In any case, not being a „budget“ airline that has to cut such costs would seem to fit rather well with my argument that Ethopian is not some gravel-airstrip bush operation flying leftover Sowiet machinery.
just wanted to say I appreciate the imagery. this is exactly how I interpreted US media to be framing Ethiopian
My issue is that a 'safety rating' based on an optional certification is being used to compare airlines as more/less safe.
Why not stick to what I believe to be the universal measures of EU allowed, FAA endorsed and ICAO country audit.
In a wild application of signaling theory, certification may even be a useful signal without regard to the actual substance of that certification, as long as it is expensive. Just like a peacock shows his abundance of resources by wasting some of them on jazzy plumage.[0]
I think you’re sort of sympathizing with the airlines here, who are somewhat pressured into spending that, from their perspective, is wasteful: after all, they know they are doing all that stuff they are getting certified for.
I would say (a) don’t anthromorphize corporations—they may be people, but not ones deserving sympathy. And, (b), certification schemes are one of the many often disregarded frictional costs of a market economy. They are unnecessary only in a mythical benevolent economic system that has so far eluded us.
[0] also a good reason to justify flying only with airlines that offer free peanuts.
The airlines you mention score lower on 'Safety Rating' due to lack of IOSA certification.
"Registering for IOSA certification and auditing is not mandatory therefore an airline that does not have IOSA certification may have either failed the IOSA audit or alternatively chosen not to participate."
For a budget airline I can see them not participating for cost reasons. Does this make them less safe?