4 ms·

> Lo and behold, the airlines have started classifying almost every delay and cancellation as a safety issue Then the regulators should be asking why there are

> Lo and behold, the airlines have started classifying almost every delay and cancellation as a safety issue Then the regulators should be asking why there are so many safety issues? Seems like by the airlines' own admission, this is a perfect ground for a full investigation and penalties in case the issues are found to be misclassified under the category of safety.

sandworm101 4y ago
They only care about safety issues during flight. Flights that dont happen are not a "flight safety" issue. The safest trip is always the one that doesnt try to leave the ground.
- ct0 4y ago
  Is it a trip if it doesn't leave the ground?
- noisy_boy 4y ago
  That is an odd take - so any shit can happen to the customers as long as they don't get in the air? IMHO they should also care about customers being cheated out of compensation on account of misclassification of the reason for the flights being cancelled.
- nix23 4y ago
  Most safety issues to planes happen on the ground...just saying.
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    I said try to leave the ground. Planes that never leave the gate are generally rather safe.
    - nix23 4y ago
      No...that was was my point they are not.
Waterluvian 4y ago
You need to be very very very careful not to disincentivize people declaring safety issues. They should really just unwind the wrong incentive and handle it differently.
- vlovich123 4y ago
  Random spot checks of declared safety incidents + serious penalties for fraud (which this is if the companies are lying about safety incidents to avoid paying out compensation) is probably sufficient without changing any regulations in any meaningful way. No regulation is perfect but it’s quite surprising how effective regulations become when you start spot checking whether everyone is being honest.
  - Waterluvian 4y ago
    Are you describing what food agencies do with their pseudorandom inspections? Because indeed those seem to work very well at a relatively low cost.
    - vlovich123 4y ago
      Sure that’s one example but I think there’s various things like this. You have to make sure that investigators can also be made undercover where makes sense (if it’s possible to obfuscate malfeasance) and rotate the inspector’s physical location (to avoid potential for corruption due to personal relationships). You always still have other corruption vectors (eg getting buddy buddy with the inspector’s boss and influencing them indirectly). It’s an unsolved problem but you can always do better than nothing.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      Under what basis do you have to claim those "random" inspections "work very well" Personally I believe they do almost nothing. Food born illness is pretty common and almost impossible to trace unless it is a wide spread outbreak. Many cities only inspect a food establishment every 2-3 years and in some cases as long as 5 years. I think reputation, and economics play a larger factor in safety then government inspections. Dirty places making their customers ill tend to close long before the government inspectors come around.
pibechorro 4y ago
And regulators all the way down.. regulations seldom work without unintended consequences and people finding loopholes or blackmarkets. They do more harm than good.
- orangepurple 4y ago
  They may do harm, significant harm, but it is unfair to categorically claim that the harm is greater than the good.
- mjhay 4y ago
  Personally I think aircraft safety regulations do plenty of good.
  - eastbound 4y ago
    Note that the aircraft industry, although state-regulated, almost behaves as self-regulated since airlines are mostly demanding of excellent regulations and high safety standards to reassure passengers. Very different from, say, Dupont (chemicals), who is regulated for OSHA reasons, but who would always find workers even if they dived at Bophal levels of safety.
  - diffxx 4y ago
    I'm inclined to agree, but I am somewhat curious about this. The Boeing 737 max crashes certainly demonstrate that the industry does not universally prioritize safety above all. At the same time, there are strong incentives for any airline to not have a catastrophic safety incident. I recently flew on a 737 max and was willing to do so not so much because the FAA cleared them to fly but because I assume the pilots are not suicidal. In the absence of strong government safety regulations would things just devolve to YOLO? I'm not sure either way. Having said that, Chesterton's fence applies to any existing regulations.
    - noisy_boy 4y ago
      > The Boeing 737 max crashes certainly demonstrate that the industry does not universally prioritize safety above all There is regulation and there are consequences of not following the spirit of the regulation (most focus seems to be on compliance to the letter of the law and avoiding to do anything beyond that ignoring the spirit of the law). Consequences don't seem to be particularly deterring in much cases; the offending company pays a penalty, no executive goes to jail and people forget about it soon. Unless these executives get jail time, there won't be any fear of consequences.

