Thai Airways Hits Bottom 10 In Safety Survey

[biplanebluey]

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.

OK I will ask them to change the figures------ maybe that will give you a bit more confidence

[SparklingCascades]

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.

http://www.planespot...gapore-Airlines

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.

Undiluted rubbish. Firstly your attachment does not show that SIA buys aircraft from Egypt Air or others, second your attachment does show that SIA (which is a benchmark for good aviation) has an average fleet life of 6.7 yrs (Thai Airways is more than double this) and thirdly I will need a brain scan the day I book tickets after doing an analysis of RPK ie: equipment replacement or average life of a fleet. I agree with the earlier blogger that everyday folks simply look for the 4 basics viz. track record for safety (not a carrier ranked in the bottom 10 for safety), some comfort, reasonable price, journey time. Sometimes price is the over-riding concern. We leave the in-depth analysis to armchair travellers who oft times cannot afford more than a blog analysis of travel – hence, far removed from reality and carrying most impractical one-eyed content. Edited January 11, 2013 by SparklingCascades

[Rancid]

Well everyone can choose what airline hey fly. Just waiting for Thai to jump in and buy some of these new Chinese airplanes, expect like the tablets it will be about kickbacks. And probably like the tablets will be cheap crap to extort profit after paying the kickbacks. There again may appeal to the adventure travel market.

[Chao Lao Beach]

It is nothing a bit of THAI-NESS ca not fix

[notime]

This report is crap. Not only it doesn't compare all sizable airlines, uses strange methodology and arrives at questionable results but also omits information on some accidents if they based their rankings on database of airdisaster.com. that is also crap.

Edited January 11, 2013 by notime

[airconsult]

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.

http://www.planespot...gapore-Airlines

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.

Undiluted rubbish. Firstly your attachment does not show that SIA buys aircraft from Egypt Air or others, second your attachment does show that SIA (which is a benchmark for good aviation) has an average fleet life of 6.7 yrs (Thai Airways is more than double this) and thirdly I will need a brain scan the day I book tickets after doing an analysis of RPK ie: equipment replacement or average life of a fleet. I agree with the earlier blogger that everyday folks simply look for the 4 basics viz. track record for safety (not a carrier ranked in the bottom 10 for safety), some comfort, reasonable price, journey time. Sometimes price is the over-riding concern. We leave the in-depth analysis to armchair travellers who oft times cannot afford more than a blog analysis of travel – hence, far removed from reality and carrying most impractical one-eyed content.

Ooops - my apologies - I mistook one registration - but the principle is still intact. (The registration involved was a test one later re-used for an Egypt Air 772)

In that survey did you notice that they score Cathay(3) higher than SIA(30)? Right? Yet several of SIA's planes were leased or purchased by Cathay.

To save you some time - 9V-SJA - an A340-313X - purchased by SIA in 1996, sold to Cathay in 2001 as B-HXM, who sold it to Aerolineas Argentinas in 2011, now LV-CSD.

http://www.planespot...re-Airlines.php

If you're still so angry, I suggest the brain-scan now, not later....

EDIT - if you are including me as an "arm-chair traveller" - I have spent 30 years in the aviation industry - doing projects in more than 35 separate countries, and until retirement I usually had more than 80 flights per year - my arm-chair would have been remarkably similar to a plane seat.

Edited January 11, 2013 by airconsult

[trainman34014]

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. :-)

Drawl no good. I prefer the clarity of a British Pilot's voice any day.

[Felt 35]

No surprizes for any frequent flyer on that list.

[chooka]

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

At least they are above Qantas. You wouldn't catch me in a Qantas aircraft they are a disaster waiting to happen. Give me a Thai plane anytime.

[NewlyMintedThai]

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.

In what parallel universe do you live where Thai has "cheap fares"?

[zydeco]

Is Korean Air so far down on the list because the Russians shot down their airliner in 1983? If so, I'd say extenuating circumstances should apply!

[SparklingCascades]

.

