To summarize this argument:
Side 1:
"What are the odds? You can't eliminate all risk anyway, after all, a meteor could hit the gondola too"
Side 2:
"If it can go wrong, it will go wrong. The more risks you eliminate, the less chance something bad will happen when it does go wrong"
I lean toward Side 2 - being "wrong" in this case simply means you spent more time and money. When Side 1 is wrong, you get this accident (or New Orleans).