| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Holiday Airlines (Safety)
12.30 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): Most people have only one annual holiday, which they save for throughout the year. Therefore, it is very important to them to know not only that they are protected by correct safety laws, but that they will receive proper protection from their country's legislation.
Over past months, I have become increasingly concerned about the number of cheap holidays advertised, which means that many holidaymakers buy holidays but are not aware that, in some cases, a holiday advertised by a perfectly reputable travel agent may not necessarily have behind it either an aircraft or even an aircraft slot that would allow a flight to land at a particular airport at a particular time.
I believe that almost all our holidaymakers would be confused if we were to ask them to what protection they are entitled. Most people who buy a British holiday from a travel agent assume that they are reasonably safe--which has always been the case in the past. Unfortunately, there has recently been a growth in the numbers of brokers who lease planes after they have already sold the holiday, and in the numbers of tour companies that do not have confirmed aircraft or proper planning to run holidays in the manner in which they were presented to the tourist.
Does that matter? It matters enormously. A responsible airport authority will respond quickly if an airline does not have permission to land an aircraft at a particular airport at a particular time, but which instead exercises a mild form of blackmail and tells air traffic control, "We have so many hundreds of British holidaymakers on board. We therefore must land--otherwise, there may be a problem". But that is not a good basis on which to organise a travel industry.
In April, therefore, I wrote to the Secretary of State to set out some of my worries about travel companies, check-in procedures, the way in which international rules are applied, and the actions that Britain is taking to ensure that we are complying in every way with necessary safety standards. I am not overwhelmingly impressed by the fact that I wrote to the Secretary of State on 23 April but received a reply only this morning, 2 July. The Department should not be commended on its sense of urgency in this matter.
The letter is astonishingly complacent. I should explain that all the countries with which we normally deal are party to the Chicago convention, and that they should adhere to its rules. Some time ago, the Federal Aviation Administration in America--which is also party to the Chicago convention--became concerned about the safety of American nationals, and instigated a series of checks. Some of the checks were audits on the ground, but many of them consisted of banning or limiting the action of certain foreign airlines.
In conjunction with the Governments concerned, the FAA went to the countries in which those flights originated, and checked on safety standards and maintenance. In fact, that exceeds the requirements of the Chicago convention, and many people would say that it was breaking some of the convention's terms.
The FAA took those actions because it believed that American nationals on holiday needed to be protected. When I began to question the Government about our
reaction to some of the difficulties, I was appalled to be given what I can only call the brush-off. I asked, for example, whether we were following an action plan similar to the FAA's. I received a reply that said, "You should ask the FAA." On a Sunday afternoon, I managed to obtain information from the Internet about which countries and which categories were banned--information that Her Majesty's Government were unwilling or unable to give me.
Moreover, the FAA, when asked, provided me with someone who was prepared to come to London to talk to me about the airline safety records of various countries. The FAA not only maintains long lists--which constantly change, because it is a moving operation--of countries which it believes have safety problems, but instigates talks with people in those countries. Many of the airlines that fly into the UK are already on the FAA's banned or limited list.
I was very concerned about that. However, I have been told in this letter--which I have read only very briefly--"We are not concerned about the FAA. We have carefully considered the implications of the FAA programme for our dealings with the states in question." It states:
Why is this issue so important? I recently received a letter from a holidaymaker who had been on the "notorious" Excalibur flight. The letter is from a very sensible family, who wrote to the reservations manager of Globespan to set out some of what had happened to them on their outward and inward flights. It states, first, that there were
The letter continues:
The letter goes on:
The return flight was even more horrific. The letter states:
They then experienced a further, absolutely horrifying catalogue of problems, including finding themselves in a smoke-filled plane. Eventually, 91 of the passengers refused to travel on the plane, and had either to find their own way back or to sit up in the airport all night. That is scarcely a sensible way to operate any airline.
I then inquired into not only Excalibur but Air Ops. Air Operations, or Air Ops, is a company which has produced a series of most interesting names, and which keeps reappearing. I have been questioning the Department about it for some time. Air Ops recently went into liquidation, but has been resurrected as Air Ops International. It is currently applying for permission to operate between the United Kingdom and various European destinations.
The company is Swedish-registered, and all the safety inquiries that I have made of the Department were met with the answer that this country has no problems with Swedish air safety standards, and is quite happy to accept Swedish-registered planes. That is fine--we should be happy to do so when we know that safety standards are equal to ours--but if someone leases a plane, parks it at a British airport, fills it with British holidaymakers, flies it, possibly with a foreign-speaking crew, to a third country, returns it to Britain and parks it at the same airport without ever returning it to its country of origin or the country where it is registered, it must be clear that it is not undergoing either spot checks or day-to-day monitoring. It is true in the abstract that Swedish safety laws are excellent, but if an aircraft never goes back into Swedish air space, how on earth do we know that its safety standards are being maintained?
