Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by londons_explore 1095 days ago
Thing is... The CEO is aboard the missing submersible. That same CEO who presumably wouldn't pay for a proper window...

This wasn't only a case of a CEO putting other lives at risk for profits... This was a case of a CEO putting his own life on the line for profits he will likely never see...

3 comments

I may be wrong here, but I think there is a regulation that prevents the owner of an airline from piloting the planes of their own airline. It might create a conflict of interest between saving money and being cautious.

This is not only a theoretical risk. It happened. A Brazilian soccer team, Chapecoense, hired a private airliner to get them from Bolivia to Colombia. Due to some bad luck, airport closing hours and whatnot, the flight plan had to be changed and the plane was fueled below what the regulations required. They were getting close to the destination airport when they got a low fuel warning. More bad luck and in the airport of the destination the flight control asked their flight to wait while another plane had priority in landing.

There were alternatives to redirect the flight or request priority to land, which they only requested when it was too late and the plane crashed due to fuel exhaustion. 71 of 77 people in the plane died in the crash, including the pilot.

The pilot was also the co-owner of the airline, so there is room to speculate that he didn't want to promptly admit to be low on fuel and require priority to land, or divert to another airport when the low-fuel warning appeared, because he would have to admit that he fueled below what the regulations asked. He could face the consequences, like a fine or losing his license.

I might forgot or misunderstood something, but more details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaMia_Flight_2933

The simple solution to this specific problem is to spot check planes when they land for how much fuel they have left.

Fine anyone who has nearly run out upon landing.

That is already done. Similarly, anyone who requests priority landing because of low fuel will be investigated as a matter of cause.
> This was a case of a CEO putting his own life on the line for profits he will likely never see...

At least he put his money where his mouth was. Or rather didn’t put his money, but you know what I mean.

He still killed other people, and fired the only guy who got it right, denying him revenue and pension and health insurance.
Revenues are modest in the submarine sinking business
I didn’t mean to say he’s a good guy, just that it’s one step up from others who make others take the risks at no cost to themselves. You know, face I win tails you lose kind of thing. But yeah, still reckless and irresponsible.
You mean: He put his ass where his mouth was...?
He put his ass where his money wasn't.
I mean, at those pressures, yeah.
I suppose that to be a CEO in that kind of business you have to have a faulty understanding of risk.
CEOs sniff their own abysmally stupid farts all the time. When trying to sell something, the first person you have to trick is yourself, but that does NOT indemnify them for harming others. Getting people killed because you are too stupid to understand basic risk concepts shouldn't be acceptable.

Power should come with responsibility and accountability ESPECIALLY if you are not responsible or accountable.

"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

"Please don't fulminate."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Is CEO a protected class now?
I'm not saying you owe CEOs better, but that you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
It seems like the CEO here did pay the ultimate price of responsibility and accountability.
There's gotta be a middle ground between doing whatever with no repercussions and literally dying by your own stupidity.