Yeah, the innovation argument is really dumb. These guys weren't innovating anything. Just cutting corners to make money, as you say.I've read some takes from people that come from a free market/Hayek point of view in defending the CEO to some degree. Their opinion seems to be based on three general points:
1. Companies like Oceangate are where innovation comes from and innovation relies on non-regulation
2. Imposing regulation would increase the cost of these ventures
3. There are always risk-seeking individuals who will undertake risky endeavors because the subjective payoff justifies the risk (peak mountain climbers, aerial enthusiasts, etc)
I find each of these three points massively flawed and not sound logic at all.
First, Oceangate was not a research company undertaking systematic kaizen improvements with the goal of innovation. They were a profit-seeking company cutting corners to reduce costs and increase profits. Their incentives mean that it's in the company's financial interest to minimize the appearance of risk and present a misleading impression of risk. From the posts here and elsewhere, it's hard to see where any such "innovation" could come from the types of corner cutting Oceangate was undertaking. This wasn't a company trying to develop some next level submarine technology, they were doing stupid things to cut costs that almost certainly could not lead any innovation to begin with. The first point is flawed to the point of being disingenuous.
Second, of course regulation and increased safety would increase the costs to the company. That isn't a fecking bad thing the way people that quote Hayek imply it is. It's a good thing. This cost 250K anyway. Anyone paying 250k for this would pony up 300K for a much safer and regulated version of it. It's 100% a good thing if costs for profit-seeking extreme tourism increases to make them safer. Again, the incentives were aligned that Oceangate was cutting corners that should never have been cut. Earning them more profit or saving some billionaire risk-seeker 50K is not worth the dangers involved.
Third, yes some people are heavy risk-seekers. But this is not comparable to an experienced mountain climber choosing to climb K2. First, the risks for climbing K2 are well known and any mountain climber experienced enough to contemplate peaking K2 can accurately assess the risk-reward and understand if their skillset is at a level to make it viable. With a profit-seeking company with incentives to cut corners, it's simply not possible for a consumer to accurately assess the risks. It's simply not a comparable situation as mountain climbers choosing to climb K2 despite the risk. Mountain climbers are active participants that can also abandon a climb if conditions worsen. Passengers in a craft like this have no such option; no skill component or option to abandon.
Overall, those three points are just based on bad logic and bad empirical facts.