Jon, I understand you want the best for your daughter, I'm sorry you had to watch those crashes (I pulled my best mates body out of one to try and get his pax out alive, but what has that to do with the discussion?), but that doesn't change the fact that safety is compromised for profit, and profit is reduced to gain safety. It is a balance, and always will be, and yes, we should be vigilant that the accountants do not override the safety experts.
Safety comes at a price, and obviously the experiment with rear facing seats you mentioned was too expensive in terms of lack of passenger approval, so was discontinued. Safety has suffered, but are you trying to change seat configuration now?
You obviously consider the 747 flight continuing on 3 was not an acceptable safety risk, yet your 3 engine ferry was OK, because no pax were involved. Are people on the ground who were put at (a tiny) risk worth less than those in the air?
In all these real and imaginary scenarios someone is making a decision on the risks involved, just as we all do when we decide what speed to drive down the highway.
It's interesting that you rate your risk assessment that that flight was unsafe, as more valid than the opinion of the world's aviation authorities who approve continuing flight on 3, and the opinion of the flight crew who were in possession of all the facts at the time.
May the number of your landings equal your takeoffs!
sailing.