Thai Airways Hits Bottom 10 In Safety Survey

[khunken]

....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.

I have some empathy with your opinion but There are a few points I'd like to adjust.

First, SIA is unlikely to fit into the 'reasonable cost' bracket but do well on the other 3 basics. I doubt very much that the airlines you mention (Thai, PIA, Garuda, etc) buy aircraft on the secondary market. Their old planes were bought new donkey's years ago.

Surely a 20-year old aircraft, well-maintained, clean, comfortable (relatively) & upgraded with newish entertainment systems is every bit as good as a new aircraft. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to fly on one of those.

Also, I'd add a direct route (no stops) to my criteria.

[airconsult]

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?

Hah - actually I remember 2 incidents at Sydney airport within 30 days.

1. A QF catering van ran into the fuselage of a UA 747

2 weeks later

2. A UA vehicle ran into a QF 747 fuselage

We always wondered if it was revenge or karma...

"I just didn't see it!" "It's a 20 metre high 180 tonne flippin' aircraft - what do you mean!"

Edited January 11, 2013 by airconsult

[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.

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.

I have some empathy with your opinion but There are a few points I'd like to adjust.

First, SIA is unlikely to fit into the 'reasonable cost' bracket but do well on the other 3 basics. I doubt very much that the airlines you mention (Thai, PIA, Garuda, etc) buy aircraft on the secondary market. Their old planes were bought new donkey's years ago.

Surely a 20-year old aircraft, well-maintained, clean, comfortable (relatively) & upgraded with newish entertainment systems is every bit as good as a new aircraft. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to fly on one of those.

Also, I'd add a direct route (no stops) to my criteria.

All airlines buy or lease planes from other carriers at some point. Thai does, SIA does, ANZ does.

It's only good commercial fleet management at work.

For the doubters SIA currently operates a 777 formerly from Egypt Air. Philippines grabbed some of the planes in the Alitalia sale (good buy), Thai purchased a couple of 737's off Nok Air when they didn't need them.

http://www.planespotters.net/Airline/Singapore-Airlines

[barmatt]

Well I hope this review brings their prices down

[Teddysad]

Guess my local national carrier Air New Zealand is still a safe bet

[DocN]

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.

You didn't get the irony- part, did ya'?

[yiiim2]

Good to see Air Asia well above Thai Airways in the safety list.

[millwall_fan]

Lufthansa must be gutted: They had the same score as British Airways 0.11, but missed a top 10 slot to BA on alphabetical order!!

I would rather walk than catch a Thai Airways International flight: crap service, no seat back TV and poor food. Now it seems they have a poor safety record, it just confirms my opinion of them! Give me Emirates every time. Fantastic airline.

[ib1b4]

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.

I think this is not true? I recal a NZ airlines plane crashing into the sea near France in 2008 with fatalities. But I think it was a test flight after maintenance.

[Nisa]

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]
  

Good info and thanks for sharing. However the article only looked at the last 30-years which is odd too because some airlines listed, including a number in the top ten, haven't even been around that long including...

#5 Etihad Airways founded 2003

#9 Virgin Australia founded 2000 (as Virgin Blue)

#8 Hainan Airlines founded 1989

#6 Eva Air founded 1989

#4 Emirates founded 1985

Interesting to note with THAI is that up until 2008 it had 40 consecutive years of profits despite its not so glowing safety record as compared to other airlines.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Nisa

[metisdead]

A post using all capitals has been removed, turn off your All Caps button when posting.

[EyesWideOpen]

I have only two criteria for choosing an airline to fly one. One is price, and the other making it alive to my destination.

Thai Airlines is not competitive on price, and now I find out they are not safe either. So guess I will not be flying them in the future...

I did take an Aeroflot flight one time. I have never been so scared in my life. A bizarre weaving approach into Taipei, and then the cabin started filling with smoke on final. I have never been so happy as when the wheels touched the ground.

Edited January 11, 2013 by EyesWideOpen

[Pimay1]

Well I hope this review brings their prices down

When pigs fly.

[DocN]

Well I hope this review brings their prices down

When pigs fly.

