Originally Posted by
Rated De
How precisely does one measure something that having not occurred deems an airline 'safe'?
Well, I think one measure, which is sort of accepted generally, is that the more chances something has to happen, but it doesn't, then, on the whole, as a rule of thumb, in default of any better measures, or would you rather use a horoscope? it is less likely to happen the next time. Which is consoling if that thing that doesn't happen is a crash.
I am well aware that safety is a well developed discipline of which I am ignorant, but I'm still, genuinely, puzzled as to why those particular routine articles arouse ire. Is it that they include in the list of safe airlines a company which is known to be operating unsafely, and whose absence of accidents is purely a result of luck?
When it comes to major carriers, I assume that ranking is very unreliable, but isn't there a certain use in attempting to pick out the low-cost operators that will get you there, in however much discomfort, as opposed to the operators who are likely not to get you to even near to your destination?