Originally Posted by Big4Flyer

I respectfully disagree. YOU may not take chances because you're unwilling to accept the increased risk associated with the lower cost, but I don't think you can that every "smart" person would do the exact same. Rational people make decisions everyday that value money over marginal increases in safety.

I don't know you, but chances are that you don't have a panic room in your home, or an underground bunker in case of an apocalyptic event. You probably don't drive the safest car on the road, and you probably occasionally drive over railroad tracks, rather than driving farther up the street away and taking a bridge over the track. In each of these cases you are valuing money over safety. You may say that each of these would be prohibitively expensive for only a marginal increase in safety, and that's true, but all of us fall somewhere different along this spectrum of balance.

In the past 5 years Allegiant has transported approx 40 million passengers. Even if we assume 5 complete hull losses and total loss of life during the next year, that would still mean that you over a five year period you have a <.000025% chance of dying on an Allegiant flight. With those odds, I'd rather keep my $100.