Taking a forward view — I think FAA needs a way to defray the impact of operational costs by incentivizing the uptake of changes that produce safety improvement

Taking a forward view — I think FAA needs a way to defray the impact of operational costs by incentivizing the uptake of changes that produce safety improvements. The ultimate economic reasoning for the 737 MAX was entirely to reduce operational cost: “give us a plane with better fuel efficiency that we don’t have to pay to train pilots for!”. This is actually a deeply broken incentive that, I think this case shows, should not exist. The plane delivered is objectively far worse than it _could be_ were it not for the need to reduce operational cost. Ultimately — some large portion of that operational cost is induced as a result of the need to comply with safety regulations. That creates downward pressure on unecessary experimentation but also has created this very perverse incentive to design planes that are _deliberately_ not as safe as they could be given application of some approximation to “our best engineering knowledge”. Pretty early on in the design process for the 737 MAX — there shouldve been a meeting with regulators. The regulators should’ve been presented with this option and the design and economic reasoning for it — and they should’ve also been presented with another option wherein there was a relaxing of the need to defuse operational costs. The regulators should be empowered to then say “don’t build this broken plane, build the safer plane and we will introduce tax credits sufficient to help offset the airlines retraining costs.”