Unfortunately this thread has deteriorated into a series of hypothetical arguments between 3 or 4 protagonists on one side and most of the aviation society on the other. Some people do not seem to be able to differentiate between risk, safety, commercial decisions, personal choice and living life as a human being. Sorry to bring Capt. Moody up again, but since his encounter with volcanic ash, many people have unfortunately been killed in aircraft accidents of one sort or another, but none to my knowledge as a result of their jet being affected by said ash. Even though it, or ash like it has been present in the air ever since.
Engineering, and especially engine monitoring, has moved on leaps and bounds in the last 30 years and that leads directly to safer flying and also (believe it or not) better commercial decisions and therefore cost saving, which in turn is passed onto passengers.
From the moment you are born life is a risk and when you become old enough to make your own decisions then your risk assessment of a situation will determine the way you live that life. Unless you are a deportee, nobody will ever be forced to get on an aircraft. If you feel the aircraft is unsafe and don't want to travel that is a decision for the individual, but please leave commercial decisions about engine life etc. to the people who have the data in front of them and not a rumour forum.
Now mind how you drive home because in the last 25 years nobody has been killed in the air by volcanic ash, but 100 000 people have been killed on UK roads. What's the difference in risk involved in that?