Sometimes businesses end up on the wrong side of that bet. They see only the costs but not the benefits of preparedness (by the time it fails, there will probably be a different CEO in charge) and make a bad call.
The airline industry feels like one where each year it's a different carrier who has some catastrophic scheduling failure. Today, everyone says they're never flying Southwest again. But if you fly semi-regularly then it won't take very long before you don't have any airlines left to fly on.
For people who weren't affected, I doubt very many are even going to remember this. Personally, I remember that this kind of thing has happened recently with other carriers but I couldn't even tell you who.
And people who were affected can mostly be bought off if you need to. Some vouchers & hotel reimbursement and it's just the cost of doing business.
Plus, the airline industry has proven over and over that people are willing to put up with a lot when you have the cheapest prices.
It's different from an industry that's built on reputation and trust. Like, a password manager, the only real thing you're selling is your reputation. Losing trust is a real existential threat. Security costs need to be in the bucket of either "yes, we will do it" or "it's so expensive that if we do it then we don't have a business anyway, so we'll skip it and pray."
I think reputation impacts in this industry from anything other than crashes don't hold much staying power.
I'm actually quite tempted to buy the SWA dip...
Meh, it doesn't even have to be "never". It just has to be cost multiplied by frequency is less than the cost to prepare.
If they lose $100m every five years due to a system failure, and it would cost $30m/year to plan for those failures, they it's just cheaper to let it happen.
And I don't mean this in a judgmental, Fight Club-car recall speech kind of way. It's just business reality. At some point every business has to decide that the cost of planning for something is higher than the cost of letting it happen.