We seem to be moving in a more worthwhile direction.
However,
the intention is to prevent somebody gaining a competitive advantage by operating dangerous wreckage
does not reflect reality (is that a kinder way of putting it?).
I suspect the the regulators would, if questioned, say that the intention is to ensure that a suitable minimum standard is assured and continues to be assured for the fare-paying passengers. As it happens, operating aircraft which are not maintained properly costs much, much, more than the alternative. This has been proven time and time again. Some companies prolong their death-throes by running up defects, but never for more than a year or so at most, and those that do, always go bust.
I'm not going to discuss what I do, here. The fact is I enjoy my work, and am blessed to have an enormously varied and challenging range of things to occupy me both in a lovely variety of flying machines and elsewhere. I look at the oppportunities that aviation has given me, and I am profoundly thankful for them and the fact that they continue. I genuinely believe that the state of the industry means that I am one of a breed of our time; our antecedants will not be so lucky.
'The price of everything and the value of nothing' is the poorest guiding principle in aviation.
As for
you can maintain to your standards
Yes, you can, provided that
are equal to or higher than those of
your regulator.
With regard to the
CAA-approved company ops manual
it's worth pointing out that the UK CAA does not
approve operations manuals (in fact, it approves a couple of small sections in them, but not the whole thing). The rest of the manual is finalised when the CAA ceases to raise objections. Some other regulators work differently.