[matt4077]

They have grounded aircraft before, so we know they aren't inherently opposed to that.

I would tend to trust the FAA, given the rather impressive track record of aviation. The difference from "Oh, the humanity!" to today, where North America and Europe have entire years without fatalities is astonishing. It's even more impressive considering passenger-miles/p.a. increased by something like 3 or 4 orders of magnitude.

So it would seem that the FAA is doing a rather good job with these decisions. And "not considering airlines as stakeholders" may sound sensible, but is actually a phrase devoid of meaning: If you want to consider safety only, you or I or the Russians could come up with the trivial (and only correct) solution, which is to ban air travel.

Having flown with regional carriers in Russia during my (and their) wild times in the 90s also makes your praise of their processes suspicious of being parody. I personally saw a pilot take a sip from a suspiciously small bottle of clear liquid. But my seat neighbour reassured me: If you think it's dangerous to fly with a drunk pilot, you should see the way he flies when he's sober!

[sokoloff]

> If you want to consider safety only, you or I or the Russians could come up with the trivial (and only correct) solution, which is to ban air travel.

This would be a safety failure. Banning air travel is overwhelmingly likely to increase transport fatalities. It would decrease air travel fatalities, but would not represent an increase in safety.

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) supported the FAA's decision [to not require tickets for pax under 2 years old] based on current FAA and NHTSA studies that show a mandate could result in another 13 to 42 added family member fatalities over 10 years in highway accidents." - [0]

[0] - https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?conte...