These kinds of analyses are bias towards long haul airlines because accidents tend to happen around takeoff/landing. Trying to find some kind of meaningful difference in safety between any airline (at least those in first world countries) based on the described methodology is completely useless.

For one, the newer airlines (particularly the brand new Middle-Eastern airlines) obviously have a better safety record than much older airlines if you compare accidents per passenger mile. The chance of a passenger fatality in commercial aviation is not zero so eventually, every airline will have passenger fatalities given adequate time. In the mentioned rankings, luck had as much to do with the rankings as anything.

Then let's consider the improving safety of commercial aviation as a whole. If an airline has been operating for thirty years, of course it would have, statistically speaking, a higher accident rate than an airline that's barely a decade old. That doesn't make the newer airline any safer looking forward.

Some airlines, like Korean Air, had horrible safety records. They made the appropriate changes and are not just as safe as the other airlines (in the case of Korean Air, linguistic and cultural barriers were an important aspect—see Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers to read more).

Additionally, it becomes dangerous when one falsely interprets trends in the data. China Airlines, as the article so deliberately mentions as 60th, is actually a Taiwan-based airline (Air China is the flag carrier of mainland China). EVA Air is also a Taiwanese airline and it made the top 10. Is one safer than the other? No, not really.

Commercial aviation is so safe today that I would have absolutely no problem flying any airline. If you're concerned about your well-being, brush up on your driving skills—you are far more likely to die on the way to the airport than in an airplane accident.