Scared of flying? These airlines have been ranked the safest in the world for 2025
With aviation incidents frequently in the news, concerns about the safety of flying have been on the rise.
If you are wondering just how safe your next flight might be, there's a handy piece of research that will take the guesswork out of your booking.
AirlineRatings, an airline review site, has recently released its annual rankings of the world's safest airlines. It lists out the top 25 carriers based on a multitude of factors to give passengers more confidence when they fly.
For 2025, the world's safest airline was Air New Zealand for the second year in a row. The Kiwi airline often vies with its antipodean neighbour Qantas for the top spot, taking the crown in 2024 and 2022.
The first 11 places in the safest airlines ranking for 2025 are dominated by Asia-Pacific and Middle East airlines. But European airlines put in a good show too, taking seven of the top 25 places on the list.
Related
Facing a pilot shortage, Swiss cancels flights. Is this a sign of a wider European trend?
Flying to the UK next year? New airspace design promises quicker journeys and fewer delays
Turkish Airlines, straddling the market between Europe and Asia, is the safest airline in Europe. It came 13th in the global rankings, earning a seven-star rating on the platform.
Despite operating to more destinations than any other airline in the world, Turkish hasn't had a fatal accident since 2009, when a Boeing 737 crashed on approach to Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. Nine people died as a result of the crash, but 126 survived.
Last year, Turkish Airlines also won awards for its catering and in-flight entertainment and received a 'World Class' rating from the Airline Passenger Experience Association (APEX). It was named the 'Best Airline In Europe' by Skytrax.
TAP Portugal snagged 14th place in the rankings, making it the second-safest airline in Europe. It hasn't lost a passenger since 1977 and regularly runs fear of flying courses in partnership with the Unidade de Cuidados Integrados de Saúde (UCS).
A flurry of European carriers made up the bottom half of the list. In order, they were SAS (16th), British Airways (17th), Iberia (18th), Finnair (19th) and the Lufthansa Group, which also includes SWISS (20th).
For Iberia, it has been a transformational year, winning accolades for the best on-time performance, best airline staff and outstanding catering. It's the first time Iberia has made it onto the top 25 safest airlines list.
Related
Why choosing to carbon offset your flight isn't always the greenest option
Toronto plane crash is 2025's latest: Is flying still the safest form of transport?
AirlineRatings assesses low-cost carriers separately from their full-service counterparts, and European airlines put in a great showing in the 2025 ranking.
Top of the list is behemoth low-cost airline Ryanair, which claimed 3rd place in the global ranking and was the safest budget airline in Europe. In its 40-year history, the airline has never had a fatal accident, and says it 'continues to prioritise the safety and security of our people and customers above all else.'
Following closely behind was easyJet, a UK-headquartered airline. It came 4th in the global rankings, making it the second safest European low-cost airline. Like Ryanair, it hasn't had a fatal accident in its 30 years of operations.
'We take our security and safety obligations very seriously,' says easyJet. 'All our planes are checked prior to departure and undergo regular safety checks. Our cabin crew are trained to support you and ensure your comfort and safety at all times.'
Further down the list in 7th place globally, Wizz Air secured its place as the third safest low-cost airline in Europe. Again, being a relatively young airline, it has never lost a passenger and has a fleet of new Airbus aircraft averaging under five years old.
Also appearing in the top 25 safest low-cost airlines in the world were Norwegian (12th), Vueling (13th), Jet2 (14th), Eurowings (20th) and airBaltic just scraping in at 25th position.
Neither Jet2 nor airBaltic were in the top 25 in previous lists.
British leisure airline Jet2 pulled itself up the rankings with positive passenger reviews and excellent customer service. It is another fatality-free carrier, with very few even minor incidents reported.
For Latvian airline airBaltic, achieving a position among the 25 safest low-cost airlines was a proud moment.
'Safety is and always will remain our top priority at airBaltic,' says CEO Martin Gauss. 'Our dedicated teams work tirelessly to ensure a safe and comfortable travel experience for our flight crew and passengers. Being recognised on such a global scale underscores our commitment to excellence.'
AirlineRatings grades airlines based on multiple data points, and complements its findings with consultations with pilots and aviation experts.
Primarily, the publication studies specific attributes of each airline to determine their safety. These include the age of its aircraft, the number of planes it operates, the pilot training it provides and the rate of incidents reported.
