3 ms·

While I agree with your sentiment on stereotypes, looking at the link your comment seems misleading. The airlines you mention score lower on 'Safety Rating' du

by drsim 8y ago

While I agree with your sentiment on stereotypes, looking at the link your comment seems misleading. The airlines you mention score lower on 'Safety Rating' due to lack of IOSA certification. "Registering for IOSA certification and auditing is not mandatory therefore an airline that does not have IOSA certification may have either failed the IOSA audit or alternatively chosen not to participate." For a budget airline I can see them not participating for cost reasons. Does this make them less safe?

matt4077 8y ago
Safety incidents in air travel are thankfully low. Therefore, it is impossible to find meaningful differences in that primary data alone. You have to find some proxies, and certification schemes seem at least defensible in that regard. In any case, not being a „budget“ airline that has to cut such costs would seem to fit rather well with my argument that Ethopian is not some gravel-airstrip bush operation flying leftover Sowiet machinery.
- drsim 8y ago
  Agreed, it's clear that a proxy is needed. Also that Ethiopian is not a sub-par operation. My issue is that a 'safety rating' based on an optional certification is being used to compare airlines as more/less safe. Why not stick to what I believe to be the universal measures of EU allowed, FAA endorsed and ICAO country audit.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    The libertarian answer would be that government requirements mere represent a necessary minimum. In any case, it would seem irrefutable that no matter the requirements, there is always room to go above & beyond, and to have such efforts certified by a third party to maximize their use for PR purposes. In a wild application of signaling theory, certification may even be a useful signal without regard to the actual substance of that certification, as long as it is expensive. Just like a peacock shows his abundance of resources by wasting some of them on jazzy plumage.[0] I think you’re sort of sympathizing with the airlines here, who are somewhat pressured into spending that, from their perspective, is wasteful: after all, they know they are doing all that stuff they are getting certified for. I would say (a) don’t anthromorphize corporations—they may be people, but not ones deserving sympathy. And, (b), certification schemes are one of the many often disregarded frictional costs of a market economy. They are unnecessary only in a mythical benevolent economic system that has so far eluded us. [0] also a good reason to justify flying only with airlines that offer free peanuts.
- airstrike 8y ago
  > not some gravel-airstrip bush operation flying leftover Sowiet machinery. just wanted to say I appreciate the imagery. this is exactly how I interpreted US media to be framing Ethiopian
milgrim 8y ago
I can also see them to be less safe for cost reasons. Getting the certification would have helped to alleviate this concern.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by drsim 8y ago

matt4077 8y ago

Safety incidents in air travel are thankfully low. Therefore, it is impossible to find meaningful differences in that primary data alone. You have to find some proxies, and certification schemes seem at least defensible in that regard. In any case, not being a „budget“ airline that has to cut such costs would seem to fit rather well with my argument that Ethopian is not some gravel-airstrip bush operation flying leftover Sowiet machinery.

drsim 8y ago
Agreed, it's clear that a proxy is needed. Also that Ethiopian is not a sub-par operation. My issue is that a 'safety rating' based on an optional certification is being used to compare airlines as more/less safe. Why not stick to what I believe to be the universal measures of EU allowed, FAA endorsed and ICAO country audit.
- matt4077 8y ago
  The libertarian answer would be that government requirements mere represent a necessary minimum. In any case, it would seem irrefutable that no matter the requirements, there is always room to go above & beyond, and to have such efforts certified by a third party to maximize their use for PR purposes. In a wild application of signaling theory, certification may even be a useful signal without regard to the actual substance of that certification, as long as it is expensive. Just like a peacock shows his abundance of resources by wasting some of them on jazzy plumage.[0] I think you’re sort of sympathizing with the airlines here, who are somewhat pressured into spending that, from their perspective, is wasteful: after all, they know they are doing all that stuff they are getting certified for. I would say (a) don’t anthromorphize corporations—they may be people, but not ones deserving sympathy. And, (b), certification schemes are one of the many often disregarded frictional costs of a market economy. They are unnecessary only in a mythical benevolent economic system that has so far eluded us. [0] also a good reason to justify flying only with airlines that offer free peanuts.
airstrike 8y ago
> not some gravel-airstrip bush operation flying leftover Sowiet machinery. just wanted to say I appreciate the imagery. this is exactly how I interpreted US media to be framing Ethiopian

milgrim 8y ago

I can also see them to be less safe for cost reasons. Getting the certification would have helped to alleviate this concern.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]