Originally Posted by
El Bunto
Of course there are compromises.
How many crew are there in the cockpit? Two, because it's cheaper.
How many engines under the wings? Two, because it's cheaper.
How many FAs are onboard? The legal minimum, because it's cheaper.
Do the FAs wear fire-resistant coveralls? No, because acrylic is cheaper. And style sells.
Are passengers seated in rear-facing seats with five-point harnesses and smokehoods? ...
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.
Can you point to any evidence that any of those things listed above would actually improve safety? Because I know the first two are garbage. There was a lengthy study in the late 1970s comparing 2 crew to 3 crew - they could find no evidence that the 3rd person enhanced safety ( Asiana had
four people in the flight deck when they flew a perfectly serviceable 777 into the seawall in SFO).
Twin engine aircraft are statistically
safer than quads or trijets.
You're probably right about the rear facing seats with five point harnesses and smokehoods - if that was enforced no one would make any money because people would stop flying...