Airline Safety Records & Ratings: To What Extent Should You Care?

When I observe airlines stonewalling compensation claims attempts such as based on EC 261/2004 I often wonder how much corners they cut in the safety department.

My red lines: airlines flying the old Chinese MA60 (as Real Tonga did) and domestic flights within Nepal. Significant crash odds.

After living in Miami for over 10 years and dealing with Florida drivers my fears are all ground based.

Ben states: “Why airline safety rankings are useless”.
His view is: “My point is simply to say that I wouldn’t put too much weight in these rankings, or make any decisions based on this”.

As an ex-military aviator, etc, my personal view is; that if an airline safety ranking assures even one person who would otherwise be either reluctant to fly, or, have a fear of flying with a particular airline, that flying with a higher ranked airline makes them feel more comfortable, then such ranking apparatus is worthwhile, yes?

Again on a personal note; last century I flatly refused to fly a particular Boeing military helicopter. Those who did fly it sadly did not survive a fatal air incident involving that cab. Today, you could not pay me to set foot inside a B737 Max for similar reasons.

Clearly there are different viewpoints depending upon one’s passenger flying experience and the aviation experiences of aircrew, etc. As individuals there can be no right or wrong way to approach to this subject …. “Whatever floats your boat Tommy”.

If you use a car to get to the airport, you have increased your chances of death orders of magnitude above flying a Boeing 737 MAX. I have always found this so strange and arbitrary, but I suppose it's a way for people to feel they have control over their destiny

Ben. Let’s get a review of Somali Airlines when they hopefully go into service next month after a 34 year hiatus!!

Recently flew the MA60 and while I wouldn't say the experience was scary, it was possibly the aircraft in worst condition I've ever flew. The C909 and C919 on the other hand, were great and someone who's not a fan of aviation wouldn't realize they are not in a Boeing/Airbus.

I’d be more concerned about what Florida voters do.

While mostly true (and certainly for pretty much every major airline), this article isn't complete without noting the outliers who really aren't as safe as they should be. You photo of a PIA airliner is a good hint but there are others out there. Mostly airlines that you won't be taking from Phoenix to Cleveland nor London to Istanbul, but they do exist in some countries. To this day, I'm a bit wary of any Indonesian airline. Malaysia Airlines, OTOH, is probably fine after a very rough patch. To this day, the ineptitude of the AF 443 flight crew would give me a little pause before booking them, though I still would because the odds of an issue remain tiny.

It's an odd thing, but the more you understand about aviation the less you fear the things that infrequent fliers are nervous about. And the more concerned you are about the other aspects of aviation that they have no clue about.

A Boeing engineer tried to brow beat me with that very same argument decades ago, thankfully, I did not succumb to his argument then and there is absolutely no chance that you can alter my opinion now James …. nice try though …. 🙂

I mean, no one's trying to brow beat anyone. It's simple probability and statistics. It is literally illogical to drive to the airport but refuse to fly on a 737 max on the grounds of safety. You are well within your rights to do so, but this really isn't open to personal opinion or value judgements.

Interesting article - with some curious, 'for pay' JADEC ratings. Perhaps, it might be useful to compare and contrast with a recognized, free site that updates on an immediate basis, rather than on a purely annual basis ?

See www.airlineratings.com

This company began rating airlines in 2012 and factors in IOSA, FAA and a number of other ratings - and categorizes via airline groupings such as Full Service, LCC groupings etc. Some 368+ carriers are covered and each airline is covered in a consistent and exhaustive manner. See the 'About' section to determine how ratings are calculated.
'
Their current 2025 'Top 10' (for JADEC comparison purposes only) lists:

1. Air New Zealand
2. Qantas
3. Cathay Pacific; Qatar Airways; Emirates
4. Virgin Australia
5. Etihad Airways
6. ANA
7. EVA Air
8. Korean Air
9. Alaska Airlines
10. Turkish Airlines (THY)

Given that QF (Qantas) is universally recognized as one of the *safest* airlines in the world, it is curious that it doesn't even appear in JADEC's 'Top 10' listing - especially since QF has not had a fatal accident in the jet era (think 1959 onwards).

I agree wholeheartedly that assessment and rating is an inordinately complex task - but I am somewhat bewildered by the JADEC list, which seems somewhat 'out of whack' at least for the oldest, English-speaking airline in the world.

Why is Korean on there?! And why isn't Finnair, British, Aerolineas Argentinas on there who are known to have stellar safety records?!