Ooops - my apologies - I mistook one registration - but the principle is still intact. (The registration involved was a test one later re-used for an Egypt Air 772).

In that survey did you notice that they score Cathay(3) higher than SIA(30)? Right? Yet several of SIA's planes were leased or purchased by Cathay.

To save you some time - 9V-SJA - an A340-313X - purchased by SIA in 1996, sold to Cathay in 2001 as B-HXM, who sold it to Aerolineas Argentinas in 2011, now LV-CSD.

http://www.planespot...re-Airlines.php

If you're still so angry, I suggest the brain-scan now, not later....

EDIT - if you are including me as an "arm-chair traveller" - I have spent 30 years in the aviation industry - doing projects in more than 35 separate countries, and until retirement I usually had more than 80 flights per year - my arm-chair would have been remarkably similar to a plane seat.

More gobbly gook from you......Mate, not everyone who disagrees with you is "angry". Just as not everyone with 30+ yrs airline experience offers practical sense to a survey. To help with airline choices for our travel, I passed your blog-comments to our Head of Operations (a nice Thai gentleman). He could not stop grinning and asked if "maybe commonsense has been lost in all the numbers & figures". Being a smiling Thai he agreed to sit on your very practical input saying its "full of sooo much........" hehehe :-) Edited January 11, 2013 by SparklingCascades

[geriatrickid]

Please do not rely on the Skytrax ratings. They have been exposed as "cooked"

In November 2012 the UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) investigated Skytrax following a complaint by KwikChex Ltd. Five issues were investigated and all five were upheld. In plain languagem Skytrax is misleading.

In its summary, the ASA told Skytrax: "not to imply that the reviews on their site were checked, trusted and genuine unless they could provide substantiation to that effect. We also told them not to make claims regarding the number of reviews on their site and the frequency with which they reviewed airlines' Star Rankings or to state that titles were trademarked, unless they could provide evidence to substantiate those facts, and not to use the term "Official Quality Star Ranking ™" unless they could show that this programme had been created in co-operation with the airline industry as a whole."

http://www.asa.org.u...ADJ_196416.aspx

In respect to Thai keep in mind that part of the problem is with the airports. A number of incidents are associated with weather, and airport conditions. Phuket is one of the worst airports in Thailand for weather. With only one runway, aircraft are often forced to accept higher risk takeoffs and landings than if there were multiple angled runways. Thai also has some very decrepit equipment and is prone to breakdowns. There is an expression <deleted> use to descibe the seemingly common event of finding an aircraft substitution and they call it being TGed. Basically, you think you are booking a new plane and then wham bam you are put onto one of the out of date B747-400's or AB-300's. Even some of the B-777 are in need of renewing.

As an EVA FF, I take some comfort in it being one of the safest airlines in Asia and to be honest, whether is CX, SQ, QF, ANA, I don't think there is much difference. However, when there have been major incidents, I do note that it is the pilots on airlines such as BA, AC, UA/CO, DL, QF that have distinguished themselves with superb flying skills. So, score one to Asian carriers for equipment maintenance, but the western airlines get the mark for better pilots (even though many of the pilots on the gulf state and asian carriers are westerners.).

Edited January 11, 2013 by geriatrickid

[lizardtongue]

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).

I tend to agree with your post, the worrying thing for me is as you correctly point out, that is 'cheap labour costs' you pay peanuts you get monkey's, I have used Thai once for an internal flight it was expensive compared to other carriers, my wife's luggage had items missing and mine had been tampered with of course no one was interested with the obvious complaints, even e-mails to the head office were not answered, granted this was a few years ago but that was my first and my last flight with them.

We always use EVA no complaints in the 9+ years that we have been with them.

[kimamey]

....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....

I've never flown Thai airways international although I've flown twice between BKK and Khon Kaen and the planes seem quite new.

I notice that the airline I used in December and will be using in July Turkish is below Thai.

[EyesWideOpen]

Is Korean Air so far down on the list because the Russians shot down their airliner in 1983? If so, I'd say extenuating circumstances should apply!

