Seems they either had a profit before people culture or were loathe to dissapoint the public. Maybe both. Taking a risk into your own hands is one thig but operating a commercial flight is another. Disappointing to see from such an organisation. Hopefully this won't curtail operations of other operators and lessons can be used to increase safety standards.
Yes and No. Looks like they didn't have an appropriate training programme for aircrew, or proper maintenance happening, and the FAA didn't pick up on it. Will insurance pay out? I would think not.
So similar orgs with proper systems (e.g. one of the CAF B-24 crew said a few months ago "I think I've done more 3-engine take-offs than 4-engine, due to training") probably not too impacted by this specific news (although an audit will cost). General loss of public confidence, general insurance increases, worldwide depression all bad for these operations obviously.
Maybe there is a difference in the US with maintainance , heres some idle thoughts. In wartime US , it was replace dont repair much to the delight of our scavanging mechanics . Rebuilds were rare but that is what warbird operators now must live with . Maybe their methods and standards are slacker than ours and perhaps thats why we get so many warbirds sent here for rebuild. I recall being amazed to see a Pan Am mechanic solve the problem of a puddle of accumulated oil by punching a screwdriver hole in the nacelle as a drain , also that old aircraft were given a permit to fly out of junk yards /retirement so long as the crew signed the form . Absolutely no concern about public safety.
Not saying that Collings do this but a huge number of the US car restorers use chicken wire , news paper and a bucket of bog under the flashy paint jobs. Just a thought.
I image its pretty easy to suffer from normalization of abnormal actions when trying to operate war birds on a high operational rate (for a warbird), modest budgets and small organizations. It also applies to the Ju 52 crash last year.