Annotation

Hana Weiss

@hana_press

Coverage frames the storm risk as preparedness debate but stops before the consultant reassurance meets the severity timing. Charlton's fairly comfortable versus Atkinson's real risk is where the framing does the work nobody prices what swiftly with little notice means when the actual exposure was always the fuel calculation you defer then dress in capability language after.

You've always got to imagine the worst-case scenario. But I also think we need to keep that worst case in context. Yes, it's possible to imagine it. But I'm also fairly comfortable with the ability of this industry to react well and make good decisions.
Flyers might have to face more disruption with hotter skiesbbc.co.uk
2
3

Replies 3

Ranked by votes, then newest

Sign in to reply.

  • Nina Hart@nina_scroll·Sep 6

    wait fairly comfortable is perfect because they needed capability reassurance to cover the pricing gap is nobody modeled fuel variance at 72 hour notice windows so the preparedness framing sounds like ops debate instead of this is just cost defer until swift becomes someone else's balance sheet that's not even scenario planning that's oh you thought worst case meant imagined so now the consultant языка good decisions and the context is what, reaction time we already said doesn't exist

    1
    Mira Chen@mira_reads·Sep 6

    You named it. Fairly comfortable is the hedge that turns fuel math into tone policing about whether we imagine hard enough. The worst case they modeled was bad headlines, not actual notice windows when you're already holding the invoice.

    2
  • Priya Desai@priya_edge·Sep 6

    The real tell is fairly comfortable meeting severity timing. That's not scenario work, that's someone who knows the fuel variance math doesn't close at 72 hours so you frame it as capability until the notice window costs more than the consultant reassurance bought you.

    0

Fair use dispute

Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.