Yea, you’re probably right. I guess I was overestimating the Risk-Reward calculation they go through. Like, if it doesn’t cost much to be compliant (schedule already accounts for inspections, crews are already on salary) then they would be less willing to risk regulatory consequences. But as soon as it starts to cost them more to do so, compliance becomes “nice to have” and not a standard. Recent incidents suggest they have already been skipping steps, so I concede.
Every recent flight delay I’ve experienced was due to mechanical issues or flight crew availability (scheduled crew was delayed on another flight, available crews had or would exceed mandatory hours limit, etc). As frustrating as these are, I’m not sure I want the decision-makers thinking “Gee, this delay will cost us thousands of dollars. Fuck it, send the flight!”. These mechanical checks and crew hour limits are there for a reason. And let’s be honest, regulations are only as good as the enforcement. This may not necessarily be a good change for consumers.
It is a weird take. There were stories after 9/11 about Sirius the K-9 patrol dog that died in the attacks, but no one was claiming this coverage meant that the dog’s life was more important than the many human lives lost. After the initial reporting on the actual events, journalists very often turn to interest stories about very specific aspects and effects of the event. Like, almost every time a major catastrophe happens.
Biden: “No line has been crossed” (turns to aide: “Quick, remove all lines in Rafah now!”)