Blogs and Stories
How Safe Is Your Airline?
George Frey / Getty Images
The Daily Beast crunches the numbers to rank the best and worst safety records based on flight accidents and incidents. Plus, which seats and parts of the flight are the most perilous. Related: The Daily Beast's Clive Irving's analysis of the ranking.
Almost 11 years ago, somewhere over Canada, a small fire began in the ceiling of Swissair Flight 111 near the cockpit’s rear wall. Seventeen minutes after the crew determined the fire was a serious problem and radioed a distress message, the plane plummeted into the ocean, disintegrating and immediately killing all 229 on board. In my then-role as host of a coast-to-coast public-radio travel show, I grabbed an interview with professional-pilot-turned-writer William Langewiesche, one of the most articulate people I know on the subject of flying and air safety. I asked Langewiesche what he says to friends who tell him they’re afraid of flying. I frankly expected the same reassuring words I often share with others, the how you’re more likely to be killed by a kick from a donkey than in an airplane crash. But Langewiesche surprised me.
On a typical American airline, your chances of dying on a flight are somewhere around one in 13 million.
“Who among us gets to choose when we’ll die?” he asked. So why be any more afraid of flying than we are of crossing a street? Good point. But with whom you fly matters. The Daily Beast compared the global statistics for the 25 airlines with the best safety records and those with the worst, and the differences are striking. The chances of you being on a flight with at least one fatality are 10 times greater in the loser bucket. And the chance of you yourself dying? Twelve times greater.
The difference within the U.S., which has uniformly far safer standards, is far less. But I thought I’d quantify that. I present The Daily Beast Safety Rankings of domestic airlines, a list designed to showcase which carriers are performing best—and which lag—in terms of keeping travelers out of Langewiesche’s musings. Crunching data compiled by airline-safety-records.com, which for years has been constantly updating its records based on information it amalgamates from the Federal Aviation Administration, National Transportation Safety Board, and the U.S. Department of Transportation, The Daily Beast's rankings encompass two equal criteria: accidents (you know what those are) and as well as “incidents,” which means a stomach-churning event that could have gone very badly (a near-miss in midair, a runway incursion, loss of engine power, etc.). From there, I evenly weighted one-year (for 2008) and five-year safety records, thus rewarding both those who consistently run smoothly and those who have stepped up their game.
To further compare apples to apples, we also separated the national carriers from those that are more regional. To adjust for the fact that big airlines fly more frequently than smaller ones, the incidents and accidents were tallied on per-million take-offs basis. (Note also that some of the NTSB and FAA data are self-reported by airlines, though the reporting is governed by federal regulations.) The Daily Beast rankings for 10 big boys came out, from best to worst, as follows:
)
1. AirTran
2. JetBlue
3. Southwest
4. US Airways
5. American
6. Alaska
7. Continental
8. Delta
9. Northwest
10. United
"It has been a great five years for us in which our continual dedication to safety has paid off,” says Christopher White, a spokesman for AirTran. "Our 8,500 crew members make safety their No. 1 priority every day." United, meanwhile, questioned how airlinesafetyrecords.com weighs its data. “It is difficult for us to comment on these figures because we do not know the methodology behind them,” says a spokesperson.
The Daily Beast also ranked regional airlines, where the problems are far greater, with an accidents and incidents rate more than twice as high as the national carriers. “In the industry, one of the biggest concerns are the regional operators,” says Jim Asker, the managing editor of the trade magazine Aviation Week. Among those The Daily Beast measured, several smaller airlines had perfect safety records, while Midwest (based in Milwaukee and now a subsidiary of Republic Airlines, which has won an auction to acquire Frontier Airlines) had the worst.
Click Image Below to View The Daily Beast's Airline Survey Statistics
Sorting through the data leads to all sorts of interesting factoids: Pilot errors have been getting fewer. The accident rate has been consistently lower than in the 1990s. Flying in a private jet is more than four times more dangerous than flying on a big carrier.
