[pipnonsense]

I may be wrong here, but I think there is a regulation that prevents the owner of an airline from piloting the planes of their own airline. It might create a conflict of interest between saving money and being cautious.

This is not only a theoretical risk. It happened. A Brazilian soccer team, Chapecoense, hired a private airliner to get them from Bolivia to Colombia. Due to some bad luck, airport closing hours and whatnot, the flight plan had to be changed and the plane was fueled below what the regulations required. They were getting close to the destination airport when they got a low fuel warning. More bad luck and in the airport of the destination the flight control asked their flight to wait while another plane had priority in landing.

There were alternatives to redirect the flight or request priority to land, which they only requested when it was too late and the plane crashed due to fuel exhaustion. 71 of 77 people in the plane died in the crash, including the pilot.

The pilot was also the co-owner of the airline, so there is room to speculate that he didn't want to promptly admit to be low on fuel and require priority to land, or divert to another airport when the low-fuel warning appeared, because he would have to admit that he fueled below what the regulations asked. He could face the consequences, like a fine or losing his license.

I might forgot or misunderstood something, but more details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaMia_Flight_2933

[londons_explore]

The simple solution to this specific problem is to spot check planes when they land for how much fuel they have left.

Fine anyone who has nearly run out upon landing.

[c00lio]

That is already done. Similarly, anyone who requests priority landing because of low fuel will be investigated as a matter of cause.