Thai Airways Hits Bottom 10 In Safety Survey

[hellodolly]

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.

Actually almost useless. As you say 30 years can leave an airline with the best record in every department over the last 25 years in the bottom 10 because of a horrendous prior 5 years.

But I am glad to see EVA up there.

[smotherb]

Base on what???

Try reading: The article says, "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."

[Vinny1967]

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.

Like I said.It's not just about the incidents you know about.A lot of things can happen mid-flight that passengers are unaware of.I'm sure DavoTheGun would verify this.An engine can fail and they'll still land the plane safely with passengers been none the wiser.It's all the little incidents that build up on a airlines record.

[smotherb]

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.

Take your own advice--bottom ten, not top ten

[drdoom6996]

You surprised people really need to bone up on airline history. Thai Airways has lost aircraft with no survivors in Nepal over the last 30 years. And numerous near misses. Taksin's fire comes to mind right off. Even Air France has a better record than Thai Airways. I hope their new A380's help them some. Because their service is only one step better that Air Asia.

[drdoom6996]

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.

Take your own advice--bottom ten, not top ten

AGREED, read the article before you comment.

[Lancelot]

Service on THai airways is still good

I flew United from Washington DC to Frankfurt. Bottle of small red wine was $7. The second segment was Frankfurt to Bangkok on Thai airways. Served me beer- compliments- and always with a smile.

[thaimlord]

No-one has even brought up what I would consider one of the most obvious points. Not only might the statistics be inaccurate, but the conclusions drawn that the airlines with fewer incidents to-date are safer, could be total nonsense.

This survey/study/report relies on the implication that airlines who have had some bad luck or bad judgement in the past, will continue to have that bad luck or bad judgement. Similar in many ways to saying that because a stock price has been rising in the past, then it will rise in the future. I think enough of us know by now, that there is not necessarily that correlation. We do not intend to be travelling by air in the past, but in the future, and this report cannot predict the future any more than you or I can.

Indeed the point could easily be made that an airline that has had a poor record in the past, quite possibly has better procedures in place now, because they know only too well that their reputation is on the line due to idiot conclusions such as in this report. And those airlines with no or fewer previous problems could well be resting on their laurels and due for something horrendous themselves.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Sometimes attributed to the 19th-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli

[GuestHouse]

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'.

A classic TVF response.

A report is issued indicating serious failings in Thai Airways safety record and NanLaew jumps right in wth his prediction of the responce of who he refers to as 'Haters'.

Who are we to disagree with the man?

NanLaew has labelled a bunch of people 'Haters', a designation of his own choosing, and NanLaew has imagined their behaviour, again of his own choosing. The 'Haters' and 'their alloted behaviour' is all in NanLaew's head.

Meanwhile rational people will read the report, they may agree with it in part or whole, they might disagree with it in part or whole.

But there is no rationality in reading (or not reading) a report and then ranting against others who might also read it.

Maybe NanLaew would like to ban the publication of this report lest those 'Haters' running around in his imagination get to read something about Thai Airways safety record that he in his paternalistic wisdom feels they need not know.

Edited January 11, 2013 by GuestHouse

[bigbamboo]

Reminds me of the travel agent's stock response to the nervous flyer's question, "do these planes often crash?"

"No. Only once."

[Anon999]

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.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of the same airlines over the last 20 years and last 10 years to see who has improved and those that have dropped the ball.

[goatfarmer]

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.

Thai has not had a fatal accident since the 1998 Airbus crash at Surat Thani. Since being established in 1960 Thai Airways has had five crashes involving 366 fatalities. Given the fact that Thai carries approximately 7,000 passengers per day and has been operating for more than 18,000 days (about 50 years) the chances of being killed on a Thai flight is negligible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft

[muntergok]

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.aerointer...anking-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.....

• 
  

#24

SICHERHEITSRATE DER 60 GRÖSSTEN FLUGGESELLSCHAFTEN WELTWEITs

Safety rate OF THE 60 LARGEST World Airlines -Good old Ryanair number 32. SAS bottom 10 too at number 50

[techboy]

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.

