The only thing silly is comparing the construction industry to the airline industry. Construction is pretty notorious for openly encouraging unsafe work environments, airlines are not.

Airlines are much more tightly bound by the FAA than any construction company is to any regulatory agency. Airlines have to get permission to let their pilots read documents off an iPad instead of paper, for example. It just isn't a good comparison to compare the most safety aware industry on earth to one famous for ignoring safety rules.

I've worked construction. I have a pilots license in multiple countries (including the US). They aren't the same.

▲

cucumber3732842 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Pilot gets more veto power than the crane guy who gets more veto power than the residential concrete crew but they all still get talked to if they can't get their jobs done.

I didn't say the same. I said the pressure was probably there too. But you can construe it as the former because that's a way easier thing to argue with.

▲

dghlsakjg 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Fair enough.

I assume that since the NTSB database makes every single incident investigation public you can point to at least one instance where an ATP was pressured into avoiding a go around?

	▲	twisteriffic 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I mean... The problem is common enough that there are industry specific terms to describe it. Go search that database for "commercial pressure" and I'm certain you'll find what your sealioning self is demanding from everyone else.

▲

wbl an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

There is one thing an airline never wants to have happen and it is a fatal accident. Everything else is secondary. Having one caused by corporate policy would lead to mass exodus of passengers.