In a competitive industry saving money can mean lower fares for customers. It can also mean fewer total planes or engines produced reducing environmental side effects of that activity.

It can mean those things, yes, but only as side-effects. The primary effect being to increase shareholder value.

There’s no need to have market based competition to keep costs down. Look at USPS for example. That operation is run without a profit motive, serves literally every zip code in the US (by definition), and runs healthily year after year (except for the part where Congress imposed arbitrary pension funding requirements[1] and private capital interests have been chomping at the bit to buy up all the real-estate holdings).

They also don’t have UPS’s problem of not putting AC in their delivery vehicles.

[1] https://ips-dc.org/how-congress-manufactured-a-postal-crisis...

It doesn't matter if you used full power on every takeoff, if you rotate early, you rotate early. Vr is based on weight (and other factors).

Less fuel is better for the environment. That should be counterbalanced with safety, which they did - even with a bug and a heavy plane the plane still took off safely.

This means they are also leaving a safety margin of fuel, even though that costs extra money.

A tail strike is not a safe takeoff! That nothing happened doesn't mean there was no danger.

I mean yes, would you rather flights are $10,000 or $100,000 each so the engines are taken apart and rebuilt each time after a flight? Reducing the maintenance interval requirements 'safely' is good for everyone.

Let's reduce the intervals even further so flights are only $10 then, right?

If we could do it safely, then it would be stupid not to.

I don't see how this is an example of that? Saving fuel and reducing wear on the parts is a good thing. In this case, nobody's lives were in danger either.

Calculating the appropriate amount of liftoff thrust based on the weight of the plane is universal for flight ops.

This feature of capitalism caused the money to be invested to achieve this efficiency, and also the systems and processes in place to ensure it was implemented properly; with sanity checks, authoritative oversight to halt ops when something was determined to be off, manual backup systems in place and well trained on, a fix rapidly deployed, and new testing put in place to detect any similar bugs in the future.

Yes indeed the stench of capitalism is strong here! </s>

I’m not sure that thrust calculation is actually incredibly common. I’d be curious what the handbook on these aircraft say, but common practice for many aircraft is full thrust on takeoff - rarely is there a negative safety penalty for too much thrust. Just an earlier rotate.

Comment OP isn’t wrong entirely - this is the result of an economic decision. Not without it’s good effects - both can be true, but this is not a safety optimization by any means.

Many aviation accidents can be traced back to capitalistic pressure - cost saving on inspections, time saving for flow, etc. It’s appropriate to ask whether this is true here as well.

“Common practice for many aircraft is full thrust on takeoff” - not for the class of aircraft we are discussing. What hobbyists do on their Turbo Props is irrelevant to the operation of a 737.

There are many considerations to setting takeoff thrust like climb speed limits, tire speed limits, elevation, temperature, engine-out safety margins, and many more I’m sure I don’t know about with my limited flight knowledge.

This is before we get into discussing weight load, which is primarily a factor of fuel load, which is also not just filled to 100% for every flight, but carefully calculated based on distance, weight, wind speed, etc. to not carry unnecessary fuel, which is also a huge efficiency boost.

In short there are safety reasons to use the appropriate (non-maximum) thrust on these types of planes just as much as there are efficiency reasons.

Capitalistic market forces are a big reason we have such an amazing airline industry with planes that are technological marvels of comfort, speed, and efficiency. Capitalism drove 120 years of relentless R&D into commercial flight systems, from the very first flight in 1903.

Not paying for necessary safety inspections is not “capitalistic” in any way. It seems like an ideological battle to use the term that way.

> feature of capitalism

Software to optimize resource usage while providing a service => blame capitalism is che-guevara-tshirt-edgelord level of inane.

The ad hominem attack isn't appreciated, you need to do better especially if you're going to sincerely defend the virtues of your economic beliefs.

You think it would be more ideal to wear out engines sooner and burn more fossil fuels?

If efficiency is the curse capitalism brings us, I’m feeling a little better about it.

If efficiency is the goal, packing people into a standing-only flight would also save fuel and reduce wear, I suppose you don't see any problem with that either?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/feb/28/ryanair-sta...

Are you saying that unless I’m willing to travel in uncomfortable conditions, you see no reason to reduce environmental impact of flights?

You’re trolling, right? That seems like a really implausible world view.

That’s a feature of engineering. Figuring out what performance and safety requirements are and then optimizing the resources required to meet those requirements is what engineering is for.

The influence of capitalism would be on the requirements. But assuming the requirements are well-considered trying to minimize fuel and engine usage to meet those requirements is a good thing.

I think this is pretty subjective. You could also say that engineering should be used to increase the margin of safety (what is often labeled over-engineering).

If the engineering requirement is “do something that brings you close to the margin of safety in order to save resources”, is that not an influence of capitalism?

No, again the decision on where to draw the line is a political decision. It’s produced by humans making values decisions. There’s no absence of risk situations so there are always trade offs.

How to hit that line precisely and with confidence is where engineering takes over.

Any fool can build a bridge. You need an engineer to build a bridge that can barely stand.

All I can say about the other commenters is – let them cook. They’ll understand eventually.