...and I'd rather catch one of them, to ride!

[KKvampire]

Qantas safety sucks

Sent from my LG-P350 using Thaivisa Connect App

[Nigel1500]

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."

If you're questioning the worthiness of the data then I agree with you. For example, it only counts accidents since 1983, yet in 1977 the KLM accident in Tenerife killed 583 people. Plug those results into the formula and KLM plumets down the list. In fact, it would put them down near JAL.

[chainarong]

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 only other mishap i recall was the Thai 737 at the air ramp , exploding in flames and guess who was supposed to fly on it to Chaing mai.The cause was put down to a heavy smoker.

[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.

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.

Mark. You may wish to be better informed about the data on which you base your comments. It fails to consider any accident prior to 1983 for a start. It fails to consider passenger miles. It only considers 60 airlines. The algorithm used has a natural bias in favour of huge or very young airlines. You will find that http://www.worldairlineawards.com/ ranks Thai Airways in the top 10.

[Fozfromoz]

Lufthansa must be gutted: They had the same score as British Airways 0.11, but missed a top 10 slot to BA on alphabetical order!!

I would rather walk than catch a Thai Airways International flight: crap service, no seat back TV and poor food. Now it seems they have a poor safety record, it just confirms my opinion of them! Give me Emirates every time. Fantastic airline.

Came back from Brisbane 2 days ago. Thai 777. Service excellent, TV screen in the seat back. Food excellent. Didnt crash, not even once.

You must be thinking of another Thai Airline. If you are walking, would you like me to set a beer up for you at the other end?

[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.

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.

The passengers might be unaware, but the aircraft manufacturer is not.

We would all be better off ignoring the report. Afterall, SkyTrax has rated Thai Airways in their top 10 for the last 5 years: 4th in 2008, 10th in 2009, 9th in 2010, 5th in 2011, and 9th in 2012.

Thai Airways fleet is young in comparison to most other international carriers. I'm very happy to fly with Thai.

[Nigel1500]

Lufthansa must be gutted: They had the same score as British Airways 0.11, but missed a top 10 slot to BA on alphabetical order!!

I would rather walk than catch a Thai Airways International flight: crap service, no seat back TV and poor food. Now it seems they have a poor safety record, it just confirms my opinion of them! Give me Emirates every time. Fantastic airline.

Came back from Brisbane 2 days ago. Thai 777. Service excellent, TV screen in the seat back. Food excellent. Didnt crash, not even once.

You must be thinking of another Thai Airline. If you are walking, would you like me to set a beer up for you at the other end?

I'm with you Foz. Thai Airways is a TOP airline. Silly Americans! They believe everything they read without checking the facts.

Perhaps it's more to do with us Aussies being happy to pay to fly in 777s while tight-ass Americans get cheaper seats on 747s.

[pomchop]

I wonder how many people read stats like this and get all worried about flying and then get on a motorbike and ride home?

Flying has been proven over and over to be one of the safest means of transport known to man...sure accidents and incidents happen but your odds of arriving safely are huge especially compared with surface travel.

[Scully]

I wonder how many people read stats like this and get all worried about flying and then get on a motorbike and ride home?

Flying has been proven over and over to be one of the safest means of transport known to man...sure accidents and incidents happen but your odds of arriving safely are huge especially compared with surface travel.

Yes its the taxi from the airport people should worry about.

Price, legroom and service for me

[EyesWideOpen]

Most aircraft crashes are due to pilot error . Asian culture does not transfer well to the cockpit, with the complex relationship between

the captain and the co-pilot. Whole books have been written about this, where the co-pilot is not allowed to question any decision

by the captain. Korean Airlines was a perfect example. They were having so many crashes a number of years ago that they were

no longer allowed to fly in American airspace. An outside expert was brought in who completely revamped their cockpit culture, so the co-pilot now acts as a back stop to any decision by the captain,

and now they are fine. So in Thailand I am sure they face the same issues, and then add in nepotism and crony-ism, so the final result cannot be good. I personally love hearing an American drawl from the flight deck over the intercom system. :-)

Edited January 11, 2013 by EyesWideOpen

[yiiim2]

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.

