Even if there is no such effect, the relevant comparison is not between the cost of the plane and the value of the pilot, but between the cost of adding the ejector seat (including, of course, the effective cost of having the plane be heavier and have more moving parts) and the value of the pilot.
If you have a $100bn device that occasionally kills its users and can halve the risk by spending $1, then the fact that the device costs $100bn has nothing whatever to do with whether you should spend that $1.
Having an ejector seat lets the pilot give up saving the plane and eject.
However, it isn’t a very good example, because you have to factor in the pilot’s estimate for the probability that the plane could be saved; and that probably takes off an order of magnitude.
Even if there is no such effect, the relevant comparison is not between the cost of the plane and the value of the pilot, but between the cost of adding the ejector seat (including, of course, the effective cost of having the plane be heavier and have more moving parts) and the value of the pilot.
If you have a $100bn device that occasionally kills its users and can halve the risk by spending $1, then the fact that the device costs $100bn has nothing whatever to do with whether you should spend that $1.
Having an ejector seat lets the pilot give up saving the plane and eject.
However, it isn’t a very good example, because you have to factor in the pilot’s estimate for the probability that the plane could be saved; and that probably takes off an order of magnitude.