7 ms·
No, safety is part of the marketing. If people think the planes are safe, then they'll fly on them & customers (airlines) will buy them. If people think they're
by SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
No, safety is part of the marketing. If people think the planes are safe, then they'll fly on them & customers (airlines) will buy them. If people think they're not safe, then they won't fly on them and airlines won't want to buy them. If someone is actually injured then there's liability, but that's usually a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the potential marketing effects of safety incidents.
To Boeing, planes need to be safe enough to not cause airlines to cancel orders or result in excessive fines from the government. Any additional safety is waste. The optimal number of people killed is higher than 0 when trying to maximize profits.
As Mike Rowe says, "Safety Third"[1]. The need to make money is first, then willingness to assume risk, and finally safety.
[1] https://mikerowe.com/2022/03/the-origin-of-safety-third/ https://mikerowe.com/2022/03/the-origin-of-safety-third/
- hef19898 3y agoThanks for providing a glimps at why those Boeing fuck-ups happened... Safety third, are ypu kidding me? I just hope you don't work on stuff that can kill people...
- SAI_Peregrinus 3y agoHow can safety ever be first? If there's any amount of safety risk by doing a thing, then (if safety is truly first and overrides all other concerns) that thing should not be done. Nobody avoids all safety risk, so safety is trivially not first. No corporation has ever put the safety of its workers or customers above its own existence. That doesn't mean they don't take measures to improve safety, just that it's not able to override all other concerns. It's ultimately up to the people who are put at risk to manage their own safety & decide which risks to take, that cannot be entirely delegated to the organizations putting one at risk! "Safety First" encourages dangerous complacency on the part of the people bearing the risk.