ITS all about money. Are you willing to pay X amount MORE for your ticket if the plane has a 1 percent great chance of being found in 3 days after a crash?
It is indeed about money. But, think about it this way. Governments and businesses have already spent many, many tens of millions of dollars on the MH370 SAR operation [1].
In my opinion, the argument "improved tracking ability would benefit less than 99% of flights, so therefore we shouldn't invest in it" is NOT a strong argument. We can quantify *precisely* how much should be spent on an improved tracking ability because it is a given that some number of planes will be lost.
Even if we only lose a plane once every 5 or 10 years, many millions of dollars are spent on search and rescue by various entities, and we also must include damages and potential losses for airlines, plane manufacturers, related business and industries, etc.
So if the search for lost planes costs $1B per decade, economics dictates we should then simply spend up to $1B per decade on preventing planes from being lost. Even if that investment wouldn't actually save the lives of passengers, it would reduce SAR costs, reduce risk of accidents during SAR operations, reduce grief of affected family, and also have side effects such as bolstering the perception of travel in the media and reduce any public fear of flying.
[1]
MH370 search: Australia has spent far more than Malaysia | World news | The Guardian