Why I never have, and never will fly a budget airline.

[impulse]

It's not a group, it's a scale, just like in sports where some teams are better than others but absolutely can have a bad day and lose now and then. It doesn't change their underlying qualities. In that lineup, I'd pick Airasia over all those other airlines except United and Lufthansa.... and between the latter two, Lufthansa. And I'd definitely pick Airasia if it was between that and taking say the 999 bus from Morchit or Ekkamai. I'm pointing out the false logic that says LA Galaxy is as good as Arsenal just because they both employ professional athletes.

But here's another part of the equation: If I could get a Lufthansa ticket for $2,000 or an Air Asia ticket for $500 for the same route, is the statistically significant (but still minuscule in terms of risk of a crash on that flight) worth the extra 15 or 30 or 60 extra hours of my life that I had to work to buy the more expensive ticket?

Or the days or weeks or months that extra cost reduces how long my retirement nest egg will last if I'm on a fixed income living in deficit mode?

Or the 1000 Chang beers I could have bought with that money if I'm pinching my pennies?

Edit: Or, that crazy, wild family weekend at the beach my heirs could have with that money? (for the "you can't take it with you" crowd)

I'd be loathe to spend that $1,500 extra if it meant my chances of dying went from 1 in 20,000,000 to 1 in 18,000,000. Statistically significant? Sure. But the pragmatist in me says, so what? I could also do a lot of things with that money that would more effectively improve my chances of surviving the trip- like ordering an armored limo for the ride to the airport instead of a BKK taxi.

Edited December 7, 2015 by impulse

[cumgranosalum]

It's not a group, it's a scale, just like in sports where some teams are better than others but absolutely can have a bad day and lose now and then. It doesn't change their underlying qualities. In that lineup, I'd pick Airasia over all those other airlines except United and Lufthansa.... and between the latter two, Lufthansa. And I'd definitely pick Airasia if it was between that and taking say the 999 bus from Morchit or Ekkamai. I'm pointing out the false logic that says LA Galaxy is as good as Arsenal just because they both employ professional athletes.

But here's another part of the equation: If I could get a Lufthansa ticket for $2,000 or an Air Asia ticket for $500 for the same route, is the statistically significant (but still minuscule in terms of risk of a crash on that flight) worth the extra 15 or 30 or 60 extra hours of my life that I had to work to buy the more expensive ticket?

Or the days or weeks or months that extra cost reduces how long my retirement nest egg will last if I'm on a fixed income living in deficit mode?

Or the 1000 Chang beers I could have bought with that money if I'm pinching my pennies?

I'd be loathe to spend that $1,500 extra if it meant my chances of dying went from 1 in 20,000,000 to 1 in 18,000,000. Statistically significant? Sure. But the pragmatist in me says, so what? I could also do a lot of things with that money that would more effectively improve my chances of surviving the trip- like ordering an armored limo for the ride to the airport instead of a BKK taxi.

THat is your own personal risk assessment...and assumes a lower safety on cheaper airlines.

You also when assessing risk need to take into account the stake....in this case your life and that of passengers.

however ALL airlines claim to comply with the highest standards of safety regardless of cost......so it is a specious argument.

Edited December 7, 2015 by cumgranosalum

[impulse]

THat is your own personal risk assessment...and assumes a lower safety on cheaper airlines.

You also when assessing risk need to take into account the stake....in this case your life and that of passengers.

however ALL airlines claim to comply with the highest standards of safety regardless of cost......so it is a specious argument.

I don't know of much that's less specious than cold, hard cash.

[cumgranosalum]

THat is your own personal risk assessment...and assumes a lower safety on cheaper airlines.

You also when assessing risk need to take into account the stake....in this case your life and that of passengers.

however ALL airlines claim to comply with the highest standards of safety regardless of cost......so it is a specious argument.

I don't know of much that's less specious than cold, hard cash.

Really? please explain.....

[Stocky]

You have a far greater chance of dying in a traffic accident in Thailand than losing your life flying on Air Asia.

Precisely, the trip to the airport is statistically far more dangerous than the flight.

This is a hugely facile argument.

Everyone is aware of the comparative risks of modes of transport in general and we realise that we have to manage these risks as best we can.

For instance we don't take a plane form our hotel/house to the airport as this is not a practical option.

The point is that when we fly, whatever the cost or the airline, we don't expect that safety standards will be compromised, whether by cost, corruption or incompetence.

One thing is sure: some airlines are losing the public's confidence through either perceived or actual questionable safety standards.

