T101, Sully wasn't saying that, and neither are we. If you think his entire speech was about the safety implications of a single event bird strike on that particular day, then you maybe missed the whole point he was trying to make. The industry wide degradation of terms and conditions is just one of the symptoms of an even bigger problem.
The problem is that those who are responsible for implementing safety improvements are remunerated more in the form of a bonus if they don't implement the safety improvement, simply because safety costs money. Think about it, when was the last time you can remember a safety enhancing system or procedure that was introduced and paid for that wasn't legislated by one of the countries we fly to, and a requirement imposed my them, or something that the manufacturers had to implement themselves, in the form of an 'extra' included in orders or something that they were pressured into by the unions, public or other operators? Scratching your head? Now try and think of an example of where management actively set out to reduce safety in a blatant effort to increase profits? Both their own personal remuneration and that of the 'group'? I mentioned 3 recent ones in my previous post. This is what Sully is actively and openly referring to.
Stupidity is expecting managers to improve safety (ie spend money in a way that can not be statistically quantified to accountants) when their own remuneration is derived by them not spending the money. This is the ultimate source of the problem. Think of the childhood game "kerplunk". Needles are pulled out of a cylinder, and marbles sit above these needles. The aim of the game is to pull as many needles out, before the marbles fall. Management get to play this game blind folded. They get a bonus for each needle they pull out, but they don't know how many marbles are balanced precariously above the needle they are pulling on. The inevitable hull loss you mention becomes more inevitable while this fundamentally flawed system remains in place.