Originally Posted by
RTM Boy
Your first sentence demonstrates the modern phenomenon of fanboyism. But really the problem revolves around competing needs. Fundamentally A/C are tools with which to do a job, they are not, must not, be considered in terms of wafer-thin shallowness as say Nike vs Adidas.
- Passengers want cheap(est) fares. Cheaper fares = more passengers = higher load factor = airline profitability (for a given mean fare).
- So, airlines want lowest cost; low(est) leasing rates, low(est) fuel consumption, low(est) maintenance costs, low(est) training costs for new A/C types, lowest wage rates, maximum airframe and crew utilisation, lowest airport charges, etc, etc.
- Aircraft manufacturers want high volume sales for profitability to amortise fixed and development costs, in part to please investors and in part to create sufficient cash flow to allow development of the next model and so will make what they think the market will buy most of...to the minimum standard permitted in service (ie lowest cost). They will offer 'optional extras' at extra cost to the airlines/leasing agents (ie another profit centre).
- Governments and their aviation regulators want maximum safety (in theory). It's not helpful for your voters to suffer the consequences of your mistakes or to see others do so.
Just this simple construct (yes, I know it's more complicated than that), illustrates the tensions in decision-making and taking. Remember, there is no such thing as 'safe' or 'unsafe'. It's all a matter of degree based on thorough, objective, tested risk assessment. Or it should be. But then everyone has an agenda. Everyone.
Thats all true of any business but good airline management is what it’s about- managing those factors. Qantas has never lost a passenger. Ryanair (from annual report)!has had no fatalities in over thirty years with currently 600 plus737s. Same is true of so many operators. Safety is no accident. It’s as you say risk Assessment and ensuring the highest possible standards.
Y