It's a not an argument, it's a simple statement of fact, one that seems ignored by some of the more hysterical posts "Oh, I'm not going on any budget airline!" ~ Clearly not "everyone is aware of the comparative risks of modes of transport".

Edited December 7, 2015 by Stocky

[cumgranosalum]

You have a far greater chance of dying in a traffic accident in Thailand than losing your life flying on Air Asia.

Precisely, the trip to the airport is statistically far more dangerous than the flight.

This is a hugely facile argument.

Everyone is aware of the comparative risks of modes of transport in general and we realise that we have to manage these risks as best we can.

For instance we don't take a plane form our hotel/house to the airport as this is not a practical option.

The point is that when we fly, whatever the cost or the airline, we don't expect that safety standards will be compromised, whether by cost, corruption or incompetence.

One thing is sure: some airlines are losing the public's confidence through either perceived or actual questionable safety standards.

It's a not an argument, it's a simple statement of fact, one that seems ignored by some of the more hysterical posts "Oh, I'm not going on any budget airline!" ~ Clearly not "everyone is aware of the comparative risks of modes of transport".

OK - it's a hugely facile statement .

PS - are you seriously suggesting that people on this thread are not aware of the relative risks of flying and road transport?

Edited December 7, 2015 by cumgranosalum

[Stocky]

I would strongly suggest that yes, some people are at best let's say forgetful of the relative risks. I fly with both Thai Air Asia and Air Asia Indonesia on a regular basis, it's worth remembering that across the Air Asia group the airline carries 1 million passengers each week. That's an awful lot of flights on which nothing untoward happens at all, people get on, people get off.

[White Christmas13]

I can not be bothered to read all the replies but the other day

I read Virgin Airlines was nominated the 8th best airline in the world

And as far as I know Virgin is a budged airline

[cumgranosalum]

I would strongly suggest that yes, some people are at best let's say forgetful of the relative risks. I fly with both Thai Air Asia and Air Asia Indonesia on a regular basis, it's worth remembering that across the Air Asia group the airline carries 1 million passengers each week. That's an awful lot of flights on which nothing untoward happens at all, people get on, people get off.

Yes...I think we've got a handle on the level of your rationalisation now..........

[Stocky]

No worries, I take everything you say as per your moniker .

[Heng]

It's not a group, it's a scale, just like in sports where some teams are better than others but absolutely can have a bad day and lose now and then. It doesn't change their underlying qualities. In that lineup, I'd pick Airasia over all those other airlines except United and Lufthansa.... and between the latter two, Lufthansa. And I'd definitely pick Airasia if it was between that and taking say the 999 bus from Morchit or Ekkamai. I'm pointing out the false logic that says LA Galaxy is as good as Arsenal just because they both employ professional athletes.

But here's another part of the equation: If I could get a Lufthansa ticket for $2,000 or an Air Asia ticket for $500 for the same route, is the statistically significant (but still minuscule in terms of risk of a crash on that flight) worth the extra 15 or 30 or 60 extra hours of my life that I had to work to buy the more expensive ticket?

Or the days or weeks or months that extra cost reduces how long my retirement nest egg will last if I'm on a fixed income living in deficit mode?

Or the 1000 Chang beers I could have bought with that money if I'm pinching my pennies?

Edit: Or, that crazy, wild family weekend at the beach my heirs could have with that money? (for the "you can't take it with you" crowd)

I'd be loathe to spend that $1,500 extra if it meant my chances of dying went from 1 in 20,000,000 to 1 in 18,000,000. Statistically significant? Sure. But the pragmatist in me says, so what? I could also do a lot of things with that money that would more effectively improve my chances of surviving the trip- like ordering an armored limo for the ride to the airport instead of a BKK taxi.

Agree, my point was there is indeed a difference in risk. Aircraft and crew utilization rates are higher with the low cost carriers... which inherently means crew might just be a little more tired, just a little slower, etc. at the wrong moment... home base only maintenance for equipment... which means 'good enough to go' (MEL) will of course vary... not to mention budget airlines because of their aircraft utilization policies are far less likely to have a plane ready to swap out in case one aircraft isn't 95%. Minimum equipment lists will absolutely vary between mainline and low cost carriers. Just an example but Air Budget might 'go' a flight with a main generator offline because Aux. is "good enough" to get you there (true). No one would notice because there's no inflight entertainment anyway. However a Mainline carrier might have a policy to only 'go' with main and Aux. generators in the green (not just because you wouldn't be able to play games and watch movies) for their own slightly higher MEL policies. And yes, it might only mean the difference between getting struck by lightning 6 times or 6.1 times... but it is a difference.