"Serious incidents" bothers me. You could extrapolate that the copilot breaking wind in the flight cabin caused a distraction and an accident nearly occurred.

[SparklingCascades]

Another record set. Thai Airways sits among 'Top -10 Riskiest Airlines in the World'. Cheap fares a great magnet. Blinds people to ageing, ill-maintained aircraft......and we thought Thai road accidents were the worst in ASEAN countries.

[Anon999]

No-one has even brought up what I would consider one of the most obvious points. Not only might the statistics be inaccurate, but the conclusions drawn that the airlines with fewer incidents to-date are safer, could be total nonsense.

This survey/study/report relies on the implication that airlines who have had some bad luck or bad judgement in the past, will continue to have that bad luck or bad judgement. Similar in many ways to saying that because a stock price has been rising in the past, then it will rise in the future. I think enough of us know by now, that there is not necessarily that correlation. We do not intend to be travelling by air in the past, but in the future, and this report cannot predict the future any more than you or I can.

Indeed the point could easily be made that an airline that has had a poor record in the past, quite possibly has better procedures in place now, because they know only too well that their reputation is on the line due to idiot conclusions such as in this report. And those airlines with no or fewer previous problems could well be resting on their laurels and due for something horrendous themselves.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Sometimes attributed to the 19th-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli

Not true as can be ascertained by comparisons in many other sectors. The poor performers in any survey tend to remain poor performers for whatever reason. However, a minority will improve and make their way up the ladder if they set themselves achievable objectives. How far up invariably depends on the amount of money and effort they are prepared to invest to achieve those objectives.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Anon999

[oldsailor35]

Base on what???

This i would like to know. How do they work this out and exactly who are "they"

[oldsailor35]

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...

Bugger! i wondered who nicked my cruiser engine !

[hellodolly]

Base on what???

This i would like to know. How do they work this out and exactly who are "they"

Read the whole article.

[markt7081]

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.

Yep,

You may wish to consider if operators in societys/countrys, where loss of face is important, would report near misses, mechanical problems etc, etc.

[oldsailor35]

Where do the Russians come on this listing, i seem to recall that they have had a few accidents in the past.

[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.aerointer...anking-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.....

• 
  

#24

SICHERHEITSRATE DER 60 GRÖSSTEN FLUGGESELLSCHAFTEN WELTWEITs

Safety rate OF THE 60 LARGEST World Airlines -Good old Ryanair number 32. SAS bottom 10 too at number 50

I accept I missed Ryanair in at 32 - (could be my eyes edited them out...)

TAM fleet size - 11 aircraft (on list)

Air Tahiti fleet size - 12 aircraft (not on list)

Air Bulgaria fleet size - 19 aircraft (not on list - but probably because it is the reformed Balkan-Bulgarian)

Hawaiian Airlines - 44 aircraft (not on list - that's a fairly big one to miss)

Couldn't be bothered looking for others - but it is NOT the largest 60 - by aircraft or destinations - perhaps by RPK (that would be a long search, but as TAM 2011 had a 195million USD loss and Hawaiian made 45 million.... you guess)

Edited January 11, 2013 by airconsult

[MrKrabbe]

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).

cheap labour cost says a lot about the engineers capability's

[marchawkes]

....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.

As a traveler I have no interest in the "cost of maintenance or if it is exceeding limits determined by RPK or cost of replacement equipment." Also, I have no interest in sitting in an aircraft which is 20 years old or more anymore than I have interest in sitting on a horse-drawn carriage to travel from Dubai to Timbuktu.

Air travelers have no time for analysis of make, model, age......when it comes to making choices. That's what airline executives are paid to do.

Smart travel is all about picking an airline which demonstrates 4 basics ie: a well-regarded 'safety track-record', some comfort, fares which compare reasonably and journey time. Going by news updates - SIA, NZ Air, Emirates & Etihad have constant upgrades to fleets. This in turn delivers the 4 basics. These airlines also supply used aircraft to a hungry "secondary market" whose buyers are Garuda, Philippines Airlines, Thai, Air India, some Aftican carriers, many ex-Soviet national carriers.......In fact all 10 carriers listed at the bottom of the safety list fly well-used aircraft purchased in the secondary market from the leading airlines. My simple mind needs no more analysis.

