Why we can't stop birds downing aircraft

Re:Why we can't stop birds downing aircraft by wheels on Saturday January 17, 2009 @09:51AM (#438109)

Hmm, we're operating with opposite assumptions then. The only reason that I remember that Qantas has had zero crashes is that it was on Rainman when his brother couldn't believe how stubborn he was being. Other than that, I'd honestly be more likely to make a choice based on a $50 difference and if I remember how good the food on a given carrier is and how long the checkin lines are.

This might be less true of those who don't fly often for whom it's a big deal, but I'd guesstimate business travelers care less.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why we can't stop birds downing aircraft by sokoloff on Saturday January 17, 2009 @11:36AM (#438217)

That's because you can make rational judgments about what's important to you, and have a feel for the insignificance of 0.5% delta in accident rate. (IOW, I agree with you, but I don't think that most airline ticket purchasers agree with either of us.)

If you say to Joe Public "this airline is 0.5% more likely to have a crash than the one that's $50 less; which one do you want your family to fly?", I doubt many people can easily say "Oh, the cheaper one is preferable." They may arrive there after some agony, but to instinctively know that an extra 1 in 200 on something that's already 1 in 3 million or so is not economically justified on an EV basis. (You'd have to value your life at $30 billion dollars for there to be an EV equivalence between those two choices.)

Nonetheless, I predict many more people would find ease in deciding to take "the safer, more expensive airline" than would find ease in taking "the less safe, but cheaper airline" for their family travel.

[ Parent | on HN ]