"Robert Cohen" wrote:

It appeared to me at the time of its near-Miami crash that Valujet was
pushing the risk/margin/envelope.

I noticed their patronage fell-off, and I presume other consumers
perceived similarly.

Yes, that is what the the unions, and the airline's competitors, and to
a certain extent, the sensational media would want you to believe. It
was easy to suggest that low cost = poor maintenance by innuendo.

The airlines all have a pervasive culture of safety. They know that all
it takes is one mistake, one incident, to cause a bad accident, and
destroy any credibility they might have had as a carrier. The loss of
credibility causes loss of patronage, which would cost them far more
than the cost of the accident itself.

A week--month(s) subsequently another DC-9 or two either burned or had
glitch(es) fortunately still on the ground at Hartsfield.

If you are referring to the engine failure and fire at Hartsfeld, it was
about a year earlier. The aircraft in that incident was second-hand,
and the engine failure that caused the fire was blamed on poor
inspection procedures on the part of the previous owner. It had nothing
to do with ValuJet's maintenance. However, it would enter prospective
passenger's minds as another black mark on the carrier.

Well, of course our government must primarily be competent, honest &
diligent.

Also--imho-- their INSURANCE company(ies) should be watching their
airline clients closely.

If an insurance investigator observes corners being cut, then the
insuror tells the insured to clean it up or bye bye so far as
coverage.

So, it's both the nicey-nice public good (via govt
regulation/inspection) AND smart/innovative private incentive/interest
that should keep serve to keep the industry clean and the public
confidant.

The insuror and/or the govt might even offer rewards for valid
substantive tips of poor quality & wrong-doing.

Hey, I know I'm a glib outsider who doesn't know my butt from second
base, and herein spewing-out some gadfly jibberish, so if Sabre Tech
was operating with qualified personnel--people who can understand/read
warnings about oxygen containers and so forth properly--then I duly
apologize for that negative implication.

The industry is pretty well self-regulated. Generally, the reality of
potential accidents or incidents keeps them on their toes, since they
both want to keep alive, and want to keep a good reputation to continue
to attract passengers.

In the past, the regulators have often been too slow to react when there
are basic problems with a carrier's culture. They have been reluctant
to pull an operating license until something actually happens. Pilgrim
Airways was a good example of an overbearing owner pushing the limits,
which was well known to the regulator. They only acted after several
major incidents.

After a major accident or two, the regulators sometimes go overboard,
such as when the DC-10's certification was revoked. It becomes
political, and they want to be seen to be doing something.