BYU scholar finds safety risk highest when airlines are closer to financial targets

[Hartington]

Hmmm....

A new statistical analysis by a Brigham Young University business scholar has found that the closer an airline comes to meeting its financial targets, the more likely it is to crash a plane. Yet as profitability increases beyond expectations, the accident rate goes down, confounding the notion that airlines trade safety for profits.

continues at:

BYU scholar finds safety risk highest when airlines are closer to financial targets | The Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53193506-78/safety-airlines-madsen-profitability.html.csp)

[ExXB]

... but since all crashes are not caused by trading safety for profits, such as weather, pilot error, maintenance issues not related to cost etc., this conclusion is not sustainable.

In fact I can't recall any incident related specifically to trading safety for profits.

[MathFox]

In fact I can't recall any incident related specifically to trading safety for profits.

The study only shows a particular correlation between incidents and financial targets. One explanation would be that pilots (and other employees) are encouraged to err a little bit more (7 or 10%) on the side of revenue instead of safety when financial results are close to target. It is not as pronounced as pilots being forced to fly, it is a more subtle attitude change.

[Rwy in Sight]

ExXB,

I would say that the Aloha convertible and the Alaska MD90 in Southern California would have been avoided if maintenance was not to trying to make shortcuts.

[ExXB]

Sorry, I don't agree in either the aloha or Alaska incidents. In Aloha's case the corrosion could have been detected if they had tested beyond the mandated minimum required, but they were in compliance with the then existing regulations.

In AS's case the lubricating grease they used, which proved to be the root cause of the incident, was actually more expensive than that that should have been used.

[Rwy in Sight]

Thanks for the corrections. I would keep looking because it seems so probable.

Happy 2012.

Rwy in Sight

[ExXB]

About 5 years ago I was given the task of searching for such incidents. The closest I could find was the AA DC10 incident at ORD. The maintenance people were using a fork-lift to assist in removing engines to save time (and therefore money), but I was unable to find any policy or instruction to 'cut costs'. There were other factors in that incident as well.

[Di_Vosh]

Qantas at BKK springs to mind

Contributing factor being the directive to flight crew to minimise the use of reverse thrust on landing.

DIVOSH!

[PAXboy]

Of course, one of the problems created by modern management is that they don't give specific instructions. they just create an atmosphere where things can be done in a different way.

The best example is the 2011 breaking of the phone hacking by Murdoch (and other) newspapers. It seems (at this stage of the investigation) that there is no smoking gun. No one was told to hack phones but people have stated that they knew that was what was wanted. Given that, as it was being done, the mgmt did not stop it ...

That is the problem and you will not track it down to clear instructions because clear instructions can be tracked back. If the rules are unchanged but practise HAS changed - when it all goes wrong, then the boss can point to the person who broke the (still standing) rules. :hmm:

On the above example of reverse at BKK. One can readily imagine the mgmt saying: "Yes, we did say to keep use of reverse thrust to a minimum to save engine wear BUT we did not say to do so to the point where you ran off the end of the pavement."

Simples.

[Shell Management]

Sadly most airlines do the minimum to comply because of the industry's well established tombstone mentality:mad: BUT the sometime the most profitable do at least convert some of the profit into an INVESTMENT in safety:)