This thread went sidewyas fast, with some of the inappropriate comments, maybe we can get back to something more fitting this forum. A few points...
The suggestion lying LAN is safer than Peruvian is not supported by the facts. In recent imes, both have a perfect safety record, so both the same. Historically, Peruvian has a perfect safety record, LAN does not, so historically Peruvian is safer than LAN. (yes, I know LAN has a longer history, so that means we have to wait longer for P to have a long record too, and then make the comparison and may find P to be safer, or not).
But historical safety is less important, what we want to now is future safety record: will my plane crash. Studies of crashes show most often there are a number of factors leading up to crashes, the most important generally turns out to be human error. So age of planes is almost never a factor in a crash, rather pilot training, experience and reaction is most relevant. In fact, there have been recent crashes of the Airbus 319 (remember Air France?) so to suggest LAN's newer fleet is safer is quite wrong. From personal experience, two of my recent LAN flights have had incidents, in one I actually had thoughts that, you know, I might just die in the next few minutes, so do not telll me LAN is anyway safer than anyone else!
What is relevant is the percentage of reported incidents, relevant not because of safety but because of inconvenience as flights are cancelled or delayed. Incidents are widespread across the industry, the data presented above suggest for every 10000 flights there are 18 incidents, many resulting in irregular operations (IRROPS). Incidents can be anything from a warning light not going off to a bathroom that doesn't work. IRROPS are a good thing, in a way, because it means they are catching a problem before it can become a bigger problem. So good on Peruvian for catching so many potential problems before they become bigger, thanks for that, but no thanks for the inconvenience it causes.
The comparison of bus versus air safety is obvious. Almost daily there are reports of bus crshes in Peru. Indeed, yesterdays news reported 5 bus crashes with 26 dead. Ortusa and Cruz del Sur are not exempt from crahses, they have fewer than the lesser companies but it happens, even if not their fault. If safety is your main concern, do NOT take a bus in Peru, rather flying is way safer. The most dangerous part of flying is the taxi ride to the airport!
The safety risk of flying, well, the risk number is so small, well under 1% that we humans can hardly comprehend it and certainly the % risk between LAN or Peruvian or anyone would be several decimal points, certainly not any difference that we coulod reasonably factor into the decision of from whom to buy. For example, if P has a risk of 0.005% and L has a risk of 0.009% the difference is so insignifantly small that I challenge anyone to prove it is a valid decision criteria. More likely wkether you are having a good day or unlucky one is a greater factor in whether you will be a crash today.
But back to the OP. Most now agree that the suspension was very political, what with taxes due and undue influence by LAN. Who has gained the most from this very brief suspension? Certainly nothing in the suspension report suggests otherwise... and remember all sides are releasing just the info that makes them good right.