KLM safest airline in Europe
If you regularly fly to Thailand and consider flight safety important, you should definitely take a look at the JACDEC list. To fly to Thailand, KLM, Emirates, EVA Air and Etihad are in the right place. You better ignore China Airlines because it scores very badly.
This is evident from the Airline Safety Ranking 2015 of the German JACDEC (Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre), a renowned institution for collecting data on international aviation.
JACDEC looks at the number of flights of the large and medium-sized airlines, incidents, claim-free periods, compliance with safety criteria, etc. and then compiles an annual ranking.
Globally, Cathay Pacific from Hong Kong is the safest, followed closely by Emirates from Dubai. EVA Air (Taiwan) and Air Canada are in third and fourth place. KLM comes out fifth and leads the European ranking. Air France is in 38th place worldwide – in the European ranking, the KLM partner has to tolerate 14 others above it, including easyJet and Ryanair.
The least safe airlines worldwide on the list are: Indonesian KLM partner Garuda (ranked 56th), Malaysia Airlines, also a KLM partner (57th), Air India (58th), China Airlines from Taiwan (59th) and Lion Air from Indonesia as closing gate (60). Of the European carriers, SAS Scandinavian Airlines and Turkish Airlines are the lowest ranked at respectively 48th and 49th place (of the global list).
Safest Airlines 2015
- Cathay Pacific Airways
- Emirates
- EVA Air
- Air Canada
- KLM
- Air New Zealand
- QANTAS
- Hainan Airlines
- jet blue airlines
- Etihad Airways
Source: www.jacdec.de
This reminds me of that time when on KLM flight BKK > Ams, the flight commander announced to the passengers not to worry if you notice a number of pilots in the passenger compartment, “Don't worry the cockpit is manned, these are pilots who go to Schiphol for professional reasons. must "
funny info! .
This was long before the tragic German suicide flight.
I don't understand this. I recently saw the official ranking of the best-scoring airlines, but KLM was not even listed in the Top 10.
I don't like society. blunt cabin crew and also ignoring the recommendations when it is better not to fly over a certain risk area.
And now all of a sudden this list?
Went up and down to Bangkok this month with China Airlines…..No problem and good service.
What's wrong with China airlines? Already flown 5 times nonstop Amsterdam-Bangkok
Always reasonably on time, service on board also good, and never experienced an incident
I've flown with China Airlines for about five years, but haven't for several years now. My experience is that the crew does an excellent job. Nothing wrong with that. But CA was flying old jumbo 747s back then.
1. When engines were idling at airports, exhaust fumes from the engines entered the cabin through the air conditioning system.
2. Everything rattled at the start as if the plane could fall apart at any moment.
3. Aircraft had to take longer takeoffs to get off the ground.
I did not experience these three points with the same devices from other companies. My idea is that CA's devices were very outdated. What also played a role in this is that during the second volcanic eruption in Iceland my flight back to the Netherlands was unnecessarily canceled without any proper information, nothing was arranged for accommodation and/or food and I could only return two days later, without any compensation. My conclusion is that the only thing good is the crew. I won't risk my life on the rest.
I don't know what kind of aircraft CA currently flies with. I have been flying with Emirates or KLM for several years now. According to the aforementioned list, a better choice, with my personal preference going to Emirates. Flying with the Airbus A380 is a relief.
They were very lucky!
Because they flew over Ukraine just like MH17.
I really didn't feel comfortable, there and back.
14 days later was the MH17 accident.
I will not fly with KLM again!
That is of course not that difficult if you want to keep as much 'under the cap' as possible.
On May 13, I flew from Bangkok to Amsterdam on flight KL 0875. Not a cheap flight if you book it in Thailand. Here too, the flight started with the three pilots' 'joke' in the cockpit. Only a few hours later it had to be reported that an engine had broken down, something everyone had already heard. An attempt was made to reach Moscow, but that was still a three-hour flight and the pilot thought he would no longer be able to make it. Finally they landed in Kazakhstan. No one was allowed to leave the aircraft. First we had to wait for a technician and when that didn't work, we waited for a plane from the Netherlands. A request from some passengers to get a drink to avoid the shock was not granted because after landing the staff had been sealing everything.