Then there’s location. “Where you are is more important than the model you’re in,” says Dr. Todd Curtis, the author of Understanding Aviation Safety Data and creator of AirSafe.com. The crash in June of a Yemenia Airbus A310 (a model no longer in production, by the way) might lead a reasonable, risk-averse passenger to avoid airlines from developing countries. I often meet people who would never consider boarding a commercial jet flying the colors of, say, Air Zimbabwe, Air Tanzania, or Tunisair. In fact, none of those airlines (and dozens more) have lost a passenger in an accident for more than two decades. Moral: It’s not major national airlines you should avoid—it’s the regional carriers in poor countries where maintenance and training might not be up to par.
Then there’s the question of whether there’s a “safest seat” in any passenger airplane. The answer is, generally, it’s a crapshoot. Both Boeing and the FAA have said there’s no way to say for sure whether you’re safer in a crash if you take a seat up front, over the wings, or in the back. However, Popular Mechanics magazine examined raw data from the NTSB covering the 20 airline crashes in the U.S. from 1971 to 2006 that had both fatalities and survivors. The editors’ conclusion: Passengers seated near the tail of the plane have a 40 percent better chance of surviving a crash than those in the first few rows.
And while you may be able to choose your seat on a flight, there’s not much you can do about this fact: The most dangerous time in a flight is the landing. “That’s what pilots really get paid to do: Bring it back to the ground,” says Michael Barr of the University of Southern California’s aviation safety program and a former Air Force fighter pilot in Vietnam. That said, your chances of walking away are far greater from a landing; the chances of dying on any flight are far greater during the takeoff and climb.
It can’t be overemphasized how remote this possibility is. On a typical American airline, your chances of dying on a flight are somewhere around one in 13 million. (Remember that donkey kick I mentioned?) In fact, the last several years have been an unusually safe time to fly commercially, though 2009 has seen a statistically surprising number of disasters, including two crashes in Iran, the Colgan Air crash near Buffalo, New York, a Turkish Airlines flight near Amsterdam, the Air France flight from Rio to Paris, and the Yemenia flight in the Indian Ocean.
There’s a glimmer of good news regarding survivability in all that bad news, however. In the case of the Turkish Airlines Boeing 737 that crashed short of the runway while descending for landing at Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport, 126 of the 135 people on board survived. And then, of course, there’s the miracle landing of US Airways Flight 1549 on the Hudson River, proving that even if it appears that fate has chosen you, in an aircraft that’s lost all its engines, sometimes you can cheat death.
Rudy Maxa, a longtime consumer travel commentator, is host and executive producer of “Rudy Maxa’s World,” on public television and a contributing editor with National Geographic Traveler.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
I don't need any studies or charts to tell you that United deserves to be in last place. As wonderful as it is to be able to get back to the States to see my family, the dread of flying United almost negates the excitement. The flight attendants are about the same age as the airplane. They are nasty, surly and sadly, the first exposure foreigners have to their journey to the USA.
Fortunately, United has done such a poor job that there is now competition across the pond. Delta, which is only marginally better now flies the competitive route that used to be exclusively reserved for Qantas and United. But, even better news is that Richard Branson's Virgin group is flying with new planes and attentive staff.
Tammy- I don't see what rude flight attendants have to do with safety statistics.
rrggrrgg - think about it. If the flight attendants are rude, and have a poor image of the place they work, why wouldn't the rest of the 8500 crew that work on the plane.
The attitude of the crew reflects the overall attitude of the company toward their passengers. This should tell you alot.
I agree, this is a "safty issue", not a "service" issue...that's a horse of a different color!!!!
As a F/A, it has been my experience that people who are nasty at work really dont care about their jobs, therefore dont take much seriously in most&any aspects. Besides, their attitude&priority in an emergency situation will be recusing themselves first and leaving YOU behind!
Every element of Airline operation is significant and important. If attendants are rude to passengers at sometime they will miss some important matter that relates to safety. Due you think a rude operator when you call 911 still gets the job done. There was an article where a woman died because a 911 operator was rude to a child calling for help. The same analogy applies to airline attendants. I have chosen to fly Quantas to Australia over lower fares with Delta and United. When our airlines go belly up they have earned it due to poor management policies and tactics. Every facit of airline operation is important to me as it is what I pay for. The problem is not the age of the attendants, it's either managment ignorance or stupidity.
