Hi!

This listing comes from TravelMole's website. What do you make of it?

http://www.travelmole.com/stories/1149153.php#

I wonder what the criteria for such a list was, but apparently it will mould public opinion and have certain influence on people's perceptions and travel behaviour. Does anyone know any background information of this listing?
Thanks

HELFAN

I'm very doubtful, just because in developed countries almost all airlines are safe enough that trying to pick the "safest" is a crapshoot. But I'm also pleased to see all six U.S. majors (treating CO and UA as two separate airlines) on the list. The U.S. has had a very good run lately, even with constant economic pressure and a sometimes-obtuse safety bureaucracy.

Quoting HELFAN (Thread starter): I wonder what the criteria for such a list was

Whatever the criteria is, it certainly is flawed. AC missing in the top 10 while AF at #1?

Why no Emirates, Swiss, Cathay Pacific, Etihad etc? Why no airlines beside Europe and North America anyway (except JL):?

Why AF for god sake on #1. It is probably the only airline that has lost 3 aircraft in 10 years caused by fatal crashes.

No Cathay Pacific, no Finnair, no Emirates, no ANA, and even no some Chinese carriers which casualty free for decades...... Are you sure this list is trustworthy..?!

[Edited 2011-09-01 11:28:13]

AF in the top 10 and QF not in it at all. I seem to recall AF loosing more aircraft then any Western airline in the past 10years.

Quoting lhr380 (Reply 5): QF not in it at all.

By most methods Qantas is not considered a safe airline due to the political pressure they can place on CASA and the influence QF has over CASA.

Quoting lhr380 (Reply 5): QF not in it at all

Do you know how many incidents QF have had the last couple of years?
A lot of airlines are not mentioned in the top 10 but I don't think that QF is a top 10 airline.

This is a list which doesn't make any sense and it is not worth of discussing.

I cant believe US Airways is on this list.....according to USAPA, they put profits ahead of safety and force them to fly unsafe aircraft. Somebody get a hold of the editor and let them know that there has been a mistake!

US Airways has made some grat safety moves, most notably, launching a Safety Management System that is setting the bar for civil avaiation safety. I think that US Airways should take out a full page add in the money section of the USA Today touting their safety record......I dont know where I got that idea.....just seems like a good one!   

Quoting golfradio (Reply 2): AC missing in the top 10 while AF at #1?

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 3): Why AF for god sake on #1

O dear. Read much? It says: Alphabetical order.

You can bet it's based on some sort of formula that includes passengers carried/ distance/ number of flights. US and European carriers would top that list. As EK grows over time, I'm sure it will be on there at some point.

It also states: The agency explained that to understand airline safety, one needed not only to look at accident figures, but also "technical, human, organisational and external" elements.

In other words: who knows? But the list is reasonable regardless. QF carries peanuts compared to all the other carriers.
I'm sure they would be included in the top 25 and who's to say that the top 25 carriers are far apart? They are probably pretty close.

[Edited 2011-09-01 12:25:47]

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 8): This is a list which doesn't make any sense and it is not worth of discussing.

I agree. This list is flawed and it is tough to only choose 10 airlines regarded as "safest".

I would like to see this list done by region (ie Top 5 Safest Airlines Per Region).

Quoting peanuts (Reply 10): O dear. Read much? It says: Alphabetical order.

Then AC should be #1, no?

Any how, I have a hard time believing that AC is not in the top 10 no matter how you sort the world's top 10 list.

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 8): This is a list which doesn't make any sense and it is not worth of discussing.

  

Quoting peanuts (Reply 10): You can bet it's based on some sort of formula that includes passengers carried/ distance/ number of flights.

That could be true - but if it is why is FR not on that list? Has never had one single fatality and is one of the world's largest airlines by scheduled passengers carried. This list is flawed.

Edit: and AF in the top 10???   

[Edited 2011-09-01 12:37:07]

Quoting golfradio (Reply 12): Then AC should be #1, no?

Lol. No. Alphabetical order *of the top 10*.

Quoting golfradio (Reply 12): Any how, I have a hard time believing that AC is not in the top 10 no matter how you sort the world's top 10 list.

I would not doubt AC's safety record.
What's hurting them in this mysterious "formula" is its size. That's all.