All the while, the stragglers were kept in the dark and the device 'landed' on the internet entirely according to plan. Collectors received the answer that no one knew anything and everyone had to wait and see whether the aircraft has already landed, you can see on the internet.
When we landed a day later, everyone on leaving the plane received a letter stating that this was force majeure that KLM could not do anything about. This is to get rid of claims.
A week and a half later, a KLM aircraft had to turn back over the North Sea because an engine had failed. This was in the news. Maybe too close to home and maybe the same device. I wonder if KLM is really that safe!!!
Sorry, was not the flight of May 13, but April 13, 2015.
There is more that is not in the news, KLM can do little about that.
It is curious that the incident even eluded the Aviation Herald.
http://avherald.com/h?search_term=Klm&opt=1&dosearch=1&search.x=57&search.y=2
When an aircraft returns over the North Sea, it is not even at cruising altitude, and it can still fly and land with one engine. It is unsafe if they would fly through. And that you don't even get a drink…. Well, I think they could have taken one themselves. Unfortunately, they would then have major problems with customs. Alcohol should normally be sealed prior to landing.
When passengers are left in the dark, this can be for two reasons: the crew does not yet know it themselves or they do not want to disturb the passengers unnecessarily.
Dear Jack, you are right. Of course you also have to…
The last point is completely wrong. Passengers must be properly informed at all times. As a passenger, I can decide for myself what worries me.
An example from my own pilot life, Frans: about 17 years ago I flew from New York back to Frankfurt as a flight attendant. Just before landing, when the whole service was over and we were already buckled up, our purser came to everyone and gave us the following message: we had lost a wheel during take-off from New York. This in itself meant nothing, because we still had 17 to catch the landing.
The purser said the landing could be a little rougher than usual. We and the passengers had not noticed anything.
We were, however, informed and the passengers were not. Why? Because WE would have been responsible if anyone panicked because of it.
How do you deal with anxiety or bad news? One panics (because already has a lot of fear) another knows better how to deal with it. As a crew, you can't decide who gets worried or who doesn't. Therefore, in order to exclude panic, in some cases you are not told what is going on. However, it is explained at all times why a flight is canceled or why we flew back. Or when you have to get on another plane. The experience means that you will gain more confidence and will therefore ultimately have a smoother course of a flight.
I fully agree.
A large proportion of passengers hardly know how an aircraft stays in the air, let alone explaining every defect in detail.
There is a good chance that this will cause panic and then you will have problems.
In the case of problems such as with the wheel, I think it is right that passengers are not informed. In this case, the captain had even decided to inform the crew just before landing, I understand.
To understand. He probably wanted to minimize the risk of it getting out.
But sometimes it is also better to inform passengers just to avoid panic.
We once had to make a stopover in Delhi because someone became seriously ill. The captain decided that the situation with that person was serious enough for a stopover.
He explained what was going to happen over the intercom, emphasizing that it was not a technical problem but a medical necessity.
He said that if we saw fluid coming out of the wings, this was completely normal. We were too heavy and would have to dump fuel before landing.
In this case, I think it is good that passengers are informed in advance to avoid panic.
I think it depends on the situation.
I think that captains also have their instructions about this, and are trained in what they can / must say, when and how to say it
Airlines are quick to shout 'force majeure' even though this is true in a rare number of cases (such as a natural disaster). A defect is not force majeure. So I assume you just wrote a letter asking for compensation. The EU has drawn up rules for this (24% compensation for 100 hours of delay, I say from memory?). There may be claim companies that can help. It is very weak that KLM invokes force majeure while that is extremely unlikely.
It's about flight safety. So a complaint about KLM's service is not posted because it is off-topic.
Just booked again with KLM, always excellent service and friendly flight attendants, but also because of the favorable price €608 and departure and arrival time. KLM for me!
According to Widipedia, there have been 44 serious insiders at KLM, many with many victims.
Up to 2x, even on two consecutive days, on 22 and 23 March 1952 and on 11 and 12 June 1961.
The sad highest number of deaths is also in the name of KLM (captan van der Zanden in Tenerief)
That the story of one of the safest companies is not true at all.
Finair, a company from 1923, has never had an accident, not even air Berlin.
I don't think the list is based solely on the number of incidents or casualties.
You have to place these accidents in time. At that time, the aircraft were much less safe than they are today. Civil aviation was actually still in its infancy. Aircraft were also manned by a minimum of three people. One was a flight engineer who had to solve technical problems during the flight. In fact, it was very amateurish at the time. Now an aircraft is almost completely controlled and controlled by computers, so that a flight engineer is no longer necessary. A 4-engine aircraft can indeed stay in the air and land with only one engine. Of course there are limitations to this.
I remember a conversation Ivo Niehe had with the captain of an Australian airline who was able to safely land an Airbus A380 in exceptional circumstances. He, the captain, said that we Europeans should be proud of that aircraft. According to him, it is the safest device currently available. He might not have been able to get the job done with another device, he said. I myself have been able to fly with the A380 a number of times and I can also confirm that the aircraft flies very stable and quiet. A relief compared to other large devices.
Furthermore, a distinction must be made between the quality of the airline, the aircraft used and the people who operate the aircraft. The disaster in Tenerife was caused by human error. The captain taxied the KLM aircraft onto the wrong runway, causing it to end up on the runway where a PanAm aircraft was taking off at the time. The captain was no longer able to avoid the KLM aircraft, despite the fact that he pulled his aircraft off the ground earlier. It was to no avail and hit the KLM aircraft when it came loose. Who made the mistake that caused the captain to take the wrong turn in dense fog has not been disclosed, as far as I know. But that could also just have been air traffic control.
Air Berlin Wings is a daughter airline of Air Berlin. Recently, a co-pilot crashed another Air Berlin aircraft. So don't tell me that Air Berlin has never had an accident.
In short, the assessment of an airline has different standards and is not (exclusively) assessed on the number of accidents.
I keep repeating myself to the point of repeating myself: any flight with even the worst airline is less dangerous than the journey to and from the airport. In that sense, if you think about flying with an airline that is not on the list of safe companies, I wouldn't even get in the car, train or bus. Not only are you more likely to have an accident while driving, you also don't have well-trained personnel around to help you.
I was curious what the (in)safety consists of, because I haven't read that much about crashing planes, except those of Malaysia.
But unfortunately you have to pay a lot of money for such a report.
So I curb my curiosity.
It's nice that the klm is put in the spotlight for once. I think we're not talking about 1952 but about now. If all near incidents were put on this from all airlines, there would be 10 every day, I think. It is incomprehensible that many Dutch people always lose their own airline so much. While nothing is said about thai airways, while they violate safety standards. Yes, I often look at the cheapest and transfer etc. But if klm were a bit cheaper, then many more flew with it. I know many foreigners who like to fly KLM. Mainly British and Australians and even Thais. So there is nothing wrong with the KLM. They were one of the first aviation pioneers. The negatives are just looking at an incident. The research looks at many aspects. I personally have my pants full of emirates because if you rebook there you have to pay a new ticket. So klm keep it up. It would just be a shame if they were completely absorbed in the greedy French.
I fly to Thailand 4 times a year and have tried many airlines but for the last 2 years I always fly with Emiratus
Plenty of space in the arebus A380 good service
I have flown with various airlines since 1985 (Alia/Jordan Air – Qantas – Thai International – Singapore Airlines – Eva – China Airlines – Jet Air(India) – Delta (USA) – Lao – AirAsia-KLM) and I have always had well-executed to flee.
I prefer to fly with KLM. Nothing wrong with that… and it shows. KLM has flights to many countries and that is a strong point.