No, I'm not talking about smoking. I saw this video on the BBC News website in which Willie Walsh for the airlines and Phillip Hammond for the regulator argue about whether or not planes should be grounded because of the volcano in Iceland. Basically the argument is as follows:
Walsh: The risk is too low to stop us flying
Hammond: The risk is too high for us to allow flying
What isn't being considered here is who is taking the risk. Clearly the airlines are taking a risk with their planes and employees but the risk that the regulator is protecting against is (one hopes) the risk to the passengers. In other words we have two groups treating us like children unable to decide for ourselves whether the risk is too big or not. And not really like children either but more like one single child because we are lumped together as one.
Of course, none of us are expert enough to decide what level of risk the ash really poses, but then nor are the regulators. Mr Hammond admits as much. And nor are the airlines because we can't really trust them to tell us the whole truth. Nevertheless, whether to take the risk ought to be up to the people who are being put at risk. Let the airlines advise us and let the "regulator" advise us and then leave it up to us to decide. Some people will choose not to take the risk and others will decide that the risk is worth taking. Shouldn't that be how it is?
No comments:
Post a Comment