As for calculating acceptable risk, to each his own of course. I have never had an airbag deploy and probably never will in this life, but it doesn't mean I would want to buy a car for my kids that didn't have one.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Heng

[fang37]

I flew AirAsia once. Felt like being stored in a sardine tin - compact.

[F4UCorsair]

It's not a group, it's a scale, just like in sports where some teams are better than others but absolutely can have a bad day and lose now and then. It doesn't change their underlying qualities. In that lineup, I'd pick Airasia over all those other airlines except United and Lufthansa.... and between the latter two, Lufthansa. And I'd definitely pick Airasia if it was between that and taking say the 999 bus from Morchit or Ekkamai. I'm pointing out the false logic that says LA Galaxy is as good as Arsenal just because they both employ professional athletes.

But here's another part of the equation: If I could get a Lufthansa ticket for $2,000 or an Air Asia ticket for $500 for the same route, is the statistically significant (but still minuscule in terms of risk of a crash on that flight) worth the extra 15 or 30 or 60 extra hours of my life that I had to work to buy the more expensive ticket?

Or the days or weeks or months that extra cost reduces how long my retirement nest egg will last if I'm on a fixed income living in deficit mode?

Or the 1000 Chang beers I could have bought with that money if I'm pinching my pennies?

Edit: Or, that crazy, wild family weekend at the beach my heirs could have with that money? (for the "you can't take it with you" crowd)

I'd be loathe to spend that $1,500 extra if it meant my chances of dying went from 1 in 20,000,000 to 1 in 18,000,000. Statistically significant? Sure. But the pragmatist in me says, so what? I could also do a lot of things with that money that would more effectively improve my chances of surviving the trip- like ordering an armored limo for the ride to the airport instead of a BKK taxi.

Agree, my point was there is indeed a difference in risk. Aircraft and crew utilization rates are higher with the low cost carriers... which inherently means crew might just be a little more tired, just a little slower, etc. at the wrong moment... home base only maintenance for equipment... which means 'good enough to go' (MEL) will of course vary... not to mention budget airlines because of their aircraft utilization policies are far less likely to have a plane ready to swap out in case one aircraft isn't 95%. Minimum equipment lists will absolutely vary between mainline and low cost carriers. Just an example but Air Budget might 'go' a flight with a main generator offline because Aux. is "good enough" to get you there (true). No one would notice because there's no inflight entertainment anyway. However a Mainline carrier might have a policy to only 'go' with main and Aux. generators in the green (not just because you wouldn't be able to play games and watch movies) for their own slightly higher MEL policies. And yes, it might only mean the difference between getting struck by lightning 6 times or 6.1 times... but it is a difference.

As for calculating acceptable risk, to each his own of course. I have never had an airbag deploy and probably never will in this life, but it doesn't mean I would want to buy a car for my kids that didn't have one.

MEL's (minimum Equipment Lists) are determined and published by the manufacturer, not the airline. An airline can make a list more stringent, but not less, and I can't imagine any that would because it wold make their operations more restrictive.

Please don't post if you aren't sure of what you're saying.

[Tomtomtom69]

Even the crappiest airline I can legally fly in Thailand is safer than my safest option to get to the airport.

Inclu. or Exclu. if you drive yourself?

Good question, that also gets to the heart of a lot of fear of the air. The lack of control of our own fate, or the illusion of control.

Statistics prove I'm a lot safer in a commercial airplane than on the road- regardless of who is driving. But on the road in my own car, I have the illusion that I'm in control of my own fate. That's comforting, but not a very valid basis for a safety comparison.

I have a higher chance of getting killed -on any journey- in the 20km to the airport than the 500-10,000 km in the air, even if i'm driving myself. I'm a safe driver, but I won't try to fool myself that I'm good enough to change that truth.

Excellent post and I agree that the fact we are putting our lives in the hands of someone we've never met before, probably won't even see at anytime before or after our journey is completed, contributes to the fear. As does the fact that flying up in the air, thousands of metres (feet) where we as humans can't normally go makes it feel like we shouldn't be there. No amount of statistics are enough to convince our bodies that it's "normal" to be up there.

Having said that, the system contributes to it's safety. Also, out on the roads the fact that there are billions of vehicles out there these days worldwide, and only a few tens of thousands of commercial aircraft means that there is also a greater chance of something happening on the roads. Not to mention the normally very good training pilots receive and the not so good training many drivers of road based vehicles have.

