Another way to think about it is that safety is good for profits, at least in so far as consumers care about it. And I think consumers do care quite a bit. Of course there are arguments to be made for regulation, but I think your statement is overly emphatic.

> And I think consumers do care quite a bit.

In theory, if you ask explicitly, of course they do. In practice, they choose the cheapest ticket and maybe avoid airlines that have had a high profile incident recently. They don't have the time or means to actually evaluate an airline's safety culture.

Meanwhile, executive decisions are driven by quarterly earnings reports, and you can cut a lot of corners for quite a number of quarters before your luck runs out and 200 people die.

My statement is, if anything, not emphatic enough.

I was a software engineering manager at the FAA for more than six years.

That doesn't make the statement any less ridiculous.

What was the ultimate reason for the 737 MAX debacle? That airlines want to save money on type rating training.

Look at accident reports, and half the time the airline's safety culture (or lack thereof) is at least a contributing cause.

The FAA may be in many ways dysfunctional, but so are the airlines, and it's sure as hell not them who are pushing for better safety standards, it's the FAA and (especially) the NTSB.

point was that if FAA software policies around safety were actually effective we would not have had the 737 max issues.

On the other hand, if Boeing actually cared about safety instead of profits they wouldn't have done their utmost to hide the fact that they were avoiding the FAA's safety regulations to improve profits.