Flight Attendant's degree of customer service is a direct reflection of their attitude regarding their job. If they're rude it says that they don't give a rat's a** about you or their job. In an emergency I wouldn't want to rely on a rude flight attendant to put the passengers first. Reformat the scenario and replace "flight attendant" with doctor, nurse, waiter, mechanic, or any other person who is in a position to directly affect your well-being. Would you trust a rude doctor? How about a rude waiter? If a waiter doesn't like doing the job he's doing it's reflected in the way he treats his customers. Ever hear of a waiter spitting in a customer's food? Well, flight attendants, as well as any other customer service personnel can "make you or break you" when you're in their hands.
Rude flight attendants have a lot to do with airline safety. They ignore guests and their observations. They don't look into things when you feel something is suspicious. The worst part is that a rude flight attendant can wrongfully dismiss a situation that is actually serious.
I wason a Delta flight where an engine blew and we had to make an emergency landing and when I signaled a flight attendant to tell her about the smoke she first took almost 5 minutes to get to me and then told me that I wasn't an airplane engineer and that it was normal. Minutes later the pilots finally became aware of situation and we circled dumping fuel before we made our emergency landing.
The pilots can't be aware of everything from their seat and there are times when situations don't immediately register on the instruments.
Treating passengers like they have some sense and at least looking or sniffing around (even if it's just to humor a nervous flyer) can help catch a bad situation early.
Flying United exclusively for the last 25yrs. I have had minimal delays/cancellations due to mechanical issues. While any deviation to my itinerary is inconvenient, I applaud their consistent safety record! I do question the the validity rating AirTran/Value Jet as number 1..NOT FOR ME! Now Miss Down Under...it was a safety commentary, but let me comment on the older, surly flight attendants. Every business has those few employees that should not be in the public eye. I have always treated the crew on my flights with respect & dignity and find it is returned ten fold. I suspect you are the passenger I pray is not seated next to me...I won't elaborate, doubt I need too! Please fly your beloved Virgin/Quantas...do check out the scrutiny of their safety regs. required by their country while being the "pampered princess".
Agreed) UNITED is a GREAT airline the no one forced her to fly them. It may be the only time she has ever flown in her entire life. I have flown for years and have found that ALL Airlines have a BAD TRAVEL DAY. I have had many more GREAT experiences on UNITED, than she has experienced bad I am sure. I do say Kudos to AirTran also. If they won it, then great for them. I have flown them several times as well and they are a great deal, for the modern flier, in this depressed economy.
Perhaps you should follow your own moniker, QANTAS, which stands for Queensland and Northern Territories Aerial Services. Not sure where all you septics get the "U" from.?
as we, the passengers do not want to pay the real value of our flights, how can we even discuss this issue. Does anybody think that a $49 fare can give you a safe fligt???? And that a captain that earns $29,000 a year is experienced enough and rested enough to even be concerned about his job. I say - "America wake up"!!!!!!
My brother is a pilot for American Airlines. I can tell you without hesitation, his concerns are for passenger safety, period. Most of you have no idea what kind of lives pilots live. They are typically sleeping in hotel rooms 4 to 5 nights a week. The restaurants at these hotels are typically quite expensive so many times these pilots put on their basic street clothes after checking in, and seek out affordable dining. Also, they have to be aware of what kind of food they eat as their physicals require blood work. As far as drinking...he won't touch a drop of anything with alcohol in it for 36-48 hourse prior to flying. On days he works, he does NOT use MOUTHWASH for fear of a passenger screaming his or her head off. Most pilots take their jobs seriously.
When passengers cry and whine and sometimes yell or scream about things like luggage, you have no idea of the stress this puts these pilots under. Crews (flight attendant's) are typically professional, but NOT ALWAYS. Sometimes the attendant's are rude, and are the reason passengers get upset. Just remember, the pilots job is to fly the plane.
You want the pilot's to be able to CONCENTRATE on getting you to your destination quickly, NOT SITTING IN A COCKPIT WORRYING THAT YOU WILL REPORT THEM BECAUSE THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM WITH YOUR LUGGAGE.
Think about the pilot's before you complain, and try to remember...these pilots want you to get to your destination safely. Let them do their job and yes...please thank them if you have the opportunity. That does make a difference.
Few pilots make the wages most American's believe. Most have lost a good portion of their retirements, and wages to keep the airline afloat. There are still some senior pilots who make a fortune, but that is not the case with most.
Tammy: I don't understand your comment about the ages of the flight attendents. In an emergency, would you rather have a young, beautiful, yet inexperienced flight attendent, or would you prefer one who is seeing the normal effects of his or her age, yet has 20-40 years of experience handling flight emergencies? They don't have their job in order to be eye candy for the passengers. They're primarily there for your safety. Some of United Airlines' most experienced flight attendents only fly the International routes and I have yet to come across any of them who resemble your description.
Air tran bites ....flew United to California was not bad...Delta is not a choice
they call Cincinnatia hub its Kentucky?? Why??? Jet Blue is the best
no charge for bags etc....They all think they are doing you a favor ...I agree
flight attendants are not cordial ...but not nasty either...as far as safety
who knows
i would rather have a old fight attandent with a strong safety background than someone who was hired yesterday for her looks and cants get that 400lb. door open because she might break her nails
In the past year I have flown just about all the airlines on your list. This week I was on United and US Air. All flights full and because of the mess at Chicago all ran late. United could have made up the time but I suspect made no effort due to fuel consumption - so we arrived late but in one piece. The critical question is what was the cause of the accidents .were they pilot error or failure in the plane. Ive spoken to enough pilots CAPTAINS as they like to be called, who will tell you that a failure of a system does not necessarilly mean doom in that there are back up systems in hydraulics etc. The issue is when one or two things go wrong , are the pilots trained enough to outsmart the problem . Ive met some of the most professional Captains and some that are real jerks . Fortunately all on your list have great training programs.
By the way as far as customer service there is no better airline then Virgin. Branson knows what he wants as far as his crews , the way they look and act and demands it. MY last flight on US Air this week out of Charlotte had two male attendents or whatever they call themselves, that were so fat they bumped everyone as they walked up and down the isle. The only reason I fly in America is because we as a nation and our leaders are to stupid not to have built high speed rail.
Wow you mix safety with service. lousy service but Southwest kills one an runs two off the runways and they rank.....? If you believ this study you are as dumb as the so called expert. Oh yeah don't forget Continental and US Air, nobody hurt but still a crash.... United crashes = 0...
I also seriously doubt that someone in 10 inch stilleto heels and a couture' runway dress designed for a fashon runway and not safety would help a flight attendant help anyone either....seriously...will there ever be a designer that will understand the concept of safety with a uniform? My feet swell on long haul flights as a passenger so I can only imagine what happens to a female flight attendant in heels for that same flight.
guess what southwest, number 3, just did?!
you clearly did no research at all...
" Federal Aviation Administration inspector working Friday at a maintenance shop used by Southwest questioned whether some hinge fittings -- used to divert hot engine exhaust from aircraft wings -- installed on two versions of Boeing 737 jets were authorized for use. After hasty consultations with the FAA and Chicago-based Boeing (BA), Southwest grounded 46 planes Saturday, delaying about a third of its flights by as much as four hours.
It isn't known how the revelation may affect a settlement Southwest reached with the FAA in March, in which the airline would pay $7.5 million in penalties for operating 46 planes, on nearly 60,000 flights, without performing adequate maintenance. A provision of that settlement calls for fines to double, should Southwest "not accomplish specific safety improvements" outlined in the agreement.
What really worries me is the corporate trend of paying as little as possible to the employees. Listen, I don't care if I have to pay $20 extra. Give the guy who screws in my fan blades as much money as he needs. If he's happy, I'm happy!
amen!!! I agree...I want an airline that can afford to keep up the maintence on my plane.
I've flown six times over the past four years to Sydney, AUS., and every time that I've flown with United, the flight experience has been good. Hawaiin Airlines is by far the best, although for obvious reasons not as big in the mainland US.
Link in the article is incorrect - should be airline-safety-records.com
how in the WORLD can you list AirTran first?
this is the old Value Jet, which killed 125 people in a crash in 1997 and was so terrible it was grounded by the FAA. had a horrible safety rating.
i am appalled you didn't do research...i will NEVER fly Air Tran!
Ditto.
