Originally Posted by
El Bunto
Of course there are compromises.
How many crew are there in the cockpit? Two, because it's cheaper.
=> Acceptable compromise. If they are well trained and well rested and have a low Cockpit Gradient and good CRM. A third person entered into the mix won't help much if two, fulfilling the aforementioned requirements don't suffice.
How many engines under the wings? Two, because it's cheaper.
=> Acceptable compromise. If suitable performance margins and acceptable maintenance are adhered to and the Crew is well trained.
How many FAs are onboard? The legal minimum, because it's cheaper.
=> Acceptable compromise. How many Pax have died in the last 20 Years because there were not enough FAs?
Do the FAs wear fire-resistant coveralls? No, because acrylic is cheaper. And style sells.
=> See above.
Are passengers seated in rear-facing seats with five-point harnesses and smokehoods? …
=> Acceptable compromise. How many Pax would have survived if sat in such seats?
The moment an APU is started at the gate is the moment safety is traded against risk. And the risk is taken to make money. Ergo, making money supercedes safety.
=> Acceptable compromise. How many Pax have died due to APU gone wild?
The dangerous compromises are elsewhere:
Flying Schedules, Training level, Manual Flying opportunities, Stabilised Approach Criteria, Cockpit Gradient/Cultural understanding of Hierarchy, minimum Experience Level, Payment, Continued Flying with inop MEL Equipment, plus probably 20 more I didn't list....