Comment by mschuster91

Comment by mschuster91 3 hours ago

> TDLR 10-20 years ago, the US started allowing maintenance of domestic planes in foreign countries, outside the reach of the FAA’s inspections

Foreign Repair Stations date back to the 90s [1], the thing is they need to be supervised by an FAA Certified Mechanic. Inspection of these was already a hot issue in the early '00s... No one gave a fuck, it was all about saving costs for a very long time.

The linked 2007 report's second page (!) already leads with this:

> Since 2001, eight commercial air carriers have gone through bankruptcy and one has ceased operations. Fuel prices remain high, and this makes cost control a key factor in both the sustained profitability and overall survival of an airline.

IMHO, this is a perfect example why the government needs to regulate prices in safety-critical industries. The "race to the bottom" must be prevented - sorry, flying NYC-SFO for 70$, that's not sustainable.

[1] https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/Web_File_Foreign...

potato3732842 17 minutes ago

>this is a perfect example why the government needs to regulate prices in safety-critical industries.

Aviation is one of the most regulated industries to the point where I've heard multiple aircraft maintenance people who don't know each other make quips to the tune of "we only cut the stupid corners because cutting the smart ones is illegal".

I'm not saying it should be less regulated but considering that the aircraft was maintained recently I wouldn't be surprised if some dumb "well you didn't say we couldn't do it" thing that isn't technically disallowed but should be covered under some broader "don't be stupid" rule was ultimately a causative factor.

Reply View 0 replies

ferguess_k 2 hours ago

The government should just set a higher safety standard and let the companies figure out the costs. Setting a floor price without proper regulation == companies doing the same bagging more $$ -- To be very frank, I would do that if I were the chairman of such companies -- either I do that or I'm madmen getting voted out of my position next year.

Reply View 1 reply

mschuster91 6 minutes ago

> The government should just set a higher safety standard and let the companies figure out the costs.
The problem is, it doesn't work out that way. We lost enough people to that madness - as soon as hundreds, if not thousands (see 9/11) of lives are at stake, IMHO the effort to ensure compliance with standards is so massive, the government could (and should...) do the damn job itself.

Reply View | 0 replies

rkomorn 3 hours ago

> IMHO, this is a perfect example why the government needs to regulate prices in safety-critical industries. The "race to the bottom" must be prevented - sorry, flying NYC-SFO for 70$, that's not sustainable.

Are you saying higher prices would lead to better safety?

If so, I think it's optimistic to assume that would be the result, rather than just more profits.

I'm all for tighter regulations and enforcement on safety and maintenance, though.

Reply View 8 replies

AnimalMuppet an hour ago

Super-low prices require razor-thin margins, which leads to cutting corners, which leads to worse safety.

Reply View | 3 replies
- CamperBob2 an hour ago
  
  Statistics say otherwise. Flying was far more hazardous in the days before deregulation.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  rkomorn an hour ago
  
  That may well be correlation and not causation.
  The industry (edit: planes in particular) is also decades more mature, as is manufacturing in general.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  CamperBob2 an hour ago
  
  Yes, admittedly, there could still be a reason why the GP's opinion is right, even though the numbers don't back it up. It's hard to argue that deregulation made flying safer, because as you say there were a ton of other factors in play.
  However, it's impossible to argue that deregulation made flying more dangerous, as the GP believes, simply because flying didn't become more dangerous. Sure, maybe we'd be even safer in the air if price deregulation hadn't happened, but that requires an impressive amount of handwaving. Overall, the tradeoff seems to have worked out incredibly well for everyone. The only people who are really in a position to object would be climate researchers.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
mschuster91 3 hours ago

> Are you saying higher prices would lead to better safety?
Higher prices and regulations.
With no floor on pricing, there will always be enough greedy executives who are willing to cut corners to make money in a ruthlessly competitive environment, fully knowing that it is very hard to prosecute a C-level executive personally.
The other possible result will be that eventually the market "agrees upon" a minimum price floor while being in compliance to regulations - but that usually means that the company will be as bare-stripped of assets and reserves as possible, which means in turn that the slightest external shock can (and will) send not just one but multiple companies crashing down hard. We've seen this with Covid - an economy that has optimized itself for decades on running as lean as possible is very sensitive to all sorts of external interruptions. Of course, that's not directly relevant to safety... but indirectly it is, as the inevitable result of that is an oligo-, duo- or monopoly and then, we've seen with Boeing where that ends, incentives aligned too much to cut corners.

Reply View | 3 replies
- rkomorn 2 hours ago
  
  I kiiinda see where you're coming from but I guess I just don't buy it, TBH.
  I think greed is what's causing cut corners.
  You mention Boeing, and they were quite healthily profitable during the entire time they were cutting corners on the 737 MAX. Airbus wasn't an existential threat. It still isn't, in fact, even after all the fallout.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  mrguyorama 2 hours ago
  
  Okay, what possible fix for everpresent greed in US business management is there other than regulation and enforcement?
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  rkomorn an hour ago
  
  Edit: I actually think I just don't get the gist of your question/comment.
  > I'm all for tighter regulations and enforcement on safety and maintenance, though.
  That's from my first comment in this thread. I'm not sure what part of my comments make you think you should ask me that question.
  What I'm arguing is against the notion that having minimum prices would fix said greed.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies