Africa Guardian

jOHN kITUMBE: CONTROVERSY has started concerning the future of African airlines, which largely means state-run air travel companies, as several of them are now banned from operating in European Union skies or airports. A recent statement by the African Airlines Association (AFRAA) deplored what it described as the EU’s “continued unilateral practice of blacklisting of mainly African states and airlines with no visible benefits in enhancing safety on the continent.” The worry is that this will put many out of business. The statement urged African governments, the African Union and the African Civil Aviation Commission to refuse a situation where this state of affairs (blacklisting) continues, citing the implication that “the continent’s air transport industry is being progressively destroyed” by the refusal to operate at EU airports. The protests arise from cancellation of license to operate in Europe of all planes certified in Mozambique, and two Air Madagascar 767. Many see EU destinations as lifelines for national airline firms. Putting up that prohibition, the EU cited “significant safety deficiencies requiring decisive action in both cases,” for Mozambique and Madagascar. What is substantive about the act taken in April is that Mozambique is the 14th African state to be subject to a blanket ban, with an additional four African states subject to a partial ban (as in the case of Madagascar). AFRAA did not seem to appreciate the need for strong action on the part of the European Commission, dubbing it a ‘public relations exercise,’ a blunt instrument that constraints the development of a viable air transport industry in Africa,’ frustrating it. Without seeking to take up the breadth of the debate, there is already enough on the three or so substantive observations as to what the problem really is, so as to evaluate what capacity there is with AFRAA or governments behind it to comprehend the issue. Where up to 14 countries are already facing partial bans, it should have been clear already what level of safety standards is required to operate, and what measures need to be taken. It is evident African airlines have no capital to improve safety, hence wishing for indulgence. The logic for instance about the suggestion that these partial bans constrain Africa’s ability to develop a viable air transport industry is that only when it operates the lucrative European Union routes can it forge ahead. Otherwise it is crippled financially for lack of revenue, if it will be required to attain safety standards before it can operate. This comes back to a sort of colonial mentality, that African airlines be allowed to use any standards or level of safety they can manage, while other airlines operating in Europe must comply. In a different sense, AFRAA is asking for action from African governments to seek to bring the EU Commission to accept safety standards applicable in African states, that they are as good as any other, and the EU doesn’t have to seek extra compliance. And as it appears, they seem to take the condition of African airlines as if it was a matter of nature, that is, there is no way they can be different, and the only way to enable them to forge ahead to become viable, or perhaps more viable, is to let them operate. AFRAA has discussed the matter in several annual meetings and this is the most expert view it offers. One only needs to take two or three more localized cases to see what issues are being put on the table, that there is a picture here inviting a situation where KQ is allowed to operate on EU airports as well as Precisionair, while Air Tanzania faces a partial ban (that is, the planes it has). If one therefore issues an appeal about allowing Air Tanzania to operate so that it uses the EU routes to become a viableairline, questions need to be asked how KQ became viable, or Precisionair in that sense. Even if they never faced an EU routes partial ban, it wasn’t EU routes that enabled safety standards to be attained. The EU, as usual worried about being charged with adopting proto-colonial methods or ideas, doesn’t seem to have a clear idea that opening up the capital of these national airlines so that in majority they become private sector run is important. They seem to be stuck with standards as an issue, and appear to tolerate state ownership so long as it reaches the required standards, and thus AFRAA treats it as a public relations matter their being put on sidelines as to operating EU airports. It is because they are as good airlines as anyone else, but they have some financial problems and thus need to be encouraged. Given the plentiful amount of investment or joint venture capital that is available all over the world for a franchise holder like a national airline, whose assured zone of operation means the company could scarcely make losses, no reasons for capital shortage exist. The problem is that African countries do not wish to open their airlines’ capital to the private sector or allow their being bought by larger firms, for fear of losing their privileges in how the airlines are used. They have free travel opportunities, non-inspected goods, etc. These observations from AFRAA at the same time give a clue to what will happen to African airlines, firstly that no reflex about reform exists in their discussions with EU, in which case merely plead for indulgences, in the name of development. In that case only competition will compel these countries to open the capital of state airlines or sell them entirely, when they face bans from operating while other local or regional airlines forge ahead. And as time goes by, the capacity of revamping state airlines and competing tends to diminish; the very need for a national airline is a public relations wish, not economy. Yet African airlines protest that their safety record is good and does not warrant the partial blacklisting, for instance Mozambique notes that LAM (Linhas Aereas de Mocambique) has had no major accident since 1980 and no accident at all since 1989. Yet safety standards isn’t just about when a plane crashes but avoidance of such danger by ensuring plane quality, in terms of age of construction, type, flight hours and schedule of decommissioning, either for short or long term routes, etc. LAM and the civil aviation authorities in Mozambique or elsewhere are knowledgeable of these aspects, but seek indulgence so that an unworkable model of capital holding by the state persists forever. It is such difficulties that have stood in the way of Africa and Europe reaching its ‘Everything But Arms’ pact to extend to economic partnership agreements, since the latter would have required capital opening in services industry, free skies, etc. Africa is thus insisting on sticking to its state model in most areas, the ‘commanding heights’ of the economy just like China, the difference being that the Chinese state sector is by and large efficient. It has piled up savings or accumulated funds not being used to set up points of procuring raw materials all over the world, where African or Tanzania-type economies release, avail wide portions or resources, sectors for Chinese firms to buy. The difference between Asia’s success and Africa’s failure in operating in global economy is that Asian nationalism was a step higher than Africa, as the latter is largely satisfied with its inferiority complex vs Europeans, and isn’t bothered by poverty or technological backwardness. It only seeks to enjoy what it gets from this relationship, thus asking for indulgence when its airlines fail to meet standards, but on no account can it allow the colonizer to come back and dominate its airline, or other sectors, again. It is this sentiment which keeps out investments, because whites will be coming back here. Asian nationalism was different right from the start, as it set as its goal to catch up with Europe, at its independence. Thus when after 20 years since attaining freedom in the early 1950s or late 1940s for some of them and little had changed, it sought to change tactics to adopt ways that work in Europe, the first of which is opening up capital so that investments shift from Europe and America to the Far East and then South Asia. When Asia becomes a world power as it is now becoming, Africa will start waking up and wish to catch up with Asia as a realizable goal; here, its pride will be pricked to think about it, not when it was a matter of catching up with Europe. There, centuries of slavery and the colonial amazement (mzungu as an expression of surprise, magic, wonder) are too deep. Saying backwardness is due to oppression is silly; it’s the lack of trying, being contended.