Quoting Phen (Reply 13): Edit: and AF in the top 10???

Exactly what I was thinking. But it also says for the past year.

I guess the list has to do with passengers carried etc.. Thats why we see all the big US airlines, Euro airlines etc.. But these list mean nothing and for all we know some guy could have picked his favorite airlines. Who cares really.

"ATRA said it used available information on 15 criteria, such as the average age of the aircraft used or the homogeneity of the fleet.
The agency explained that to understand airline safety, one needed not only to look at accident figures, but also "technical, human, organisational and external" elements."

I fail to see how 'fleet homogeneity' is a factor for safety. It's not as if the engineers/pilots would not be trained on the relevant aircraft. And if fleet age is a factor shouldn't this be a negative for US airlines, it seems to me that US carriers have an older average fleet age than Euro carriers. (ie. MD-80/B757 vs A320/A321)

And unfortunately AF with their unfortunate recent history should score badly. I do not mean this as a slur on AF, but statistically AF447 and the A340 off runway at Toronto should lower their score.

AF first?? With so many incidents?  

Quoting peanuts (Reply 10): You can bet it's based on some sort of formula that includes passengers carried/ distance/ number of flights.

they clearly say that it's based on

Quote: criteria, such as the average age of the aircraft used or the homogeneity of the fleet.

One thing I'm missing, though: why DC-9 infested DL is on a list, but FR is not?

Thanks for comments. I found this listing really odd too.

Does anyone have information of this ATRA Agency? Is that a credible organization or is it just some private organ who can produce any type of listing as it pleases to gain publicity?

I was also thinking that if fleet commonality and passenger volumes were factors, FR should definitely be on the list

I think this list is sincerely flawed. May I also add that VS has a great safety run! And AF on that list!?  

Will

Quoting Eagleboy (Reply 16): I do not mean this as a slur on AF, but statistically AF447 and the A340 off runway at Toronto should lower their score.

Don't forget the Concorde in 2001. Also in 2008 they had to make several emergency landings with their B777s because of engine problems.

If you look into http://www.atra.aero/ATRA_HOLISTIC_SAFETY_RATING-cms4.htm

You get the complete list of criteria;
The 15 selected criteria are:

•Net financial result
•Total number of passengers
•Total number of employees
•Total number of cabin crew employees
•Total number of aircrafts
•Average fleet age in service
•Percentage of aircrafts on order
•Fleet homogeneity
•Number of aircrafts no longer in production
•Number of aircrafts considered at risk
•Total aircrafts-km flown
•In house maintenance capability
•Number of accidents during the last 10 years
•Dedicated flight academy pilot-training facilities
•Dedicated full flight simulators


These criteria favor big profitable airlines with lot of stuff and lot of in house facilities, from maintenance to own flight simulators.

I think many criteria are strange.
Example: Airline L has a big in house maintenenance, in house academy, own simulators. Airline B just gets all this from L, and pays for it. Then this list puts L far ahead of B, where there is no or at least a tiny difference...

On the other hand, this list is important, because it has gone through all media and is cited very often ( mainly by the marketing departments of the ten lucky ones ).

Hey!! This is pure BS..
Where is Singapore Airlines , V Australia , Virgin Australia , Jetstar , Eva Air , Shanghai Airlines , Emirates , Etihad Airways , Qatar Airways , Jet Airways and many more.

SQ has to be one of the safest Airlines in the world.
What makes them so sure that AF is the safest airline in the world?
AF is one of the worst!
-Concorde crash in 2000 which starts the demise of supersonic aviation travel.
-Toronto A340 runway overshoot in bad weather
-F-GZCP and A321 collision on the ground
-AF447 tragedy believed to be caused by pilot error

Quoting Cysafan (Reply 23): Hey!! This is pure BS.. Where is Singapore Airlines , V Australia , Virgin Australia , Jetstar , Eva Air , Shanghai Airlines , Emirates , Etihad Airways , Qatar Airways , Jet Airways and many more.