The passengers might be unaware, but the aircraft manufacturer is not.

We would all be better off ignoring the report. Afterall, SkyTrax has rated Thai Airways in their top 10 for the last 5 years: 4th in 2008, 10th in 2009, 9th in 2010, 5th in 2011, and 9th in 2012.

Thai Airways fleet is young in comparison to most other international carriers. I'm very happy to fly with Thai.

As far as I can see from the Skytrax website, Skytrax does not consider safety in their ranking whereas the report being discussed in this forum considers only safety and, on the basis of that report concerning safety, Thai Airways is well towards the bottom of the list they published.

[scotto]

I quite like thai airways but i find their fares a bit

high sometimes and they do not do many special fares like other

airlines do to put bums on seats

[airconsult]

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.

The passengers might be unaware, but the aircraft manufacturer is not.

We would all be better off ignoring the report. Afterall, SkyTrax has rated Thai Airways in their top 10 for the last 5 years: 4th in 2008, 10th in 2009, 9th in 2010, 5th in 2011, and 9th in 2012.

Thai Airways fleet is young in comparison to most other international carriers. I'm very happy to fly with Thai.

As far as I can see from the Skytrax website, Skytrax does not consider safety in their ranking whereas the report being discussed in this forum considers only safety and, on the basis of that report concerning safety, Thai Airways is well towards the bottom of the list they published.

As I mentioned earlier - these ratings seem to be skewed a bit - or do you believe Aeroflot (39) is so much safer than AA, JAL, US Airways, SAS, etc?

Aeroflot accidents in the 80's http://en.wikipedia....ts_in_the_1980s

Aeroflot accidents in the 90's http://en.wikipedia....ts_in_the_1990s

The lists are far too long to post - and, as usual, I assume the wikipedia misses out on quite a lot - it's just handy to start. Though one worth of mention was in 1994 when the pilot's son turned off the autopilot - resulting in a crash...

Edited January 11, 2013 by airconsult

[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'.

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.

I read the article, I recalled the accidents and opined that maybe some members could recall others and the verifiable links were posted.

Have I disagreed with the findings? NO!

Do I accept then fully? YES!

The 'haters' I referred to (why did YOU chose to capitalize that btw?) are the ones that usually come out and pan THAI (and just about everything Thai) for everything they can. So far, the closest we have had are the usual mumblings about '30 year old planes' from the ignorant and clueless misinformed. Another rather tongue-in-cheek poster said

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

whereupon the malcontents quickly jumped all over him for (they think) misreading the OP whereas in actuality, they have misread his post.

Thanks for making my point though... 'preciate it. "Serious failings" my arse.

Oh yes, how the [expletive deleted] do YOU get to pretend to know what's running around inside my pretty little head?

Edited January 11, 2013 by NanLaew

[Diablo Bob]

Lufthansa must be gutted: They had the same score as British Airways 0.11, but missed a top 10 slot to BA on alphabetical order!!

I would rather walk than catch a Thai Airways International flight: crap service, no seat back TV and poor food. Now it seems they have a poor safety record, it just confirms my opinion of them! Give me Emirates every time. Fantastic airline.

Came back from Brisbane 2 days ago. Thai 777. Service excellent, TV screen in the seat back. Food excellent. Didnt crash, not even once.

You must be thinking of another Thai Airline. If you are walking, would you like me to set a beer up for you at the other end?

I'm with you Foz. Thai Airways is a TOP airline. Silly Americans! They believe everything they read without checking the facts.

Perhaps it's more to do with us Aussies being happy to pay to fly in 777s while tight-ass Americans get cheaper seats on 747s.

I agree with you in your statements throughout the thread, personally when I can, I will choose Thai Air and know that I will be quite happy on my flight. Never had bad service, food has always been excellent and since I know how to read don't really need a TV....

Have been called hard assed and have done things half assed and am definitly tight assed since I am NOT from San Francisco!

[keithcresswell]

Shame about poor old Qantas, 90 years old and never had a fatal accident. Touch wood etc etc.