Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > TravelBuzz
Reload this Page >

How safe is your regular airline?

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

How safe is your regular airline?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 10, 2013 | 12:03 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: New Zealand
Programs: NZ*S plus various hotel programs
Posts: 945
How safe is your regular airline?

From a New Zealand website there is an interesting report on how safe different airlines are.

The original article - http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...ir-New-Zealand

The data was sourced from - http://www.jacdec.de/jacdec_safety_ranking_2012.htm - with the full data in PDF (in German) - http://www.aerointernational.de/serv...nking-2012.pdf


A European group of airline safety enthusiasts has declared Air New Zealand the second-safest airline in the world, behind Finland's national carrier Finnair.

The Germany-based Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Center, or JACDEC, calculates its annual rankings based on aircraft loss accidents and serious incidents where an accident nearly occurred over the past 30 years.

The resulting Safety Index relates the accidents to the revenue per passenger kilometre [RPK] performed by the airline over the same time.

None of the top nine ranked airlines had lost an aircraft or had a fatality during the 30-year period, but many had also not been active for the full 30 years.

Cathay Pacific ranked third, followed by Emirates and then Etihad Airways which was only established in 2003.

Qantas ranked 13th despite a similarly clean aircraft loss record since 1983. However, JACDEC director Jan Richter said Qantas had experienced multiple incidents where a serious accident had nearly occurred in recent years.

"While in the recent years Qantas experienced multiple of these type of incidents, Air New Zealand and Finnair remained mostly free of them," Richter said.

JACDEC had not published its data on the so-called serious incidents, which Richter said had less of a weighting on the Safety Index than aircraft loss accidents and fatalities.

Air New Zealand's chief flight operations and safety officer, David Morgan, said the recognition was testament to the airline's dedication to maintaining a strong safety culture.

"Safety is paramount and non-negotiable at Air New Zealand," Morgan said.

"We have worked hard as an airline to create a safety culture which has been embraced by more than 10,000 employees and it's very pleasing to have been recognised by an external agency."

The index data does not go as far back as New Zealand's worst airline disaster in 1979 when Air New Zealand flight TE901 crashed into Antarctica's Mount Erebus killing 257 passengers and crew.

It also leaves out the loss of three pilots, three engineers and an aviation inspector when an Air New Zealand Airbus A320 plunged into the Mediterranean Sea in November 2008 on a test flight before rejoining the airline's commercial fleet.

China Airlines comes in at 60th place in the rankings with eight aircraft losses and 755 deaths since 1983, including the death of 264 passengers and crew during a crash on landing at Japan's Nagoya Airport in 1994.

- Fairfax NZ News
I'm pretty pleased to fly Air NZ for 99% of my flying.

I wonder if Raymond from Rain Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_Man) would now be wanting to only fly Finnair?
Trumpkin is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2013 | 2:52 am
  #2  
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: SFO
Posts: 228
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 aspectsee 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 skillsyou are far more likely to die on the way to the airport than in an airplane accident.
Javelin is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2013 | 4:38 am
  #3  
5M
100 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NYC
Programs: AADULtArer
Posts: 6,614
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.
+1/(epsilon) where epsilon = probability of your next flight crashing

I call Mrs Laser Sailor when I arrive at my departing airport and park and report

" Whew, dangerous leg complete"
LaserSailor is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2013 | 11:17 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 135
Stay off Russian and African (Congo region) airliners. They are infamous for having poor safety standards and very rarely enforce them. If its an airline you haven't heard much about, I would do some research on the age of their fleet. How old are their airplanes? How much money does the airline make? How long have they been in business? Why is that important? Older airplanes require more frequent maintenance and they are expensive to operate. If the airline isn't making money, how are they affording to maintain their airplanes? Air travel is very safe, however, never assume every airline out there is operating at 100% in regards to safety.
NFeldberg is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2013 | 2:32 pm
  #5  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
20 Nights
40 Countries Visited
3M
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 53,012
But Congo-region carriers have the best F lounges and inflight winelists. I think I'm going to take my chances...
pinniped is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2013 | 8:34 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 289
Qantas has never had a single jetliner fatality! I think that is impressive...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...atal_accidents

Edit: In more than 60 years...
traveldealexpert is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2013 | 8:54 pm
  #7  
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: SFO
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by traveldealexpert
Qantas has never had a single jetliner fatality! I think that is impressive...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...atal_accidents

Edit: In more than 60 years...
Impressive, but not any more impressive than the rest of the airline industry. Qantas is uniquely advantageous due to its predominantly long haul routes (Australia is kind of far from the rest of the world's population and long haul flights minimize the ratio of takeoff/landing cycles to passenger-miles), being a relatively small airline (at least historicallythe current fleet of 143 isn't small, but it's not super big either), and a liberal dose of luck.

