4 ms·
I think the argument for making it a corporate death sentence is that future companies and shareholders will know it is in their interest to make airplanes that
by MarkSweep 7y ago
I think the argument for making it a corporate death sentence is that future companies and shareholders will know it is in their interest to make airplanes that don't kill people.
More abstractly, if you value human life at a high enough dollar value and make corporations liable for loss thereof, they will expend effort to preserve human life. It appears that currently the externality of killing people is priced at a level where Boeing does not mind killing people.
I don't know if lawsuit liability is the best way to police corporate behavior, but it is big part of the system we currently have in the USA.
- briandear 7y agoThey do make airplanes that don’t kill people. More people die per mile in cars than have ever died in airplanes. The train fatality rate in the United States is higher than that of airplanes — the majority of those airplanes being Boeing. More people died in cars yesterday than in all of 2018 for Boeing. And given fatalities per mile, air travel on Boeing airplanes is safer than any other form of transportation. Suggesting that Boeing makes planes that “kill people,” is about as ridiculous as saying that Specialized makes bikes that kill people. The safety record of American aviation is unmatched — and most of those planes are Boeing. Let’s tamp down on the hyperbole.
- cf498 7y agoBecause its relative. You cant get car traffic as safe as airplanes. Its not reasonable to hold Boeing to the same standards as automotive traffic. Automotive traffic is simply far more dangerous then flying. You also wouldnt be ok with people dying from bread as long as its fewer then the amount of people dying to e.coli or fish poisoning. The question is always how easy it is to prevent deaths not how many are acceptable for a given branch.