3 ms·
commercial pressure should have been the liability exposure they find themselves in now.
by jordache 8y ago
commercial pressure should have been the liability exposure they find themselves in now.
- cameldrv 8y agoThe problem is this: From the CEO's standpoint, grounding the fleet might have cost him his job given that there was a plausible (even though we know now ineffective) checklist based solution to the problem. Another crash might also cost the CEO his job, but that has a probability of less than one. The incentive in this situation is to roll the dice. The problem is that the decision maker does not bear the liability for his actions. He's not the one making a smoking crater in the ground. That's why you need a regulator with different motivations. Historically, the FAA has been exceptionally effective at improving air safety. The Republican/business argument is that they have overdone it and the costs of compliance exceed the benefit at the margin. These accidents are a strong argument otherwise.