Tim, do try relaying your theory to the families of the two Max fatal crashes …. one suspects that they will not understand it.
That fact really is “Open to (my) personal opinion (and) value judgements” old bean. You would not be reading this missive today have I not made the correct “Value judgements” all those decades ago …. now wouldn’t that have been a shame?

Hi Mike,

By comparison, each of the carriers you have nominated *are* assessed and rated on the AirlineRatings website.

I'm in a similar boat. I don't really worry about airline safety records in general, because in the modern day the commercial aviation industry is so safe that any crash is essentially an outlier. There's some airlines that would give me pause, like Air Koryo, PIA, and national airlines from some of the poorer African countries, but for the most part I'm not worried about the safety record of any internationally-flying airline. Domestic could be another story.

Korean has had a clean safety record in recent years thanks to a total revamp of their operations following their last big accident in 1999. Prior to then, their safety record was abysmal. They have had some incidents since the revamp, but nothing more than one would expect of any major airline.

They cannot be worse than California voters, who have managed to choose a head of lettuce who was a former sidepiece and a weird perv for their last two elected senators.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at, bad luck befalls everyone from plane crashes to car crashes to young people dying of cancer. Did boeing fail those people and their families? Yes, of course. Does that change your probability of dying in a plane crash, even a 737 max, vs driving? No.

If you're implying that you would have been flying on a max crash, or even another boeing crash, but didn't because of your own decision, then that is nothing more than a miraculous stroke of luck, but again has no impact on probability for any random person or even yourself going forwards.

From my perspective it would appear that you Tim, are taking the Boeing public relations textbook standpoint.
Please be assured that I am fully aware of the differences between possibility and probability. Therefore, talking down to the likes of me with my experience of Boeing aircraft challenges, is hardly going to sit well. Enough said old bean.

Commercial airline crashes are rare enough to be random events. No current commercial airline is anywhere near as dangerous as driving, by orders of magnitude. Most recent years there are none, compared to 30,000 to 40,000 per year for driving.

Now do safest airports……

Regional airlines have worse safety records due to inexperienced pilots. I also stay away from ULCC, specially in Asia.

So the hull loss a few years ago is something we can expect from the likes of QF, NZ, etc.?

So Lion Air, AirAsia, Citilink then? I would say Japan and Hong Kong would be okay. Philippines's Cebu would be okay as well. When you go further down it becomes questionable.

If you are referring to the QF B747 BKK "golf course incursion" in the early 1990's, then this was NOT a 'hull loss'.

The frame was repaired - at significant cost to QF - and continued to fly safely (passing all maintenance and safety checks) for many years after.

I was referring to Korean's hull loss in Cebu a few years ago; "They have had some incidents since the revamp, but nothing more than one would expect of any major airline."

In what "recent year" have there been "none"--?

Well, I just go with my personal safety rating. So, I am on a plane for a 5 hour flight BKK to DEL The ancient 747 is filthy. The plane shakes so bad at takeoff, that all the overhead bins spring open, with luggage all over the place.Then the engine right next to me is glowing red on the inside until we reach cruising altitude. The FA treats me like I am hallucinating when I point it out to him. Upon arrival in DEL, some guy comes along with that 10' ladder on tiny metal wheels, and drips a few drops of oil into that engine. After that my safety rating is around negative 99, and that's why I have not set foot on one of this airlines' planes, since 1991.

You obviously never fly to Africa. Plenty of moneyed people that spend an entire day flying 6 hours to London and another 6 to their destination when there's a direct flight between the two countries that's 1 hour long (hint: the safety of the airline is the issue here).

I avoid EgyptAir because of their horrific track record

Funny thing is planes were actually more dangerous than cars for a long time if rather than taking into account the distance you had to travel to have an accident you took in account the amount of times you had a climb onboard of either to end up a in a crash.
Anyway this summer one of my sons was terrified of flying because of the AI crash (further amplified by my other son's pretense we'll crash any time as soon as we boarded). Long story short during the flight the FA escorted him to the cockpit where he spent 30 minutes (in flight !) talking about his fears to the pilot who debunked each of them. Adorable.

It has nothing to do with the "Boeing public relations" standpoint. God knows Boeing has done a ton of things wrong ever since the McDonnell Douglas merger.

The fact remains that there are over ~50,000 Boeing commercial flights a day, 5000+ on the MAXes. And so making a big fuss over the difference between 0.00001% odds of dying on a plane and 0.00002% odds of dying on a MAX is absurd.