>Companies won't do that unless forced to by regulations.

Even if you were to take a cyncical view that companies don't care about people, they sure as heck would not want to lose a $300 million plane.

I'm not arguing against the utility of regulations. I'm saying don't overstate it.

Companies don't care about people, for one and for two, the problem is that safety is one of those things that companies will gladly brush right against the edge of for the sake of profits.

To draw a point of comparison many companies know that their infrastructure is vulnerable to hacking or data leaks. The reason why they don't fix the problem in the first place is because they've ran the cost analysis and realized that the cost of securing their system is more than the potential ramifications of losing customer data.

> Even if you were to take a cyncical view that companies don't care about people, they sure as heck would not want to lose a $300 million plane.

If safety didn't matter, you might have $200 million planes with a 3% chance of crashing during their service life.

Nobody 'wants' to lose equipment, but optimizing for zero crashes ever is not done for cost reasons.