From the book Outliers:

Up until a few years ago, Korean Air Lines was plagued by a much higher crash rate than other airlines. Analysis of cockpit voice recorder data from a number of Korean plane crashes revealed that the god-like status of captains and the relative subordination of their second officers frequently led to situations where the captain was fuc_king up, the second officer was clearly aware of the ####p, but the second officer was either unwilling or unable to communicate to the captain the fact that he was fuc_king up.

In one horrifying case, the transcript reveals that just before their plane plowed into the side of a hill, the second officer was saying something to the captain like, “sometimes it is not so easy in bad weather at this airport to see the runway”, when it was clear that he knew they were headed for the hill and should have been shouting, “Dude! Pull up!!! We’re about to crash into the motherfuc_king hill!! PULL UP!!!”

I am not sure if this same attitude exists in Thai aircraft, I sure hope not...

[NewlyMintedThai]

This kind of seniority is most often seen where the pilots were former Air Force (as many were around the region, and definitely in Korea and Taiwan). They're taught not to question their superiors.

I'm not sure if TG pilots are made up largely of former RTAF pilots or not.

[bigbamboo]

I used to be a THAI regular but no more. That's nothing to do with their safety simply their pricing.

I think the alleged 'Thai bashers' have no case here to jump on here........ unlike some baggage handlers.

[tw25rw]

Is Korean Air so far down on the list because the Russians shot down their airliner in 1983? If so, I'd say extenuating circumstances should apply!

From the book Outliers:

Up until a few years ago, Korean Air Lines was plagued by a much higher crash rate than other airlines. Analysis of cockpit voice recorder data from a number of Korean plane crashes revealed that the god-like status of captains and the relative subordination of their second officers frequently led to situations where the captain was fuc_king up, the second officer was clearly aware of the ####p, but the second officer was either unwilling or unable to communicate to the captain the fact that he was fuc_king up.

In one horrifying case, the transcript reveals that just before their plane plowed into the side of a hill, the second officer was saying something to the captain like, “sometimes it is not so easy in bad weather at this airport to see the runway”, when it was clear that he knew they were headed for the hill and should have been shouting, “Dude! Pull up!!! We’re about to crash into the motherfuc_king hill!! PULL UP!!!”

I am not sure if this same attitude exists in Thai aircraft, I sure hope not...

Was that their Guam crash? They also crashed a cargoplane in England..

The Tenerife disaster is also said to have happened because the KLM 2nd officer wouldn't speak up when the captain rolled for take off without clearance. And also the BEA crash in Staines.

[Diablo Bob]

Is Korean Air so far down on the list because the Russians shot down their airliner in 1983? If so, I'd say extenuating circumstances should apply!

From the book Outliers:

Up until a few years ago, Korean Air Lines was plagued by a much higher crash rate than other airlines. Analysis of cockpit voice recorder data from a number of Korean plane crashes revealed that the god-like status of captains and the relative subordination of their second officers frequently led to situations where the captain was fuc_king up, the second officer was clearly aware of the ####p, but the second officer was either unwilling or unable to communicate to the captain the fact that he was fuc_king up.

In one horrifying case, the transcript reveals that just before their plane plowed into the side of a hill, the second officer was saying something to the captain like, “sometimes it is not so easy in bad weather at this airport to see the runway”, when it was clear that he knew they were headed for the hill and should have been shouting, “Dude! Pull up!!! We’re about to crash into the motherfuc_king hill!! PULL UP!!!”

I am not sure if this same attitude exists in Thai aircraft, I sure hope not...

I believe the accident in question was on Guam, and you are correct about the relationship on the flight deck between the PIC and Co-pilot.

The NTSB pointed to this along with two other serious issues, Pilot fatigue, the PIC had just completed two trans pacific hops the was switched to this night flight to Guam, he was exhausted.

The other issue was an offset marker beacon, the charts clearly showed the beacon being offset 5 miles from the end of the runway, on top of the hill they hit and was missed by the PIC. (Beacon is now at the end of the runway).

I forget the year, but I believe that it pre-dated the GPS era for navigation, they were still using VOR's, OBI's and NDB's and paper charts for navigation.

[tigermonkey]

Another nice chance to bash something Thai, provided for us by Thai Visa. The Thai Visa headline reads " Thai Airways Hits Bottom 10 In Safety Survey " --- by contrast the headline at eGlobal Travel reads "The 60 Safest Airlines in the World", which of course includes THAI Air in the top 60.

[phuketjock]

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

Well Vinny I have to assume when you worked at Heathrow it was not as an engineer or pilot as you do not

seem to be aware of the UK CAA MOR ( Mandatory Occurence Reporting ) confidential incident reporting

system. It has been in place for about the 20 years you claim to have worked in "the aviation industry".

Edited January 11, 2013 by phuketjock

[Diablo Bob]

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

Well Vinny I have to assume when you worked at Heathrow it was not as an engineer or pilot as you do not

seem to be aware of the UK CAA MOR ( Mandatory Occurence Reporting ) confidential incident reporting

system. It has been in place for about the 20 years you claim to have worked in "the aviation industry".

I think he said the same thing as you...... without the acronym. At least that's how I read it.

[phuketjock]

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

Well Vinny I have to assume when you worked at Heathrow it was not as an engineer or pilot as you do not

seem to be aware of the UK CAA MOR ( Mandatory Occurence Reporting ) confidential incident reporting

system. It has been in place for about the 20 years you claim to have worked in "the aviation industry".

I think he said the same thing as you...... without the acronym. At least that's how I read it.

UK CAA MOR's are accessable by the public, check the UK CAA website.

Apparently it's been going 30 years now!!

Edited January 11, 2013 by phuketjock

[MAJIC]

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.

Aeroflot have a weird ritual on landing in Moscow,the passengers break into a round of loud clapping.I'm not quite sure if it's they are glad to be home,or relief they landed safely?

Edited January 11, 2013 by MAJIC

[rubl]

As military pilots used to say 'any landing people can walk away from is a good landing'

[F4UCorsair]

Over a 30+ year career as an airline pilot, now retired, I've noticed that almost everybody is an enthusiast/expert on all matters flying, not unlike tapping a keg. Largely the assessment is based on the quality of the landing, and that could be as little as .001! of the flight time, just a couple of seconds out of as many as 16+hours. They have no other way of making an assessment, and wouldn't know if the crew held an altitude or heading within the prescribed limits, or of any other breach up front.

I then note that this survey/study was conducted by by a European group of airline safety enthusiasts. No more needs to be said.

I will say something that will surprise many, and that is that having worked in Japan for some years, I will not fly with any Japanese airline. Their standard of maintenance and piloting are less than ordinary. Half that problem is overcome if there is a western Captain up front, and preferably a Brit, Australian or New Zealander. My observation after having flown with dozens of nationalities is that their standards of training are highest, but of course there may be some others who are up there.

And now a recommendation. If you ever have the opportunity to fly with one of the world's smallest airlines, only about 6 aircraft and a small route structure, try Air Pacific in Fiji. Their standards both piloting and maintenance are superb, along with cabin service.

Another point I make is that there are many organizations offering 'awards' for standards of cabin service, and it seems to me that if an airline doesn't fare well in one they just look for another in which they do better, self serving at best, and no doubt some of these organizations are created/funded/supported by airlines. It reminds me of the days when there was one governing body in world boxing, and now there are many. Going back many years a trainer whose charge couldn't be world champion in the one and only at the time created a new organization in which his boy was world champion.

In summary, and at best, I'd put the results of this study/survey as worthless.

Edited January 11, 2013 by F4UCorsair

[F4UCorsair]

That should have been .001% of the flight time

[noitom]

Actually Thai Airways is number 53, a more significant spot on the bottom than just "the bottom 10."

[siampolee]

The only thing that springs to my mind is the skill of the pilots and also the computer programmers along with control tower staff

Remember, a successful aircraft landing is nothing more that a controlled crash.

Edited January 11, 2013 by siampolee