Qantas tops airline safety rankings

[anito4a]

Well done to Qantas for topping the Airline Safety Rankings for 2016 (http://www.airlineratings.com/news/630/who-are-the-worlds-safest-airlines-for-2016). Virgin Australia also features in the top 20 list and QantasLink scores a 7/7 in the rankings as well. But what about the other Australian based airlines?

Rex, VARA, Air North and Tiger Australia don't have IOSA accreditation according to AirlineRankings.com.

Airline Ratings (http://www.airlineratings.com/safety_rating_per_airline.php)

This is what IATA says about their safety audit.

The IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) program is an internationally recognized and accepted evaluation system designed to assess the operational management and control systems of an airline.

Should airlines not having IOSA accreditation (https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/audit/iosa/Pages/index.aspx) be of concern to the travelling public?

[Stanwell]

Hello Geoffrey! :E

[airdualbleedfault]

HK Express made top 10 LCCs which makes the whole thing seem like a farce

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Quite obviously not an exhaustive audit then. They failed to take into account the multitude of latent threats that saturate the industry.

Engineering cutbacks, fuel saving initiatives, efficient (read predatory) roster practices, sub-sub-subcontracts, desperate management practices, cabin crew pay and conditions approaching poverty levels, shorter turn around times, less ground staff, failing morale, and the real doozie, a regulator that doesn't/can't afford to care.

Only a matter of time till we are witness to a tragedy in this country. They have whittled away everything but the bare minimum components required to maintain the illusion of safety.

[Slippery_Pete]

Personally, I've always wondered which airlines a bag chucker/rampie would recommend.

[compressor stall]

Is it any surprise? Geoffrey Thomas is an editor of the "company" that commissioned this. It's payroll masquerading as news.

A 2 second domain search reveals that the airline ratings.com is hosted by wa newspapers....

GT, its a good idea to cover your tracks to your master's door a little better.

[HeartyMeatballs]

And in Europe flyBE are listed as one of the safest LCCs which made me chuckle. Why isn't Hawaiian top who've not had a hull loss since they were formed in 1929. And no safety ratings for easyJet and Ryanair, two of the biggest airlines in the continent. I wonder how many FF miles QF issue the 'judges' of the ratings.

[4Greens]

You dont need judges. Qantas is the second oldest airline and the world and has never lost a passenger in the jet age.

[The name is Porter]

Geoffrey Thomas - Member of the Qantas Chairman's Club.

Some would say conflict of interest.

[Stanwell]

You dont need judges. Qantas is the second oldest airline and the world and has never lost a passenger in the jet age.

Don't know about that...
They lost me. :*

[Boe787]

Gordon, 100% on the money, they have indeed whittled away at everything,
But at the same time managed to reward themselves with all time high salaries and bonuses!

[Compylot]

Gentlemen.

Geoffrey Thomas is world renowned multi award winning writer, author and commentator (with a stern yet professional, slightly smug, but responsible look) who has had a holistic view of the aviation industry for more than 40 years.

He has an outstanding reputation...with aviation personnel...

Airline Ratings (http://www.airlineratings.com/editors.php)

Please, some respect :=

[CurtainTwitcher]

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
--Upton Sinclair
I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked (1935)

[Metro man]

JACDEC put Cathay first with QANTAS in 7th place.

Airline Safety Ranking 2015 » JACDEC (http://www.jacdec.de/airline-safety-ranking-2015/)

[VH-UFO]

Poor poor Geoffrey.

[scavenger]

A 2 second domain search reveals that the airline ratings.com is hosted by wa newspapers....

GT, its a good idea to cover your tracks to your master's door a little better.

Given that "Presented by the West Australian" is written on the homepage right next to the website name, I'm not sure covering tracks was the intention. Good sleuthing though...

[BuzzBox]

Geoffrey Thomas is world renowned multi award winning writer, author and commentator (with a stern yet professional, slightly smug, but responsible look) who has had a holistic view of the aviation industry for more than 40 years.

He has an outstanding reputation...with aviation personnel...

Sounds like a massive case of self-aggrandisement on the part of Geoffrey Thomas. He might think he has an outstanding reputation with aviation personnel, but most people I've met think he's a complete plonker!

[Stanwell]

No, that was just another of Compylot's attempts at wry humour. (Keep trying son - you're getting a little bit better.)

Personally and professionally, I've encountered few people who are further into self-aggrandisement than GT.
The former bag-chucker from Port Hedland now describes himself as an "Aviation Professional".
Baggage handling and despatching as many as two movements a day from there makes you that, don'tcha know?

This self-appointed "Aviation Expert" is always available at short notice to comment on matters on which he's not qualified.
If you're a clueless journalist catering to the 'great unwashed', just ask him a question and he'll give you any answer you want to hear.

As for his relationship with the 'red tail rat', well, that's already been noted on here in the past.

