Quote:
|
Troy - you picked the wrong "budget" airline to use as an example - Southwest has a record better than most of the majors......I'll fly Southwest before a lot of others out there.
|
Well, then insert Valujet. However, Southwest does market themselves as the low-price, budget airlines and they do skimp on many things, including the safety of their fleet. Their planes don't incorporate as many safety features and their fleet is older than many of the more "pricier" airlines. They don't employ as many safety features as more expensive airlines do. They may have had a better safety record than many other airlines (although not compared to Quantus), but it's just because the difference in various safety standards is miniscule from airlines to airline, that it isn't statistically significant given the total number of passengers.
But I think my point still stands, that there are all sorts of extra little gizmos and gadgets that can go on a plane to make it safer. There was a big article on this in Time just a year or so ago. There were all sorts of little things that could be added, with increases in ticket costs ranging from 5 cents to $20. And some airlines used them and others didn't. If they were all used, it would cost an extra $120, and would only decrease the chances of dieing by 0.00005%.
On a side note, I'm not saying I wouldn't fly Southwest. I certainly would. Their safety record shows that the odds are good, and if I can save $20 on a flight, but it means that I have a 0.00005% increase of dieing in a crash, I'm going to take the $20 savings because I think the risk is worth it.
But if you really break down the statistics to determine if KLM's extra $5 is a wise investment, you can make a rough breakdown of the statistics:
$5 savings divided by $1 million which is the rough approx. value of a human life (you can get these from insurance companie's valuation tables) gives a break-even odds of 0.000005%.
So the increase in chance of death would have to be greater than 0.000005% for it to make sense to spend the extra $5 for a safer plane. That's a pretty rough calculation based on some old numbers, but I don't think there's been anywhere close enough change in the to make the outcome any different. And given that there isn't anything close to that increase in chances of death, you should take the savings and fly the less safe plane. I know I would.
You may think that I'm insane valuing a mere $5 more than an increase chance of dieing, but every single person that reads this post does the exact same thing, even if they don't realize it. (Karel's post brushed on this a bit.) You did it the last time you bought a car, when you decided to forego side-airbags, or better crash rating because the slight increase in cost didn't seem worth it. You might not have broken down the numbers, but your subconsious certainly did. (and it isn't just cars, it can be pretty much any product or safety feature.)
There are various degrees of safety with any product, including plane trips. It's just that it was already incorporated in the ticket price. This is just the first time you noticed. In either case, I don't worry about it. We could have terrorists take down a plane every week from now on, and flying would still be statisticly safer than driving to your grocery store.