Edited January 11, 2013 by marchawkes

[ingvar]

So if I start an airline and fly people straight to hell for free, then I will be ranked among the top ten? Since they use the profit per passenger and km in their calcualtion?

[Morakot]

who actually put all this data together to come up with these results?

The Germany-based Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre, or JACDEC

Take your time, read the article.

[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.

Smart travel is all about picking an airline which demonstrates 4 basics ie: a well-regarded 'safety track-record', some comfort, fares which compare reasonably and journey time. Going by the experience of SIA, NZ Air, Emirates & Etihad constant upgrades to fleets deliver these 4 basics. These airlines also supply used aircraft to a hungry "secondary market" whose buyers are Garuda, Philippines Airlines, Thai, Air India.......Maybe by chance, all 10 carriers listed at the bottom of the safety pile fly well-used aircraft purchased in the secondary market.

If in your view this is a reasonable list - how is Aeroflot listed higher than Thai, American Airlines, JAL, SAS.... on and on - I think their statistics are weighted by their RPK measurement.

Edited for brevity - apologies

Edited January 11, 2013 by airconsult

[ingvar]

of course next question, what if my planes keep getting crashed into on the tarmak by other airlines by no fault of mine, all passengers die and I end up at the bottom of the list?

[Westaurel]

Incidents and accidents

• 30 June 1967 - Thai Airways International Flight 601, a Sud Aviation SE-210 Caravelle III with registration HS-TGI, crashed into the sea while on approach to Kai Tak Airport in a typhoon. 24 out of the 80 passengers and crew on board were killed.
  
• 25 December 1967 - A Thai Airways International Douglas DC-3 with registration HS-TDH crashed at Chiang Mai Airport, killing 4 out of 31 passengers and crew on the flight.^[34]
  
• 10 May 1973 - A Douglas DC-8-33 with registration HS-TGU overran the runway on landing at Tribhuvan International Airport in Kathmandu. There was 1 fatality out of 100 passengers and 10 crew on board.^[35]
  
• 27 April 1980 - Thai Airways Flight 231, a Hawker Siddeley HS 748, crashed after entering a severe thunderstorm on approach to Khon Kaen Airport. 44 of the 53 people on board were killed.^[36]
  
• 10 November 1990 – Flight 306, an Airbus A300-600 flying from Yangon to Don Muang International Airport was the target of an attempted hijacking by individuals demanding to be taken to Kolkata.^[37]
  
• 31 July 1992 – Flight 311, an Airbus A310-300 hit the side of a hill 23 miles north of Kathmandu while descending toward Tribhuvan International Airport from Bangkok. All 113 on board (99 passengers and 14 crew) died. The accident was caused by technical failures, a lack of radar equipment at Tribhuvan International Airport.^[38][39]
  
• 11 December 1998 – Flight 261, an A310-200, bound for Surat Thani from Bangkok, crashed into a rice paddy about two miles from Surat Thani airport during its third landing attempt in heavy rain; 102 of 143 on board were killed.^[40]
  
• 3 March 2001 – Thai Airways International Flight 114, a Boeing 737-400 with registration HS-TDC, bound for Chiang Mai from Bangkok, was destroyed by an explosion of the center wing tank resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank while the aircraft was being serviced at the gate in Bangkok. The source of the ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but the most likely source was an explosion originating at the center wing tank pump as a result of running the pump in the presence of metal shavings and a fuel/air mixture. One crew member was killed.^[41]
  

[oldsailor35]

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.

Thai has not had a fatal accident since the 1998 Airbus crash at Surat Thani. Since being established in 1960 Thai Airways has had five crashes involving 366 fatalities. Given the fact that Thai carries approximately 7,000 passengers per day and has been operating for more than 18,000 days (about 50 years) the chances of being killed on a Thai flight is negligible.

http://en.wikipedia....ercial_aircraft

A Super Constellation crashed on landing at RATMALAMA Colombo Ceylon probably around 1953, but i cannot find any notification of this.