If you look on the list of criteria, most of these are too small. I wonder about Emirates, though, since:

•Net financial result BIG
•Total number of passengers BIG
•Total number of employees BIG
•Total number of cabin crew employees BIG
•Total number of aircrafts BIG
•Average fleet age in service NEW
•Percentage of aircrafts on order MANY
•Fleet homogeneity RATHER
•Number of aircrafts no longer in production NONE
•Number of aircrafts considered at risk NONE
•Total aircrafts-km flown MANY
•In house maintenance capability DON'T KNOW
•Number of accidents during the last 10 years NONE AFAIK
•Dedicated flight academy pilot-training facilities NONE -------

•Dedicated full flight simulators

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 3): Why AF for god sake on #1

Quoting Checo77 (Reply 17): AF first?

It's in alphabetical order ...   

[Edited 2011-09-02 03:47:01]

[Edited 2011-09-02 03:57:24]

It's a bunch of rubbish, how does the number of simulators an airline have effect pilot training, I can be an airline with 2 planes and one simulator and train the heck out of my pilots but I won't be on the list.

Secondly, how are they going to get their hands on the truth about the quality of maintenance departments, these are sensitive areas that companies do not give outsiders access to.

This is complete rubbish and frankly the people in charge of this so called ratings agency should know better and their own lack of confidence in their work is clearly demonstrated in that there's a disclaimer before you can enter the site.

Some of the parameters don't make any sense and are probably chosen because its the only data they could get their hands on, because in reality no company publishes the numbers you would actually need to assess their safety.

Why aren't they checking pilot hours flown per month to assess pilot fatigue. Checking records for incidents. Checking those airlines with AQP and good CRM programs.

The reality is that this entire exercise might well have been paid for by AF or some of the other top airlines in the list and so some clever statisticians put together a formula with data they knew would give these results. Its the old trick of making the data fit to give you the result you want, anyone who's done statistics in school, university knows that its not too hard to do, especially if you're sifting through tons of data trying to get a result you've already decided you want to find. After the AF crash I wouldn't be surprised if they go all out to prove their safety credentials especially as this crash has revealed some pretty obvious safety issues with the airline.

The relevance and credibility of this so called ratings agency should be checked the following way: they should release, based on their formula who they would have rated as the safest airlines back in January 2000. They should then check to see how accurate they were based on events that transpired in the following decade. I am sure you would have found them to be complete wrong. More evidence that this is simply a scam being run by the big airlines to promote themselves among passengers, there's almost no information on the site about who these people are apart from a small blurb here and there about their methods and about the company. Complete nonsense paid for by the large airlines IMO. Emirates probably didn't get on there because if the airlines had gone to them to ask for cash to be on the survey they would have quickly blown the whistle on them. Companies do things like this all the time.

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 3): Why AF for god sake on #1. It is probably the only airline that has lost 3 aircraft in 10 years caused by fatal crashes.

AF has lost one aircraft in a fatal crash in the last 10 years. Another one in a non-fatal accident.

Quoting ushermittwoch (Reply 27): AF has lost one aircraft in a fatal crash in the last 10 years. Another one in a non-fatal accident.

American Airlines, also in the list, has also had one fatal crash (AA587) in the last 10 years, and has lost another aircraft in a non-fatal crash (AA331).

Seems a curious list,

AF at the top of the list is something of a stretch, they write off aircraft more often than they wash them!

Delta, they may be a safe airline but from what I have seen of their recent ground collision record they would not be rated highly as a bus company (one of those involved AF.. see above!)

Not a Qantas apologist by a long shot but I recall in all of the QF incidents folk are keen to criticize the carrier for, the crews managed to bring the customers home...that cannot be said of the #1 safe airline.. despite the best efforts of the aircraft to deny them that chance!

Looking forward to anyone providing any credible info on the bona fides of "ATRA", certainly their website provides nothing of substance.

Quoting Cysafan (Reply 23): What makes them so sure that AF is the safest airline in the world?

They may or may not be sure. As has been said several times already the reason why AF is at the top of the list is because, of the ten airlines in the list, AF is the first alphabetically and NOT because they are the safest of the ten airlines. Indeed the Air Transport Rating Agency (ATRA) does not even claim that any of the ten listed airlines is "the safest airline in the world".

There is a natural inclination to think that an airline that has had a major significant accident, particularly a recent accident involving a loss of life and/or the write off of an airframe cannot be a "safe" airline in any sense. But this is not the prime direction that the ATRA is coming from. Rather than looking back they are trying to look forward.

