[jpatokal]

Grain of salt time: Air Asia has one of the better safety records in Asia, with one accident since they started, despite being one of the region's largest carriers and flying into a lot of minor airports.

But since we're making generalisations about "Asia", it's worth noting that pilot hiring is screwed up all over the world. Did you know the pilot flying your regional jet in the good old USA is likely barely making minimum wage?

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/skift.com/2013/08/28/the-u-s...

But regardless of how predatory airlines get, pilots have pretty strong incentives not to crash!

[chrismeller]

That article is specifically about co-pilots, not the captain. For better or worse the airline pilot market is heavily seniority based, so you're expected to do your time before making anything significant.

None of that inherently makes anything more or less safe. Statistically it's still significantly safer than the taxi driving you to the airport.

[FabHK]

> it's still significantly safer than the taxi driving you to the airport.

That's a bit of a myth, or a misunderstanding at any rate, as far as I can tell.

Jets are much safer than cars per passenger kilometre - so for a given distance, you're better off to go by airliner than by car.

However, per vehicle hour, fatality rates are the same order of magnitude (plane is actually 3x worse). So, if you take a 1/2 hr cab ride to a several-hour flight, you're more likely to die on the flight.

Source: https://www.uber.com/elevate.pdf, p. 17

[YeGoblynQueenne]

I'd like a better source for that information than Uber, as I'd like a better source for the information on the safety of air travel than air carriers.

Btw, neither measure is very good for comparing cars to planes. Airliners carry many times more passengers per kilometer, on average, than cars do; and cars take many times longer to complete a route than airlineres do. If we are to assume that the probability of dying rises the longer you travel then obviously the vehicle that goes faster will have a better record... except of course for the fact that going faster may kill you faster too. Then again, it doesn't make much sense that the probability that a given person will be killed in an accident should vary with the number of people in the same vehicle as them!

Overall, what you really need to know to decide whether one or the other type of vehicle is safest is the probability to be involved in a serious accident given that you board a vehicle of that type. I don't think there's a good way to measure that, so measures like the ones above are just proxies, I guess. Which leaves them open to some degree of exploitation from industry bodies, that can claim that their vehicle type is the safest, even if it's really just a matter of perspective.

[toomanybeersies]

Air Asia is certainly a budget carrier, but unlike other budget carriers, they actually run a tight ship.

I've flown with them quite a few times, and know plenty of other people who have flown with them, and none of us have had any complaints. The planes are bare-bones, the seats are small, and you pay for everything on the plane, but their service is perfectly fine, and they usually run on time, or close enough.

I can't say the same for Jetstar, all I hear about them is complaints. They seem to always be late, or cancelling flights, or screwing up their customer service and screwing over their customers. I will go out of my way to fly with another airline if possible.

[ithinkinstereo]

You have it backwards. JetStar > AirAsia in terms of safety.

[Zpalmtree]

Considering the minuscule chance of crashing, the parent might put other factors before safety when picking an airline.

[ithinkinstereo]

Yes, I see that; but toomanybeersies was replying to jpatokal's post about Air Asia's safety record, so I assumed part of his comment about AA "running a tight ship" is in relation to that.

SE Asia carriers -- specifically Indonesian and to a lesser extent Malaysian operators -- have a reputation for cutting corners and poor training. Garuda Airlines, Indonesia's flagship, was even banned from flying to Europe by the EU for poor safety standards [1].

Here's another article ranking airlines by safety: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/The-worlds-safest-air... It's worth nothing that JetStar is a subsidiary of top-ranked Qantas.

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda_Indonesia#European_ban

[toomanybeersies]

As jpatokal said though, AirAsia has one of the better safety records of Asian airlines.

I was just adding that they're not just safer (apparently), but also a more pleasant airline to fly with.

Let's not forget that Qantas also managed to have a turbine failure in 2010. Even if you fly with a reputable airline, there's always the risk of terrorist attacks, suicidal pilots, or getting shot down. At the end of the day, no matter what airline you're with, it's probably safer than driving a car.

You're more likely to die in one of the destinations that AirAsia serves than on the plane itself, ~30 Australians die every year in Bali alone.

[jpatokal]

...and my whole point was that Air Asia is a cut above the average Indonesian carrier, some of which are seriously shoddy, like the late, unlamented https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Air. By contrast, Air Asia's maintenance is done by a subsidiary of Air France/KLM:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/business/corporate/3030...

Also, FWIW, the EU had a blanket blacklist on all Indonesian carriers at one point.