aflo

China Airlines’ long term safety track record is abysmal, comparable to Air France. They used to fly a lot of airplane types with a high hull loss rate (A300 and 737/747-200) and allegedly have a history of hiring ex army pilots not properly trained on civilian aircrafts.

I understand that the risk of an accident on the way to the airport is probably much higher than in the air with CI, but still I am interested to hear more about the current state of China Airlines. Thank you!

leosantos

In Taiwan they always suggest you sit at the back of a CI plane, as the only thing they have not managed to do, is reverse one into a mountain.

coolfish1103

If it's a concern, don't fly.

No one is forcing you to fly CI as there are other options.

aflo

As I said, the chance to have an accident in a cab to the airport is bigger than flying CI, therefore from a rational point of view, there is no reason not to fly with CI.

Furthermore after 2002 they seems to have improved a lot. There was only a single hull loss (without passenger damage) in 2007. Between 1989 and 2002 they had hull losses every other year: 1989, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1998, 1999 and 2002. This can't just be good / bad luck?

mlin32

CI did have a subpar record decades ago, but in recent years, no major issues. If a track record from 20-30 years ago bothers you, then fly someone else. There are plenty of airlines in Asia-Pacific to choose from.

clubeurope

combination of bad luck and many pilots having had an air force background, as far as I’m aware. No such concerns for today’s CI.

but really, what is the point you’re trying to make through this thread OP?

aflo

I guess the only point of this thread is to fulfill my curiosity.

At first I was surprised about the bad track record, because I thought that there couldn't be much of a difference between BR and CI, as both are Taiwanese companies supervised by the same aviation authority. But while BR has an excellent track records, CI's was not so great.

I didn't find any reliable information on the internet. The best I could find was a 9 year old website (you can find the website by googling "flightfox world deadliest", but I am not allowed to link it directly in this thread).

Your inputs were interesting and valuable to me. Thank you. They confirmed what I eventually was able to guess from the data and was written in the article.

Mama

CI and EVA are the only two airlines for nonstop berween North America and Taiwan. and CI is always USD $10-$20 cheaper than EVA.

uanj

And United and Starlux have non-stops as well.

Mama

You are correct and United has a superb safety record.

cmhua777

It is funny that the safety comparison is made against Air France. Other than Turkish Airlines, AF is the worst of the “major” European carriers. I think I would put my faith in CI over AF these days…

dvs7310

Both CI and KE put quite a few 747s into the ocean / ground in years past but that was a very long time ago and I don't think twice about flying either carrier these days. They haven't had any accidents for ages and the planes now are much harder to crash accidentally than they used to be, not to say the chance is zero but I'd not worry one bit.

AHC96

Flew CI recently twice and I didn't feel uncomfortable at any point (Knowing their track record). It was a pleasant journey and I would fly them again.

There's other airlines in Europe that I would probably skip before skipping CI.

username

People in TW used to think CI had a 7 year curse but, knock on wood, we have passed that by many years now. Quality and Safety are things that need to be built into every employee and an organization's culture takes time to change. Hopefully CI is finally there.

Chatter

Poor maintenance, poor training and cockpit culture are the attribution. BR is a relatively newer airline, so if it has had the same years of operating history, it could have matched with CI.