May I suggest that to professionals the question which defines underlying safety levels is how often has the carrier got down to no slices of swiss cheese left except the luck of the draw on a particular day.The fact that some airlines get away with a narrow squeak and others burn maybe no sign at all of safety levels. Air France lost an A340 at Toronto and American an MD-80 at Little Rock in circumstances very similar to QF 1 at BKK. It so easily could have burned but didn't. Air France was fortunate that no-one died at Toronto but no-one would argue that this was anything but dumb luck on the day. On the other hand the fact that the Air France cabin crew managed a very professional evacuation in the specified 90 seconds was outstanding. QF 1 at BKK didn't evacuate for a long time.
I think when you run out of slices of cheese, whoever you are, it is great for the passengers if no-one is hurt but it does not in any way show a safer airline. Nothing to boast about. Is nearly losing an aircraft doing an approach through a microburst really much better from a safety analysis point of view than actually losing one? Philippine Airlines actually had an A330 make ground contact with the same hill where KAL 801 crashed in Guam. The 330 landed with aerial wires and such in the landing gear. Does that make them safer than KAL? I don't think so. Luckier maybe.