Related
European budget airlines' hand luggage fees 'violate EU laws', say consumer organisations
Why do you have to open your window blind for takeoff? Airline safety rules explained
Interestingly, AirlineRatings considers airline profitability, which may seem an unusual attribute to link to safety. However, airlines doing less well financially may be less inclined to invest in training, maintenance and improvements, theoretically lowering their ability to remain safe.
The ranking also considers whether the airline is from a country that has passed the ICAO country audit, known as the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP). This audit allows ICAO to assess the implementation of safety oversight in the nation and compliance with best practices.
Finally, it considers whether the airline has passed the IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA), a global industry standard for airline operational safety auditing.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Leave Airbnbs and short-term rentals alone, aldermen. There's no crisis here.
Nobody loves killing Airbnbs more than hoteliers. After New York City moved in 2022 to sharply restrict short-term rentals by enacting something called Local Law 18, hotel rates went through the roof. Last September, it cost an average of $417 to spend the night in Manhattan. And, typically, that's for one small room; however many kids you might have along with you. Although it was passed on the grounds of promoting safety and equity, Local Law 18 ended up making it nearly impossible for a regular person to rent out their Manhattan place on a short-term basis unless they were themselves present in their apartment with the guests. The vast majority of short-term listings quickly vanished, much to chagrin of ordinary working people who had used Airbnb to rent out their homes when they were out of town for work or to help offset their massive residential rent during times of increased demand such as major conventions or sporting events. It also explains why, if you try and get an Airbnb in New York, the host will probably say that they will be at least kinda present, so as to conform with the law. Not that anyone wants that. Airbnbs can indeed be a problem in certain hugely popular destinations. Travel writer Rick Steves has described the situation in some European tourist hubs where local people get priced out of a central city and landlords rent only to tourists. Thus, instead of visiting a vibrant community with local shops and bakeries, tourists are met instead with other tourists and tchotchke stores. And an argument can be made that short-term rentals add to the pressure on longer-term rents by reducing supply, although that is a contested argument in most cities because such rentals also encourage new construction. Short-term rentals also allow visitors to avoid costly hotel rates and have room to spread out. They are rented by people who then walk into local restaurants and businesses and buy stuff or attend live entertainment offerings. Airbnbs tend to draw visitors out of the downtown core and into less affluent neighborhoods, spreading the economic pie beyond the central business district and letting families, especially, save some money and get to know the real heart of a city. In Chicago, for example, there are relatively few hotels outside the center of the city; if you are a jazz fan and want to stay close to the Green Mill, for example, an Airbnb in Uptown would offer you real benefits and you might end up staying longer, or even moving here altogether. We don't see any evidence of Chicago having some massive Airbnb problem; this is a city that needs to expand its tourist base, not suppress it by killing Airbnbs. We know of few buildings that have been taken over by short-term rentals and we note that large buildings can already restrict such rentals on their own, using existing condo regulations, if they so choose. For sure, there's a danger of people holding parties in these places or using them to drink underage. But some people also behave badly in hotel rooms and private residences. Laws are on the books that can be enforced without preventing the rentals in the first place, and we have no problem with a registration procedure that can help police see if a rental is proving to be a repeat problem. Chicago has many protections in place. If 25% of a precinct's registered voters want to ban short-term rentals and sign a petition, they can do so now. So we see no need whatsoever for the over-reaching ordinance championed by Ald. Anthony Napolitano, 41st, and approved by the Committee on License and Consumer Protection that would give aldermen the power to outright ban Airbnbs by aldermanic fiat and then force Airbnb and its competitors to collect signatures to overturn the ban and stay in business. Imagine if that was proposed for restaurants or hotels! In practice, this would be a field day for NIMBY types (or sly hotel owners) who have an alderman's ear (or the means to boost an aldermanic bank account). In practice, it would mean that short-term rentals would likely disappear all over the city, reducing the side hustles of lots of cash-strapped folks, hurting local businesses, reducing city and state tax revenues and meaning that visitors would have no choice but to stuff themselves and their kids into costly hotel rooms instead of being able to stay where most Chicagoans live. City Council should leave this well alone. If and when the city is overwhelmed with tourists, we're happy to revisit our view. But at this cash-strapped juncture for the city of Chicago, Napolitano's power move should be voted down. Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Deadly Air India Crash Puts Ambitious Turnaround Plans at Risk
Air India Ltd.'s ambitious plans to transform itself from a stale, financially troubled carrier into a profitable world-class airline face their biggest test yet after the deadliest aviation accident in more than a decade. India's flag carrier had long languished under government ownership, gaining a reputation among travelers for shabby in-flight services. But its 2022 takeover by Tata Group, which paid 180 billion rupees ($2.1 billion) to buy back the airline it founded in 1932, kickstarted a five-year reinvention aimed at returning Air India to its former glory and take on the world's biggest and best carriers in international routes.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Leave Airbnbs and short-term rentals alone, aldermen. There's no crisis here.
