4 ms·

I think the big difference is that with airlines, it is realistic to have a zero-tolerance approach to deaths, since the default expectation is that a plane wil

I think the big difference is that with airlines, it is realistic to have a zero-tolerance approach to deaths, since the default expectation is that a plane will not crash. With hospitals, deaths are innevitable, so you can't just have a uniform set of regulations to ensure no one dies. Also, I think you can definitely pay more to go on a safer plane - I would imagine more expensive airlines have newer planes and better maintenance - but the risk of death is so small it isn't worth the extra cost.

sergioj97 7y ago
Things like this make me wonder: is it really worth for the airlines (I'm also talking about plane manufacturers here) to be this secure? I would assume it's not different from the automotive industry, where the security of your product depends primarily on financial reasons. I feel like many people would be willing to trade some security for better ticket prices. Of course there are differences with the car industry, one of them being the economic value of the vehicle and thus the loss in case of accident. I don't know if it would actually be profitable for them.
- tzs 7y ago
  One big difference between the airlines and the automotive industry (or doctors) is that with airlines a crash doesn't just kill the paying passengers. It also usually kills the pilots and other crew. This sets a floor on airline safety--it has to be safe enough that the airlines can readily find pilots. Some passengers, especially those who rarely travel, might accept more risk for a better price but I suspect that pilots, who might be making hundreds of flights a year, would not be so willing.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    Indeed the pilot and flight attendants unions are leaders in driving safety procedures in aviation.
lonelappde 7y ago
Have you ever heard of a commercial airline advertising its premium maintenance ?
vkou 7y ago
My default expectation is not zero deaths in surgery. Shit happens. My expectation is that there should be exactly zero surgical instruments that get left inside the bodies of patients, when they are sown up, or zero cases of the wrong organ being removed. And yet, there's >1,000 cases a year of the former, in the US alone.

sergioj97 7y ago

Things like this make me wonder: is it really worth for the airlines (I'm also talking about plane manufacturers here) to be this secure? I would assume it's not different from the automotive industry, where the security of your product depends primarily on financial reasons. I feel like many people would be willing to trade some security for better ticket prices. Of course there are differences with the car industry, one of them being the economic value of the vehicle and thus the loss in case of accident. I don't know if it would actually be profitable for them.

tzs 7y ago
One big difference between the airlines and the automotive industry (or doctors) is that with airlines a crash doesn't just kill the paying passengers. It also usually kills the pilots and other crew. This sets a floor on airline safety--it has to be safe enough that the airlines can readily find pilots. Some passengers, especially those who rarely travel, might accept more risk for a better price but I suspect that pilots, who might be making hundreds of flights a year, would not be so willing.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Indeed the pilot and flight attendants unions are leaders in driving safety procedures in aviation.

lonelappde 7y ago

Have you ever heard of a commercial airline advertising its premium maintenance ?

vkou 7y ago

My default expectation is not zero deaths in surgery. Shit happens. My expectation is that there should be exactly zero surgical instruments that get left inside the bodies of patients, when they are sown up, or zero cases of the wrong organ being removed. And yet, there's >1,000 cases a year of the former, in the US alone.