> "we knew someone would eventually die, but we realized that paying the damages in case this happens is cheaper than preventing the disaster in the first place".
The fundamental reality is, we can always spend more to prevent another death; and we must draw the line somewhere.
People don't like it, but your latter example is the risk management I'm talking about, and it's unavoidable. Nobody can make airplanes that have no risk of killing people - the only answer would be no airplanes at all (which would result in more automobile deaths, more deaths because life-saving resources are unavailable, etc.). The calculation of cost per death prevented is a real one, and is done by manufacturers of planes, cars, etc.
The problem with your wording is the criteria of paying damages, rather than the industry-standard value for human life. Again, that is awful to think about but there's no way around it.
Edit: And I'm not saying, at all, that Boeing made the right decision here. I don't know enough to say, and Boeing's safety reputation is poor.
Boeing sacrifices 346 people in order to avoid plane recertification. Just so that we don't forget the context of the specific risk management strategies we're talking about.
There is some nuance to risk management here. Yes, no one can make something that has genuinely zero risk, but we can and must eliminate particular known risks. A fix being too expensive is not a valid excuse. There are plenty of things we don't do because there is no economical way to do them safely.
The fundamental reality is, we can always spend more to prevent another death; and we must draw the line somewhere.
People don't like it, but your latter example is the risk management I'm talking about, and it's unavoidable. Nobody can make airplanes that have no risk of killing people - the only answer would be no airplanes at all (which would result in more automobile deaths, more deaths because life-saving resources are unavailable, etc.). The calculation of cost per death prevented is a real one, and is done by manufacturers of planes, cars, etc.
The problem with your wording is the criteria of paying damages, rather than the industry-standard value for human life. Again, that is awful to think about but there's no way around it.
Edit: And I'm not saying, at all, that Boeing made the right decision here. I don't know enough to say, and Boeing's safety reputation is poor.