Nick
You don't have to agree, because we aren't asking for a vote, just the facts
I respect everyone's opinion and my was another one's opinion and not a vote.
I agree the 139 pays a price for having higher safety.
The S-92 is full Cat A from a rig with full pax and fuel for about 300 NM with reserves
When you say such things, you also know that this statement itself does not mean anything. As I already stated, you should specify in what ambient conditions you can do that, helicopters do not limit themselvs to Sea Level and ISA conditions.
But the point remains that all those extra dollars could be spent actually making our ops safer, not reducing an already negligible risk exposure to almost zero
Assume you have to fly with an arliner that offers two fares.
Fare A for Airplane A; $1000.00
Fare B for Airplane B; $800.00
You ask what is the difference between them and you are told that Fare A gives you 100% safety during T.O. and Landings.
Fare B offer a reduced safety but only in a limited time of your flight. If during this time you have an engine failure, you CRASH. But do not warry, it is a very limited time of your flight during which this could happen.
What are the percentage of people that will choose Fare A and what are the ones for Fare B?
I wolud never go for Fare B, even if it is more expensive.