Interesting observation. 1st, the safety rankings are based on data from the last last 5 years [an incident from 12 yrs ago would not be included]. 2nd, the FAA concluded that the ValueJet crash was caused by improperly labeled cargo [as I recall, oxogen tanks] that caught fire and brought down the jet.
Personally, I don't particularly like AirTran ... I always fly JetBlue when it is an option.
I was stunned to see Air Tran (nee Value Jet) in first place. I'll never forget the horrible stories told by the victims' relatives who received phone msgs from their loved ones as the plane filled up with smoke and then plunged into the Everglades. We've always had good flights with United, domestic and overseas but I must say that it really angers me when I keep hearing about airlines constantly cutting the wages/benefits of their employees (while the executives still receive incredibly plush salaries and benefits).
Well to correct your misinformation, AirTran is NOT ValuJet. AirTran was a separate airline that bought the remains of ValuJet-aircraft, routes, etc.
And to blame FL for a cargo company's fraud is like saying AA and UA were responsible for the four 9/11 crashes-just stupid! AA bought TWA, so does that mean they AA is to be blamed for the terrorist hijacking of the TW B707 and blowing it up in the Egyptian desert? UA bought Pan Am so does that mean UA is liable for the Pan Am's Canary Island crash???NO, they are not.
FL is a very well run airline with attentive and friendly staff.
We've been frequent fliers on AirTran for 5 or so years and it's a great airline! True they did have that horrific crash a long time ago but aren't those life lessons often the most productive? I'd much rather trust someone who knows how easy it is to falter than someone who might be taking their safety for granted!
The little known DARK secret of the airline industry is that every time an aircraft leaves the gate it has CARGO on it. This cargo is a profit center for the airline and the good news is that this cargo helps keep the cost of the passengers ticket down. HOWEVER the very bad news is that that cargo is not screened as well as the pax luggage. So the BIGGER question is not "IF" but "WHEN" will another Value Jet type accident will occur. I think the reason that Air Tran was rated high is that when considering all the things that within an airlines control regarding safety Air Tran must have come in number one. NOTE: Regarding the Value Jet crash. There were 3 other air carriers which were routinely carrying the same cargo from the same shipping company and any one of them could of been carrying the shipment which brought down the Value Jet.
The dark secret is FALSE. FYI ...AirTran is one of a few that DO NOT transport CARGO. There are also several other airlines that REFUSE the transport of cargo AT ALL today. Did you know that Airline CARGO may save your life? Airlines take donated live organs that would have no other means of transport, to save lives. That heart transplant in Peoria, may have just flown in from Alabama on a DELTA or UNITED or AMERICAN flight. Cargo does make more money for the airline than passengers. Cargo is also screened now before it is loaded. It goes through the x-ray and random manual inspection, just like the baggage you check in on the flight. So even if an airline does transport cargo, no matter what airline in the US, it is screened before it is loaded. That was not true a few years ago. So there, the dark secret had been brought to light. This mandate was made by the FAA and TSA under the DOT because of flights such as 592 Valu-jet. There again AirTran is the catylist, of another safe proceedure, that affects ALL AIRLINES and keeps us ALL SAFER in the air. You should be thankful that those people did not die in vain. Because of that Valu-Jet flight, the entire industry has been changed for the better. AirTran is not the only incident in the industry, that has made it safer for you to fly. Every time there is an accident with ANY airline, it's effects change proceedures at every airline and make new regulations to insure safety on every airline. I hope this makes you feel safer on your next flight.
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps they learned from their mistakes. Or do you feel they should just be shut down after that problem which was caused by a dangerous cargo that caused the crash. Do you know that the busy captain of aircraft can review the cargo manifest and reject anything he feels he does not want aboard his plane. What if the cargo listing is not accurate in describing the material. I think that was the case with the Airtran tradgedy in Florida of which you speak. If we quit using every transportation that had an accident we would be walking or swimming from point A to B.
get your facts correct..about valujet..not value jet...it was 110 that died...read your history...dud..plus the airline is called AirTran...ran with a whole different
group of people..and new equipment...b717..b737...not dc9's...and AirTran is
all about safety..plus NEVER say NEVER...
finally someone who has knowledge, better yet ask why Southwest with 2 crashes and kiiling someone ON THE GROUND is ranked #3. You think this guy was a bit biased...
