Thai Airways Hits Bottom 10 In Safety Survey

[webfact]

World's safest airlines named

Finland's national carrier, Finnair, has been named the world's safest airline by a European group of airline safety enthusiasts.

Air New Zealand was named the second-safest airline in the world, with Virgin Australia coming in at number nine. Qantas was ranked 13th and Jetstar 20th.

The Germany-based Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre, 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. [more...]

Full story: http://www.smh.com.a...0110-2cikq.html

-- The Sydney Morning Herald 2013-01-11

[Lancelot]

Ummm, OK, maybe they haven't examined Biman Bangladesh lately

[DLock]

I'm actually a little surprised by this.

Then again, I did see the Thai engineers removing the Boeing engine and putting in a Toyota instead...

[mic6ard]

Base on what???

[nomunynohuny]

Base on what???

How about . . "based on aircraft loss accidents and serious incidents where an accident nearly occurred over the past 30 years". Take your time, read the article.

[Amir]

I am surprised (realy surprised) that Thai Air is in the Bottom Top 10 and not Air France!!!!!

[NanLaew]

I guess the haters will be frantically googling for all the incidents and accidents that THAI have had over the past 30 years to see exactly why they are in the lower reaches of this 'Crash Division'.

I recall that Thai Airways Corporation (TAC) that used to cover only domestic routes before they 'merged' them with the current THAI, had a fair few fatal accidents in the 1970's and 1980's so maybe that is included in the database? The only memorable THAI accident I recall was a 737 crashing into the sea on approach in Phuket after ignoring an indecisive ATC and dive-bombing past a Dragonair 737 that had been approved to land ahead of the THAI plane. Any other THAI mishaps that I have missed?

Edited January 11, 2013 by NanLaew

[Katipo]

One good thing is that Thailand cares so much about their global reputation I would imagine they put a lot of effort into maintaining a clean record. Cheap labour costs mean maintaining a large number of engineers is also possible. At least this is what I tell myself every time I get on board one of Thai's aging fleet.

(In all fairness the 777 ER200 I flew to NZ was a relatively new plane. dam_n hot though. No individial air-con blowers).

[Moruya]

I wonder if the "incidents" are published?

[nomunynohuny]

I guess the haters will be frantically googling for all the incidents and accidents that THAI have had over the past 30 years to see exactly why they are in the lower reaches of this 'Crash Division'.

I recall that Thai Airways Corporation (TAC) that used to cover only domestic routes before they 'merged' them with the current THAI, had a fair few fatal accidents in the 1970's and 1980's so maybe that is included in the database? The only memorable THAI accident I recall was a 737 crashing into the sea on approach in Phuket after ignoring an indecisive ATC and dive-bombing past a Dragonair 737 that had been approved to land ahead of the THAI plane. Any other THAI mishaps that I have missed?

How about Surat Thani 1998, Nepal 1992? http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/airline_detail.cgi?airline=Thai+Airways

And the database also includes "near accidents".

[jcb2001]

I don't put a lot of confidence in this survey. The airline industry has changed drastically since the 70's when they started collecting data. And just who actually put all this data together to come up with these results? The findings can be skewed any number of ways to help or hurt an airline.

[rkidlad]

I guess the haters will be frantically googling for all the incidents and accidents that THAI have had over the past 30 years to see exactly why they are in the lower reaches of this 'Crash Division'.

I recall that Thai Airways Corporation (TAC) that used to cover only domestic routes before they 'merged' them with the current THAI, had a fair few fatal accidents in the 1970's and 1980's so maybe that is included in the database? The only memorable THAI accident I recall was a 737 crashing into the sea on approach in Phuket after ignoring an indecisive ATC and dive-bombing past a Dragonair 737 that had been approved to land ahead of the THAI plane. Any other THAI mishaps that I have missed?

As will all the rose tinted glass wearers who will want to disprove this. It works both ways. Best to just be objective and call a spade a spade.

[DocN]

Why don't we just believe it, like we are asked to with the TAT record- tourist numbers?

And I guess the JACDEC actually put some effort into research and is not just pulling numbers out of you-know-where....

[monty]

I guess the haters will be frantically googling for all the incidents and accidents that THAI have had over the past 30 years to see exactly why they are in the lower reaches of this 'Crash Division'.

I recall that Thai Airways Corporation (TAC) that used to cover only domestic routes before they 'merged' them with the current THAI, had a fair few fatal accidents in the 1970's and 1980's so maybe that is included in the database? The only memorable THAI accident I recall was a 737 crashing into the sea on approach in Phuket after ignoring an indecisive ATC and dive-bombing past a Dragonair 737 that had been approved to land ahead of the THAI plane. Any other THAI mishaps that I have missed?

The 737 Phuket crash is a long time ago, was '87 I think. I do remember it came just a few years after another 737 from Thai crashed after a double engine failure.

Afterwards Thai International suffered 2 major crashes, both with Airbus planes, one in 92 and one in 98, both with over 100 fatalities.

[monty]

And as reference:

http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/airline_detail.cgi?airline=Thai+Airways

[R10wota]

Base on what???

How about . . "based on aircraft loss accidents and serious incidents where an accident nearly occurred over the past 30 years". Take your time, read the article.

Well, looks like these people knew 60 Airlines....

So I guess this study shows ... wait... what?

Take 10 Airlines you know and then make a calculation of the past 30 or 50 years and put in some variables in them, throw in some constants, some factors etc etc and then come up with a formula.... I guess Thai Airways, or any other Airlines among that selected airlines will be in the TOP 10 Safest AIRLINES...

in other words, being 53 out of 60 Airlines taken into consideration doesnt mean it is on the Bottom 10 of all the airlines that exists.....