sandworm101 4y ago

They only care about safety issues during flight. Flights that dont happen are not a "flight safety" issue. The safest trip is always the one that doesnt try to leave the ground.

ct0 4y ago
Is it a trip if it doesn't leave the ground?
noisy_boy 4y ago
That is an odd take - so any shit can happen to the customers as long as they don't get in the air? IMHO they should also care about customers being cheated out of compensation on account of misclassification of the reason for the flights being cancelled.
nix23 4y ago
Most safety issues to planes happen on the ground...just saying.
- sandworm101 4y ago
  I said try to leave the ground. Planes that never leave the gate are generally rather safe.
  - nix23 4y ago
    No...that was was my point they are not.

Waterluvian 4y ago

You need to be very very very careful not to disincentivize people declaring safety issues. They should really just unwind the wrong incentive and handle it differently.

vlovich123 4y ago
Random spot checks of declared safety incidents + serious penalties for fraud (which this is if the companies are lying about safety incidents to avoid paying out compensation) is probably sufficient without changing any regulations in any meaningful way. No regulation is perfect but it’s quite surprising how effective regulations become when you start spot checking whether everyone is being honest.
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  Are you describing what food agencies do with their pseudorandom inspections? Because indeed those seem to work very well at a relatively low cost.
  - vlovich123 4y ago
    Sure that’s one example but I think there’s various things like this. You have to make sure that investigators can also be made undercover where makes sense (if it’s possible to obfuscate malfeasance) and rotate the inspector’s physical location (to avoid potential for corruption due to personal relationships). You always still have other corruption vectors (eg getting buddy buddy with the inspector’s boss and influencing them indirectly). It’s an unsolved problem but you can always do better than nothing.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    Under what basis do you have to claim those "random" inspections "work very well" Personally I believe they do almost nothing. Food born illness is pretty common and almost impossible to trace unless it is a wide spread outbreak. Many cities only inspect a food establishment every 2-3 years and in some cases as long as 5 years. I think reputation, and economics play a larger factor in safety then government inspections. Dirty places making their customers ill tend to close long before the government inspectors come around.

pibechorro 4y ago

And regulators all the way down.. regulations seldom work without unintended consequences and people finding loopholes or blackmarkets. They do more harm than good.

orangepurple 4y ago
They may do harm, significant harm, but it is unfair to categorically claim that the harm is greater than the good.
mjhay 4y ago
Personally I think aircraft safety regulations do plenty of good.
- eastbound 4y ago
  Note that the aircraft industry, although state-regulated, almost behaves as self-regulated since airlines are mostly demanding of excellent regulations and high safety standards to reassure passengers. Very different from, say, Dupont (chemicals), who is regulated for OSHA reasons, but who would always find workers even if they dived at Bophal levels of safety.
- diffxx 4y ago
  I'm inclined to agree, but I am somewhat curious about this. The Boeing 737 max crashes certainly demonstrate that the industry does not universally prioritize safety above all. At the same time, there are strong incentives for any airline to not have a catastrophic safety incident. I recently flew on a 737 max and was willing to do so not so much because the FAA cleared them to fly but because I assume the pilots are not suicidal. In the absence of strong government safety regulations would things just devolve to YOLO? I'm not sure either way. Having said that, Chesterton's fence applies to any existing regulations.
  - noisy_boy 4y ago
    > The Boeing 737 max crashes certainly demonstrate that the industry does not universally prioritize safety above all There is regulation and there are consequences of not following the spirit of the regulation (most focus seems to be on compliance to the letter of the law and avoiding to do anything beyond that ignoring the spirit of the law). Consequences don't seem to be particularly deterring in much cases; the offending company pays a penalty, no executive goes to jail and people forget about it soon. Unless these executives get jail time, there won't be any fear of consequences.