Barit1,
As I get older I have gotten more conservative when it comes to risk. So hope you do not find it too amazing but... I drive a BIG Volvo - out of choice - and have not been on a motorcycle for 30 years. I tend to avoid the kitchen when ever possible as I can mess up boiling eggs (only last week I had one explode - I was finding bits of egg all over the place for days!!!!)
When it comes to "evaluate comparitive risks". The people who are best at that are the actuaries along with the accountants and lawyer. They weigh out the risk of the accident happening versus any cost of likely payouts – that’s business. I seem to remember an automobile with a serious design fault (exploding gas tank when involved in an accident). The manufacture felt it was cheaper to settle any legal costs than recall and fix the vehicle in question. I don’t think I would sell my Volvo for one of those – although the risk of something bad happenings is also very small.
Am I wrong in thinking that flying on just one engine for an extra 60+ minutes would not increase the risk just a little? It might be very very small - but there must be an increase!
Taking economics out of the equation - would I prefer to be on a flight with my family - on a 744 that suffers an engine failure 180 minutes from the nearest safe landing or a 777? Although both would be perfectly safe - my preference is for the 744, because I feel (and it may be irrational) that it is safer. At the moment I have the choice - and exercise it in favour of BA and Virgin. In 20 years time I might not be so lucky - so I shall enjoy it while I can.