Here in Thailand though, just like many other developing countries where you have a lot of 2-wheelers, 80-90% of all road fatalities involve motorcycles/scooters. So if you are at least the driver of or a passenger in a car, you will already be a lot safer than being on a motorcycle.

[duanebigsby]

I can not be bothered to read all the replies but the other day

I read Virgin Airlines was nominated the 8th best airline in the world

And as far as I know Virgin is a budged airline

Westjet a budget airline in Canada also has a fantastic safety and maintenance record.

[impulse]

PS - are you seriously suggesting that people on this thread are not aware of the relative risks of flying and road transport?

Since we have guys on this thread who are reluctant to fly budget airlines because of the risk, while discussing which exhaust system they should buy for their scooter on other threads, I'd say, yes.

There are guys here who lose sight of the relative risks of flying and riding around on probably the most dangerous mode of mainstream transport in the world (short of hitching a ride on a passing great white shark)

Edited December 8, 2015 by impulse

[spidermike007]

Hope i dont jinx it but ive found jetstar asia very reliable....theyre part of qantas.

Every time i board i glance at the cockpit and theres usually a farang fellow behind the wheel.

And your point is?

The point is English is the international language for the airline industry. So having a native English speaking falang at the wheel is preferable from the viewpoint of communication. The Air Asia crash is being partly blamed on an Indonesian pilot who gave a confused instruction in English to the first officer when the aircraft was approaching a stall condition.

Apropos of this, the decision by the Thai government to prefer education in English by English-speaking Thais in preference to native English-speaking teachers is looking increasingly like a death spiral.

Stupid is as stupid does. Yes, an idiotic decision made by a man child of little vision, no planning ability, no ability to see the forest beyond the trees, no ability to look past blind nationalism, and no ability to see the enormously negative long term ramifications of his own brain fart. One cannot even begin to comprehend the lack of wisdom, combined with sheer arrogance, that is demonstrated when men of such feeble experience, are brought in to deal with such important tasks as education.

My heart goes out to the current generation of kids, and future generations that will come after them. I am sure alot of these kids are smart, well intentioned, earnest, and would love nothing more than to be well educated, by competent teachers. Eventually, Thailand will be forced to deal with vital issues such as education, law enforcement (and the astonishing lack of it), traffic safety (almost non-existent), public safety (equally non-existent), and a few other areas of vital importance. When that will happen, is anybodys guess.

Edited December 8, 2015 by spidermike007

[hawker9000]

You have a far greater chance of dying in a traffic accident in Thailand than losing your life flying on Air Asia.

Precisely, the trip to the airport is statistically far more dangerous than the flight.

This is a hugely facile argument.

Everyone is aware of the comparative risks of modes of transport in general and we realise that we have to manage these risks as best we can.

For instance we don't take a plane form our hotel/house to the airport as this is not a practical option.

The point is that when we fly, whatever the cost or the airline, we don't expect that safety standards will be compromised, whether by cost, corruption or incompetence.

One thing is sure: some airlines are losing the public's confidence through either perceived or actual questionable safety standards.

It's an equally facile argument to make that since the level of customer service is not the same on a discount airline, the level of safety & maintenance must not be the same either. It's just pure conjecture to make that connection. Show me the comparitive accident RATES, or be labeled blather.

[fang37]

I would fly budget for say 2000km. After that, comfort matters!

[Heng]

It's not a group, it's a scale, just like in sports where some teams are better than others but absolutely can have a bad day and lose now and then. It doesn't change their underlying qualities. In that lineup, I'd pick Airasia over all those other airlines except United and Lufthansa.... and between the latter two, Lufthansa. And I'd definitely pick Airasia if it was between that and taking say the 999 bus from Morchit or Ekkamai. I'm pointing out the false logic that says LA Galaxy is as good as Arsenal just because they both employ professional athletes.

But here's another part of the equation: If I could get a Lufthansa ticket for $2,000 or an Air Asia ticket for $500 for the same route, is the statistically significant (but still minuscule in terms of risk of a crash on that flight) worth the extra 15 or 30 or 60 extra hours of my life that I had to work to buy the more expensive ticket?

Or the days or weeks or months that extra cost reduces how long my retirement nest egg will last if I'm on a fixed income living in deficit mode?

Or the 1000 Chang beers I could have bought with that money if I'm pinching my pennies?

