Biman's dismal approach

On May 10, 2006 a representative team of the Bangladesh Airlines' Pilot Association (BAPA) visited the State Minister for Civil Aviation and Tourism at his office and explicitly complained about the corruption and malpractices at the Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh (CAAB) regarding pilot licences. They alleged that the Flight Safety and Regulation department of CAAB is committing the crime of taking bribes to issue or renew pilot licences, completely overlooking the applicants' worthiness to fly an airplane! Now, that is really, really gross. In the year 2004-2005, according to government sources, some 1.5 million people trusted their lives with Biman flying across the world. How could a handful number of corrupt individuals at CAAB be let to play with so many lives?

On May 14, 2006 a New York bound flight of Biman was denied access into the US airspace citing security reasons, thus forcing the plane to land in Montreal, Canada. While the actual reason for the denial is still unclear, Biman on May 17, 2006 stated to the local media that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has apologised for their misjudgment and that the US Department of State has also regretted the mishap. But at the backdrop of it all, reportedly some 250 passengers on the flight were miserably handled by Biman in Montreal. These passengers were paying passengers and not aboard a charity charter flight, and they did not deserve to be treated the way they did. A report even stated that an ill senior citizen flying in Business Class was not provided with a wheel chair requested for her. International laws on commercial flights would allow that passenger to file a lawsuit against Biman if she wanted to, and Biman could have been forced to compensate her with a sum of money far larger than what the whole flight diversion had cost them in financial terms. Biman should thank its lucky stars.

On May 18, 2006 a report in a leading national daily stated that Biman would now face a ban on operating to its 5 European routes for failing to meet certain regulatory directives by European authorities. I shall now try to elaborate this. For civil aviation matters in Europe, at core sits the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), founded in 1955. The ECAC has 42 member states and its European partners are the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) and Eurocontrol. Together, they combine their activities in tune with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to develop harmonised civil aviation policies and practices among its member states. In 2002, the European Union decided that the European Agency for Aviation safety (EASA) should be formed, which is simply an evolution of the JAA and the transition is undergoing in phases. The EASA, through Article 6 of its basic regulation (EC 1592/2002) has adopted the noise and emission standards of the ICAO which are contained in Annex 16 of the Chicago Convention.

The two most important activities by ECAC that directly affects Biman are noise abatement regulations that the ECAC enacted in cooperation with Eurocontrol and EASA, and Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft Programme (SAFA) conducted by the JAA/EASA. The McDonnell Douglas DC-10 aircraft was designed in the late-60s and did not originally conform to Stage III noise regulations which, since April 2002 were declared as the minimum to operate to any destination to the 42 ECAC member states. Any aircraft by any airline which did not comply were decided to be gradually phased out by international agreement and the deadline for Biman is reportedly said to be September 1, 2006. However, the option to retrofit DC-10 aircraft with Stage III hush-kits were available since early-80's and Biman never pondered to have it done to its workhorse fleet of DC-10s. Now that the ban is inevitable, Biman has sought for the service from Boeing (which took over McDonnell Douglas in 1992) and may now have to spend three to four times of what it would have cost six months back.

Another stab that I can see coming towards Biman is the JAA's SAFA Programme. The principles of the programme is that in each ECAC member state any foreign aircraft (from ECAC and non-ECAC states) can be inspected for safety. If an inspection identifies significant irregularities, these will be taken up with the operator and the oversight authority. Where irregularities have an immediate impact on safety, inspectors can demand corrective action before they allow the aircraft to leave. All five of Biman's European destinations (London, Brussels, Paris, Frankfurt, and Rome) belong to ECAC member states. Since the Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh (CAAB) is listed in Category 2 for not adhering to the minimum safety standards of the ICAO, and Biman is directly governed by CAAB for safety, it will not be too long before the JAA takes a closer look at Biman than ever before.

Moreover, Biman is not even registered under the IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) despite being a member airline of IATA. If Biman does not get audited under IOSA by 2007, it will lose it membership with IATA and subsequently get banned to operate to even more destinations. All major airlines from the Asia Pacific region, including Pakistan International Airlines and Air India from the neighbouring countries, are IOSA registered.

Obviously, it is quite easy to overlook the absolute absence of foresight in Biman's management, and the proven incompetence of the CAAB, and simply put all the blame on the flying machines. The State Minister for Civil Aviation and Tourism, and senior Biman officials are all blaming the poor old DC-10 for being rendered incapable by the European authorities. Well, Northwest Airlines -- the major US carrier -- still operates the world's largest fleet of passenger DC-10s into Europe, that too at a major hub like Schipol, Amsterdam, and will continue DC-10s on scheduled services until January 2007 because all of their DC-10s are Stage III compliant. Yes, Northwest is replacing its entire DC-10 fleet with new generation aircraft for fuel-inefficiency issues, but how can Biman cite the same reason when it has not been paying for fuel for ages? Despite not having to settle God-forsakenly overdue fuel bills with Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation (BPC), how does Biman still report huge operational losses year after year?

Personally, I am for Biman getting newer airplanes to replace the ageing DC-10s. But then, Biman should be able to pay for its fuel bills, and its employees. Even in a one-for-one swap for the DC-10s with the most efficient aircraft available, Biman would still have 13 aircraft in its fleet, and a 5000-strong staff. There are not too many airlines which can boast about having its own poultry, after all! At a ratio of 380-odd employee for each aircraft in the fleet, I fail to do the math of how Biman can be profitable even if the aircraft flew solar-powered that did not cost anything and every flight had year-round average load factor of 80 percent or more.

Make no mistake, Biman can still be a tremendously potential airline if only the government pulls out the selfish fingers out of the pie, and let it be managed by industry-accredited people and governed under a competent CAAB. Otherwise, the seemingly dismal approach will end up in a sad crash.

Imran Asif, currently an aviation industry consultant, has previously worked on projects with The Boeing Company, Honeywell Aerospace, and FAA's Operational Evolution Plan (OEP) in 2004-2005.