trvl_guy

In this issue of the Economists Gullivers Travel, they noted that ATRA has chosen the top 10 safest airlines in the world.

What are your thoughts?

In Alphabetical Order:
Air France-KLM
AMR Corporation (American Airlines, American Eagles)
British Airways
Continental Airlines
Delta Air Lines
Japan Airlines
Lufthansa
Southwest Airlines
United Airlines
US Airways


article found here: http://www.economist.com/node/21528198

clacko

basically useless...a listing of 200 or so airlines w/safest at the top would be interesting....however, there would be lots of lawsuits & complaints.....

perhaps organized by rpms , # of flights, fatal events & others....

clacko

i looked at the atra web site....no info of interest....hope we [usa] aren't funding it....

t325

I just don't get how Air France can be on that list when they've had a fatal crash in the past couple years, and other airlines who haven't had a fatal crash in decades (Qantas comes to mind, might as well add Air Canada, Virgin and All Nippon to that list, those are what I can think of off the top of my head and I know I'm probably missing dozens).

Fleet age, simulators, maintenance are all important factors, but I think that the number of recent crashes should trump all of those.

Jinxy

Very surprised that qantas is not in there. Also Singapore, emirates.

Useless list and not accurate by real stats.

ByrdluvsAWACO

Good PR for American Airlines though. ^

SQ421

Colour me confused but I'd severly question the credibility of any article in this regard which lists Southwest Airlines but does not include Singapore Airlines & Qantas in that list.

14940674

I find the presence of Southwest on the list troubling. If it really considers more than just past accident statistics, then Southwest's recent maintenance and metal fatigue issues should remove it from the top ten.

tonywestsider

I agree. Also, WN has a history of overshooting runways because of their high-speed landing and taxi procedures.

WillTravel4Food

Being somebody who has access to US data on such topics, I never give any credibility to these lists. The stats they use do not present a credible measure of safety. It's interesting that agencies such as the US FAA don't publish such lists because historic accident rates do not represent an accurate depiction of current safety levels. You can read their statement on their website.

You will never see any airline advertise it's safety record. Very bad for business. A PR nightmare with the very next safety event.

TA

Agree --

Is the list truly an assessment of how safe the airline's operations are, or simply a track record of how lucky they have been in avoiding a circumstance that tested them?

Wally Bird

Never heard of ATRA and this is apparently their first such 'list'. Kind of hard to put much faith in people who can't even get the airline name correct (American Eagles ?).

Don't think QF has the reputation it once did though.

I hope everyone, including the airlines, simply ignores this organization if indeed that's what it is and not just a couple of geeks in a basement somewhere. Color me unimpressed.

trvl_guy

I would have liked to have known more about weighting and factors. it makes no sense why some airlines such as Air Canada, Singapore Airline, etc..didn't even get a mention.

14940674

The article says:

"It compiled its list not only from historic accident rates, but by assessing airlines on 15 criteria such as net financial result, average fleet age, in-house maintenance capability and dedicated full-flight simulators".

That statement suggests that they considered the probability of future accidents as well as historical data. I guess they simply didn't do it well.

WillTravel4Food

Their method may be fine if misguided.

Finances aren't as critical if they aren't reporting deferred maintenance. Once that happens, start paying more attention. Not to say finances don't matter, they do. But you need to look at the details. Not just bottom lines.

I've never been able to get a good statistical fit between Fleet Age and safety risk without adding another variable. Some airlines take very good care of their old planes. Others get rid of them because they're inefficient and/or expensive to maintain. Not because they're unsafe.

Plenty of airlines outsource their maintenance. You will be very hard pressed to find one that does zero outsourcing. Instead look at how they monitor their maintenance providers. Imagine saying your neighbor's car is unsafe because he can't repair his own car. All while he takes it to the dealer for regular maintenance. Just silly.

Lastly, there are training providers who can deliver simulator time for every plane type. And airlines use these companies. Instead look at the airline's training program, check airmen and manuals.

Regulators look at hundreds of attributes, not 15. And they won't rank them, publicly. Seems these people grabbed some outdated ideas and ran. I wonder if they've ever even heard of Arnie Barnett.