Just musing on a few things.... FINNAIR
 

They have only been around in the jet age for maybe 5 years less than QF...yet in the Jet age they have exactly the same safety record....why do they not 'Trade' on that record?? OY & QF both had multiple fatalities in the prop age...before most all of us were born....but it occurs to me that in the jet age....QF & AY are the same .... in terms of safety record....no?

They don't seem to trade on that???

" I think I get why Geoffery Thomas & 'Airlines ratings' doesn't mention it! :}"

Pauline Hanson?

?? Pauline Hanson ?? ......????????????????????

From a marketing perspective any astute airline would stay very well clear of any mention of accident record, whether good or bad. I don't think Qantas uses it's accident record in any of it's marketing, does it?

Perhaps you've been watching re-runs of "Rainman"? :}

You may be interested in reading this Fliegenmong.
https://www.cad.gov.hk/reports/B-LAT1-2011.pdf

..........

Previously:
"They don't seem to trade on that???"

Never a winning strategy to claim fewer crashes than the next guy.

Seriously, you don't want to remind the punters what they are about to do has risk, albeit slight.

Please explain. ;)

A fascinating report, ClearedIGS. Thanks for posting.

"Never a winning strategy to claim fewer crashes than the next guy."

Yeah.....true enough, and I suppose I worded that incorrectly....I think what I really meant was interesting everyone seems to know of the QF safety record....yet FINNAIR have also never had a fatality...or hull loss in the Jet Age....

And thanks or the report Cleared IGS ... very interesting...

Have you asked anyone in Finland? They might not know of Qantas’ reputation unless they have seen rainman. ;)

As far as I remember, IATA ban safety comparisons in airline advertising.

There was a Norwegian airline, Braathens South American and Far Eastern which called itself Braathens SAFE.

Australians think that because something is "Australian" is automatically better than anything else in the world.

For 50 years we have been believing in our own bull****, this came about from the Bradman era a,d progressed through the 50's, Australia dominated world sport, not because we were intrinsically better, it was just a matter of dumb geographic luck that we were in a part of the world where we always had good weather and the athletes could train more effectively, and partly that Europe was recovering from WW2.

Once the rest of the world got rich enough to build indoor training facilities, and playing arenas, we were no longer the top dog.

Unfortunately, the Australian psyche & business psyche has never left the 50's, we still think we are better han everyone. The truth is very different.

we are, for now, luckier than many other parts of the world. That's about it.

Can you point to any time in the last 20 years where Qantas attempted to “trade on” their safety record?

By that I mean, I know it’s a record that people outside the business sometimes refer to but it’s not like you see ads or company spokesmen actively using that specific point to drum up business.

So no different to Finnair really.

For fear of karma coming round and biting one in the posterior!

AFAIK, Qantas has never used its safety record in any advertising. They used to take this attitude to extremes. Before TN and QF became one, Qantas refused to sponsor or have anything to do with motor racing because of the associated risks and possible brand damage. That attitude however didn't worry at least one of the domestic operators at the time. :E