Worlds Safest Airlines for 2012

[TonyHancock]

What's the issue with Air France (besides the obvious Concorde Accident)?

This, and this do it for me.

 

[AVC]

This, and this do it for me.

Hmmm, thanks for that. Might have to add AF to my No Fly List

 

[drron]

AF447 would be a good start.

 

[anat0l]

As I mentioned on Facebook on a slightly unrelated tangent, it would seem that the world has largely forgiven AF/KL even after AF447; after all, they are still flying substantially, haven't been red painted as much as you would think (for negligence), and Airbus had been apportioned some of the blame, diverting a lot of the heat off AF. AF paid a pittance in compensation to the victims of the crash in a gesture that could be construed as simply feigning compassion rather than actually admitting any responsibility; notwithstanding this compensation and any potential open law suits, I don't think AF has been taken to case on its culpability (in part or as a whole) in the accident and punitive damages not levied, and if there were any such damages already levied then they must have been insignificant to the carrier, both financially and symbolically.

I guess, pardon the reference, "Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong".

I suppose that many people forgive and forget. Some don't forget SQ6, and some don't forgive either, but - and especially since SQ is even closer to home due to the Virgin alliance - many people have forgiven and quite a few more have forgotten.

Not to mention that AF/KL, in partnership with CZ, is selling cheap fares to Europe constantly like a cheap hooker, so that keeps bringing people in. Especially after QF32, if - touch wood - a AF A380 crashed and killed most or everyone on board a la similar to AF447, a hell of a lot of heat would be off AF and more centered on Airbus due to the recency of A380 incidents, irrespective of the degree of responsibility that AF would've had in such an accident. It's like saying that if every carrier was having 1 fatal crash every year, the fact that you had one too makes you look rather average, or even "safe". Rather convenient, don't you think?

 

[katiebell]

I believe you could have used the international terminal lounge which has good shower facilities. The 'border' customs never have a queue more than a couple of pax so no hurry to cross to the domestic side too soon. Once crossed no shower.

I asked and was told no showers available...

 

[katiebell]

Well, there are:



What's the issue with Air France (besides the obvious Concorde Accident)?

.

the least safe western airline according to French aviaion safety exert Rene Amalberti: Altantic crash, Toronto crash (landing in a hunderstorm) to name 2 crashes

 

[burrco]

Interesting piece by Clive Dormain in Fairfax. Basically implying the listing had no credibility, was internationally ignored and only got a run in Australia as a bit of Qantas Bashing (my term not his).

The pair, operating under the name of the Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre, have little credibility in the aviation industry and not a single word of their findings was reported by reputable US and European aviation media such as Flightglobal.com and Air Transport World. But, in the week after New Year, when specialist aviation reporters were mostly on holiday leave, JACDEC showed considerable skill in public relations in having its report published in Australia.
There was curiosity about the report in Australia because it rated Qantas lowly, but the airline was rightly indignant. "This is not a reputable index recognised by the aviation industry or safety experts," a Qantas spokeswoman told Fairfax.


Read more: World's safest airline | Plane crashes in 2012 | Travellers' Check

 

[markis10]

Interesting piece by Clive Dormain in Fairfax. Basically implying the listing had no credibility, was internationally ignored and only got a run in Australia as a bit of Qantas Bashing (my term not his).

Someone is wearing blinkers on that one, it got a good run all around the world and various airlines even did a PR piece on it, not that it adds creditability to content.

 

[anat0l]

Interesting piece by Clive Dormain in Fairfax. Basically implying the listing had no credibility, was internationally ignored and only got a run in Australia as a bit of Qantas Bashing (my term not his).

The public are not swayed, it would seem, with still scathing comments on the piece.

Of course, it's natural to write any article about Qantas, and the criticism about Qantas will appear irrespective of whatever the article was about, good or bad.


Finally, the piece stands as is because you can't write, "We Australians are the real suckers," and get away with it.

 

[burrco]

Someone is wearing blinkers on that one, it got a good run all around the world and various airlines even did a PR piece on it, not that it adds creditability to content.

Interesting - didn't know that.

 

[markis10]

Interesting - didn't know that.

Fox News ran it Airline crash data group ranks world's safest airlines | Fox News

Fairfax ran it Safest airlines | World's safest airlines for 2012 named | Finnair

Huff Post ran it World's Safest Airline: Finnair Soars To The Top, Says The Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre

AOL in the UK ran it Finnair named safest airline in the world - AOL Travel UK etc etc

Air NZ PR Air New Zealand highly ranked amongst world

 

[anat0l]

Someone is wearing blinkers on that one, it got a good run all around the world and various airlines even did a PR piece on it, not that it adds creditability to content.

So the only point was that it wasn't necessarily ignored, but it's still dubious credibility anyway?

I think there's at least one airline I know that did do a PR piece on it (i.e. used it to their PR advantage). I guess it would be only natural for the higher ranked ones to credit the report and give themselves a pat on the back, whilst the lower ranked ones attack the credibility of the body behind the report.

I know it's not a hoax, even if the credibility is dubious, but could you imagine what might've been if it were? (i.e. somewhat similar to the incident by that guy who managed to publish a fake ANZ press release to the stockmarket)

 

[markis10]

So the only point was that it wasn't necessarily ignored, but it's still dubious credibility anyway?

It was picked up by both News and Fairfax here yet the article seems to think only because it was Qantas bashing, the reality is the press picked it up everywhere including some business travel blogs without flagging issues, situation normal really!

 

[serfty]

It was picked up by both News and Fairfax here yet the article seems to think only because it was Qantas bashing, the reality is the press picked it up everywhere including some business travel blogs without flagging issues, situation normal really!

Oz press to bash Qantas, other press for other localised barrows to push.

I would suggest the criteria could easily have been set to enable a desired result by the consortium (of two).

Meh ...next topic please ....

 

[Sprucegoose]

Hmmm, thanks for that. Might have to add AF to my No Fly List

i had years ago!!!

 

[markis10]

New article by Fairfax with some added content praising the results as credible from an Academic:

Aviation consultant and senior lecturer at the University of NSW, Péter Marosszéky, praised the credibility of the survey, though noted that if it were not for the presence of problematic Rolls Royce A380 engines, which a number of reputable airlines have adopted, Qantas would have ranked much higher.
Mr Marosszéky said that while the statistics used in the JACDEC are accurate they do not reflect the new generation aircraft and engines that the operators such as Lufthansa, Air France, Singapore Airlines and Qantas are utilising. In November 2010 a Qantas A380 made a dramatic emergency landing at Singapore's Changi Airport after problems with an engine manufactured by Rolls Royce.

Read more: Qantas downgraded on Safety Index
​

 

[mannej]

I think we are very much clutching at straws to suggest QF have been downgraded on the safety ratings etc.

Numbers wise, there is very little in it. There was another airline safety site who says that the A340 has never lost a jet in service, yet don't like the fact when you point out they are wrong.

Is QF really any less safer than the airlines above it in the rankings?

 

[NM]

Personally I think the outcome from the QF32 incident (i.e. the way it was handled) should push QF up the list, not down the list. Incidents that are the direct result of pilot error (such as miscalculating weights resulting in tail strikes) are much more a serious safety issue that reflects a problem safety culture at the airline, than an uncontained engine failure that cannot be attributed to any fault or failing of the operating airline itself.

The other thing this study does not seem to consider is the outcome following such incidents. Has the airline (or the equipment manufacturer as the case may be) implemented changes to minimise the risk of a repeat incident as a result of learning the root cause of the incident. If so, then the end result is a safer airline, not a less safe one. Historic statistics does not necessarily predict future probability if changes have been implemented to minimise the probability of a repeat.

While it may take some time to see if this is evidenced in reality, Garuda would make for a very interesting study. Their accident history wold suggest a poor safety rating is warranted. However, reports seem to indicate that they have worked very hard to change the safety culture at the airline. So does this mean their future safety "measure" should be purely based on historic statistics or on measures that are more difficult to quantify?

In my opinion, the thing that really measures safety at an airline is not historic stats about accidents. But they should be looking at less quantifiable things like the effectiveness of the airline's CRM and internal reporting structures. How are pilot errors identified and rectified before they cause an incident (i.e. finding a weight miscalculation before takeoff not after a tail strike has happened). How are maintenance issues found and rectified before the aircraft is returned to service, where human errors are found through checks, double-checks and re-checks. Understanding that people, no matter how well trained or experienced, can make mistakes, and having the procedures in place to identify the mistakes while they can still be rectified rather than after they have caused a problem/incident/accident.

But that is much harder to measure, and almost impossible to collect stats since there is no common measurement and reporting mechanism across all operators. So all we get is historic stats that may or may nor reflect future probability of safety failures.

For example, if you have a 6-sided die (singular of dice) and its faces have the numbers "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5" printed. You roll the die and find that you get a higher proportion of odd numbers than even numbers. if you just keep rolling the die you will continue to get more odd numbers than even numbers. but if you notice the anomaly and carefully inspect the die and realise you have two "5" and no "6" and fix it (replace one of the 5s with a 6), you will change the future probability of odd vs even numbers being rolled. So the process of historic review and rectification can change the future statistical probability.

 

[amaroo]

Personally I think the outcome from the QF32 incident (i.e. the way it was handled) should push QF up the list, not down the list. Incidents that are the direct result of pilot error (such as miscalculating weights resulting in tail strikes) are much more a serious safety issue that reflects a problem safety culture at the airline, than an uncontained engine failure that cannot be attributed to any fault or failing of the operating airline itself.

+1 IIRC they were the only carrier to ground their A380 fleet for more than one day. I'm sure incidents like these take longer than 24hrs to work out the why & how.

 

[anat0l]

+1 IIRC they were the only carrier to ground their A380 fleet for more than one day. I'm sure incidents like these take longer than 24hrs to work out the why & how.

Many people were critical of Qantas' action to ground the A380s, either "just" due to the incident and/or for so long. Same thing how Qantas was criticised for its apparent over-cautious (perhaps too cautious, or economically driven) approach to not flying during the ash cloud incident in 2011 (cf. Virgin Australia and Air New Zealand who continued to fly during those times with no apparent operational issues).

Looking at the JACDEC website, the safety index they calculate is apparently through:

Based on our annual safety calculations which include all hull loss accidents and serious incidents in the last 30 years of operations in relation to the revenue passsenger kilometers (RPK) performed in the same time. We also took into account the international safety benchmarks such as the IOSA Audit and the USOAP country factor. Furthermore we included a time weightening factor which increases the effect of recent accidents and weakening the impact of accidents in the past. All calculation data ends after a period of 30 years. Fatalities are only counted when they were on board a passenger flight. No ground casualties or 3rd party fatalities in other aircraft. All accidents that fulfills the above mentioned criteria were involved in our calculation, regardless of causes or responsibilities.

I would imagine that QF32 is recent and serious enough that it has affected the Qantas rating, but there must be some other incidents that have happened to contribute to that low rank.

Virgin Australia of course has no serious incidents of the sort, so suffice to say why are they not higher?

Whilst others may contend the EK tail strike should put them lower on the list, since the ratio is made to RPKs I imagine that EK operates so many long haul operations that that helps "dilute" the incident "score" and thus a "better" safety rating.


The academic referenced in the article quoted by markis10 is probably right in that the statistics are accurate and the rating is probably rigorously calculated, it's not a be-all and end-all thing. Also, it is dubious that the same academic makes reference to the fact that if the Rolls-Royce engines had not faulted, Qantas would not be so low in the ranking. You can read this a few ways:

• It's unfair to Qantas' low ranking because it was not their direct fault that this incident is attributed to them
• It is an unfortunate consequence but this incident must be attributed to Qantas as a safety incident (viz. in cricket where a wicket taken by a catch is still credited to the bowler even though the catcher is somewhat acknowledged)
• It's a Qantas safety incident because Qantas (unwittingly, unwisely or negligently) decided to use the Rolls-Royce engines

Erring on the side of caution when making an assumption would probably mean that the incident counts against Qantas. The detail of the actual attribution of blame is lost in the aggregation but overall is unimportant for the purposes of the index.

One could make the case as to whether other airlines low in the list should be similarly investigated as to whether they have low rankings due to similar circumstances.

Unfortunately, whilst the methodology behind the safety index will be made available, it will not be released in freely-accessible public domain (i.e. it will be in a paid journal).