this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
75 points (97.5% liked)

Canada

7134 readers
369 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Regions

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Universities

πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social & Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
75
Airlines claim passenger safety at risk under new passenger rights rules (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 11 months ago by MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

"We want our pilots to be entirely free from any financial consideration when they take a safety-related decision," WestJet CEO Alexis von Hoensbroech said

Safety related delays and cancelations are not the problem. The airlines not having enough staff to fly the planes is the problem. Poor planning by the airlines is the problem. Lying and calling those YOU problems safety problems IS the ptoblem.

The loophole is allowing airlines to call any delay or cancellation a "safety issue" to deny passengerd compensation.

We pay for a an agreed service at an agreed time. If the airlines don't provide the service as and when described we should be compensated. The government is just closing a loophole that allows the airlines to decide how, when, and even if they are going to provide the service we paid for.Β 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nougat@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The chain of incentives is like this:

  • Add regulations which cause airlines to have to provide more compensation for delays and cancellations
  • Airline is incentivized to have fewer delays and cancellations than before
  • Airline pressures pilots more to minimize delays and cancellations
  • More planes with safety concerns take off than used to
  • More incidents occur

I don't know how to economically motivate an airline to reduce delays and cancellations and reduce safety-related incidents at the same time. Those two things seem mutually exclusive. It's like how soldiers beginning to wear metal helmets "caused" head injuries to increase. The extra head injuries would have been deaths. The extra delays and cancellations would have been safety-related incidents.

Penalizing airlines for delays and cancellations is like telling soldiers they're not allowed to wear metal helmets.

[–] jadero@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

Penalizing airlines for delays and cancellations is like telling soldiers they're not allowed to wear metal helmets.

I suppose it depends on how you define "penalization". I don't think a straight refund should be considered a penalty.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago

I feel like "Penalize them even harder for taking off an unsafe flight" is the obvious answer here?

Like, your analogy with the helmets doesn't really fit here, because that's an issue of survivor bias, but what we're talking about here is incentives.

It's only a problem if unsafe flights are the most profitable option. They don't have to be.