a plane you are at the mercy of the airline and the pilot. I would more compare it to buying a car. And there are a lot of safety regulations on cars. When you buy a car you know that the steering or brakes won't fail randomly.