[drstewart]

>The integrity of engineering excellence should never be sacrificed for profit and/or conveniency in places where it involves human lives.

That's just unrealistic. Unless you want plane and car rides to cost as much as a trip to space, after all, since everything would need to be engineered to that level of quality.

[rmrfrmrf]

I continue to be fascinated with consumers who assume the role of shareholder in times of crisis, even against their own interests.

[traek]

Affordable air travel is in most people's interests.

[objektif]

Safe travel surprasses affordable for ALL customers not most.

[lovemenot]

Neither safe nor affordable are booleans. They are on a scale, and a dependency exists between them.

Anybody may have a different judgement with respect to exactly where on the scale is appropriate, but we cannot just pretend that there's no trade-off to be made. Or that absolute safety is even a possibility.

[CamperBob2]

It's pretty freaking safe, isn't it? We've literally had zero-fatality years in the US. That doesn't happen through good luck alone. Clearly the manufacturers, regulators, and operators are doing almost everything right.

[tomp]

Then why do people still drive (i.e. use cars)?

[objektif]

Because they think it is safe.

[ionised]

'most people' don't fly at all

[Stryder]

Finish reading first, and then spend some time thinking before responding.

I said: "Accidents are one thing; incompetency or, worse yet, callous indifference is absolutely unacceptable."

[ddalex]

Or you could fly Airbus.

[drstewart]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...

[Cyph0n]

Talk about a strawman, mate.