"They only want 'good enough', and that won't last long either". He reckoned the beancounters had figured that as long as the accident rate stayed below 1 per 10 million flight hours (which is about what it is now for commuter airlines), the increasing safety of the aircraft meant that money could be saved by hiring dumber pilots (and not training them, etc). The public/media seem to accept a an accident rate of 1 in 10 million, i.e. this rate does not cause people not to fly in significant numbers.
But an this incident like Asiana, does it not have a fairly lasting effect on the bottom line? Compensations apart, does it hurt operating revenues?
Or not? Maybe, the flying public is forgetful enough and price sensitive enough that a few $$ shaved off the ticket price will still get Asiana full planes?
Wonder how deep are the effects of a crash on an airlines revenues?
Beancounters may not fund safety for safety's sake, but they will respond to bleeding bottomlines like a hornet bit 'em. What gives?