It does matter. I doubt you'll load 300 willing passengers on a 747 if it was widely known it had a self destruct.
I would guess each case has to weigh its pros and cons for inclusion of a system. There is such thing as acceptable risk to population. If FAA mandated them carte blanche, Michael Bay movies would become documentaries.
A 747 isn't a spacecraft travelling at supersonic speeds, so it's not really the type of craft relevant to the discussion. Cars, buses and boats also aren't loaded with self-destruct mechanisms for obvious reasons.
Obvious enough that I had assumed craft = aircraft as well since you can "take the keys out" of ground/water vehicles. I was challenging the thought that every aircraft needs self destruct, as I suspect it's a minority. If as you say supersonic capability is the threat threshold, fighter jets/rockets would have them but a C-5 Galaxy and Blackhawk might not (I don't know, I'm speculating).
In this context, I meant craft = spacecraft. Our current space launch technology relies on extremely volatile and dangerous fuel. Until that changes, a self destruct will be found in all large launch vehicles[1]
That might be out of context. There were a whole lot of points where the mission could have been safely aborted had any parameter been unacceptable. Look at Apollo 10, which was identical to 11 except for turning around when the lander was a few km above the surface. Failure to land does not mean a risk to safely. The risk wasn't survival, it was failing to complete the primary mission objective.
