I arguably write an inordinate amount about SAA. The reason is because this once world-class airline provides the spectacle of a Technicolor slow-motion train smash that has cost taxpayers billions. This train smash carries the hopes and dreams of so many of today’s youth, who have the sky in their eyes and dream of being pilots.
The problem right now is that SAA Version 2.0 continues to shoot itself in the foot; this despite a low level of flight operations. The latest controversy to befall the airline relates to flight SA9053 from Accra to Johannesburg. Let me take this opportunity to clear up some of the deliberate mis-information (lies) and distortions plus claims and counter-claims that swirled around after the story broke.
Was there a cover up? It took about five weeks before the media became aware of this drama – after it was exposed on social media. This led to accusations that there had been a cover up, both by SAA and the CAA. The CAA is however adamant that SAA had reported it as an incident and CAA Director Poppy Khoza claims to have logs that confirm this.
Were there passengers on board? The CAA incident report said that there was an improbable 1+1 crew and passenger on board. I checked with SAA, who confirmed that the aircraft had 184 passengers and 25 crew for a total of 209 people.
‘Was there a cover up?’
Was the Captain at fault? The story was given added impetus by the admission by SAA that the captain of this flight was none other than Vusi Khumalo, who had also been the captain of the notorious Brussels vaccine flight. This was grist to the mill for all those who hate SAA and all that it represents in the public enterprises’ apocalypse. Gradually however, the most experienced airline captains quietly acknowledged that if they had been in Khumalo’s position they would not have done anything differently.
The flight carried an engineer (a ‘flying spanner’) as SAA does not have engineering staff stationed at Accra. Whether the flying spanner was under pressure to sign-off the aircraft, we will probably never know. However, presumably the aircraft was actually signed-off as fit for flight. The experienced senior captains acknowledged that on that basis they would have accepted the plane – and its load of passengers.
This has been an enormous mess which has further sullied SAA’s already compromised safety reputation. And a reputation for compromised safety is the one thing that the struggling airline just cannot afford, as passengers who have any reason to doubt an airline’s safety will simply book on another airline.
And thus will SAA fail again?