Considering just how rare crashes are, such comparisons are little more than an academic exercise. The nervous flyers tendency is to make distinctions in an abstract, purely statistical sense rather than a practical one. But these distinctions arent particularly meaningful when a small handful of incidents is spread over thousands or even millions of departures. Sites like Airsafe.com happily serve up airline-versus-airline safety data, but why drive yourself crazy poring over the fractions of a percentage that differentiate one carriers fatality rates from another? Really, is airline A, with one crash in twenty years, a safer bet than airline B, with two crashes over that same span? If you feel more comfortable picking United over Aeroflot, or Lufthansa over China Airlines, go for it. Will you actually be safer? Maybe, when hashed out to the third decimal place, but for all reasonable intents and purposes, theyre the same. Price, schedule, and service are the only criteria you really need to bother with.
From http://www.askthepilot.com/questiona...fest-airlines/.
Javelin is offline  
Old Jan 11, 2013 | 3:38 am
  #8  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
10 Countries Visited20 Countries Visited30 Countries Visited20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: back to my roots in Scotland!
Programs: Tamsin - what else is there to say?
Posts: 47,843
Oh I hate these kind of analyses.

Take the metric used:

The resulting Safety Index relates the accidents to the revenue per passenger kilometre [RPK] performed by the airline over the same time.
Well BA lost a 777. But the accident was a flaw in the 777, so could have happened to anyone, it just happened to be a BA plane. How are BA a less safe airline because of that?

Likewise, the US Hudson incident - how does the fact that a US plane ingested geese make them a less safe airline than an airline which has not ingested geese?

Airplane loss is a crude, meaningless measure. While some airlines (AA, SQ and AF come to mind) have lost planes where crew training or management has been implicated as a cause, which might highlight deficiencies in their safety, other incidents/accidents are the result of a set of coincidences and the airline involved just had the misfortune to be the one involved but did nothing to determine if the accident would have happened.

Indeed, one could argue that the training of the BA and US pilots I mention above stopped fatalities in both those incidents - but that is given no credit and they are dinged as 'unsafe' airlines because they have lost planes.

So really, not worth the paper it's written on. And QF lost a plane in BKK, but didn't they pay an awful lot to get it back into service just so they could continue to state they hadn't lost a plane?
Jenbel is offline  
Old Jan 11, 2013 | 4:09 am
  #9  
nux
FlyerTalk Evangelist
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Programs: BA Gold, QF WP
Posts: 12,551
Originally Posted by Javelin
Qantas is uniquely advantageous due to its predominantly long haul routes (Australia is kind of far from the rest of the world's population and long haul flights minimize the ratio of takeoff/landing cycles to passenger-miles
Qantas has a large domestic network also, with flights from 40mins to 4.5hrs, and a lot of around 1-1.5hr duration.
nux is offline  
Old Jan 11, 2013 | 5:28 am
  #10  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: LAX
Programs: AA ExPlat, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 1,132
Originally Posted by NFeldberg
Stay off Russian and African (Congo region) airliners. They are infamous for having poor safety standards and very rarely enforce them. If its an airline you haven't heard much about, I would do some research on the age of their fleet. How old are their airplanes? How much money does the airline make? How long have they been in business? Why is that important? Older airplanes require more frequent maintenance and they are expensive to operate. If the airline isn't making money, how are they affording to maintain their airplanes? Air travel is very safe, however, never assume every airline out there is operating at 100% in regards to safety.
What a generalization. When's the last time a mainline Aeroflot flight had a fatality in the last 20 years? Was it more than any of the US or European based carriers?

Transaero or S7 - similar stories.

