RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9612 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4500 times:
I believe it is now Qantas as they are the largest airline never to have a fatal accident. In terms of number of passengers carried, it use to be Southwest up until last year when there was a fatality on the ground after one of their 737s overan the runway at MDW in a snowstorm and killed a person in a car.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Spartanmjf From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4464 times:
To the best of my recollection, WN has not had a flight-related passenger or crew fatality. The tragedy at MDW resulted in a bystander's death, and if I am not mistaken, I think I recall an incident in which a passenger became confused and stepped out of an open door at the rear of an aircraft parked at a gate, falling to their death.
On the other hand, "Qantas, definitely Qantas" coming from Dustin Hoffman is a great line.
BoeingFever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4329 times:
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 3): I believe it is now Qantas as they are the largest airline never to have a fatal accident. In terms of number of passengers carried, it use to be Southwest up until last year when there was a fatality on the ground after one of their 737s overan the runway at MDW in a snowstorm and killed a person in a car.
The FAA/NTSB only classes passanger fatalities. So therefore I still believe it is WN.
ANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4309 times:
A quick Goggle will show you that Qantas has had a number of fatal accidients - mostly in the propeller age. Recent non-fatal events include a B747-300 gear collapse in Rome and a B747-400 runway overrun in BKK (onto the Golf course).
«I travelled recently Heathrow to Georgetown (Guyana) via Barbados on the way out and Trinidad on the way back. You read the other posts on here and you think "BWIA can't be that bad, can they?" But then you fly them and they are worse.»
My my, they make Iberia look like Singapore Airlines in terms of service!
(I just thought the descriptions were entertaining, I've not flown this airline and I don't want to prejudge them on someone else's experience. Many times it is the people who are very unhappy with the service that take the time to complain on websites *or* people who like to whine)
IMO, no such thing. As long as the F.A.A. hasnt yanked anyone's 121/135 operating certificate, they're fine.
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 3): In terms of number of passengers carried, it use to be Southwest up until last year when there was a fatality on the ground after one of their 737s overan the runway at MDW in a snowstorm and killed a person in a car.
That doesn't really count because that individual wasn't 'inflight'.
Quoting Spartanmjf (Reply 5): The tragedy at MDW resulted in a bystander's death, and if I am not mistaken, I think I recall an incident in which a passenger became confused and stepped out of an open door at the rear of an aircraft parked at a gate, falling to their death.
Not an 'inflight' fatality, so it doesn't count.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 970 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3868 times:
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 14): IMO, no such thing. As long as the F.A.A. hasnt yanked anyone's 121/135 operating certificate, they're fine.
Except some institutional failures in pilot procedures and sloppy maintenance don't become aparant until after the crash...
Quoting JetBlueAtJFK (Reply 13): Southwest has had more events where deaths could have occured but no fatalities so them too.
The reason WN is considered the "safest" airline is the (1) sheer volume of passengers they carry, (2) number of flights they opperate, and (3) the lenght of time they have been doing this.
WN does an incredible number of shorthaul flights (the average flight is about 100 minutes) which means lots of take-offs and landings. That is considered the "riskiest" part of flying with the most variables. For example, a 737 flying 1,000 successful flights of one hour demonstrates greater safety than a 747 flying 200 flights of five hours despite the equal number of flight hours.
3 November 1977; El Al 747; over Belgrade, Yugoslavia: One passenger died after a decompression event.
4 October 1992; El AL 747-200; Amsterdam, Netherlands: Shortly after departing Amsterdam on a flight to Tel Aviv, the number three engine and pylon separated from the wing and collided with the number four engine. This collision also caused the number four engine and pylon to separate. Part of the leading edge of the right wing was damaged, and several other aircraft systems were affected. During an emergency air turnback to Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport, the crew experienced problems controlling the aircraft. The crew lost control of the aircraft shortly before landing, and the aircraft crashed into an apartment building. All three crew members and one other aircraft occupant were killed, as were 43 people on the ground.
BCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3631 times:
This topic comes up at least every two months and there are normally the same replies, all incorrectly pointing to QF, WN or another airline being the safest. In truth, there is no such thing as the “safest” airline – accidents can happen at any time to any airline. SQ had an excellent safety record but try telling that to the passengers who boarded Flight SQ006 SIN-LAX via Taipei on 31 October 2000.
It is pointless to base the answer on statistics. As Benjamin Disraeli (or Mark Twain) once said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, dammed lies and statistics”. Statistics can be interpreted in many ways to conceal the truth. For example, in terms of miles travelled, flying is statistically the safest mode of transport but how many plane trips are taken daily compared with the number of car trips?
Most airlines operate to high safety standards but doubtless the standards of an airline under the jurisdiction of the US FAA or UK CAA must be higher than the standards of an airline under the jurisdiction of some corrupt African country. Some people might argue that even within the same country, some airlines are safer than others – e.g. WN is safer than AA – but there is no hard evidence other than statistics to support this.
If you went to a Lloyd’s broker and took out trip insurance, chances are that the premium would be the same no matter which airline you are flying with. They ask where you will be travelling to, but I have never known them asking about which airline you are flying with. Chances are that they associate the risk of an accident on most airlines as being the same; unless of course the airline is black listed and therefore special insurance cover would be required. However, I am sure that if they were asked specifically for a premium quote for a flight with Cubana, this would be higher than a quote for travelling with an airline like AA, BA, UA or LH.
MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
Nzrich From New Zealand, joined Dec 2005, 1522 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3438 times:
If you look into every airline they all have their own share of incidends whether or not they have fatalities on board ..In the end it comes down to how a airline is run now .. A airline could have had the best track record in the past does not mean that its safe now !!! Also if you look at it from the other perspective a airline has a crash ie AF in Toronto you can not tell me that makes AF unsafe or less safe than it was the day prior to that accident!!!
Now if you look at some of the African airlines you would have to be a bit more choosy which airline you travelled on .But in general most major and minor airlines are safe when they have an organisation like the FAA in America CAA in NZ regulating the safety standards of those countries ...
Personally i dont like basing safety on historical events ..I think looking at the last 10 years is better and gives you a better vision on the safety standards of a airline right now .. Just because in 1970 a airline was the safest means only that it was safe then ..
"Pride of the pacific"
: Definitely Qantas, Air Pacific and all other airlines in the South Pacific!
: If we are talking bout the jet age I would say Aer Lingus Rob
: Yeh. I remember in the '70's that NZ used to brag constantly about its almost faultless safety record, as though that record should make one feel saf
: I believe there was a statistical list done about 6 or 7 years ago IIRC #1 safest was Air Canada #2 safest was Ansett Australia (ceased operations in