[compressor stall]

https://twitter.com/Qantas/status/344331847356006400

[Capt Fathom]

They really should just get a room!

[cattletruck]

Welcome to the new fully endorsed and verified brown nose safety rating system.

[Stanwell]

As far as the media are concerned, they can expect the red tail rat to be noting
who gives that 'authoritative and independent' rating favourable coverage.

Advertising revenues - Nah! ... Don't worry about that, we'll look after ya.
.

[4Greens]

Sorry to be a bore but Qantas has the best safey of any airline worldwide. The rest of the posts in terms of an actual safety record are completely irrelevent.

[BuzzBox]

Stanwell:
No, that was just another of Compylot's attempts at wry humour.

Yes, I got that. Compylot's quote was taken directly from GT's bio on the Airline Ratings website, with the exception of the bit about the 'stern yet professional, slightly smug, but responsible look'. I'm guessing GT wrote his own bio, hence my reference to 'self-aggrandisement'.

[BuzzBox]

4Greens,

Qantas does have an excellent safety record, but you also need to consider that Qantas is a relatively small operation in global terms, especially on the international side. The bulk of its flying is domestic, which all takes place within the sheltered workshop environment of Australia. There are a number of airlines out there that do just as well on the safety front as Qantas, yet face far more operational 'threats' than Qantas.

Geoffrey Thomas lauds Qantas as the 'world's most experienced airline'. What a load of bollocks. Qantas might be one of the world's oldest airlines, but there are a number of other airlines out there that have flown far more hours/sectors than Qantas and in that regard have more 'experience' than Qantas will ever have.

[Stanwell]

BuzzBox,
Thanks for that - I hadn't read the bio on the Airline Ratings website.
I was thinking you may have misunderstood the reference to his "outstanding reputation with aviation personnel".
With that further information, I humbly apologise to Compylot for casting aspersions on his post.

[International Trader]

If you look at the stats, it is understandable.
Qantas is a small airline in world terms.
The return destination environment ( Aust) is benign . Their network is not as extensive nor their routes as diverse as big airlines.
Compare QF with airlines that have 5 or 6 X the fleet and network with many more operations and many of those in more severe environments.
Apart from trying to go cheap on some maintenance and trying to blame the companies they chose and supposedly supervised and, some recent take off performance issues, QF has done well.
Doubtless, Qantas's safety record ( in the jet age)is enviable , especially since they stopped playing golf with their aircraft.

[snoop doggy dog]

An airline rating system from Australia, that rates airlines from around the world! :p

Haa ha ha ha ha

I love the bit about Qantas economy food, 'Australian's are spoilt with full service....!' Lol

At least this type of BS allows everyone in Oz to feel warm and fuzzy about themselves, as 'we have the best airline in the world!' Lol

If it sounds like a joke, must be a joke ;) What a great laugh

[-438]

Why do people get so annoyed at Qantas having a good safety reputation??

I understand the website that rates the airline may be underwhelming in its expertise and questions may be asked as to the relationship between the website & QF.

However, Qantas does have a well deserved reputation for being safe.
From a flight ops perspective not every thing Qantas does is perfect, however the operational focus on safety is obviously forefront from chief pilot down.

Try not to let it annoy you too much.

[Boe787]

Whilst there is no reason to begrudge the Qantas safety record, if one accepts that take off and landing are when most accidents occur, then Southwest with over 700 aircraft, averaging 6 sectors per day, with no passenger fatalaties since starting in 1971, operating in very congested airspace, and the American winter, would surely be right up there?

[Stanwell]

-438,
I don't think anybody at all is actually begrudging Qantas' jet-age safety record.


The cynical comments are a direct result of the two points acknowledged in the second paragraph of your post (#30).
But then, 99% of the paying punters aren't aware of that, are they?

[pauleta150]

B747 linii Qantas z 5 silnikami w rejsie z pasa?erami (http://dlapilota.pl/wiadomosci/ondairnet/b747-linii-qantas-z-5-silnikami-w-rejsie-z-pasazerami)

[The name is Porter]

Thanks mate :ok: that's awesome, thank Christ I learn't polish at school.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

The past safety record is indelible and not in question. What annoys frontline staff so much is the assumption that the past is somehow indicative of the future, despite management eroding much of what created that great past. It feels like they are selling the family home and spending the proceeds on a piss up. Having GT legitimizing the direction we all see the company going in, is somewhat frustrating.

[Derfred]

Whilst this so-called "airline rating" website is very likely nothing other than "pay for comment" (which is not much different from employing celebrities such as Travolta or Kerr to promote the airline, or any of the other techniques that many large companies use for marketing to the masses), I have to say that from my experience as a pilot employee for many many years, QF mainline does have an incredibly good safety culture, and safety systems - from front line staff through to management.

Note that I'm not talking about "past record" or "history", because that's the past - good for marketing but not much else. I'm talking safety culture and safety systems - because that is what will shape how safe the airline is now and into the future, and that is what really counts. True?

