Ethical Scenario A.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

You are the executive an airline. After years of bitter price wars, your company has finally won out and posted in the black.

A recently released FAA report shows that a recent crash was caused by a fatal flaw in the airplane. Your fleet is comprised of the same airplane with the same fatal flaw. After analsys of the accident, Its a widely accepted conclussion that this flaw will result in more deaths.

You have a meeting with two analysts. They bring 2 different solutions.

The first solution: Fix it.
It will cost billions of dollars and years to refit the fleet. The ticket prices will triple. The forcasted loss of business would force layoffs and probable bankruptcy. The stockholders would be extremely displeased if they had lost value over an accident that may not happen.


The second solution: Ignore it.
The cost benefit analsys demonstrates that the forcasted deaths would induce a cost thats a small fraction of the cost of refiting the fleet.


What do you do?

This got some surpising answers on some other forums.

[Dakarne]

Fix It!

So I can sleep at night.

[Drooling Iguana]

The fact that the airline is in the black indicates that, presumably, its planes aren't dropping like flies left and right, which indicates that this "fatal flaw" only manifests itself in a very specific set of circumstances. Would it be possible it find out what these circumstances are and take steps to avoid them (i.e. re-training pilots to avoid certain actions, cancelling flights in certain types of weather, etc.)?

Also, if this is due to a flaw in the plane, then presumably the plane's manufacturer would be liable. I'd imagine that a lawsuit settlement with said manufacturer could offset the repair costs somewhat.

[Solauren]

I agree.

Start repairing my fleet, and at the same time, sue the manufacturer for the cost of repairs and related legal fees.

Make it public I am doing this as well, to keep them safe and there fare's down.

[Mr Bean]

Sue the company who made the planes for money to fix them while petition Congress for more Air cause meaaan old Boeing gave me deathtraps for airplanes and I can't find my asshole with both hands... Woops channeling an acutal airplane exec there for a second.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I find it interesting. Some people on another forum simply said " let the planes stay as they are." The chances of them crashing are low, and the number of people who will lose out outnumber the pepole who will die.

I thought this was kinda odd, since I think death is more serious and permanent a negative consquences than going into temporary unemployment.

[aerius]

If I'm an executive then I likely won't end up in jail as long as I can find a couple fallguys. It also means I have enough money to live comfortably for the rest of my life, very comfortably. Resign for "health reasons" and let the next guy deal with it.

Serious answer. Dump the planes to some 2nd or 3rd world country and buy new ones.

[Molyneux]

"Sue the manufacturer" sounds like a good idea to me...if that isn't an option, maybe appeal to the FAA or someone for aid in repairing a flaw that I was not aware of, through no fault of my own?

Absolute worst-case, just repair the planes and take the hit. We could probably do a pretty good PR case on being an airline willing to shoot ourselves in the foot financially, to make absolutely sure our customers fly safely.

[Surlethe]

A recently released FAA report shows that a recent crash was caused by a fatal flaw in the airplane. Your fleet is comprised of the same airplane with the same fatal flaw. After analsys of the accident, Its a widely accepted conclussion that this flaw will result in more deaths.

Just how public is this report? Is it all over CNN, or is it on the umpteenth page of the New York Times? Whether or not it is public -- or will go public soon -- will certainly affect the decision I make.

If it is public, then I will very loudly start suing the manufacturer while identifying the flaws, containing the circumstances in which the flaws manifest, and replacing the fleet.

If the report is private, then I will quietly start isolating and containing the flaws, trying to make sure the circumstances of the earlier crash don't happen, start to turn over the plane fleet, and get a lawsuit ready in case the report goes public. And lots of loud, public claims of innocence, too.

[wilfulton]

Better to discover a broke plane on the ground than a broke plain in the air.

I'd be fixing that flaw if I was me. That's not only the right thing to do, it's good for business.

Probably unrealistic to say that all the planes will be grounded before they are repaired, and for those that must fly until the refit, figure out what conditions caused the flaw and try to avoid them.

