3 ms·
They should make an addendum that any safety-related cancellations require a full inspection/re-certification of the aircraft that takes either a lot of time or
by genocidicbunny 4y ago
They should make an addendum that any safety-related cancellations require a full inspection/re-certification of the aircraft that takes either a lot of time or a lot of money to go through. And any crew involved will be required to pass some sort of check flight or related process (at company cost of course.)
Make spurious 'safety' cancellations expensive, very expensive.
- josephcsible 4y agoThat would defeat the purpose. The point of the carveout is so that we don't accidentally incentivize the airlines to fly a flight that should be canceled for safety reasons, and this would do exactly that.
- ALittleLight 4y agoPerhaps they could require the people who make the go/no-go decision on flight safety to visit a prison every three months and receive a lecture on how this will be their new home if they knowingly approve a plane not safe to fly.
- WalterBright 4y agoThreatening people does not improve safety, as people will tend to hide the issues instead of exposing them so they're fixed.
- justsomehnguy 4y agoYou are forgetting what the decision to blanket everything as a safety issue came not from the people who make the go/no-go decision on flight safety. As a sibling comment says it would be just swept under the rug until planes start to fall.
- sokoloff 4y agoIndeed. I feel like so many of these arguments that “airlines are making up fake safety or weather cancellation reasons; when’s the last time an airline crashed from a safety or weather reason; they’re over-stating the risks just to get out of paying penalties!” seemingly without reflecting on why the second clause is the case.