Edited January 11, 2013 by R10wota

[whiteman]

I don't put a lot of confidence in this survey. The airline industry has changed drastically since the 70's when they started collecting data. And just who actually put all this data together to come up with these results? The findings can be skewed any number of ways to help or hurt an airline.

he said the last 30 years not the last 40 so take t from there read the story

[dundas]

I'm not a great supporter of the current management of Qantas but in fairness the exploding A380 engine eventually resulted n Qantas being compensated by Rolls Royce, the engine maker and the maintenance supplier. The sudden drops on an A330 off the Western Australian coast were, from memory, sheeted home to a faulty algorithm in the Airbus A330. So those two examples show that the safety record of engine makers and aircraft manufactures might also be interesting, if cut that way, rather than describing it as part of the safety record of the airlines involved.

[pomchop]

http://www.fss.aero/accident-reports/look.php?report_key=413

in 2001 a Thai airline exploded at the gate at don muang....I was to be a passenger on the flight to Chiang Mai and was standing in line to board when kaboom it blew up. Taksin was also to be a passenger but his entourage was delayed in traffic which means they delayed the boarding to wait for him....if not for that me and many more would have likely already boarded and we would now be toast....so for once...thanks to bkk traffic i survived. They tried to say it was an assination attempt/bomb but after a full investigation with NSTB from usa and boeing determined it was a mechical malfunction....no doubt boeing would have preferred to announce it was a bomb for their reputation but the investigation found otherwise...

[Ajaan]

Happy to see the only international airline I ever fly (EVA), except for Air Asia regionally in SEAsia, at number six. Though I think it's kind of unfair that China Air is ranked at #60; they've really gotten their act together and haven't had a crash since about 1997 or so. The use of records over a span of 30 years makes the ranking a bit misleading if one is trying to evaluate the airlines in their present-day operations.

[airconsult]

Only 60 airlines they release the results on? This is a drastically shortened survey - let's see who I can think of off the top of my head as missing on their full list....(feel free to add)

http://www.aerointernational.de/service/sicherheitsranking/Aero-0213-Sicherheitranking-2012.pdf

Belle Air

VLM

Bulgarian Air

Croation Air

Czech Airlines

Air Tahiti

Air Tahiti Nui

IcelandAir

Aer Lingus

(thinking of that Ryanair is MIA too)

s*d this - too many to even think about....

And I'm only thinking of jet operators - they haven't bothered to list probably a couple of hundred more - what's the survey worth? Probably what it cost you.....

[PETERTHEEATER]

The key point here is that the Safety Index has related 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.

[mancub]

No 1 or no 60 ....still an awful lot safer than travelling by Thai minibus or government bus !!!

[SOTIRIOS]

....seriously....check out the average age of Thai Airways craft.....I think it is between 20 and 30 years.....

....as for the airports....post-scandal...and post-flooding....'volume' of passengers does not reflect quality in any way either....

....apparently, most facilities are acquired at inflated prices.......you know the rest....

[airconsult]

....seriously....check out the average age of Thai Airways craft.....I think it is between 20 and 30 years.....

....as for the airports....post-scandal...and post-flooding....'volume' of passengers does not reflect quality in any way either....

....apparently, most facilities are acquired at inflated prices.......you know the rest....

Average age is a not a good way to think of aircraft safety - aircraft are replaced when the cost of maintenance exceeds limits determined by RPK and cost of replacement equipment.

But if I take some FAA figures Thai's average fleet age is about 12 years - yes some of the 744's and 737's are approaching 20, but replacements have already been ordered. (those figures don't include turboprop - couldn't be bothered looking them up)

Edit - There is nothing wrong with flying on a 20-30 year old plane that has been properly maintained - before they went bankrupt and reformed, JAL had some 747-100's that were approaching 40 years old doing inter-city runs in Japan - while they were expensive to maintain, there was not a viable replacement in the market, as on the short runs the newer 744's were more expensive.

Edited January 11, 2013 by airconsult

[Vinny1967]

I've worked a lot in the aviation industry over the last 20 odd years and I can tell you that a lot of "incidents" go unreported to the public.Having worked in England (Heathrow) and in Holland (Schiphol and Rotterdam) I've seen things that would shock people and put them off flying forever.The incidents have to be reported to the airline but most are never made public.The reports are then forwarded to the relevant safety board.That's how they come up with these lists.It's not just about the ones you know about

[DavoTheGun]

As an Ex Pilot, all of these so called surveys should be taken with a grain of salt, many airlines are running on "Good Luck" South Africa, Russia, South America, and others all have commuter airlines operating on a shoe string, very poor maintenance, if any.

Most operating on good luck, and we never hear about the near misses etc.

I was offered a well paid job in SA, but refused it when saw the age and state of the fleet of 737s and Fokkers. Amazing! and shocking!

[hellodolly]

Base on what???

Read the article.

Nice to see Thai air continuing to be in the top ten some where be it good or bad. They are there.

[airconsult]

The key point here is that the Safety Index has related 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.

Ah - thanks, I was wondering - yes, so if your RPK was low, but your record was near perfect.... then you're still low on the list. That does explain a lot.

Cheers

[Nigel1500]

I seem to read about more Qantas and Jetstar problems than Thai Airways. Because of this, I've preferred flying with Thai in recent years. Am I missing something? Perhaps someone could point me to some statistics.