If the prime cause of a past accident reflected on the airline's actions in any way, then that would count severely against it in the ATRA system. However a significant but totally accidental major accident, even in the recent past, when the cause of the accident in no way reflected on anything the airline had done or, indeed, had omitted to do, would not count against the airline.

So let's look at AF and consider their Concorde disaster. Was it AF's responsibility that there was a piece of debris on the runway or was it the responsibility of the operator of the aircraft it fell off or that of the airport operator who did not remove it from the runway? Was it AF's responsibility that that piece of debris riipped open Coincorde's fuel tank and ignited the fuel or was that outcome a function of the aircraft's design and/or construction? Was there any action that, without hindsight, AF should have taken that would have avoided the accident? Or was it just that, an accident beyond the control of AF?

We can certainly be critical of the 15 parameters used by the ATRA as listed by Burkhard in Reply 22. We can also be critical of the ATRA's methodology as described on its web site also linked in Reply 22. But it is a fact that using those 15 parameters and that methodolgy the ten airlines listed are those with the best Holistic Safety Rating in 2011 which, incidentally, is not exactly the same as saying thay are the world's 10 safest airlines.

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 8): This is a list which doesn't make any sense and it is not worth of discussing.

  Move on, nothing to see here...

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 24): Number of accidents during the last 10 years NONE AFAIK

Apparently they meant "incidents" or "events". Otherwise they wouldn't have any reason to give low rating to QF.

It is hard to like reports like this, but the distinction between "low accident rate" and "having a good safety policy" is valid. Just before the A330 crash, Afriqijah had a 0% accident rate, but their security policies were disastrous.

Quoting ushermittwoch (Reply 27): AF has lost one aircraft in a fatal crash in the last 10 years. Another one in a non-fatal accident.

What about the Concorde in Summer (was it July?) 2001?

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 33): What about the Concorde in Summer (was it July?) 2001

Already addressed:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 30): So let's look at AF and consider their Concorde disaster. Was it AF's responsibility that there was a piece of debris on the runway or was it the responsibility of the operator of the aircraft it fell off or that of the airport operator who did not remove it from the runway? Was it AF's responsibility that that piece of debris riipped open Coincorde's fuel tank and ignited the fuel or was that outcome a function of the aircraft's design and/or construction? Was there any action that, without hindsight, AF should have taken that would have avoided the accident? Or was it just that, an accident beyond the control of AF?

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 33): What about the Concorde in Summer (was it July?) 2001?

It was in July 2000, hence over 10 years ago.

For those asking why the middle east and Asia airlines are not on the list.... Just because they haven't crashed lately is no measure of safety. Pilot training and especially selection is plagued by typical Asian-style backslapping and nepotism. Most are not very well paid and are required to perform much more duty with less rest and fewer crewmembers than US and European airlines allow. The fact they don't crash much is purely a testament to how forgiving and automated modern aircraft are these days..

If AF is on a safety list, then its completely flawed and anyone could be on the list. AF has had more major losses (non terrorist) than any other major western airline in the last 10 years.

Quoting worldliner (Reply 37): AF has had more major losses (non terrorist) than any other major western airline in the last 10 years.

Untrue. AA has had just the same (2). And AA is also on that list...

Quoting Sean-SAN- (Reply 36): Pilot training and especially selection is plagued by typical Asian-style backslapping and nepotism.

"typical Asian-style nepotism"? Are you serious? Are you talking about the likes of CX and SQ? ANA, JAL? Thai? MH? QR, EY, EK? Please.

Hawaiian Airlines has been flying since 1929 and has been fatality free. Hawaiian was not on this list. Flawed list.

HALFA

Quoting VV701 (Reply 30): If the prime cause of a past accident reflected on the airline's actions in any way, then that would count severely against it in the ATRA system. However a significant but totally accidental major accident, even in the recent past, when the cause of the accident in no way reflected on anything the airline had done or, indeed, had omitted to do, would not count against the airline.

So how does the report into AF447 which did not paint AF in a very favourable light not affect such a rating, similarly I think AA procedures were somewhat criticized in the report into AA587 yet they are considered safe.
An airline that had process and training that prevented a similar result to AF447(in a similar aircraft) somehow is considered less safe!

