They want to avoid the following situation. X% of the time a plane crashes and costs $Y. It costs $Z to cancel/delay a flight due to penalties and compensation. $Z > X% of $Y, therefore fly the unsafe flight. So they lower $Y in the case that it's a safety issue to save lives.
Who are "they"and why would "they" want to do that? Asking because flying passengers on unsafe planes is already illegal.
They are the Canadian government and they want to do that because keeping their citizens alive is part of their job.
I believe the analysis. Here in Canada, the government passed a law not that long ago (during the pandemic) to enshrine rights of passengers for delayed and cancelled flights, which included right to specific amounts of monetary compensation in those scenarios. The law, however, had an exception, where no compensation is due if the flight is delayed or cancelled due to a safety issue. Lo and behold, the airlines have…
The law, however, had an exception, where no compensation is due if the flight is delayed or cancelled due to a safety issue. This makes no sense at all. If I order a pizza and it doesn't show up the reason it doesn't show up is completely irrelevant; they still owe me my money back.
We accidentally dropped a screw in your pizza and had to cancel it as a safety issue. Sorry, no refunds. Brilliant!
I believe the analysis. Here in Canada, the government passed a law not that long ago (during the pandemic) to enshrine rights of passengers for delayed and cancelled flights, which included right to specific amounts of monetary compensation in those scenarios. The law, however, had an exception, where no compensation is due if the flight is delayed or cancelled due to a safety issue. Lo and behold, the airlines have…
That's interesting. At first glance, a safety issue looks plausible. But if it turns out someone is playing business optimization games with safety issues, by consciously creating the safety issues, with the intention of using them to get out of some other regulatory compliance... that doesn't sound in the spirit of the aviation safety programs. In the US, I suspect that pretty much any personnel who observed this co…
It's likely that there just isn't any legal oversight. They made this loophole, but there are intentionally no provisions to ensure it isn't abused. This is something that would need to be legislated again, but if they screwed up this badly this time (on purpose), I doubt that'll ever happen.
They want to avoid the following situation. X% of the time a plane crashes and costs $Y. It costs $Z to cancel/delay a flight due to penalties and compensation. $Z > X% of $Y, therefore fly the unsafe flight. So they lower $Y in the case that it's a safety issue to save lives.
Who are "they"and why would "they" want to do that? Asking because flying passengers on unsafe planes is already illegal.
Presumably someone who flies on planes, because they don't want the plane they're on to crash.
Every such event reminds me of that celebrated fraud of an academic who argued that corporations exist to maximize profit within the applicable legal framework and that it is how things should be. The fact that corporate entities actively shape the legal framework to suit narrow interests that frequently undermine collective welfware somehow escaped him. When intellectual dishonesty and amoral behavior reach such sys…
I'm not sure I understand what the alternative is - should you pretend that corporations are not ruthless profit maximizers, and allow them to have undue sway over our legislative system all the same? It seems like the root of the problem is that we've let the institutions which are supposed to hold our politicians to account when they exhibit blatant corruption fall into disrepair.
I believe the analysis. Here in Canada, the government passed a law not that long ago (during the pandemic) to enshrine rights of passengers for delayed and cancelled flights, which included right to specific amounts of monetary compensation in those scenarios. The law, however, had an exception, where no compensation is due if the flight is delayed or cancelled due to a safety issue. Lo and behold, the airlines have…
We need some 3-strike rules for companies. Three 3-strikes like wrong reasons used and you are permanently out. Your property is confiscated and sold, wages are paid out, any debtors are paid if there is any money and rest is forfeited as penalty to state.
Every such event reminds me of that celebrated fraud of an academic who argued that corporations exist to maximize profit within the applicable legal framework and that it is how things should be. The fact that corporate entities actively shape the legal framework to suit narrow interests that frequently undermine collective welfware somehow escaped him. When intellectual dishonesty and amoral behavior reach such sys…
I'm not sure I understand what the alternative is - should you pretend that corporations are not ruthless profit maximizers, and allow them to have undue sway over our legislative system all the same? It seems like the root of the problem is that we've let the institutions which are supposed to hold our politicians to account when they exhibit blatant corruption fall into disrepair.
Do not allow corporations to lobby and influence the law. Do no allow politicians to profit from changes to the law (ie playing the stock markets)
Every such event reminds me of that celebrated fraud of an academic who argued that corporations exist to maximize profit within the applicable legal framework and that it is how things should be. The fact that corporate entities actively shape the legal framework to suit narrow interests that frequently undermine collective welfware somehow escaped him. When intellectual dishonesty and amoral behavior reach such sys…
Are you referencing Milton Friedman? In which case I completely agree.
Shameless plug, the organization Louis (and I) work for, FUTO, is hosting a fellowship program sponsoring people to work on open-source software for three months for $20k-$80k and free housing in Austin. Applications are due Jan 1st! https://futo.org/fellows
Very cool project! Louis is one of my favorite youtubers.
One catch on the site is no definition of FUTO? I looked all over and couldn't find out what the acronym (?) means. Future Use Tech Org? Fun Under The Orange?
My understanding is that it is more a consequence of politics than the system... Sure you have a veto proof majority on this bill, but what about what comes next? The governor is able to stop "tyranny of masses" by their veto power. Almost no bill in our partisan age is able to pass with a veto proof majority. So the governor has the ability to prevent good outcomes for specific members of their party in the legislat…
The Legislative is not a single person, who weights the options, who accepts the governors revision on behalf of the senate and assembly?
The language on their website implies that they act collectively in the event of a veto “A vetoed bill can become law if two-thirds of the members of each house vote to override the Governor's veto.”[0].
Practically speaking, there are usually committees (may be area specific, or general such as scheduling/introductory) that make the first choice as to how the process will continue. For new york this seems to be the standing committee which decides what will be put to a vote, “ Members of Standing Committees evaluate bills and decide whether to "report" them (send them) to the Senate floor for a final decision by the full membership.”[0].