So the standard of accommodation has no impact on the quality of rest, and the quality of rest has no impact on safety.
Of course it does, Leady, and I never suggested otherwise. It is the only safety-related aspect that can be argued to be relevant to the letter, whereas Sunfish's supposition that the COO's letter has ruled Company loyalty over safety and "takes precedence over everything else" is not supported by anything that is written.
By all means take a COO to task and I would be at the front of the queue when arguing against a direct call to overrule safety for the sake of Company loyalty but I'd be damned sure that was what was actually said and, in this case, it wasn't and certainly did not constitute "a direct and unabashed call by the chief operating officer to put the interests of the company ahead of the safety interests of the paying passengers as laid out by the legislation and regulations."