3 ms·

Or we could just make airlines always liable for any situation where they fail to get you to where they said they were going to get you by when they said they w

• sokoloff 4y ago
  As stated, I think you’d find that would eventually kill someone from an airline tangling with weather that they shouldn’t. There’s a reason we give airlines a pass for unsafe weather: because we don’t want them killing people.
  • anankaie 4y ago
    No, if they kill someone, they will get fined for gross negligence on top of the inevitable tort case (file it under "airline malpractice"). I am not asking them to fly in terrible weather: I am asking them to have enough slack in the system that one outage does not destroy their entire system because places unconnected to the weather are affected when planes they expect to arrive never do. The point is that it is irresponsible to be running so lean that their entire system is tightly coupled like this, and we need to make doing so completely unprofitable to airlines.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • sokoloff 4y ago
      > I am not asking them to fly in terrible weather The way I read it, you kind of are, just without saying it out loud: > we could just make airlines always liable for any situation where they fail to get you to where they said they were going to get you by when they said they were going to get you. Like literally any service that is not delivered as promised. What incentives does that set up when terrible (or even questionable) weather exists at the departure or destination airports or widespread en route?