I am sure that AirTran, which was formerly Valu-Jet, which was downed on flight 592, per court record and NTSB record was due to Sabre-Tech refurburshing an Eastern Airline 747, Sabre-Tech which shipped unlabeled O2 generators in unmarked wooden boxes(these are the same generators/aircraft parts which give you O2 in an emergency when the masks fall down from an overhead compartment in an emergency)...the same O2 parts had been shipped before this accident happened and were still shipped after it happened (fortunately without incident or loss of life) on at least four other major carriers for years afterwards (they were all fined by the FAA and reports were published in the paper). I am appalled YOU didn't do YOUR research. I know for a fact that I love to board and AirTran flight and see the "FAA DIAMOND AWARD" sticker next to the door. I have a personal loss. I lost a friend on flight 592. Others lost family. I flew Valu-Jet when they started back up flying and continue to do so today as AirTran. AirTran will always be the safest in my mind because, they have been there with loss and they understand how important it is to run a safe airline. They also posted a profit this year so far. Did Jetblue? Do your own RESEARCH!!! I at least know that AirTran can afford to repair the plane that I am flying on. You will blog all day long that AirTran was formerly Valu-Jet. I dare you to mention United or American Airlines which hit the Trade Towers and killed thousands. It was not their fault and neither was flight 592 the fault of Valu-Jet. Give it a rest!!! Do your research before you tell others to do theirs. Unless you have a valid point, maybe you should also learn to be more sensitive when you blog carelessly about the loss of others you do not know. 592 is REAL for me. I am sure it was just an alligator joke for you in the office when it happened. Maybe you should look up what an FAA Diamond Award is? It causes change in the entire industry. It sets higher standards for ALL airlines. So, AirTran is not only lowering your costs of travel, they are keeping other airlines safer by setting new higher standards with all the Diamond awards. Now THAT my friend is "somethingworthsaying"
I fly a fair amount. The most harried, crazed passengers I've ever come across were a group from an AirTans flight several years ago. I had never heard of that airline before. It sounded like a deep-discount company -- one step up from being a charter.
The people were enraged and flipped out over whatever the problem had been -- which had still been unresolvled. I felt really sorry for them and their harrowing story. As I said, it was several years ago and I don't remember the details.
But I did commit that name to memory, so I would NEVER get near that company, no matter how much money they would save me. I've never had occasion to use that warning, but reading this article is a total joke.
It's clear you've never flown charter. While Air Tran is a discount air carrier, charter is not. Charter would be at the very top of the list -- not at the bottom and is DEFINITELY the way to go!
( I DISAGREE) Did you know that AirTran is one of the larger Charter companies in the industry? YES, AirTran flies charters. They are the official "Charter" airline for the NFL team the Atlanta Falcons. They are the preferred carrier for several major teams in the NFL,NHL and NBA. I tend to disagree that "Charter" is the way to fly though. My last vacation was "Charter" and I must say the flight was more miserable than the diarrea from the resort buffet. We were all so cramped and packed in like sardines. The airline operating the Charter was not AirTran, but I am sure it would have been much better if it had been. Speaking of DIARREA...COMMIT THIS TO MEMORY...I was on a DELTA flight several YEARS ago and this woman took her cat out of the bag. She held it up in front of her, as I recall and it Crapped all in the hair of the woman in front of her. The woman screamed in terror about the LIQUID FELINE FECES saturating the back of her hair, until she started crying. This was a passenger on DELTA, not on AirTran. Since then I too have commited to memory the actions of those DELTA passengers.LOL I will still fly DELTA though. If the fare is cheaper, an airline is an airline in this economy. Baby they are all SAFE it just happens that AirTran is the safest for the last 5 years. This article is not a joke. It is just showing how things are today. Have you flown at all in the last 10 years? Apparently, you have not. Get over your bitterness and book a ticket. Why not fly AirTran and see what you think. I fly them and Delta all the time and really cannot see much difference at all. Seriously, have you flown on AirTran in the past Decade? Don't blame the passengers, you are one too you know. Just do as the flight attendant says and sit back and ENJOY the ride. Occasionally, you may get to enjoy the show. I still laugh when I think of that poor woman and the cat. Please DO NOT remove your pets from their containers when you are flying. I just might be sitting in front of you.