Edit: Or, that crazy, wild family weekend at the beach my heirs could have with that money? (for the "you can't take it with you" crowd)

I'd be loathe to spend that $1,500 extra if it meant my chances of dying went from 1 in 20,000,000 to 1 in 18,000,000. Statistically significant? Sure. But the pragmatist in me says, so what? I could also do a lot of things with that money that would more effectively improve my chances of surviving the trip- like ordering an armored limo for the ride to the airport instead of a BKK taxi.

Agree, my point was there is indeed a difference in risk. Aircraft and crew utilization rates are higher with the low cost carriers... which inherently means crew might just be a little more tired, just a little slower, etc. at the wrong moment... home base only maintenance for equipment... which means 'good enough to go' (MEL) will of course vary... not to mention budget airlines because of their aircraft utilization policies are far less likely to have a plane ready to swap out in case one aircraft isn't 95%. Minimum equipment lists will absolutely vary between mainline and low cost carriers. Just an example but Air Budget might 'go' a flight with a main generator offline because Aux. is "good enough" to get you there (true). No one would notice because there's no inflight entertainment anyway. However a Mainline carrier might have a policy to only 'go' with main and Aux. generators in the green (not just because you wouldn't be able to play games and watch movies) for their own slightly higher MEL policies. And yes, it might only mean the difference between getting struck by lightning 6 times or 6.1 times... but it is a difference.

As for calculating acceptable risk, to each his own of course. I have never had an airbag deploy and probably never will in this life, but it doesn't mean I would want to buy a car for my kids that didn't have one.

MEL's (minimum Equipment Lists) are determined and published by the manufacturer, not the airline. An airline can make a list more stringent, but not less, and I can't imagine any that would because it wold make their operations more restrictive.

Please don't post if you aren't sure of what you're saying.

I was referring to handling of MEL policies, not the MEL itself. I stand corrected in terms of MEL as defined.

And yes MEL 'handling' does vary from carrier to carrier, and certainly between main line and low cost carriers. As for what a pilot will do in any given situation, there is always the airline's underlying policies that will likely effect his decision making as well.

[Ricardo]

FWIW and IME some LCCs (Thai Air Asia or Thai Lion Air for example) have more-modern fleets than many legacy-carriers (such as Thai International, prior to its current fleet-renewal strategy) , for the good commercial reason that they won't need major-maintenance/down-time on a brand-new aircraft, during the first few years.

They also save by making very large orders of a single type, to get the best discount from the Boeing/Airbus, and trade out the aircraft once they're several years old & needing more maintenance, passing them on to other airlines. Also new aircraft might tend to benefit from the latest efficiency-savings, for example sharklets replacing winglets replacing bare wing-tips, all saving on fuel.

Other LCCs are often happy to operate older equipment, which is still fine, provided that it's being maintained properly.

Lastly I wouldn't regard Virgin Atlantic itself as an LCC, although that might apply to Virgin Australia (formerly Virgin Blue) or Virgin America, to a greater extent.

[jphasia]

I have been on at least 4 Thai Air Asia flights per week for the last 3 years (both domestic and regional). I choose Air Asia not because of the cost but simply because of the frequence and connections for the routes i am using. I can't of course say that Air Asia is more or less safe than any others airlines but I find that the services and quality of the planes are clean and good. I also hear around a lot that Air Asia has frequent delays. With a least 16 flights per month for the last few years, it has happened 1 time only to me and it was due to bad weather. I also took few times Thai Airways and Bangkok Airways. Mosly every Thai Airways were slightly delayed and 1 Bangkok Airways was delayed about 10 hours in bkk (and i couldn't get another flight as all were fully booked at Christmas period). I don't know if it is a question of good or bad luck...

Things are that as frequent traveller, been using a lot of different airlines, i don't feel that flying with Air Asia is less safer than Thai Airways or Bangkok Airways.

Air Asia had a sad crash last year. Air France has also one few year ago (AF447). And others major airlines. Thai Airways has a crash landing in Surathani few years ago. My wife and son managed to get the earlier flight to Surat that day. I used all these airlines, budget airlines or not and i don't feel that the safety is the difference but a question of services. I am mostly on short flights (1 or 2 hours max) and there are rarelly business or first class on such flight. If i am on Thai airways, i am going on business class automaticaly for comfort purpose due to all this time travel but Air Asia doesn't have any business class on the route i am taking.

[mogandave]

Am I missing something or is it the position of some that it more cost effective to operate an airline with poorly maintained equipment?

