Hacker News Reader

Comment by treyfitty | Hacker News Reader

I'm usually cynical in these situations, but I don't think it was about revenue. Quick decision making by even the most incompetent executive would have prompted the following response:

"Let's see... 50% chance of incremental $200*150=$30K (idk the price nor the capacity, so just entertain me) in revenue. Let's bump that with the expected loss/lawsuits if this fails = ... Who cares? It's in the millions. Just don't do it."

I think this is one of those cases where the airline took it upon themselves to really try to help as many people get out as they could.

View on HN

It's also my understanding that the passengers they flew in were FEMA workers and 100 or so of the people they flew out were "nonrevs" with seats still open on the plane after that i.e. Most of the people who they flew out worked for airlines and no one was kept off the plane due to space

For reference, the cost of a 737-900ER is about $100M. The value of the PR that comes from a heroic evacuation is hard to measure.

How about the cost of PR if the plane crashes and your airline looks insanely reckless and guilty of manslaughter?

For trying to evacuate people in front of a life-threatening storm? That's not reckless. (Granted, the media might paint it that way...)

Even if the plane crashes, a properly planned flight shouldn't look reckless - knowing the risks, but deciding them manageable and the best option for everyone involved doesn't seem too far removed from a normal flight.

It's also not just an airline decision - you've got a pilot in control who can make the no-go call at any point, and their training should prevent them from undertaking unnecessary risks.

Your analysis is rational but the discussion is about public relations outcomes, not decision making. The public response to issues like this one is almost always not rational and does not rely on risk management.

> I don't think it was about revenue

Just look at all this free PR.

But I choose to believe it was about giving people one last chance to get out.

PR benefits seems like another plausible explanation.

But the way you imagine it makes it sound like a complete coincidence that they happened to time it so perfectly well so as to use the gap of calm air effectively... whereas that surely seems pretty well-calculated.

I don't quite follow what you're trying to say. My comment makes no suggestion of any coincidences, nor mention any timing to use calm air effectively.

Yes, timing calm air effectively requires calculation. I'm at a loss when deciphering how that relates to what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is, you're saying this was a case of the airline trying to get out as many people as they could, without much regard for the risk and costs. But from what I see, they seemed to have optimized for the risk and the cost extremely well, to the point where it made perfect sense to do what they did, both business wise and humanitarian. Meaning those seem contradictory.

(In no way am I playing down what they did though. I'm only commenting on your analysis.)

I'm sure they did their best to calculate it as precise as they can. Other airlines tried and failed. They had to turn back or were stuck on the island.

So the realized risk is fuel and cost of a grounded plane.

They could have lost the plane according to the Wired article:

> Once the plane landed in San Juan, the alternative—leaving the plane on the tarmac or in a hangar—would probably have destroyed the airplane ... If the plane had gotten stuck, Delta probably could have gotten the humans out safely. But it almost certainly would have lost a plane.

There is such a thing as being heroic & not stupid.

I didn't say otherwise? Are you responding to my actual comment, or something else?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com