Reading Comprehension, father.
Where did I say the AirTans passengers were at fault or acted badly?
And I did start the post by saying I fly a fair amount, which is a modest way of saying that I fly a lot.
And no, I will not give AirTrans a chance. I don't need to.
And as for their safety record, this blog does not average per total flights. Many posters here feel the blog is bogus and biased. You sound biased too. I don't know why, nor do I really care.
Did you get a freeby or get paid by Air Tran?
The moment I saw Air Tran as the "safest" I began to suspect
a conflict of interest. The story is no longer credible.
Read it At Your Own "Risk"
Ok something is very very wrong with your methodology..... In the past 5 years there have been two fatal us airline accidents. Those accidents were Colgan Air d/b/a as Continental and Comair d/b/a as Delta in Lexington, KY. However, I'm guessing that you aren't grouping the "regional" airlines with the corresponding mainline carrier.
As no one on your list, assuming you looked at operating carriers only, has had a fatality in the past 5 years what you are really looking at is the incident rate. This is very tough to compare because many incidents involve factors outside of the airlines control. For example, near misses and runway incursions are often the fault of ATC. Another example, engine failures are rarely the airlines fault, and rarely maintenance related. For the most part engine failures involve foreign object ingestion which includes birds and runway debris.
All this article does is scare people about flying when in reality your chances of dying in a vehicular accident today are hundreds, if not thousands of times higher, depending on your vehicle, amount of driving, ect.....
lablahblah:
I very, very rarely sign up for a news site to make a comment; however, having lost a dear friend in the Lexington, Kentucky Comair 191, I must point out that the cause of the crash was not the fault of mechanical failure to the plane itself, but rather a very poor excuse for an air traffic controller who was left alone (the FAA requires that there be two controllers in each station in an overnight shift at an airport of Bluegrass' size) and subsequently directed the airplane down the incorrect runway, sending our friend, Bobby, a wonderful father to a young girl, and 48 others, to their deaths. The lesson of Flight 5191 is DO NOT use Bluegrass Airport and push for MAJOR reforms regarding air traffic control (a point sadly reinforced by the determined cause of a recent crash in New York involving a helicopter and small private jet) not necessarily not flying ComAir.
Agree that this ranking is flawed.
Rudy is great, but, on the subject of fatalities, how can Southwest not be ranked #1 based on their flight safety record?
Air Tran #1? I will take my chances with United any day.
I agree, at least a few people can see the bias, how short some memories are.
Rudy, I know your interest in fear of flying because of the interviews you set up about my work. But I have to tell you that your venture into stats doesn't hold water. In 2008, worldwide, there was one accident per 8,000,000 flights. That means an average airline will have one accident in 8,000,000 flights. A superior airline will have more flights per accident.
But here is where you go wrong. You give airlines high ratings that have less than one million flights. They have seven million flights to go before their accident-free record means anything.
You also ignore the fact that a pilot at JetBlue, with no union to back him or her up, would risk being fired for refusing to fly an airline that needs maintenance. Though the FAA regs require captains to refuse to fly a plane that is not airworthy, the FAA will not back up a pilot who is fired for doing so.
As presented, the charts are completely useless and irrelevant. What, exactly, is being measured? Is it simply a raw number of incidents? If so, I probably could have created the identical chart knowing ONLY the airline names.
However, if it is the number of incidents per million air miles flown, that's a completely different story (and I strongly suspect this is NOT the case).
Using statistics to make a point is a two-edged sword, and I'm afraid TDB just cut itself with it. Rudy, I would have expected more thorough research (and reporting) from you.
The more you fly the more opportunities that something can go wrong. The data should be presented as incidents per flight or miles flown. As presented an airline with fewer routes / flights and a higher percentage of incidents looks safer than one with lots of flights / miles flown and a lower percentage of incidents.
My understanding is that airline safety has increased in recent years, mainly due to the increased reporting of "near misses". Pilots have been encouraged to bring these incidents forward, with no personal consequences, so that the authorities can see what happened and change the procedures so that fewer near misses (and accidents) occur.
