Best International Airline Award goes to ....
 

The Roy Morgan Customer Satisfaction Award for the Best International Airline 2011-2012 goes to .... Garuda!!

So, apparently Australians are more satisfied flying with Garuda than any of the local international airlines. :ouch: The top 5 are;

1. Garuda
2. Singapore Airlines
3. Air New Zealand
4. Emirates
5. Cathay

Where did they do the survey? The Indonesian consulate? Are they kidding?

It just goes to show you that the most important issue for the punter is to be treated economically, efficiently and respectfully. The background issues, such as safety, maintenance and industrial relations, aren't as important to them.

Obviously, they are getting what they want from those listed Airlines.

QANTAS got the award from this group for best domestic airline....go figure! There are so many of these type of awards around these days it's hard to work out if any have got an ounce of credibility.

Maybe they remember that had the Bangkok incident caught fire it would have looked remarkably similar to the Jojakarta parang!
But the sky gods aren't that bad are they?

Well, the customer service satisfaction outcomes appear reasonable. They all do it pretty well and they all focus on doing it well, after all who wants to travel with a bunch of grumpy malcontents (Shiver at the thought of Aeroflot in the good old days of the USSR).

Besides life at QF has become like life here at home, miserable managers following a failed formula of shareholder value first (Read managers annual bonuses and salaries), customers and staff second, continuing demands for more for less and threats of forclosure or offshoring. Its not the drivers fault nor the blackhands fault it is the managers, they don't know what they are doing but continue to pretend that they do! Qantas was the best brand in the world, once, clean, sharp and friendly and above all always safe but alas over the past decade despite the best efforts of all involved at the sharp end or on the ground, down the back and at the terminal has turned to crap - that's what the customers say. Only the domestic market is holding out, guess there are some there that still remember the friendly way theme.

I guess what we need to balance this with is a survey of air safety incidents/accidents over the past several years - shall we see what we can come up with? Might take a while.

Well it just goes to show that marketing and reality are two different things. A preliminary review shows us the following (Asia Pacific only)

By safety record (based on fatalities not incidents) here are the top 19 worst airlines:

1. PRC Airlines
2. Indian Airlines
3. China Airlines
4. Garuda
5. Pakistan International
6. Philippine Airlines
7. Korean Air]
8. Japan Airlines
9. Air India
10. Thai International
11. Air China
12. Singapore Airlines/Silk Air
13. Malaysia Airlines
14. Ansett of NZ
15. Cathay Pacific
16 Asiana Airlines
17. All Nippon Airways
18. Eva Air
19. Qantas

Only Eva Air and Qantas have had 0 fatal incidents. However this data is over 40 years so in terms of the most recent or frequent by date (most recent in brackets) here is a revised list of the worst to fly with:

1. Garuda (2007)
2. Pakistan International (2006)
3. Other PRC Airlines (2004)
4. Thai Airways International (2003)
5. Air China (2003)
6. Singapore Airlines (2000)
7. Indian Airlines (1999)
8. Korean Air (1997)
9. Malaysia Airlines (1995)
10. Ansett of NZ (1995)
11. Philippine Air Lines (1994)
12. Asiana Airlines (1993)
13. Japan Air lines (1985)
14. Air India (1985)
15. Air New Zealand (1979)
16. Cathay Pacific (1972)
17. All Nippon Airways (1972)
18. Qantas and Eva (never)

So what we knew all ready is there for all to see.

As I tell dear Aunty Doris, sure the prices is good, the girls are pretty but I am not sure you might get there alive - your choice, I wouldnt.

More research into this topic on incidents v accidents is now underway, fascinating.

Nope, I dont think Qantas took the gong for best domestic airline either.

So what's your source for the data you've presented?

A bit hard to swallow is it, that an non-Australian airline could be better than us?

How does having a fatal accident immediately make an airline the "worst" to fly with? By your logic, American Airlines and United should be pretty bad given the events of sept 11?? So should Air Canada, they have had a fair few fatal accidents, but alas, they were awarded best international airline in North America 2011, go figure.

