Airline ratings

[higherplane]

Hey All

I've done a bit of googling and searching in this forum but haven't come up with much. I'm looking for a website/data base for assessing the safety of various airlines. I can't say I have much faith in a biased website like our beloved GT's Airline Ratings (http://www.airlineratings.com).

Aviation safety is a pretty hot topic for the general public after last year's unfortunate incidences. I've been asked a few times now by friends and family which airlines are safe to fly on. I'd like to be able to point them in the correct direction.

I'm not looking for a ranking system as that is fundamentally flawed. More a safety rating for a particular airline that looks at the whole picture; track record, safety culture etc.

[m-dot]

I can't find whereabouts the author lists their actual credentials/experience as a certified safety auditor.

From my brief look, I'd have to say it's grossly biased at best and totally inaccurate in many places (no IFE available on a couple of airlines that it certainly is).

Possibly another review website where an airline can 'buy' itself a review by accommodating the editor (similar to Skytrax except Skytrax is well-known and therefore can demand a higher review fee).

[Capetonian]

I think that Airline safety and security information (http://www.airsafe.com/) may be the best source as it appears to be rather more scientific and professional. Others are based on payments and amateur comments such as : "The coffee was good and the cabin crew were nice and I felt very safe."

Whereas we may well feel safer on Swiss than on Cubana, past performance is no indicator of safety, and flying is so safe that in real terms there is not much difference in your chances, in a normal year of flying, of having a prang on the best or the worst.

I have a friend who won't fly on certain carriers, which he feels are unsafe, when he flies from A to B, but he will travel on what he considers a safer carrier with a change of aircraft en route, meaning he has 4 take offs and 4 landings on a round trip, rather than 2 of each, thus almost doubling his chances of being involved in an incident, since the majority occur on the take off and landing phases.

Skytrax/Airlinequality.com is a joke.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

I don't think this is easily quantified.

Look at one of the worlds safest airlines for instance, they are trading on their past record on one hand and cutting the guts out of the company with the other. Culture is a hugely valuable metric in determining a safe operator, but try getting anyone to talk truthfully about their companies culture, all you'll get is a company line about their commitment to safety; they would be too scared of dismissal if they said otherwise!

I think the only true test of an airlines safety record going forward is to observe the CEO and his/her management group. If they are constantly on the box or the radio talking about safety, chances are they are drawing your attention away from the elephant in the room. Or if they regularly talk about their (overly unionised) staff being the cause of all the financial woes while they simulataneously scrape the million dollar cream off the top, chances are you have a failing culture.

And any airline that grows an LCC beside itself, and then puts itself forward as a "host" to the parasite, as opposed to a stand alone airline filling a niche market in their region, is potentially in that "failing culture" basket too.

Essentially, as Capetonian said, flying is safe. Getting to the airport is probably the deadly bit :ok:

[bmam7]

Nearly every list you look at has a different order of "safe" airlines so it is all in the marketing, payola, whatever the criteria are. I doubt if any of them are "accurate".

On the subject of the take off/landing being when the most incidents occur, I am a flying nut (not a pilot, merely a passenger) who thinks the take offs and landings to be the best bits of the flight.

A recent example (and many of you will think I really need help, but I enjoy flying on new - to me - aircraft types and airlines) was a trip from London to Chicago. I could have flown non-stop with BA or AA but I'd flown those airlines before so I ended up flying LHR/AMS/LCY/DUB - overnight stop - DUB/LHR/YYZ/ORD.

It gave me the opportunity to fly Aer Lingus, Air Canada, Air Canada Express, Stobart Air and, as a bonus, a luxury jet from Cello Aviation as the BA aircraft scheduled from AMS/LCY had gone tech. Aircraft types new to me were the 777 and 787 and the ERJ 170 and 175.

The only difficulty I had was the BA check-in person at LHR who couldn't believe anybody would want to fly LHR/AMS etc. Her supervisor was more understanding and helpful.

[Atlas Shrugged]

Try here:

JACDEC (http://www.jacdec.de/)

[Capetonian]

The Aviation Herald (http://avherald.com/) is another but it doesn't provide statistics, simply a list of incidents and accidents upon which people can comment.

JACDEC is excellent but a lot of it is behind a fairly costly paywall.

[higherplane]

Thanks Atlas

That appears to be the most objective site I've come across so far. Their rational for the ranking seems like a fairly sensible and unbiased one. For my purposes this is what I have been looking for. I’d still be curious to hear other’s opinions on JACDEC.

Obviously no ranking is perfect, as it’s such a game of statistics, but this does seem like a good rough guide for making an informed decision about carriers.

Thanks for the input everyone, much appreciated.

[4Greens]

The safety of an airline is a function of the state oversight. Dodgy government dodgy airline.