Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

First, you don't need to be condescending.

Second, are you claiming that because no accidents happened to occur, that Southwest was in the right to fly passengers in planes that safety inspectors deemed unsafe or which were two and a half years overdue for an inspection? Or perhaps your point is that over-all, Southwest has a better track record than other airlines, to which I must ask, what is the probability that Southwest's spotless record (in terms of deaths) actually indicates that they're safer than the other airlines, and what is the probability that it's just dumb luck? I would be quite interested in the answer to this question, though it seems airline crashes are both fairly rare, even for airlines with poor safety records.

The point is, while I'm certainly not saying that their safety record is meaningless, I think it would be foolish to overlook things such as flying planes which have either failed inspection or which are years overdue to be inspected, especially given the low number of data points in the form of commercial airline crashes.




With enplaned passengers at 101.9 million/year, it's not dumb luck that defines a safety record, but basic probability.

We must also consider the possibility that there is a bias against Southwest by the safety inspectors, and that perhaps Southwests safety record is a more accurate representation of how safe they are.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: