Is It Safe To Fly Thai Airways International ?

[North]

After the 1-2 -Go plane crash in Phuket there has been many speculations and rumours about flight safety or lack of same in Thailand / Asia. Speculations concerning "company culture", but also speculations about the Thai authorities and their ability / willingness to perform their task to ensure, that the airlines follow the rules set up for safe operations of flights.

In the last few years I mostly have been flying with Thai Airways from Europe to Thailand, but all these speculations have made me think of, if I should switch to a western airline like Lufthansa, SAS, Finnair, Austrian Airlines, Swiss, simply for safety reasons?

I would like to hear your opinions, specially opinions from people working with aviation in Thailand / Asia

I am mostly interested in aspects concerning international flights, since I last year made the decision not to fly domestic flights anymore.

North

[jumnien]

I would switch to SAS; they've had two accidents in the last week and they are probably not due for any more for a while!

[lazeeboy]

I would switch to SAS; they've had two accidents in the last week and they are probably not due for any more for a while!

no matter what airline you fly with ,they are safer than travelling by land ..........

[baboon]

I would fly Thai without hesitation safety wise, but then I am not the fussiest. If they were that bad, they would be on the EU blacklist.

[chiang mai]

I "think" Thai Airways is safe these days although until fairly recently they were heavily criticized for allowing their pilots to hold line management roles also. That resulted in pilots working a day job in the business, at the end of which they then took charge of a plane and often made long haul flights. I believe that some official body threatened them over the practice and I understand it has now ceased, although, this being where it is we can never be too sure of anything.

[think_too_mut]

I would switch to SAS; they've had two accidents in the last week and they are probably not due for any more for a while!

no matter what airline you fly with ,they are safer than travelling by land ..........

Is that right?

The Economist pointed at some research that says air travel, safety wise, is the second worst after motorbikes.

At least, the myth is being contested.

[londonthai]

each airline makes decisions on their own whether to proceed with the flight and land at the destination, return to the airport of departure or divert to another nearest airport in case of any problems.

the budget airlines might sometimes cut the corners on the safety to save money - but with carriers, being part of the international organisation of airlines, it's a different story.

thai airways is a high profile airline, in par with all the major airlines - and the high price for their airfare shows a high demand for their seats.

Edited September 22, 2007 by londonthai

[Aussietraveller]

I regularly fly Long Haul on Qantas, BA, Thai, Singapore Airlines and Emirates.

I would not hesitate to fly on any of them.

Short Haul in Asia I use Air Asia, Jet Star Asia, TG, Sin.

I have in the past flown 12GO, however i would be hesitant to do so again.

Just my personal opinion.

[think_too_mut]

I regularly fly Long Haul on Qantas, BA, Thai, Singapore Airlines and Emirates.

I would not hesitate to fly on any of them.

Short Haul in Asia I use Air Asia, Jet Star Asia, TG, Sin.

I have in the past flown 12GO, however i would be hesitant to do so again.

Just my personal opinion.

It's not work, I would guess. Hobby?

No western company would send you on Emirates, Air Asia, jet Star or 1-2-go.

[stevenjm]

stopped flying Thai for 3 reasons:

1: had a valid ticket and missed bkk - syd flight one time and they made me purchase another ticket even though the original had 1 day left on it (was told next days flight was full) so got a new ticket and booked for next day no problems then produced old ticket and said now I'm on flight am using old ticket because its still valid. Refund on new ticket took 4 months.

2: numbers wore off my frequent flyer card and they could not even dig up my old points without it so lost them all

3: their sydney - bkk flights go via melbourne so you can add a couple of hours to trip and cannot even get a decent seat because the flight does turnaround with bkk - melb passengers still aboard so you get to syd airport before melb people get to melb and get a lousy seat while melb gets the good seats. And often catch the flu from the melbourne people aboard because its so cold down there.(and because the flight still has pasengers to drop at melbourne you board a dirty, uncleaned flight in sydney) They should kick them out at sydney and put them on a domestic flight to melbourne and i won't fly with them again until they do.

Safety, well I guess there will always be the bird flu crowd that reacts to anything. you could most probably live in the air full time and live a longer life than most people as far as accidents are concerned.

[britmaveric]

Better off not flying any airline, actually don't use a train, car, or boat either.

[think_too_mut]

Next Thursday I will be flying TG. My company put me on it. My protest was hosed down with "they are a member of a world class alliance".

Other than scrap metal planes and no in-seat screen (where I only watch flight progress) I don't have much to complain.

United is even worse + 60yrs old recycled grandmas as hostesses.

I'm actually happy, they could have booked me on planet's worst nightmare - United or North West.

But, it took 5 years to TG to see me again. 60 biz flights that they lost to others (ANA, JAL, SQ, CX).

In the meantime, TG planes could only get older, not newer.

[tolsti]

It's not work, I would guess. Hobby?

No western company would send you on Emirates, Air Asia, jet Star or 1-2-go.

What a load of <deleted>... why would a western company not send staff on Emirates??

Years ago when I worked in Russia ''Western companies'' forbid their staff to fly on Aeroflot... until, that is, they found there was no other alternative. Then all of a sudden it was OK as the money they were earning out of those far flung offices far outweighed the risk.

Emirates is a fine airline safety wise. As regards however service they have declined in recent times according to reviews posted. They have modern aircraft (average 5.4 yrs @ 08/07), good infrastructure and maintenance. Tried flying recently on US carrier wth ancient flight attendants and only peanuts to eat on a 4hr flight?? Mind you BA aren't that much better!

Maybe it's just because the owners have towels on their heads??

Thai?.. decent enough airline, needs some investment to get rid of their older aircraft but nothing intrinsically wrong.

[ClaytonSeymour]

I regularly fly Long Haul on Qantas, BA, Thai, Singapore Airlines and Emirates.

I would not hesitate to fly on any of them.

Short Haul in Asia I use Air Asia, Jet Star Asia, TG, Sin.

I have in the past flown 12GO, however i would be hesitant to do so again.

Just my personal opinion.

It's not work, I would guess. Hobby?

No western company would send you on Emirates, Air Asia, jet Star or 1-2-go.

Rubbish! Many western businessmen travel on Emirates; if you've nothing constructive to say then don't sprout rubbish. For those tempted to listen to this unfounded, provocative talk, may I point out that Emirates has one of the youngest fleets out there AND they have never had a crash.

Emirates average fleet age = 5.5 years

Singapore Airlines = 6.6 years

Thai Airways 10.4 years

Qantas = 10.8 years

British Airways = 11.1 years

United Airlines = 13.1 years

I'd also add that Emirates have first class maintenance facilities.

You can check the details of a particular airlines fleets and individual aircraft history here;

http://www.airfleets.net/home/

[Captain Chaos]

I regularly fly Long Haul on Qantas, BA, Thai, Singapore Airlines and Emirates.

I would not hesitate to fly on any of them.

Short Haul in Asia I use Air Asia, Jet Star Asia, TG, Sin.

I have in the past flown 12GO, however i would be hesitant to do so again.

Just my personal opinion.

It's not work, I would guess. Hobby?

No western company would send you on Emirates, Air Asia, jet Star or 1-2-go.

Wrong, wrong (but not often), wrong (again, not often), right

[IMA_FARANG]

I would switch to SAS; they've had two accidents in the last week and they are probably not due for any more for a while!

I've flown many airlines and thae simple fact is: accidents and problems with airplanes will happen. Their is no correlation of airlines and accidents and what part of the world they happen in. One of the worst airplane disasters was in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where a wide-body jet with almost 300 paqssengers on board burnt with a heavy loss of life. I am familiar with the report of the investigation of that accident, and the root cause of the problem was the "European" (to be honest-an American co-pilot) who should have stopped the plane (it was then on fire inside) but wanted to get the aircraft off the runway and onto an taxiway before he and the pilot opened the doors (aircraft doors were then secured in flight by a control from the cockpit - that's now changed). The delay in taxing to a off-runway ramp vice evacuating the aircraft on the runway, was fatal because the pilots were overcome by smoke before they could unlatch the doors.

Conclusions:

1. Accidents happen.

2. There isn't any on nationality that reacts better than others to accidents.

3. "Europeans" or "Westerners" don't necessarily maintain aircraft better or are safer pilots.

4. In the long run, aircraft fail. What goes up, must come down.

5. If it's your time, it is your time.

[lazeeboy]

i think the budget airlines safety at the moment will be vesy high ,nobody wants to get ground on safety rules...

[think_too_mut]

Rubbish! Many western businessmen travel on Emirates; if you've nothing constructive to say then don't sprout rubbish. For those tempted to listen to this unfounded, provocative talk, may I point out that Emirates has one of the youngest fleets out there AND they have never had a crash.

Do I have an obligation to be "constructive" when talking about Emirates?

When we are at rubbish, I don't know what kind of it 80% of passengers eat - airconditioning can't cope with foul smell and body odor. Constant exposure to it may present a health hazard to flight attendants - not unlike tobacco smoke to bartenders in pubs.

Why don't One World or Star Alliance fight to get such a pearl of aviation into their membership?

Arguably, Al Jazeera is better TV than CNN....but....?

[think_too_mut]

Conclusions:

2. There isn't any on nationality that reacts better than others to accidents.

Back in 90s, ABC news Australia showed a footage (amateur video) how Garuda crew fell on their knees in the corridors and started praying when the plane hit turbulence.

3. "Europeans" or "Westerners" don't necessarily maintain aircraft better or are safer pilots.

Why EU banned so many airlines (Garuda, Phuket Air included) from their skies? Just look at the list, none is western.

Edited September 23, 2007 by think_too_mut

[Florin]

Conclusions:

2. There isn't any on nationality that reacts better than others to accidents.

Back in 90s, ABC news Australia showed a footage (amateur video) how Garuda crew fell on their knees in the corridors and started praying when the plane hit turbulence.

3. "Europeans" or "Westerners" don't necessarily maintain aircraft better or are safer pilots.

Why EU banned so many airlines (Garuda, Phuket Air included) from their skies? Just look at the list, none is western.

Last I checked, there were 2 Ukrainian airlines on the list...or for you "the western world" ends at the German border? Also, as pointed out, SAS had 2 emergencies in one week yet you don't hear people baying for their blood...same goes for Bombardier, a CANADIAN company that manufactures the Dash-8 planes involved in the SAS incidents (they also had failures with some other airlines in the past 2 weeks).

As for flight attentands reacting to incidents, give me a break...US airlines, BA, Qantas, they treat you like flying with them is some kind of privilege and are well known for concepts like "you can't board the plane because your skirt is too short", "Knock knock - Sir, you've been in the bathroom for 5.5 minutes, COME OUT NOW or you'll be arrested on arrival". Bullcrap...

[cdnvic]

Is that right?

The Economist pointed at some research that says air travel, safety wise, is the second worst after motorbikes.

At least, the myth is being contested.

Absolute rubbish.

Can you back this up with some evidence?

[lazeeboy]

Is that right?

The Economist pointed at some research that says air travel, safety wise, is the second worst after motorbikes.

At least, the myth is being contested.

Absolute rubbish.

Can you back this up with some evidence?

seconded ,unbelievable.....

[think_too_mut]

Is that right?

The Economist pointed at some research that says air travel, safety wise, is the second worst after motorbikes.

At least, the myth is being contested.

Absolute rubbish.

Can you back this up with some evidence?

Nothing less than "absolute"?

Take into account for each mean of transportation:

Number of trips

Duration of trips

Number of people aboard

At any second you have how many planes in the air? 5000?

How many cars, motorbikes, buses, boats, lorries? Maybe 1 billion or more people are on the move in/by something at any time.

Then consider frequency of accidents per year and proportion of planes among them.

True, far less people die in plane crashes but if they were so safe, such a small % of transport carried by planes should see an accident once in 1000 years, not once a week.

Now, it involves thinking, not googling.

Edited September 23, 2007 by think_too_mut

[chiang mai]

Rubbish! Many western businessmen travel on Emirates; if you've nothing constructive to say then don't sprout rubbish. For those tempted to listen to this unfounded, provocative talk, may I point out that Emirates has one of the youngest fleets out there AND they have never had a crash.

Do I have an obligation to be "constructive" when talking about Emirates?

When we are at rubbish, I don't know what kind of it 80% of passengers eat - airconditioning can't cope with foul smell and body odor. Constant exposure to it may present a health hazard to flight attendants - not unlike tobacco smoke to bartenders in pubs.

Why don't One World or Star Alliance fight to get such a pearl of aviation into their membership?

Arguably, Al Jazeera is better TV than CNN....but....?

Rubbish and totally incorrect.

[stevenjm]

Conclusions:

2. There isn't any on nationality that reacts better than others to accidents.

Back in 90s, ABC news Australia showed a footage (amateur video) how Garuda crew fell on their knees in the corridors and started praying when the plane hit turbulence.