Let us consider Air Ops in detail. The company is owned by Thomas Johansson. Mr. Johansson was formerly involved with airlines such as Time Air, Omega Air and Sultan Air, all of which have gone into liquidation. As I said, Air Ops has been resurrected as Air Ops International. It is clear that not only individual holidaymakers but the Civil Aviation Authority has been having difficulties. I asked what debts were owed to the CAA by Sultan Air when it went into receivership. I also asked what was happening about flights operated by Air Operations Europe as a result of the High Court ruling of 10 October 1994, and about Omega Air and the other companies.
The reply that I received was very instructive. I was told that Sultan Air left no outstanding debts, but that, on 10 October, the High Court ruled that Air Operations Europe had been the operator of a particular aircraft against which the CAA obtained an order of sale, and that, at a further hearing on 14 November, the High Court ruled that, unless payment of outstanding route charges and the CAA's costs was made, the CAA would be at liberty to proceed with the sale. Not surprisingly, the money was forthcoming, so no detention action was taken against that aircraft. When it is explained in detail what is happening with other aircraft, it becomes clear that, whenever difficulties arise, these companies simply go into liquidation, and then reinvent themselves under another title.
I asked the Secretary of State for Transport to place in the Library copies of an operations certificate issued to Air Operations Europe. I was told that the certificate of airworthiness for the particular aircraft about which I had made inquiries
I have a strange, old-fashioned idea that British Members of Parliament have the right to question the Government of the day about the safety in the air of British nationals in their own country. It is not adequate to deal with the matter by talking to the FAA or the Swedish authorities. I am happy to do so, but I am now asking the Government what they intend to do, and how.
I also asked questions about many of the countries on the FAA's list, which is, in effect, its list of forbidden countries. I asked why a country such as Ghana was receiving assistance although the FAA thought that there were problems with it. I also asked about Bulgaria, which was an education in itself. The Government acknowledged that the Department had
I have a number of urgent things to ask the Government. I want them to take immediate action on air audits. We must know whether the pilots of foreign aircraft are complying with the correct safety rules, whether they fly when suffering from fatigue, how many hours they fly, and whether they are safely in control of the aircraft. Holidaymakers must know that a foreign aircraft is insured to the same level as a British one, and offers the same protection. It is no good demanding that when it is too late, and when passengers have been put in a highly dangerous situation.
Furthermore, the Government must revise their attitude towards spot checks, almost irrespective of an aeroplane's country of origin. If we know that aircraft are flying in and out of this country without returning to their country of origin for checks, we must ensure that we do the work that should be done in the country of origin.
It is absolutely essential that we give holidaymakers the right to ask for their money back if, when they arrive at an airport, they are offered an aeroplane that does not comply with the information given to them at the time of booking. At the time of booking, people should be told the flight, the carrier and the conditions under which they are to fly. Such matters cannot be got ignored by saying that we are party to international rules, and that, if we comply with them, everything is being done to protect British holidaymakers.
"We have concluded that we could reasonably take the FAA findings as evidence that something may be wrong . . . we are less convinced that as signatories to the Chicago Convention we could, or indeed should, simply replicate FAA action".
If that is the Government's attitude--fine.
"Severe problems on outgoing flight, due to lack of tickets"
and that there was no clear information about the plane.
"Despite numerous telephone calls, three separate sets of tickets failed to arrive, until the day before departure.
the staff handed out pre-printed letters. I do not know whether that means that the airline foresees that it will have problems not with particular flights but with every flight. It does not inspire confidence.
Flight 066 split between two different airlines, causing a further three-hour delay. Despite claims this was unforeseen"
"All party members seated separately"
in the aircraft, resulting in some small children being separated from their parents. There were "foreign-speaking cabin staff", and, despite the fact that it was a daylight flight, they were ordered to keep the cabin in darkness.
"Following check-in, three fire engines and men in breathing apparatus working on the plane, causing initial concern and delay".
They were informed at last that the plane was ready. An announcement was made for the front half of the plane to board, but the rear-half passengers would have to wait, because the mechanics had not finished. The captain announced that the delay had been caused by an electrical fault. That was rectified, and the plane was ready to take off.
"was withdrawn after problems were found during routine maintenance and the aircraft was therefore not allocated to any particular flight".
3 Jul 1996 : Column 929
I was told that, if I wanted to know anything else, I should ask the Swedes.
"received 36 passenger complaints alleging various problems or deficiencies with flights using aircraft registered in Bulgaria. The Department asked the UK Civil Aviation Authority to conduct an independent assessment to ensure that International Civil Aviation Organisation standards were being applied. This assessment was carried out in February 1996".--[Official Report, 1 July 1996; Vol. 280, c. 348-49.]
That does not say whether the result was good or bad, but there are still a number of difficulties, and it is clear that a number of countries are flying aeroplanes here to pick up British holidaymakers, although there is reason to doubt that they know what they are doing and whether the holidaymakers are being carried in all safety.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |