Originally Posted by Rejuvenated

For example if AC charges $1,200 for YVR-ICN while KE charges only $900 for the same route, I would opt for AC because their safety record is way better than KE's even though it would cost me an additional $300.

Originally Posted by Rejuvenated

I think you misunderstood. I meant if it came down to choosing between carriers that have excellent safety record versus ones that have a poor record, I would choose the one with the better safety record even if their fares are higher than the one offered with the poor safety record.

For example if AC charges $1,200 for YVR-ICN while KE charges only $900 for the same route, I would opt for AC because their safety record is way better than KE's even though it would cost me an additional $300.

Originally Posted by oban89

Wow - I can't say that I'd do the same. The chances of actually being involved in a safty incident are so astronomical that I wouldn't pay 1/3 more for the ticket. Now I would pay that based on quality of service/cabin issues or FF benefits anyday.

Originally Posted by usairwaysLamb

AC maybe a safe airline, but honestly how many ppl choose their flight based on the airlines safety record, its a great thing but the cheapest seats sell the most, not the safest. Go U-s Airways! yay!!!

Originally Posted by inhiyu66

The connection between air safety and higher fares has not been always made, convincingly. Remember "the Concorde crash"

Originally Posted by Shareholder

Yes, the result of poor maintenance on the part of DL whose wheel assembly fell apart and left metal bits on the runway, that Concorde had the misfortune to catch upon takeoff... Before that Concorde was the only aircraft type that had never crashed, and this one was no fault of the aircraft itself.