Yes. Regulations are worth the downsides when it's a matter of life and death. Plus it's already highly regulated, so being a little stricter is not going to mean noticeably higher fares.
The problem here is the regulatory body basically punted and let the company regulate themselves. Like that was going to work...
Strong disagree. There is always an economic tradeoff. Hypothetically going from 0.00001% chance of death to 0.000001% chance of death is not worth my ticket price going from $500 to $2000.
Also why I drive to work every day instead of some safer form of transportation.
It's a straw man. Reasonable regulations are not going to raise prices by 400%. That's absurd.
Nobody is saying regulate them to death. But maybe, just maybe, don't let the company themselves certify their own aircraft when it comes to matters of safety, required training, etc.
> Regulations are worth the downsides when it's a matter of life and death.
I am in disagreement specifically with this absolute quote.
Regulations may or may not be worth the downsides, even when they save lives. The economic costs matter and should be calculated and a reasonable tradeoff should be made.
You can't make a statement like that and then turn around and complain about my hypothetical 300% price increase for a 900% safety increase.
Regulation (Pre-1978) did mean much, much higher fares.
By 1990 alone inflation adjusted fares had fallen 30% since deregulation. They've fallen more since.
"Airline revenue per passenger mile has declined from an inflation-adjusted 33.3 cents in 1974, to 13 cents in the first half of 2010. In 1974 the cheapest round-trip New York-Los Angeles flight (in inflation-adjusted dollars) that regulators would allow: $1,442. Today one can fly that same route for $268." (https://www.bloomberg.com/businessweek/bwdaily/dnflash/conte...)
I think it would be a mistake to attribute all of those price changes to deregulation. Lot's of things have happened since then, including improvements in efficiency and technology, insane competition driving profit margins nearly to zero, removing lots of frills and comforts, increased automation (not in the plane as much as everywhere else in the process and org.) If you look at other regulatory environments you'll see similar price drops. I'm sure it was a factor to some extent though - but lower prices is not a good argument for playing fast and loose with human lives.
They aren't though. As I've stated in other comments, airline travel is incredibly safe. About 500x safer than driving.
This "life and death" talk is just tabloid sensationalism. The numbers don't support it, all. Airline travel is the safest means of transports that exists, or has ever existed, by quite a margin.
I agree, and I get how safe air travel is. But let's not underplay this either. We had two crashes with hundreds of fatalities because the regulator decided to let the fox watch the hen house. That's sad and avoidable.
The problem here is the regulatory body basically punted and let the company regulate themselves. Like that was going to work...