Is it not inconceivable to think the likes of Garuda Airlines have developed a formula to turn their airline into a competitive player? They are obviously doing something right in terms of safety if their ban on the EU has been lifted and IATA have given them their seal of approval. If customers are saying they are satisfied with the service then perhaps this airline deserves a fair go.

Two responses, one, as stated before this Asia Pacific not the world, two the data is inconclusive and for that reason i put the dates for the last fatal accident to place it all in perspective.

Initial data is from AirSafe.com a consumer site. Yes and I know all this stuff is reported differently and recorded differently. Just like passenger surveys are.

Completely incorrect.

List of Qantas fatal accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You just keep on peddling the myth.

By the way you may want to have a look at the definiton of incident versus accident.

Icarus, I suggest that you re-read grip pipe's post as you appear to have missed this caveat: The fatal Qantas accidents (non-jet) were prior to the time frame being discussed.

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.

Interesting thread. Algie you are on the money.
This is a true story - I have an old grandpa in the family. He is a spritely 92 years old. He has been driving since he was 14, a total of 78 years. And guess what, Pops has never had an accident. Question is does this make him a safe driver? Hell no, he is a menace on the road and a disaster waiting to happen, yet he hasn't actually been involved in an accident.
The subject matter of 'what makes an airline safe' if judged solely on whether they have had a major accident yet is purely subjective, inaccurate and plain wrong.

No, I did see that line but I think that is the point. Reading through the list creates one impression, which is distinctly different to reality.

Oh. Then there is this...
http://images.theage.com.au/2009/03/...Yogyakarta.jpg

Number 4 and 5 on your list were because of SARS. Last time thai banged in was in 1998.

muppet

Garuda 'world's best' award haunted by 2007 slaughter | Plane Talking

But **** eh, they're cheap, the hosties look good and they serve free, cold Bintang. What's not to like?:{:{ If Alan and Gina get their way they'll be here on 457s tomorrow.

Another example of why this industry is going to the dogs.

Airline Safety should always be measured INCIDENTS NOT ACCIDENTS, in most cases there is only a bees dick difference between an accident and an incident. In both cases safety has been comprimised?

I agree with Old but not bold it is the overall picture that counts of incidents and accidents. Non aeronautical persons only look at the accidents and nothing draws the punters attention more than the risk of being killed. On the other hand the industry has done such a good job over the decades of emphasising the benign nature of aviation and the safety of air travel it masks the complex nature of the beast; crew competence, weather, maintenance, age of the aircrafft, ground facilities, etc. The beast all professionals struggle with daily.

The issue of incidents v accidents is a minefield for lots of reasons, the airsafe.com outcome is one type of prevocative outcome, why? well if you look at the time scale and say look only at the last decade then quite clearly their are very few of the airlines listed that have had an accident but they all may have had lots and lots of incidents, are they increasing, trending down or stable? who knows given that what is reported and what is anecdotal is one such problem. Given that everyone is basically using the same equipment world wide, Boeing or Airbus, hypothetically using the same maintenance techniques and manuals and with the same base standards there is a need to find a base measure for this stuff. To date I have not found one and I have been looking at this stuff for decades.

The passenger survey goes to show that with good marketing and a heavy emphasis on the passengers travel experience from go to whoa you can achieve a lot and ignore the past and negative perceptions or histories of some participants. Some of those listed in the so called worst airlines have exemplary training and maintenance standards and only new aircraft but someone one day mad a bad call and it resulted in a nasty outcome. Does one bad call one day maketh the business, I don't think so.

My humble view is that air travel is as safe as it can be made and we are in the territory of the human **** up factor and you can tweak and fine tune all the CRM and other stuff you like but humans make mistakes, the math of probability may give you an idea of the odds but it never can tell you where on the gaussian curve it may be distributed as far as time is concerned.

So really if the Roo is to survive then it needs new aeroplanes but it needs to make that passenger experience comfortable, trouble free and friendly. Well fed and warm and comfortable makes humans feel good. It is as simple as that really. Can you sell a ticket to the punter doing that and make a profit, well that is a completely different question all together.