There's a data problem--as well as a huge moral issue here--in The Daily Beast using "near miss" data to come up with a safety ranking. The data problem is simple:because the reporting of "near misses" is optional, there are perhaps many incidents that are not included in their dataset. The bigger moral issue is that publicizing this ranking encourages airlines and their employees to report fewer near misses (as they will make themselves look worse in these rankings). Longer term, not reporting "near misses" increases the risk for passengers.
Near misses occur on a daily basis. Any Ops Desk can tell you this. So do aborted landings&take-offs, these numbers have increased due to reduced staff in the tower & over-worked personnel...THIS is the true risk for passengers!
THE LATEST FROM YOUR BELOVED AIRLINE
Frequent Fliers have been getting away with murder!
Time to hit them over the head with a girder.
That's the word from airlines, tired of coddling
Freeloaders in dire need of fast remodeling.
Many have failed to support their kindly patrons
(Whether bums or gentlemen or matrons)
By doing what's best for American companies
Brought down by circumstances to their knees.
So Frequent Fliers, here's the coming deal:
Buy a ticket a ticket or two--four's the ideal--
Within the next thirteen business days;
Do that and your total of by-our-grace points stays.
Failure to support your airline will mean
You and all your friends and kin are obscene,
And never again will you fly for free, monsieur--
Forget the points, you lowlife selfish cur.
Rudy, those number The Beast came up with are not statistically valid because, since an average airline flies 8,000,000 flights per accident, rating an airline with only 1,000,000 flights or less makes no sense. They need to fly over 8,000,000 flights for their record to be meaningful.
The incident and accident figures used in this article are of little use for the task at hand. They are left as counts, or absolute measurements, rather than rates. Without normalizing the number of incidents against the number of flights for each carrier, larger carriers will be at a completely unfair disadvantage in these rankings.
Thanks a lot. I already booked a trip to Virginia (Dulles) for Christmas using United. Guess i will double up on my Valium for that one.
all you have to do is check when the last accident United had. Then sit back and relax, it's been a lot farther back than almost all of the airlines listed. Oh yeah further back than three of them even existed... Do some homework and don't worry about Flying United.
United is a great airline. I have flown them for years and you should not worry. What I would worry about is being in our Nation's Capital. I have seen several articles lately claiming that it is more likely to be killed in DC than in IRAQ. Seriously, the flight would be the least of my worries. Be safe in DC.
You are idiots. You take the gross number of incidents as an indicator of safety and apply it to airlines that are different sizes. OF COURSE bigger airlines are going to have more incidents, you morons, because they have far more airplanes and flights. The incident rate is what you should be looking at. If you look at that you'll find the exact opposite of what you just "reported." This is the kind of "reporting" that comes from people who never finished high school.
I have three questions on this; 1) why is the data method left out of the article 2) what does 'safety rating for accidents and incidents in past five years' mean (this is on the left of each graph) 3) why are they calculating accidents and incidents at a per million rate, when no US carrier operates that many flight a year as it I;wouldn't a per thousand make more sense and give a better understanding or reality?
Hmmm. MSP's hometown airline, Northwest, recently merged with Delta, creating the biggest airline in the US but still leaving us at 8 out of 9 in terms of safety.
It's a shame to see how far on the list Delta is. Back in the late 80's when they took over Western Airlines they had the best safety and on time record in the airline industry. When they were in the air I never worried about flying because I knew took care fo their planes
Does your methodology account for passenger seat miles or takeoff/landing cycles? Would an airline that flies more often have a better or worse accident/incident history?
I have three questions on this; 1) why is the data method left out of the article 2) what does 'safety rating for accidents and incidents in past five years' mean (this is on the left of each graph) 3) why are they calculating accidents and incidents at a per million rate, when no US carrier operates that many flight a year as it I;wouldn't a per thousand make more sense and give a better understanding or reality?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
I've flown Delta Airlines, US Airways, and AirTran. I was rather skeptical of AirTran (nee ValuJet), but I was pleasantly surprised by the comfort of the flight and efficiency of the crew. Of all the flights that I have flown, I have never felt more comfortable than AirTran. I've read some of these comments, and I wonder if anyone has ever considered the watershed realization that taking an airline is a choice. Any time you take a flight, you take a chance. I will still take my chances with Delta, US Airways, AND with AirTran.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.