One uses oil that sometimes, a very small percentage of the time, will instantly kill you. The other does not. They arrived at using the riskier oil because it saves them 5c a day and it makes the books look better.
Are you really asking why anyone would even bother differentiating these two because the drive to the KFC carries more risk?
Why would you as a consumer want to fly on something with an ever worsening safety record?
Why would you as an airline want the bad press, loss of revenue, and loss of reputation associated with a safety incident?
If the danger KFC is closer and chance of instant oil death is low enough, I would go to that one.
And to answer your second question, I would fly on the airplane with the worsening safety record if its other characteristics made up for it (price, timing, etc).
Why would an airline want the bad press, reputation effects, etc? That's a circular question to mine. My question was: why do people care so much about this minuscule increase in a minuscule risk? I agree that the game theory of such caring about caring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest) makes sense, but I still wonder why HN readers care about it as individuals, not as Boeing execs.
Down the street are 2 different KFCs.
One uses oil that sometimes, a very small percentage of the time, will instantly kill you. The other does not. They arrived at using the riskier oil because it saves them 5c a day and it makes the books look better.
Are you really asking why anyone would even bother differentiating these two because the drive to the KFC carries more risk?
Why would you as a consumer want to fly on something with an ever worsening safety record?
Why would you as an airline want the bad press, loss of revenue, and loss of reputation associated with a safety incident?