zlacker

>>jnsaff+(OP)
The AVHerald is usually the best source for these things, rather than MSM: https://avherald.com/h?article=52f5748f&opt=0

> Ground observers reported the aircraft had been delayed for about two hours for work on the left hand engine (engine #1), the engine #1 separated during the takeoff run, the center engine emitted streaks of flames, the aircraft impacted a UPS warehouse and ploughed through other facilities before coming to rest in a large plume of fire and smoke.

>>cjrp+M61
This is likely relevant

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/airplane-maintenance...

TDLR 10-20 years ago, the US started allowing maintenance of domestic planes in foreign countries, outside the reach of the FAA’s inspections

>>chaost+is1
> TDLR 10-20 years ago, the US started allowing maintenance of domestic planes in foreign countries, outside the reach of the FAA’s inspections

Foreign Repair Stations date back to the 90s [1], the thing is they need to be supervised by an FAA Certified Mechanic. Inspection of these was already a hot issue in the early '00s... No one gave a fuck, it was all about saving costs for a very long time.

The linked 2007 report's second page (!) already leads with this:

> Since 2001, eight commercial air carriers have gone through bankruptcy and one has ceased operations. Fuel prices remain high, and this makes cost control a key factor in both the sustained profitability and overall survival of an airline.

IMHO, this is a perfect example why the government needs to regulate prices in safety-critical industries. The "race to the bottom" must be prevented - sorry, flying NYC-SFO for 70$, that's not sustainable.

[1] https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/Web_File_Foreign...

>>mschus+BK1
> IMHO, this is a perfect example why the government needs to regulate prices in safety-critical industries. The "race to the bottom" must be prevented - sorry, flying NYC-SFO for 70$, that's not sustainable.

Are you saying higher prices would lead to better safety?

If so, I think it's optimistic to assume that would be the result, rather than just more profits.

I'm all for tighter regulations and enforcement on safety and maintenance, though.

>>rkomor+EM1
Super-low prices require razor-thin margins, which leads to cutting corners, which leads to worse safety.

>>Animal+ub2
Statistics say otherwise. Flying was far more hazardous in the days before deregulation.

>>Camper+Gd2
That may well be correlation and not causation.

The industry (edit: planes in particular) is also decades more mature, as is manufacturing in general.

>>rkomor+1e2
Yes, admittedly, there could still be a reason why the GP's opinion is right, even though the numbers don't back it up. It's hard to argue that deregulation made flying safer, because as you say there were a ton of other factors in play.

However, it's impossible to argue that deregulation made flying more dangerous, as the GP believes, simply because flying didn't become more dangerous. Sure, maybe we'd be even safer in the air if price deregulation hadn't happened, but that requires an impressive amount of handwaving. Overall, the tradeoff seems to have worked out incredibly well for everyone. The only people who are really in a position to object would be climate researchers.