Report is truly suspect. and still trying to find out any info that may infer a degree of credibility for ATRA.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 40): So how does the report into AF447 which did not paint AF in a very favourable light not affect such a rating, similarly I think AA procedures were somewhat criticized in the report into AA587 yet they are considered safe.

I guess the answer here is timing.

The report on AF447 is very recent.

The ATRA assessment is very intricate. It required the application to all the world's major airlines of 15 different and complex parameters followed by a deep assessment and analysis. Clearly it was not produced over a period of a few days or even a few weeks. So I suspect that if the same report is published next year AF will not appear anywhere near the top of the list simply because of the report on the loss of AF447.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 1): I'm very doubtful, just because in developed countries almost all airlines are safe enough that trying to pick the "safest" is a crapshoot.

Are you sure...? That's quite a grand statement....quite a few airlines in the "developed countries" would have a hard time competing with airlines from the "developing countries" when it comes to safety record.....

The list is totally flawed. If you ask me to name top ten, I won't since there are more than ten. But in no particular order, some that would make the list would be.. Emirates, Lufthansa, Qantas (Saving QF32 alone makes them qualified for inclusion in the list), Cathay Pacific, United, RyanAir, AirAsia and ANA. But hey, what about Druk Air, an airline that has just two aircraft but has been performing one of the world's hardest approaches for years and safely. And you can add a number of others who have never had a crash, let alone a fatal one, like SriLankan (32 yrs), Qatar (15 yrs) and I'm sure that there's a lot that I've missed. IMHO, there is no indicator to measure how safe an airline is, but if you ever need to, at least the number of aircraft, types of aircraft and geographical constraints should be taken into consideration. An airline flying a hard mountainous area is definitely doing a harder job than one that is flying a route over flat ground.

The moment I read "Air France" I knew this was some sort of a joke.

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 3): Why AF for god sake on #1.

Ignoring the already answered alphabetical order, with their major incidents and RJ clippings... I wouldn't put them on a list for a few years. Seriously.

And apparently the list doesn't subscribe to the theory that a clean airplane is easier to identify maintenance issues...    Ok, this is one of my peevs... but I'm in flight test, so pardon our obsession with clean aircraft.

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 7): Do you know how many incidents QF have had the last couple of years? A lot of airlines are not mentioned in the top 10 but I don't think that QF is a top 10 airline.

I think QF is a top 10 airline, but needs 'a sabbatical' due to issues over the last few years.

Quoting HALFA (Reply 39): Hawaiian Airlines has been flying since 1929 and has been fatality free. Hawaiian was not on this list. Flawed list.

I have trouble understanding why US is on the list and not HA. But hey...

Lightsaber

when all is said and done ...if the shit happens I would bet the house on qantas international pilots having the best shot at getting the plane on the ground. BA, Lufthansa 2nd and 3rd and the rest youre paying poker

The ones that stick out to me the most are AC LA and IB - all of which have a similar fleet size and calibre as the airlines on the list, and of the those three only one (IB) has sustained a hull loss, which was non-fatal anyway!

I always find such lists (be they safety, service, or whatever) to be purely subjective as they usually disqualify various airlines due to their size which is completely unrelated to something like safety and ends up skewing the results.

Cheers,

MCO 2 BRS

I'm far more interested in the 10 (or more) most dangerous airlines. I would feel very comfortable flying the top 10 and far more.

Frankly, when SWISSAIR's MD-11 wen't down I then figured it really is just a matter in god's hands. At that time, not only was I flying SWISSAIR often on an MD-11 for business, because it was SWISSAIR I had no fear. I was also doing business in Sao Paulo and Rio and flying VARIG often...I had no fear of VARIG and their MD-11's either..but one time RG was full, as was everything else and I could only get a seat on VASP. I will admit, since I knew nothing about them other than their copy-cat PAN AM livery, I was a bit concerned. But, flying is so safe, I never really worry-unless a credible source says "Air XYZ has a bad safety record...so who should we avoid?

In the 60's and 70's Air France had so many losses it was called Air Chance. That said, their relatively high hull loss rate in recent years should not even make them at the top of the list for safety. The evaluators of the list probably got something...