stylo,
I challenge you to provide anywhere on this thread an example of a comment that could be twisted to be taken as a desire for a hull loss! No one in their one right minds would wish for that. Been through one at a former airline and I can't imagine wishing it on my worst enemy, or even TCAS.
The problem with safety is you can't prove a negative. This can be illustrated by a statement such as "Emirates has not had a major accident, therefore they are safe." (Well, ok, even the statement is debatable, seeing as something like MEL - to mention one - wasn't a hull loss. Only as close as you can get without one. But we'll take the "no major accident" as technically correct.)
But the thing is - as the brokers like to say - past performance is no guarantee of future results. The fact that Emirates has not had a smoking hole in the past does not prove their best practices in safety in the present. And so the best we can do is try and manage the risk.
But therein lies the problem with treating all limitations as targets instead of limits. Perhaps someone can provide some examples of situations where pushing things - people or machines - to the absolute limit, had a happy ending?
Hence the people who try and reduce the chances of such a horror as you allude to are feeling a bit darker at EK these days. No regulatory oversight, no labour protection, massive rosters, no roster stability, Air Safety Reports, Fatigue Reports that fall on deaf ears, no way to inject some balance into the equation, no way to fight back other than resign, and after awhile no energy to even fight anyway. It's hard to win a rigged game, after all.
But I can assure you, stylo, that the good folk at the front end will surely do their best for you and all other pax, right until they just can't anymore.