Look who's #9
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...lines-171800816.html

That's ALOT better than #1. I don't care for flying at all but, sometimes I have to have a few more drinks!!

Okay, just where do the Russians, East Europeans and whole slew of African airlines, never mind American liners which keep TV shows like "60 Seconds Remaining" [?] on air, fit in? Jes askin.

Scriptus
I fully understand what you're saying, but I don't have a ticket booked with those airlines & I do have 1 with SAA.

I'll be flying with #7 next week. Very comforting!!

hell, in the last few years alone, Aeroflot has had a lot of crashes/fatalities. can't believe they didn't make the list. something is really weird here.

Great. I've flown one and flying 2 in the next 2 weeks.

i dont see : take a chance airline ...

since 1983 : 9 hulls lost and 357 victims ....

are you referring to TACA? just curious...

I don't believe the above stats take into account the number of flights. Five hull losses and a few hundred deaths might be ok if the airline runs 10x as many flights as the airline with two hull losses and a hundred deaths.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/rates.htm

quote:

Originally posted by bwana cecil:
Scriptus
I fully understand what you're saying, but I don't have a ticket booked with those airlines & I do have 1 with SAA.

Shitty African Airlines does give cause for concern when it comes to leg room, customer care and so on, but they only ever lost one liner and that was probably something in the cargo hold. Putting SAA in the top ten is really bent and skewed statistics put out by a rival like Zimbabwe Air.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
are you referring to TACA? just curious...

no just Air France ....

quote:

Originally posted by Scriptus:
Putting SAA in the top ten is really bent and skewed statistics put out by a rival like Zimbabwe Air.

And, if I recall correctly, Air Zim lost its last plane (at least a loss involving fatalities)when it was shot down during the wars and it obviously wasn't even called "Air Zim" then. Tough to hold them accountable for getting shot down. Now, that said, Kenya Air scares the crap out of me to this day. I was on a flight to Cairo years ago and noted to my wife that the area around our window had been sloppily sealed with what looked like bathroom caulking. Might not have been anything to worry about but I thought the cosmetics of it didn't bode well for other maintenance protocols. Then, on the same flight, I could see and smell smoke filling the cabin. Being a bit panicky and wrongfully thinking that there was anything to be done if we were actually on fire, I jumped out of my seat and started moving toward the source of the smoke to help. My wife pulled me back into the seat and simply said, "What the hell are you doing?". Upon inquiry, the flight crew had accidentally set fire to some meals. All was well for the remainder of the flight.

quote:

Originally posted by tendrams:

quote:

Originally posted by Scriptus:
Putting SAA in the top ten is really bent and skewed statistics put out by a rival like Zimbabwe Air.

And, if I recall correctly, Air Zim lost its last plane (at least a loss involving fatalities)when it was shot down during the wars and it obviously wasn't even called "Air Zim" then. Tough to hold them accountable for getting shot down.

Hhmmnn1 Yes! All good statistics for Air Zim. Wonder why they are banned from European Airspace? Something to do with maintenance, or lack thereof as well wobbly navigational systems and non functional radar.

How true this is, I cannot vouch, but an acquaintance once told me that he was waiting to board a turbo prop Russian craft in the Congo, when he observed one of the flight crew boarding with briefcase in one hand and a small roll of fencing wire and a big pair of Willis fencing pliers in the other. He did board the flight but it was about a week before his anal sphincter relaxed.

quote:

Originally posted by Scriptus:
All good statistics for Air Zim. Wonder why they are banned from European Airspace? Something to do with maintenance, or lack thereof as well wobbly navigational systems and non functional radar.

Well, that is the problem with statistics...they can tell you all about how safe things WERE without saying much at all if the conditions that led to that safety have changed. I am obviously not 100% confident in Air Zim's present maintenance practices. Similarly, I got a bit uncomfortable with Egyptair after one of their pilots simply disengaged the autopilot, said, "I put my trust in God", and let go of the controls ....REPEATEDLY... until they all dropped into the Atlantic.

The statistic you need is the number of passenger miles per fatality. If a carrier only flew 10 times and lost only one plane they have a very bad rating versus an airline with billions of miles and two planes lost.

quote:

Originally posted by tendrams:
I don't believe the above stats take into account the number of flights. Five hull losses and a few hundred deaths might be ok if the airline runs 10x as many flights as the airline with two hull losses and a hundred deaths.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/rates.htm

I always thought a client dying was never okay ...


I would be curious if they could embellish the statistic and state was type of planes and where the planes crashed. A bunch of airbus 380 crashes over the Atlantic ocean might make me fly Delta.

quote:

Originally posted by Sevens:

I always thought a client dying was never okay ...
I would be curious if they could embellish the statistic and state was type of planes and where the planes crashed. A bunch of airbus 380 crashes over the Atlantic ocean might make me fly Delta.

Well, airlines (just like anyone) can't help that we live in an imperfect world where machines break and people make mistakes and sometimes half a dozen unrelated events coincide leading to a catastrophe. There may be an airline out there with a 100% perfect safety record but I can tell you that I would rather fly on one that has been in business for 50 years and had two fatal crashes than one that has been in business for 5 years and had none.

I flew SA in 2002. On the way back with 4 hours to go to Atlanta the upper cabin filled with smoke. We started to divert to Bermuda which was 2 hrs away. Just before we got to Bermuda they found the problem, a shorted out windsheild defroster. Longest 2hrs of my life.

The original link doesn't work for me but this might be of interest.

As Scriptus says SAA were indeed moving a lot of dodgy gear around when the Heidelberg went down & it's generally believed it was carrying munitions the white Government (quite sensibly) didn't want the new incoming Government to get their hands on.

Steve
Since I have flights booked on SAA this summer, I like your info better.

Air Canada is safe, just a collectivley stupid organzation with a monopoly to keep it alive.