[Don Mega]

Am I missing something or is it the position of some that it more cost effective to operate an airline with poorly maintained equipment?

In the short it would be I guess.

But once you have one fall from the sky and kill a few hundred people I reckon the outgoing dollars associated with that event will add up quickly and they will make the proper maintenance dollars seem like chump change.

Prolly a bad look for the company to have the blood of a few hundred on the books as well.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Don Mega

[impulse]

Am I missing something or is it the position of some that it more cost effective to operate an airline with poorly maintained equipment?

In the short it would be I guess.

But once you have one fall from the sky and kill a few hundred people I reckon the outgoing dollars associated with that event will add up quickly and they will make the proper maintenance dollars seem like chump change.

Prolly a bad look for the company to have the blood of a few hundred on the books as well.

But by the time that happens, several rounds of executive bonuses will have been paid out. And since it's a "corporation", no blame will be acknowledged in the payout, the execs will have skated on to their next plushy gigs and the shareholders and employees left behind will take the hit.

To say nothing of the victims...

[mogandave]

Aircraft are in operation 12-20 hours a day. The idea that an evil CEO could count on bonusing-out and changing jobs before something happens is silly.

[Ricardo]

Am I missing something or is it the position of some that it more cost effective to operate an airline with poorly maintained equipment?

Not really, the one notorious Thai example (which I won't name, for obvious reasons) did have a crash, and their former Thai-domestic operation has virtually disappeared as-a-result. Quite right too.

But there seem to me to be at-least two LCC business-models, to buy large/discounted fleets of brand-new aircraft & use them intensively for several years before trading them away, or to lease much-older/cheaper aircraft and accept that they require much more maintenance which reduces availability and operational-reliability.

You can see both examples flying here, all only IMO, of course.

[billphillips]

Is Thai air a budget airline? I hear in the news that they have some issues (rather large issues actually) with maintenance and staff experience / competence. I don't think that being a budget airline is the root problem. If it were, the choice of carriers would be greatly simplified.

[mogandave]

Am I missing something or is it the position of some that it more cost effective to operate an airline with poorly maintained equipment?

Not really, the one notorious Thai example (which I won't name, for obvious reasons) did have a crash, and their former Thai-domestic operation has virtually disappeared as-a-result. Quite right too.

But there seem to me to be at-least two LCC business-models, to buy large/discounted fleets of brand-new aircraft & use them intensively for several years before trading them away, or to lease much-older/cheaper aircraft and accept that they require much more maintenance which reduces availability and operational-reliability.

You can see both examples flying here, all only IMO, of course.

Most all commercial aircraft is used intensively regardless of age, and maintenance is required daily.

Poor maintenance is generally a result of poor management, not a lack of funding. Well managed maintenance doesn't cost money, it saves money.

[impulse]

Aircraft are in operation 12-20 hours a day. The idea that an evil CEO could count on bonusing-out and changing jobs before something happens is silly.

Added 2 Posts together to get them all in the same reply.

Most all commercial aircraft is used intensively regardless of age, and maintenance is required daily.

Poor maintenance is generally a result of poor management, not a lack of funding. Well managed maintenance doesn't cost money, it saves money.

That looks great in the textbooks and on the annual report, but the reality is that many airlines (all of them?) are constantly pushing to reduce maintenance costs by extending inspection and maintenance intervals.

Perfect example, even with one of my favorite airlines to fly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261#Extension_of_maintenance_intervals

Recovering from a bug, I've been watching a "Mayday, Air Crash investigation" marathon this weekend, and skimping on maintenance is a recurring theme in a lot of the investigations.

“In this competitive environment, if you can stretch the inspection interval from 300 hours to 400 hours, you can be more competitive” That's a quote from Greg Feith, NTSB. He wasn't advocating it, just saying it's a reality.

The sad reality is, with the companies driven for quarterly financial results instead of long term viability, corners are cut that increase the minuscule chance of a mishap, because they're guaranteed to add to this quarter's profitability and consequently, executive bonuses. It's not unique to airlines, and the Deepwater Horizon tragedy was a great example- albeit in a different field. They saved millions over the years by cutting corners on drilling safety, and the odds that they would get bit were pretty small. Yet, bit they got. Just like Alaska Air 261 went down. And in each case, it was innocents who paid the price.

Saying that "well managed maintenance saves money" is akin to saying "our most valuable asset is our people". And both very often get jettisoned at the first sign of not meeting quota for this quarter's executive bonuses.