Originally Posted by
oblivia
The constant reference to "beancounters" as a threat to airline safety is a bit fanciful. It's not the accountants' fault if safety standards are insufficient.
If there are failings (the evidence isn't convincing) then the problem is regulation and enforcement. From food to finance, we have seen constant pressure on funding to regulators during the past few decades (not to mention the busting of unions). It wasn't beancounters who did this — it was right-wing ideologues.
The major problem in aviation is that often the people paying are not the ones that benefit. So if the AT Service provider upgrades its equipment at a cost, the airlines benefit not the ATSP. If the airlines equip with ADS then the ATSP need not maintain heavy primary radar, the aircraft see little benefit unless the airspace concepts of operations are changed.
In consequence, the accountants do not see any ROI
for their area in what is being suggested and advise strongly against the proposals. As someone said upthread - in reality money always comes before safety its pointless spending so much money that the airline fails. The result is that the use of ROI for some aviation aspects has to be trumped by mandate from the authorities. The accountants (aka beancounters) will then look around for savings and an easy area is training. This is why highly automated aircraft were sold based on the reduction in training. It is why there is pressure for unmanned or single manned aircraft.