> TDLR 10-20 years ago, the US started allowing maintenance of domestic planes in foreign countries, outside the reach of the FAA’s inspections

Foreign Repair Stations date back to the 90s [1], the thing is they need to be supervised by an FAA Certified Mechanic. Inspection of these was already a hot issue in the early '00s... No one gave a fuck, it was all about saving costs for a very long time.

The linked 2007 report's second page (!) already leads with this:

> Since 2001, eight commercial air carriers have gone through bankruptcy and one has ceased operations. Fuel prices remain high, and this makes cost control a key factor in both the sustained profitability and overall survival of an airline.

IMHO, this is a perfect example why the government needs to regulate prices in safety-critical industries. The "race to the bottom" must be prevented - sorry, flying NYC-SFO for 70$, that's not sustainable.

[1] https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/Web_File_Foreign...

▲

rkomorn 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> IMHO, this is a perfect example why the government needs to regulate prices in safety-critical industries. The "race to the bottom" must be prevented - sorry, flying NYC-SFO for 70$, that's not sustainable.

Are you saying higher prices would lead to better safety?

If so, I think it's optimistic to assume that would be the result, rather than just more profits.

I'm all for tighter regulations and enforcement on safety and maintenance, though.

▲

AnimalMuppet 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Super-low prices require razor-thin margins, which leads to cutting corners, which leads to worse safety.

▲

inglor_cz 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

IDK, Ryanair in Europe (an epitome of low-cost airline) has both decent margins and zero crashes. They once had a birdstrike, hardly caused by their ticket cost, and wrote off the hull (no fatalities); otherwise, nothing.

A lot depends on your overall marketing. The airline can make money on a "stupid tax", e.g. people who didn't check twice the max. allowed weight of their baggage and have to pay a 100 USD/EUR fee for that single extra pound. I have seen it more than once.

People being people, you can almost rely on this happening frequently enough.

▲

CamperBob2 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Statistics say otherwise. Flying was far more hazardous in the days before deregulation.

▲

rkomorn 17 hours ago | parent [-]

That may well be correlation and not causation.

The industry (edit: planes in particular) is also decades more mature, as is manufacturing in general.

	▲	CamperBob2 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, admittedly, there could still be a reason why the GP's opinion is right, even though the numbers don't back it up. It's hard to argue that deregulation made flying safer, because as you say there were a ton of other factors in play. However, it's impossible to argue that deregulation made flying more dangerous, as the GP believes, simply because flying didn't become more dangerous. Sure, maybe we'd be even safer in the air if price deregulation hadn't happened, but that requires an impressive amount of handwaving. Overall, the tradeoff seems to have worked out incredibly well for everyone. The only people who are really in a position to object would be climate researchers.

▲

mschuster91 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Are you saying higher prices would lead to better safety?

Higher prices and regulations.

With no floor on pricing, there will always be enough greedy executives who are willing to cut corners to make money in a ruthlessly competitive environment, fully knowing that it is very hard to prosecute a C-level executive personally.

The other possible result will be that eventually the market "agrees upon" a minimum price floor while being in compliance to regulations - but that usually means that the company will be as bare-stripped of assets and reserves as possible, which means in turn that the slightest external shock can (and will) send not just one but multiple companies crashing down hard. We've seen this with Covid - an economy that has optimized itself for decades on running as lean as possible is very sensitive to all sorts of external interruptions. Of course, that's not directly relevant to safety... but indirectly it is, as the inevitable result of that is an oligo-, duo- or monopoly and then, we've seen with Boeing where that ends, incentives aligned too much to cut corners.

▲

rkomorn 19 hours ago | parent [-]

I kiiinda see where you're coming from but I guess I just don't buy it, TBH.

I think greed is what's causing cut corners.

You mention Boeing, and they were quite healthily profitable during the entire time they were cutting corners on the 737 MAX. Airbus wasn't an existential threat. It still isn't, in fact, even after all the fallout.

▲

mrguyorama 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Okay, what possible fix for everpresent greed in US business management is there other than regulation and enforcement?

	▲	rkomorn 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Edit: I actually think I just don't get the gist of your question/comment. > I'm all for tighter regulations and enforcement on safety and maintenance, though. That's from my first comment in this thread. I'm not sure what part of my comments make you think you should ask me that question. What I'm arguing is against the notion that having minimum prices would fix said greed.

▲

ferguess_k 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The government should just set a higher safety standard and let the companies figure out the costs. Setting a floor price without proper regulation == companies doing the same bagging more $$ -- To be very frank, I would do that if I were the chairman of such companies -- either I do that or I'm madmen getting voted out of my position next year.

	▲	mschuster91 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The government should just set a higher safety standard and let the companies figure out the costs. The problem is, it doesn't work out that way. We lost enough people to that madness - as soon as hundreds, if not thousands (see 9/11) of lives are at stake, IMHO the effort to ensure compliance with standards is so massive, the government could (and should...) do the damn job itself.

▲

potato3732842 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>this is a perfect example why the government needs to regulate prices in safety-critical industries.

Aviation is one of the most regulated industries to the point where I've heard multiple aircraft maintenance people who don't know each other make quips to the tune of "we only cut the stupid corners because cutting the smart ones is illegal".

I'm not saying it should be less regulated but considering that the aircraft was maintained recently I wouldn't be surprised if some dumb "well you didn't say we couldn't do it" thing that isn't technically disallowed but should be covered under some broader "don't be stupid" rule was ultimately a causative factor.

▲

avalys 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is nonsense. Commercial aviation is already ridiculously, insanely safe and has been for decades. Your proposed solution would not have done anything to prevent the one major accident in the past 15 years of commercial aviation in the US, which was caused by a military helicopter pilot violating an ATC restriction in complex airspace, not a maintenance issue.

What evidence do you have that "NYC-SFO for $70" is not sustainable? From March 2009 to December 2024 years in the US, the fatality rate in commercial aviation was 0.4 per passenger-light-year. That's nearly 15 years of operation with the foreign repair stations that you are accusing of putting profits before safety.

This is, like, the most ridiculous industry possible to demand more regulation of.

	▲	mschuster91 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> This is, like, the most ridiculous industry possible to demand more regulation of. And yet, we got hundreds of people dead because Boeing by all accounts clearly isn't regulated enough - and cut corners because airlines wanted to maintain their pilot type ratings. This should not have happened, at all.