Yes, QF has had to fight costs in recent years. Without doing so they would not be in business today. No point being excellent if you're out of business. But these are fights they've had to have, and to their credit, they've put off the fights as long as possible. Some will say they could have done it better but that's now history.

So, I've mentioned safety culture and safety systems. What's the difference? Well a safety system, at it's minimum, is largely a management construct or a regulatory hurdle which can be invented overnight, whilst a safety culture cannot. CASA grounded Tiger on the basis of an inadequate safety system. CASA cannot, arguably, easily assess a safety culture. What is a safety culture? That is what a "good" safety system creates, over time. Complex, and not easy to achieve when money is the bottom line. A memo to staff with the headline "toughen up princess" is a pretty good example of what not to do when trying create a safety culture.

A safety culture cannot be invented by a manager with an MBA, it requires investment. For example. A safety incident occurs, it is subsequently either handled well or badly by management. The ability of management to deal with it well depends on their experience, training, and (I hate to say it) paranoia. The word gets out, and future events will either be honestly reported or hidden accordingly. As time goes on, the safety culture (or lack therof) develops. An airliine management cannot "pretend" to have a good safety culture. Staff talk to each other. The only way to appear to have a good safety culture is to actually have one.

Now, the difficulty with a strong safety policy is that it can be very expensive. How do you do it without going out of business? How do you do it when the mob down the road isn't doing it, but to date they haven't crashed?

Very difficult question for a CEO of a financially struggling publicly listed company. But nevertheless, throughout all of this, from my front line perspective, the safety culture in QF has not changed one bit. Even when it costs serious dollars. I do not need to explain myself in the office if I cancel a flight due safety concerns. Nor if I ring up in the morning and say I'm too fatigued for work. Nor if there is an issue with my family. If an F/A is upset about something and causes a delay: no repercussions. I've never had to fight with engineering about defects. Potential threats such as security, terrorism, volcanic ash and weather are always addressed very conservatively by head office before I even get to work. QF pays for it's own weather and security assessment departments. If ever I have an issue with anything, there is a team of people on the end of my mobile falling over each other to help. If there is a grey area in a new policy, QF takes the conservative route until it's resolved. Cost invariably ceases to be an issue when there is a safety aspect involved. Every manager I've ever dealt with, or heard of being involved in anything, is totally supportive of front line staff decisions or concerns that involve safety.

Somehow, during all of the QF shakeups, safety appears to have been quarantined. I've criticised QF management over many things on this forum over the years, but I have to concede on this point.

When in comes to the crunch, in day to day operations, there is a big difference between publicly saying that safety is the first priority, and actually paying the money to make it so.

I was taught as a young pilot that it's always better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground. I'm happy to report that my employer continues to feel the same way.

I have a lot of friends in other airlines and they do not boast the same.

[AEROMEDIC]

A safety culture cannot be invented by a manager with an MBA, it requires investment. For example. A safety incident occurs, it is subsequently either handled well or badly by management. The ability of management to deal with it well depends on their experience, training, and (I hate to say it) paranoia. The word gets out, and future events will either be honestly reported or hidden accordingly. As time goes on, the safety culture (or lack therof) develops. An airliine management cannot "pretend" to have a good safety culture. Staff talk to each other. The only way to appear to have a good safety culture is to actually have one.


There have been attempts in the past to encourage staff to report errors, non-compliance, etc. whether their own or others, in order to avoid "the holes lining up". Ideally, these are fixed at the earliest time possible and a "no blame" situation exists.
A safety culture relies upon everybody understanding how things work and what is trying to be achieved, but it only takes one individual along the line to undo everything that has been built up, mainly trust.
While everyone else has done their job along the way, a manager somewhere decides that blame should be attributed to an individual so in some way, that individual should be punished. Therefore the system fails and the safety culture is diminished.
Additionally, when errors or non compliance are reported, it's up to managers to be proactive in getting the "system" to work as it should.
Sadly, some managers succumb to the pressures of higher managers who regard some safety situations as trivial.

[bdcer]

Derfred must be Perry with a long winded post like that!

[framer]

I like the way Derfred differentiated between safety systems and a safety culture.
Nice work.
A safety culture never sits still, it is always either getting better or getting worse.
It is heavily influenced by only 5-10% of the most senior operational people. They in turn are influenced by their non operational leaders. If the most influential operational people ( read instructors and checkies) have moral fibre they will resist while under the influence of poor management and persivere until good management arrives on the scene.
I think this is what has happened at QF. The professional integrity of the top operational folk has managed to outlast dubious management decisions thereby maintaining a very high level of safety within the old airline.
I think QF has maintained it's position within the Airline world because of the dedication of its front line, high level operational staff. Because of this, the young folk coming through will be able to do the same.
As for the rating.........none of these folk give a toss. They are too busy maintaining standards.