Nobody loves killing Airbnbs more than hoteliers. After New York City moved in 2022 to sharply restrict short-term rentals by enacting something called Local Law 18, hotel rates went through the roof. Last September, it cost an average of $417 to spend the night in Manhattan. And, typically, that's for one small room; however many kids you might have along with you. Although it was passed on the grounds of promoting safety and equity, Local Law 18 ended up making it nearly impossible for a regular person to rent out their Manhattan place on a short-term basis unless they were themselves present in their apartment with the guests. The vast majority of short-term listings quickly vanished, much to chagrin of ordinary working people who had used Airbnb to rent out their homes when they were out of town for work or to help offset their massive residential rent during times of increased demand such as major conventions or sporting events. It also explains why, if you try and get an Airbnb in New York, the host will probably say that they will be at least present, so as to conform with the law. Not that anyone wants that. Airbnbs can indeed be a problem in certain hugely popular destinations. Travel writer Rick Steves has described the situation in some European tourist hubs where local people get priced out of a central city and landlords rent only to tourists. Thus, instead of visiting a vibrant community with local shops and bakeries, tourists are met instead with other tourists and tchotchke stores. And an argument can be made that short-term rentals add to the pressure on longer-term rents by reducing supply, although that is a contested argument in most cities because such rentals also encourage new construction. Short-term rentals also allow visitors to avoid costly hotel rates and have room to spread out. They are rented by people who then walk into local restaurants and businesses and buy stuff or attend live entertainment offerings. Airbnbs tend to draw visitors out of the downtown core and into less affluent neighborhoods, spreading the economic pie beyond the central business district and letting families, especially, save some money and get to know the real heart of a city. In Chicago, for example, there are relatively few hotels outside the center of the city; if you are a jazz fan and want to stay close to the Green Mill, for example, an Airbnb in Uptown would offer you real benefits and you might end up staying longer, or even moving here altogether. We don't see any evidence of Chicago having some massive Airbnb problem; this is a city that needs to its tourist base, not suppress it by killing Airbnbs. We know of few buildings that have been taken over by short-term rentals and we note that large buildings can already restrict such rentals on their own, using existing condo regulations, if they so choose. For sure, there's a danger of people holding parties in these places or using them to drink underage. But some people also behave badly in hotel rooms and private residences. Laws are on the books that can be enforced without preventing the rentals in the first place, and we have no problem with a registration procedure that can help police see if a rental is proving to be a repeat problem. Chicago has many protections in place. If 25% of a precinct's registered voters want to ban short-term rentals and sign a petition, they can do so now. So we see no need whatsoever for the over-reaching ordinance championed by Ald. Anthony Napolitano, 41st, and approved by the Committee on License and Consumer Protection that would give aldermen the power to outright ban Airbnbs by aldermanic fiat and then force Airbnb and its competitors to collect signatures to overturn the ban and stay in business. Imagine if that was proposed for restaurants or hotels! In practice, this would be a field day for NIMBY types (or sly hotel owners) who have an alderman's ear (or the means to boost an aldermanic bank account). In practice, it would mean that short-term rentals would likely disappear all over the city, reducing the side hustles of lots of cash-strapped folks, hurting local businesses, reducing city and state tax revenues and meaning that visitors would have no choice but to stuff themselves and their kids into costly hotel rooms instead of being able to stay where most Chicagoans live. City Council should leave this well alone. If and when the city is overwhelmed with tourists, we're happy to revisit our view. But at this cash-strapped juncture for the city of Chicago, Napolitano's power move should be voted down.