I would still be curious to know how such a flawed design could have concievably escaped the design team, manufacturer, and prototype testing. I would say they would definitely be at fault and should be recalling that model of aircraft pronto.

In any case, probably not the best idea to rely solely on one type of aircraft.

[bilateralrope]

If the report is private, then I will quietly start isolating and containing the flaws, trying to make sure the circumstances of the earlier crash don't happen, start to turn over the plane fleet, and get a lawsuit ready in case the report goes public. And lots of loud, public claims of innocence, too.

That might run you into trouble with the statue of limitations since you knew about it, but didn't sue.

[DrkHelmet]

The fact that the airline is in the black indicates that, presumably, its planes aren't dropping like flies left and right, which indicates that this "fatal flaw" only manifests itself in a very specific set of circumstances. Would it be possible it find out what these circumstances are and take steps to avoid them (i.e. re-training pilots to avoid certain actions, cancelling flights in certain types of weather, etc.)?

Well said. As an Airline Executive, I have a responsibility to the stockholders to keep the stock high and the company profitable. I may not ignore it completely, but I won't ground the fleet and bankrupt the company either.

Suing the manufacturer was a good idea, but if that's not available, I would quietly check the planes to see if any flaw is going to cause an imminent crash. Any planes that were not a flying death trap would be permitted to continue flying.

[TimothyC]

One Could argue that the eventual damge to shareholders if you knew about the problem and did nothing could be much greater than the financial damge of fixing all the planes now. This is because if it comes out later that you knew there was a problem, and you didn't fix it, you are close to 100% screwed, while the chance that you would be screwed if you fix it now might be closer to 25%.

[Pick]

Quite seriously, I might well simply quit the job. Either of those choices is pretty much doom for my future corporate career.

It's a nasty, bitchy thing to do, but then again, by the time you're that high in that kind of environment I'd question the purity of my soul anyway

Having to choose between fixing or letting it slide, I'd fix the planes.

[Uraniun235]

I ram through a decision to fix the problem, and start saving up money. I intend to resign and enter retirement as soon as the fleet overhaul is complete.

[Alyeska]

Companies are charged with doing no harm. It doesn't matter if the flaw doesn't cause many deaths. If you don't fix it and someone dies, your going to pay MORE in court costs.

[Broomstick]

"Sue the manufacturer" sounds like a good idea to me...if that isn't an option, maybe appeal to the FAA or someone for aid in repairing a flaw that I was not aware of, through no fault of my own?

Ask the FAA for help????? ROTFLMFAO!

The FAA will most likekly say ground the fleet and damn the cost. Or, if the flaw isn't TOO immediatley hazardous, give you 12-24 months to fix ALL the airplanes and don't give 'em backtalk. Your fault or not - they don't care.

Naw, I agree with those who'd say "resign" - I'd bail out and deploy my golden parachute.

In reality, there would be a cost-benefit analysis. If it's cheaper to fix the planes, they'd do that. If it's cheaper to pay out death benefits every so many years, they'd go with that. Because that's the way it IS done in real life.

[Zero]

I would keep it quiet, keep most of the planes flying, and be repairing those that weren't in use, so that I could slowly fix the problem, hopefully without anyone getting hurt, and without anyone getting screwed.

[Jarl Sven]

..... since I think death is more serious and permanent a negative consquences than going into temporary unemployment.

Well, I've never spoken to anyone who had died but I was laid off once and I never would want to go through that again!



back OT
Rather than sue the manufacturer right off it is probably best to negociate a repair schedule and give them a change to make good (knowing of course you can always sue if they don't)

but this is where the real ethical dilemmas kick in

Suing takes time to wind its way through the courts meanwhile people can die.

Repairing the planes (either on your own or via the manufacturer) also can take time depending on the number of planes, the difficulty of the fix, the number of facilities with the capability, etc

So it would seem that a more interesting version of your question would be: do you stop all flights until enough planes are repaired to resume a normal schedule or do you just repair them as best you can while continuing to fly the rest?