The European Commission ban on Air Zimbabwe was precipitated by the failure by the Civil Aviation Authority of Zimbabwe (Caaz) to follow up on progress made by the airline to address safety deficiencies, Standardbusiness heard last week.
BY TATIRA ZWINOIRA
Last week, the commission blacklisted Air Zimbabwe alongside airlines from Angola, Nigeria, St Vincent and the Grenadines and Ukraine.
According to documents obtained by this paper last week, AirZim first engaged the European Commission on April 12 2016 when it applied to the European Aviation Safety Agency (Easa) for a third country operator (TCO) authorisation to fly into the bloc since it is a non-EU airline.
Easa is the body responsible for regulatory and executive tasks in the field of civilian aviation safety under the EU. AirZim was seeking to expand its business to Europe hence the application for authorisation.
The application was assessed by Easa and it failed to demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements laid down in Article 3 of EU Regulation No 452/2014 which provides technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations for non- EU airlines.
As such, Easa did not grant the TCO authorisation to AirZim, rejecting the airline’s application on November 7 2016.
On March 3 2017, the commission requested information from the Caaz as a way of follow up on the measures it had taken following Easa’s rejection of the TCO application.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
“That letter opened official consultations with the Caaz, pursuant to the provisions laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 473/2006. Since the safety concerns resulting from the TCO safety assessment by Easa of Air Zimbabwe had not been resolved, both the Caaz and Air Zimbabwe were given the opportunity to be heard on April 26 2017,” the documents read.
Caaz and AirZim were to be heard by the commission and the Air Safety Committee of the EU.
On the day, Easa provided information on the serious safety concerns which formed the basis for its negative TCO decision.
Air Zimbabwe responded by providing information on the corrective actions that were initiated and were ongoing since Easa’s rejection of the TCO application by the national carrier.
However, the information provided by Air Zimbabwe, including the elements concerning the limited progress it had made in relation to the development of its safety and quality management systems, was insufficient to deal with the concerns raised by Easa, the document said.
“The information available at present, including the information relating to Easa’s TCO safety assessment of Air Zimbabwe, together with the information provided by the Caaz and by Air Zimbabwe, clearly shows serious safety deficiencies on the part of Air Zimbabwe,” it said.
“It is considered that Air Zimbabwe is at present not able to address those safety deficiencies. In fact, the ongoing safety actions of Air Zimbabwe are largely at the development stage only and the corrective action plan which Air Zimbabwe presented in response to the findings identified during the TCO safety assessment, is not robust.”
An EU source told this paper that this action was taken in regards to the necessary root cause analysis.
The ban on Air Zimbabwe further means that member states are to continue to verify the effective compliance with relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on air carriers certified in Zimbabwe.
The EU source told our sister paper NewsDay that the ban was of an indefinite duration.
“But the list is updated periodically [at least twice a year], and Air Zimbabwe could be taken out in the future if the safety deficiencies are addressed,” the EU source said.
These revelations are contrary to what Transport and Infrastructural Development minister Joram Gumbo said about the ban. The minister told state media that the “airline has not been banned from flying into Europe”.
The Zimbabwe Visitor Exit Survey Report 2015/16 highlighted the significance of the European market as it has the second biggest market share for visitors after Africa, at 9,8%.
United Kingdom is the leading source market at 38,3% due to the large diaspora base in that country.
In 2015, the total amount of visitors was 2,1 million, making Europe’s contribution 205 800.
Aviation experts last week said the EU ban was the final nail on AirZim’s coffin.
“EU countries can tell their nationals not to fly on AirZim. What this means is that the potential passengers the airline was supposed to harvest will be lost. What the ban means is that if the airline is unsafe to fly into Europe, it raises questions about the safety of that airline,” the expert said adding that passengers would choose a safe airline.
The expert said the safety issues would be a cost to the airline as “insurance companies can demand higher premiums from the airline because it carries a higher risk”.
The warning by the aviation expert comes as it emerged that morale was at its lowest at the airline whose coffers were running dry.
A report by the Parliamentary portfolio committee on Transport revealed that AirZim pilots were working without contracts and received no salaries but were paid working allowances.
“There was generally low morale among both pilots and air traffic controllers, who felt that the importance of their profession was not being given due recognition and support. This was exacerbated by management’s attitude towards staff welfare issues typified by delayed responses to the concerns of staff,” the report said.
Air Zimbabwe said the airline had engaged external consultants to ensure all processes were aligned with Easa in efforts to get the TCO authorisation.
The ban means Air Zimbabwe will not be able to fly directly into EU countries and can only do so using wet-leased arrangements.
