4 ms·
There should be a business continuity plan in case of “glitches”. But these airlines are cheap and greedy to develop playbooks, train airline staff, and airport
by xyst 2y ago
There should be a business continuity plan in case of “glitches”. But these airlines are cheap and greedy to develop playbooks, train airline staff, and airport personnel on the ground.
- sokoloff 2y agoMuch of the reason that commercial aviation is as safe as it is is the prioritization of safety over mission completion in the face of uncertainty. If you have uncertainty in any of the dispatch software or other dispatch items, as a passenger, I'm perfectly happy to wait until they get things sorted out rather than having this hypothetically trained staff manually executing alternative procedures that are unusual to them in order to get me to my destination a couple hours earlier...
- orev 2y agoI guarantee you that they have numerous continuity plans that probably get activated often, and because they have them, you don’t see any issues. It’s only when something happens far outside of those plans that it becomes visible. It’s confirmation bias.
- bitmasher9 2y agoI don’t think this is confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is putting more weight on information that support preexisting beliefs. If a continuity plan is activated and the passengers are unaware then that is a totally different thing. If the passengers are made aware of a continuity plan being implemented then Negativity Bias or the Von Restorff Effect would be more accurate descriptions, in which negative stimuli or unusual stimuli are more frequently recalled.
- orev 2y agoYou’re right. I meant survivorship bias, where the survivors are the events that are bad enough for them to be visible to the public. Other events that are addressed by a continuity plan are “killed” and therefore aren’t visible.