Slightly off topic, I admit.
But one of the things that leaps ouit from this thread is quite a lot of folks seem to have a 'binary' view about safety, namely that something is either safe or it is not.
I don't want to talk about the specifics of this case, for whilst I am a medium experienced pilot I know nothing about long range ops or the 747.
But some people seem to think that less safe = unsafe. That any reduction in safety must mean that immediately becomes unsafe.
Well, thats just simplistic. In reality 'safety' is a point somewhere between perfection (impossible) and certain failure, and it can be subjective, especially to the layperson.
Here is the bottom line - operating aircraft is about managing risks, not avoiding them. The question here is not whether safety was reduced, but whether it was reduced unduly.
I get a bit peeved when people talk about commercial considerations as though they are a dirty word. Every one wants perfect safety, but NO ONE is willing to pay for it. You've only got to look at the travelling public voting with their feet in regards to low cost operators.
Please note I am not saying I think low cost carriers are unsafe, but rather that price is the driving factor behind a very large proportion of tickets sales. It is my belief that only a small percentage of folks even consider whether a particular carrier is safe or not. Any travel agents out there care to comment? How often does a customer walk in and say "I'd like a ticket to Timbuktoo with the safest airline you do business with"
As to whether this particuar flight represented an undue reduction in safety, I'll leave the type rated L/H ops folks to pontificate.
CPB