The GT rating isn't worth the paper it's written on. Bangkok should have written off QF for yrs to come. I'd like to know what statistical analysis was used to come out with that result.
When AA started op again to SYD after 10 yrs away they were questioned by the media about their accident record (Chicago DC10). I guess the AA guy was expecting this as he had the stats to hand. In that 10 yrs it would take all of Australia's airline industry 50 yrs of accident free flying at the then rate to equal what AA had flown in that 10yrs.
On joining CX the Corp. Safety Dept said the US was aiming to reduce (by memory) the hull loss rate to 0.6/million dep, he said to put that into context it would take CX 50 yrs accident free to achieve that.
Having "safest airline" ratings jumping around willy nilly on a yearly basis unless a serious incident/accident has occurred is bs.
Anyone paying heed to anything that Airline ratings.com has to say doesn't know much and must be blind to the conflict of self-interest that is obvious to anyone in the industry in Australia.
Most of these ratings are equivalent to "Best LC" ....."Best Business"......"Best Economy"......Airline etc. CRAP