I will fly on Aeroflot, S7 or Transaero any day of the week. You cannot be so blind as to assume that every airline in a country is following identical standards. These carriers operate into western countries and have to conform not just to domestic regulations but foreign ones as well.

Would I fly all Russian airlines without hesitation? No. I wouldn't. I'd cast a suspect eye on Red Wings or any other Russian carrier outside of those three. But would I issue a blanket statement on all Russian airlines? No. That would be ignorant.

Like Javelin said, you have to take into account improvements and progress that the airlines make (ie Korean Air).
gosha83 is offline  
Old Jan 11, 2013 | 5:46 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NJ & FL (soon to be just FL)
Posts: 219
As opposed to what: Jay walking in Manhattan???? I would think all airlines except Aeoflot and China Air would rate extremely high in safety compared to that analogy.
dssxxxx is offline  
Old Jan 11, 2013 | 9:50 am
  #12  
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: SFO
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by nux
Qantas has a large domestic network also, with flights from 40mins to 4.5hrs, and a lot of around 1-1.5hr duration.
I put it in a spreadsheetQantas has 34,424 seats across its fleet, 31.2% of which is in narrow-boddies. In comparison, AA has 102,427 passenger seats, 78.6% of which is in narrow-boddies. Furthermore, small airplanes spend more time on the ground between flights. Domestic route network? Sure, but its just a small percentage of its passenger-miles, which is what most airline safety studies compare.

Originally Posted by dssxxxx
As opposed to what: Jay walking in Manhattan???? I would think all airlines except Aeoflot and China Air would rate extremely high in safety compared to that analogy.
I wouldn't say all airlines are completely safe, but the two examples you picked are quite safe in the modern era. I would have no problems flying on either one of them.
Javelin is offline  
Old Jan 11, 2013 | 10:35 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 135
Originally Posted by gosha83
What a generalization. When's the last time a mainline Aeroflot flight had a fatality in the last 20 years? Was it more than any of the US or European based carriers?

Transaero or S7 - similar stories.

I will fly on Aeroflot, S7 or Transaero any day of the week. You cannot be so blind as to assume that every airline in a country is following identical standards. These carriers operate into western countries and have to conform not just to domestic regulations but foreign ones as well.

Would I fly all Russian airlines without hesitation? No. I wouldn't. I'd cast a suspect eye on Red Wings or any other Russian carrier outside of those three. But would I issue a blanket statement on all Russian airlines? No. That would be ignorant.

Like Javelin said, you have to take into account improvements and progress that the airlines make (ie Korean Air).
Aeroflot had a fatal crash last year with the Superjet incident. Here is an interesting article from 2011 about Russian airline safety. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...346152726.html

Heres a good one on African safety http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/art...ern-2012-06-18

There was also a few Youtube videos making the rounds not long ago with an Aerflot Airbus taking off without having its wings properly deiced of snow. I mean, a lot of snow, not just a dusting. As a pilot myself, there is no way, I would make the decision to take off with a snow pack on my wings. Regardless if the pilots thought the snow would blow off during the take off roll, ultimately they are assuming it will blow off and that is a dangerous mindset to have in my opinion.

Again, these are just my opinions and surely I wouldn't expect everyone to agree.

Last edited by NFeldberg; Jan 11, 2013 at 10:41 am
NFeldberg is offline  
Old Jan 14, 2013 | 10:20 pm
  #14  
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: AA Gold, 1MM; Hyatt Explorist; MR Gold; HH Diamond
Posts: 539
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned WN as being the safest. They are the 3rd largest airline in the world and have never had a passenger fatality. Also, they fly mostly short domestic flights, which should be a disadvantage, as most accidents occur during takeoff and landing. They've been in business since the 1960's.
rendezvous is offline  
Old Jan 14, 2013 | 11:47 pm
  #15  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,487
Safe enough

A much better source, though it's about safety in general, not differences between airlines: http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf

Originally Posted by traveldealexpert
Qantas has never had a single jetliner fatality! I think that is impressive...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...atal_accidents

Edit: In more than 60 years...
Odd to link to a "List of Qantas Fatal Accidents". AFAIK plenty of domestic flights in AU are prop driven. Several airlines that became part of Qantas have had fatal turboprop accidents (example).
ralfp is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.