The price we pay for air safety

 
The view from the air traffic control tower in Manchester, UK. Air travel has become considerably safer over the last 20 years

Despite the tragedy of flight MH370, world air travel is safe. In fact, it may be too safe, according to the Center for Global Development's Charles Kenny.

Government air travel regulations impose a high cost on any airlines that want to fly to the US, including some requirements - such as on-board defibrillators - that are expensive but save relatively few lives.

"There are clear benefits to this process, safer air travel chief among them," he writes in Business Week. "But the unintended consequences also suggest that exporting American regulations around the world could cost more lives than it saves."

Start Quote

International regulations mean lower profits for Kenya Airways and less tax revenue for the Kenyan government”

End Quote Charles Kenny Center for Global Development

He cites a study that shows the cost per life-year saved of defibrillators is $100,000 (£60,500). He compares that with the $7 (£4.25) per life-year cost for vaccinations in developing countries.

Connecting the two takes a bit of logical gymnastics, but here's the crux of his argument:

If Kenya Airways wasn't spending the money putting defibrillators in its jets that fly to the US, it probably wouldn't use the savings to fund a vaccination program. But it might lower the cost of travel to and from Kenya, which would enable more people to travel, in turn increasing all the benefits that travel can bring - tourism dollars, trade, and investment. As it is, the international regulations mean lower profits for Kenya Airways and less tax revenue for the Kenyan government - which really might spend some of that on vaccinations.

Christian Wolmar on the Guardian's website notes that when he was a transportation correspondent 20 years ago, "air disasters outside Europe generated little media interest because they were relatively frequent and generally thought to be inevitable; a price that had to be paid for our mobility".

He notes that some "safety analysts" at the time predicted that increased traffic would mean a plane crash a week by 2010.

"In fact, safety has improved to such a degree that crashes of jets run by established European, American and Asian operators are relatively rare, and attract the kind of blanket coverage accorded to the demise of flight MH370," he writes.

He attributes the improved safety to more reliable planes, better regulations and smarter safety procedures.

With the apparent loss of the Malaysia Airlines jet, there have already been calls to increase spending on global air transportation infrastructure.

Conde Naste Traveler's Clive Irving, for instances, urges more airlines to use live satellite streaming technology to send flight information to air traffic controllers - at an estimated cost of $1,500 a month per plane.

"Aviation safety experts are in no doubt that eventually every airplane should have this system, but how long is 'eventually', given the reluctance of manufacturers, airlines and regulators?" he asks.

Can we afford to ease some government regulation for air travel? Could our money really be better spent elsewhere?

 

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 57.

    #45 LucyJ

    "Hi Oaktree haven't seen you in a bit

    Did you hear the USA is giving up control of the internet to the UN in Sept 2015?


    Hi Lucy !

    -Nope

    --Any Link to the info ?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 56.

    #44 Chris A

    " Will not mess with Java just to accommodate BBC nonsense - per your link,"

    -- my concern was not your ego.

    -----------

    BBC reports NATO Secretary General Rasmussen supports Obama ????

    With what Right and whose authority ?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 55.

    54. Don't worry, evidence the Russian excursion into Crimea, Israel wagging the US dog on Iran (why expanding settlements at will), Iraq and Afghanistan simply US military materiel justification (for profit wars) and NSA abuses, the world powers will never get their act together and agree on anything - why UN 242 is still ignored. That said, the US as a Dystopia is now a reality.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 54.

    Chris: There is no One World Order - a US fantasy to keep the dumb public in line

    I wish it was a fantasy

    But with so much evidence and so many people waking up and pointing to the One World Order existing
    it simply can't be denied any longer

    Thats why they have to take over the internet because its the last free press left

    The price we pay for the One World Order is our freedom

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 53.

    The UN Declaration was signed by all: US, EU, UK, USSR, Israel, etc., even the Islamist states including arch conservative, Saudi Arabia. There is no One World Order - a US fantasy to keep the dumb public in line, typical of a Dystopian state - that the US has rapidly become. You have no independence in the US as Republicans have called the shots since Reagan and the top 2% control everything!

 

Comments 5 of 57

 

Elsewhere on the BBC

  • SpiderWeb of wonder

    BBC Earth takes a unique journey inside the body of a giant tarantula

Programmes

  • Cinema audienceClick Watch

    Brighter 3D films - the new laser-based system promising to deliver crisper, clearer movies

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.