William J. McGee the consumer advocate on the Department of Transportations Future of Aviation Advisory Committee wrote a column in the New York Times last month lamenting Congress cut in the FAA budget saying A $4 billion cut will necessarily reduce the work force further. And its hard to imagine this will not diminish safety. Mr. McGee suggests there will be shortcuts in aircraft maintenance.
Here are a few facts and then a question. Each Boeing 747 costs $317 million a 777 goes for $284 million and a 737 sells for $80 million. Airbus giant 555-passenger A380 sells for $375 million. Heres a true or false statement: If it werent for the FAA airline company CEOs would not take the necessary measures to ensure that their aircraft took off and landed safely.
Id say the statement is false. Even if CEOs didnt give a hoot about passengers Im betting that they do care without FAA edicts whether billions of dollars worth of aircraft land and take off safely and they will spend enough on maintenance to ensure that.
Mr. McGee might say that without the FAA mandates airlines would spend less on safety. Whether we acknowledge it or not there is such a thing as being too safe as well as being not safe enough. Typically its only the effects of not being safe enough that are visible. There are the crashes injuries and fatalities.
The effects of being over-safe are less visible. They are revealed when we recognize that too many safety measures such as unnecessary maintenance early parts replacement and inspections costs money. If airline companies are to remain profitable and in business passenger fares must reflect such costs. Because of higher fares some families will opt to drive to their destination. Highway travel is not nearly as safe as air travel. Therefore some highway fatalities might occur because higher fares have forced people to drive instead of fly.
Witnessing a highway fatality few would attribute it to FAA edicts. By the way FAA officials have an incentive to err on the side of being over-safe because the victims of their policy are invisible and the agency suffers no public embarrassment and blame.
Speaking of safety too many of us buy into the notions like You can never be too safe and If it will save one life its worth it. Lets put this in perspective. Theres a non-zero probability that your automobiles hydraulic brake system has a just-about-ready-to-fracture crack that could cause a serious accident that could be easily prevented by a routine daily inspection. Yet how many of us bother to inspect our cars brake lines before we start the engine and head off to work? Doing so would be safer than simply assuming that the lines were intact. After all NASA doesnt act so irresponsibly. Prior to launch they make no safety assumptions. They go through a detailed inspection of all systems taking nothing for granted. As far as our cars are concerned we decide that such a level of safety is not worth it.
How about the frequently heard claim If it will save just one life its worth it? As a generality it too is nonsense. According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 33808 people died in car crashes in 2009. Im guessing that if Congress would mandate and enforce a 5 or 10 mph speed limit at least 30000 American lives would be saved. How many people would support such a mandate?
Williams you say thats a ridiculous and impractical proposal! Id agree but put it more truthfully though politically incorrect. People wouldnt support such a congressional mandate because those 30000 lives that would be saved just arent worth all the inconvenience and costs we have to bear by having to drive at 5 or 10 mph.
Columnist Walter E. Williams is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate.
William J. McGee the consumer advocate on the Department of Transportations Future of Aviation Advisory Committee wrote a column in the New York Times last month lamenting Congress cut in the FAA budget saying A $4 billion cut will necessarily reduce the work force further. And its hard to imagine this will not diminish safety. Mr. McGee suggests there will be shortcuts in aircraft maintenance.
Here are a few facts and then a question. Each Boeing 747 costs $317 million a 777 goes for $284 million and a 737 sells for $80 million. Airbus giant 555-passenger A380 sells for $375 million. Heres a true or false statement: If it werent for the FAA airline company CEOs would not take the necessary measures to ensure that their aircraft took off and landed safely.
Id say the statement is false. Even if CEOs didnt give a hoot about passengers Im betting that they do care without FAA edicts whether billions of dollars worth of aircraft land and take off safely and they will spend enough on maintenance to ensure that.
Mr. McGee might say that without the FAA mandates airlines would spend less on safety. Whether we acknowledge it or not there is such a thing as being too safe as well as being not safe enough. Typically its only the effects of not being safe enough that are visible. There are the crashes injuries and fatalities.
The effects of being over-safe are less visible. They are revealed when we recognize that too many safety measures such as unnecessary maintenance early parts replacement and inspections costs money. If airline companies are to remain profitable and in business passenger fares must reflect such costs. Because of higher fares some families will opt to drive to their destination. Highway travel is not nearly as safe as air travel. Therefore some highway fatalities might occur because higher fares have forced people to drive instead of fly.
Witnessing a highway fatality few would attribute it to FAA edicts. By the way FAA officials have an incentive to err on the side of being over-safe because the victims of their policy are invisible and the agency suffers no public embarrassment and blame.
Speaking of safety too many of us buy into the notions like You can never be too safe and If it will save one life its worth it. Lets put this in perspective. Theres a non-zero probability that your automobiles hydraulic brake system has a just-about-ready-to-fracture crack that could cause a serious accident that could be easily prevented by a routine daily inspection. Yet how many of us bother to inspect our cars brake lines before we start the engine and head off to work? Doing so would be safer than simply assuming that the lines were intact. After all NASA doesnt act so irresponsibly. Prior to launch they make no safety assumptions. They go through a detailed inspection of all systems taking nothing for granted. As far as our cars are concerned we decide that such a level of safety is not worth it.
How about the frequently heard claim If it will save just one life its worth it? As a generality it too is nonsense. According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 33808 people died in car crashes in 2009. Im guessing that if Congress would mandate and enforce a 5 or 10 mph speed limit at least 30000 American lives would be saved. How many people would support such a mandate?
Williams you say thats a ridiculous and impractical proposal! Id agree but put it more truthfully though politically incorrect. People wouldnt support such a congressional mandate because those 30000 lives that would be saved just arent worth all the inconvenience and costs we have to bear by having to drive at 5 or 10 mph.
Columnist Walter E. Williams is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate.
