Originally Posted by
FlightlessParrot
I knew it was a bad sign when airlines started addressing passengers as "Customers." When I book a flight, I might well be regarded as a customer, but when I'm in the aeroplane, about to embark on an expedition into a hostile environment, I want to be a passenger, engaged in a net of reciprocal obligations centred on safety of flight. If it's just a financial transaction, another part of the hospitality industry, then the managers will start trading off safety vs profits, and calculating how many accidents a decade they can tolerate before it impacts the bottom line (to some extent, of course, this happens already, but it's kept to acceptable proportions by the professionalism of the operators).
In practical terms, this means a crew will go around rather than attempt a landing they can probably get away with, even though that will increase costs. It means the manufacturer will get the aeroplane right, rather than kludging it up with something that will get it through certification and be OK because it'll never be used.
For my part, it means that I accept that I have a responsibility to cabin crew to listen to their announcements, follow their directions, and not ask for something when they're busy with essential tasks. This sort of sense of shared responsibility is not compatible with conceiving the relationship as one of supplier and customer.
"managers will start trading off safety vs profits, and calculating how many accidents a decade they can tolerate before it impacts the bottom line "
Think Boeing 737 MAX.