If its the same flight I am thinking of I don't blame them. My mum was aboard and both engines flamed out when it hit volcanic ash and lost 10,000 feet before they managed to restart engines.

BTW she stills flies garuda.

Sorry - wrong info, it was singapore airlines 1982 and lost all engines.

Edited September 23, 2007 by stevenjm

[cdnvic]

Now, it involves thinking, not googling.

Translation: You don't have any evidence, you're just fear mongering like an old woman gossipping in a beauty salon.

[lazeeboy]

Now, it involves thinking, not googling.

Translation: You don't have any evidence, you're just fear mongering like an old woman gossipping in a beauty salon.

there are more road deaths in samui in one year than airline deaths ...........

[think_too_mut]

Now, it involves thinking, not googling.

Translation: You don't have any evidence, you're just fear mongering like an old woman gossipping in a beauty salon.

It's a mental capability to put googled data into perspective.

You can't google that, it comes with education.

Look at this: for over 30 years, Shinkansen (bullet) trains in Japan have carried nearly 3 billion people and have had no single fatality, except individuals throwing themselves onto the tracks. Not even earthquakes so powerful to tip over a glass on the table in my house have managed to derail them.

Over the same period, there were 13 air crashes with fatalities in Japan, including the largest single plane accident in aviation history (JAL 123 that killed 520 people).

To see 3 billion people through it's gates, it will take Suvarnabhumi next 66 years, if it remains at 45 mil passengers per year.

In the year 2073. neither you or me nor most of people on this board will be alive to watch the celebration.

Now, how many accidents may happen over next 66 years on flights in/out of Suvarnabhumi?

I am afraid, more than zero. My 3 years old daughter has seen one last week. Would she see more until her 69th birthday? Probably. With Shinkansen trains, it's far less certain

Now, what evidence do you have?

[Florin]

Now, it involves thinking, not googling.

Translation: You don't have any evidence, you're just fear mongering like an old woman gossipping in a beauty salon.

It's a mental capability to put googled data into perspective.

You can't google that, it comes with education.

Look at this: for over 30 years, Shinkansen (bullet) trains in Japan have carried nearly 3 billion people and have had no single fatality, except individuals throwing themselves onto the tracks. Not even earthquakes so powerful to tip over a glass on the table in my house have managed to derail them.

Over the same period, there were 13 air crashes with fatalities in Japan, including the largest single plane accident in aviation history (JAL 123 that killed 520 people).

To see 3 billion people through it's gates, it will take Suvarnabhumi next 66 years, if it remains at 45 mil passengers per year.

In the year 2073. neither you or me nor most of people on this board will be alive to watch the celebration.

Now, how many accidents may happen over next 66 years on flights in/out of Suvarnabhumi?

I am afraid, more than zero. My 3 years old daughter has seen one last week. Would she see more until her 69th birthday? Probably. With Shinkansen trains, it's far less certain

Now, what evidence do you have?

So you're comparing ALL air travel with the Japanese train system, probably the most advanced and highly used in the world? How many fatalities have there been on trains in Thailand, India or indeed even Britain in the past year? More than 0, that's for sure...

Then you have routes like Madrid-Barcelona, with commuter airlines doing the trip dozens of times in one day, surely having transported billions of people by now without (to my knowledge) any major fatalities.

The fact that airplanes are statistically the safest mode of travel doesn't even matter if you factor TIME into it...I love trains and would take one whenever possible, but to get from Bangkok to Tokyo, London, etc., you don't consider how likely you are to die, you consider taking 10 HOURS to get there as opposed to 10-20 DAYS to get there.

Also, I don't think a certain's country economy / level of development should tell you what airline to go for...some of the worst accidents in history have involved American, Japanese, Korean or European airlines. There are simply too many factors to consider, we are not yet at the level of foolproof transportation...probably never will be. The laws of physics themselves dictate that at one point in time a Japanese train will crash, a Qantas jet will go down, etc. It's just entropy, what can we do?

[cdnvic]

Over the same period, there were 13 air crashes with fatalities in Japan, including the largest single plane accident in aviation history (JAL 123 that killed 520 people).

And how many died in traffic accidents in that time?

You still haven't shown us anything more than hysterical rantings so don't tell us about education.