Safety? You may not want to fly. Here in the US, the FAA's official risk management program says that the cost of any safety program has to be evaluated against the benefits, financially. Not based on anything else. So, in the case of TWA800, which blew up because of a spark in the central fuel tank, airlines were given about 20 years to implement the final "mitigation" program. They work with actuaries in this way:
If fixing the problem will cost $100,000,000 across the aircraft involved, and the cost of paying death benefits to victims of any crash will cost $150,000,000, then you order a fix. But if the death payments will only be $500,000, you don't require a fix, you only "advise" it, because it will be cheaper to pay the families of the dead than to fix the aircraft.
The airlines all went out of business decades ago. What we have now is "the airline industry" where the only consideration is cost. That, and not scaring the customers away outright. Safety? No one brags about that, because it reduces profits when you ground aircraft and perform lots of maintenance on them.
You'd have to ask each carrier what their own policies are, and what each government agency rules them. Risk management? Um, yeah. Stop serving peanuts because someone might be allergic to them. And don't mention, that saves you money.
