The absence of KAL and China airlines can only be because they don't make the top 50. More interesting, I would have thought, though the statistical basis of this exercise is still dubious, to list the "best" through to the worst, rather than simply arranging the most used 50 airlines according to accident rate.
Two other observations. Qantas mentioning their safety record is dodgy. It may be legend, but in the early 1960s a US airline chairman was boasting of his safety record only to be informed as he left the podium of a major fatal accident. I always understood that since then it was regarded as v bad form to refer to your own safety record.
And then, on being asked about Qantas safety record a few years ago, a UAL executive responded that it would take them 25 years to fly as many miles as they do in one. And I believe there was a major fatal in 1968 or so with one of the subsidiary Qantas airlines, but that is not included in the stats.
Also, plotting the number of fatalities against passenger revenue kilometres can be misleading. THY, in the famous crash outside Paris in 74, had double the number of expected pax because a strike at Heathrow had led to the cancellation of a BEA flight and their transfer to that flight. THY therefore took a major hit statistically for reasons nothing to do with the operating circumstances. Much more sensible to plot numbers of fatal crashes against cycles. More faithful to the reality, and it would result in a completely different ranking. There are 100 more caveats, though, and any statistician will tell you that this sort of ranking is highly unscientific.