Does safety affect airline choice?
 

How much does safety affect your choice of airline? If one airline is cheap but has had a few crashes, and another is more expensive but fatality free, which one do you/ should you choose? Me, I would go with the cheap fare. Just interested in what other people think

Everyone cares about safety, and quite often has a perception. But reality is something else.

I forget the name right off, but the crash in the Everglades a few years ago actually killed off an airline, or at least their name. All in the perception. They made an error in loading hazardous material and it caused the fire. Was this airline really unsafe? I doubt it.

ValuJet...now Air Tran

The ValuJet crash was actually Sabretech's fault (a cargo company). Now Sabretech is out of business as well as ValuJet.

I was looking at the FAA Aviation Safety Assesment pages last week.
http://www.faa.gov/avr/iasa/index.htm

Usually what does it 'really' mean to be a category 2?

Should I be concerned about flying in those airlines?

All good airlines can/do have crashes and sometimes they are do to pilot error or training deficiencies. For the most part airlines learn from these mistakes to make flying even safer. This is not always the case. I would not fly China Northern if you paid me!!! Flying on domestic flights within India is one of the most dangerous places to fly. If the US had the same crash rate (per 100000 passengers flown) as India, there would a fatal crash once every 40 days.

If you fly on some of the European charters you should really research on the type of aircraft and oversight in place. You might be suprised what you find. Some charter companies may subsitute an aircraft (through a wet lease)through a company in the Middle East that in turn is leasing the plane from a company in Africa. Everyone thinks someone else's government is providing the oversight on the plane when in fact no one may be doing this.

Many US airlines farm out some of their heavy maintenance to foreign locations where there is minimal oversight and cheap labor. Some airlines perform all of their maintenacne in house only.

Sometimes it does pay to fly on the more expensive airline.

safety is my number 1 and overriding reason for choosing an airline. in the past i have refused to fly when the corp. travel agent puts me on an airline with the cheapest rates because of my concern for safety. i would switch in a second regardless of how many ff miles i had if safety became an issue on my current airline.

------------------
f

Good question. I have flown on cheap fares with airlines such as Garuda Indonesia and enjoyed it. I'm booked with them again in July to fly Jakarta-Frankfurt.

Where I DO have a concern is with many of the no-frills carriers: while complying with regulations for 1 cabin crew for each 50 pax, it means you can end up with a crew of three on a 737. In an emergency, who gets the 4th door? (given that slides do not inflate instantly and the door has to be guarded while this occurs...)

I would rather take the cheapest fare on an airline with at least a ratio of one crew per door (and this is usually, in Europe at least, on those airlines with a Business and/or First Class).

So, you are saying that if there is someone at each door, your chance of survival goes up? Between the so very very low odds of a crash in the first place, and the fact that so few people ever get to the point of getting out a door to survive when there is a crash, the odds of that one flight attendant having anything to do with your safety has got to be beyond calculation.

Higher chance of slipping in tub and breaking your neck. So, therefore we should stop taking a bath. After all, safety is of utmost concern.

So, how do we, as average flyers REALLY know which airline is safer? If all the so called experts have trouble with this determination, how can we figure it out? And, is there a relationship between lower cost airline and lower safety levels?

(all these discussions do not include various foreign carriers with limited regulation or controls,they are different)

I won't fly AirTran/ValuCrash and the age of the America's West/Worst planes makes me a big uncomfortable, too.

I certainly will avoid foreign flag airlines whenever possible except the major and respected ones like British Airways, Air France, Qantas, etc.

thats generally my take also ...altho there are some asian carriers I like for their safety and concerns as well..

Safety is the biggest reason I have stuck United thru think and thin..my sister in law has worked air freight fror many years and she says all the air freight pilots fly united even tho they have to pay!


I am a nervous flyer generally so I only want the relatively safest companies...and I believe there is a difference..

On a relative basis, some airlines are safer than others. On an absolute basis, all airlines that I am awere of are far safer than any reasonble alternative modes of transportation, including walking and swimming. Therefore, my choice of airlines has little to do with their safety records.

UAL Traveler wrote:

Therefore, my choice of airlines has little to do with their safety records.
=============================================

I wish him all the best.

I fly only with airlines with a good reputation; all big US airlines, big European and Asian Airlines, and I try to avoid even commuter planes. I was very upset when I booked Swissair (coming ATL-ZHR on this airline) from Zuerich to Frankfurt and ended in a commuter from Crossair. A couple of weeks later, 2 Crossair planes crashed!
I understand Crossair "rents" pilots from Eastern Europe who have problems understanding and communicating in English.

I was sitting in a Lufthansa 747 "on the tarmac" for more the 3 hours. The "technical problem" turned out to be a malfuction of a bulb. I never complain about something like this - Better safe than sorry.

USAFAN, my comments were meant to recognize the statistical reality that even the 'worst' airlines have hull-loss and fatality rates far better than alternative modes of transportation.

Perhaps I should have clarified that when I refer to 'airlines,' I am referring to operations governed by FAR Part 121 (or the overseas equivalent) which regulates US domestic and flag air carriers , [i]and not[/b] commuter operations governed by FAR Part 135 which regulates commuter and on-demand operations. There is a huge difference between those two sections in the requirements for equipment, pilot certification, and general operations.

The result is that Part 135 operations cost-effectively serve a larger number of cities and towns because they are far easier to capitalize than Part 121 operations, but with an attendant increase in various sorts of incidents and accidents. However, on any absoulte basis, Part 135 operations are still not all that bad.