Safety Concern for Airlines Flying in a Volcanic Ash Cloud: Virgin and Qantas - Literature review Example

ABC News, “In June 2011, a volcanic ash cloud posed a safety concern for airlines flying in the Victorian, South Australian, Tasmanian and New Zealand regions. Virgin decided to fly its planes under and around danger zones but Qantas cancelled its flights saying it were not safe to fly” (Ross, 2011). According to a report released by ABC News on 15th June 2011, the disruption caused by the ash clouds hit the western part of Australia causing several airlines such as Qantas and Jester to ground their flights in and out of Perth. South African Airways was also affected with the Airway cancelling its flights from and into Perth. Following this occurrence, numerous passengers were inconvenienced or remained stranded for several days with other opting to take the longer expensive routes in order to reach their anticipated destinations. However, Dick Smith, an aviator and businessman held that grounding flights is an “ultra-conservative move” terming the airlines that cancelled flights as being “ultra safe” (Ross, 2011). Smith argued that terming the flights as “unsafe” was a move that appeared to give the public the impression that safety is the most important element considered by the airlines. However, Smith reiterated that no business is without a risk and grounding flights is just one of the many ways of inconveniencing travellers. Smith, whose arguments were more focussed in the article, held that the degree of risk is what matters and as far as he was concerned the volcano ash clouds presented only long terms risks and not short term risks and thus there was no cause for the airlines to ground their flights. Either way, it is important to note that some airlines decided to ground their flights due to the volcano ash clouds emanating from the Chilean Volcano while other airlines such as Virgin Airline decided to fly under and around the danger zones. There are several arguments for and against the reasons why Qantas grounded its flights while Virgin Airline continued to fly under and around the danger zone. Firstly, there is the possibility that Qantas airline puts more emphasis and value on human lives in its operations than on making quick profits at the expense of human lives. Secondly, there is a possibility that Qantas airline is risk-averse which means that the airline would prefer to incur costs or a pay-off by losing revenues in the short term than operate in uncertainty. In this regard, there is a possibility that Virgin Airways is a risk taker which means that the company can go an extra mile to operate in uncertain environment as long as there are good indications of revenue generation. Thirdly, there is also a possibility that after weighing the expert opinion regarding the risk of the ash clouds and the distance of the ash clouds from the standard level of flying and the conditions of their airplanes Qantas Airline decided to ground its flights. However, all signs indicated that the volcano ash clouds were still present in the atmosphere and the debris which formed the large part of the volcano ash clouds could stick into the running engines and immediately cause the engines to stop thus causing numerous deaths or the debris could cause a long term problem in the engines which would eventually result into deaths in the future. There are two main reasons why Qantas grounded its flights. Firstly, basing on expert opinions particularly from the Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre, the volcanic ash fumes would be around 15,000 feet from the ground and the fumes would remain at this level for approximately 24 hours. The experts indicated that the lower part of the fumes which consisted of heavier debris posed a risk because their size would cause the engine to stop after a short while. Hence, there was a possibility that airplanes would likely encounter problems if the volcanic fumes on the lower part of the ash cloud stuck into the running engine. Secondly, Qantas airline considered the 24 hours duration projected by the experts as the duration through which volcanic ash fumes would clear from the sky as a short duration in which numerous lives would be saved by not flying under and around the danger zones. Based on the above two reasons, it is evident that Qantas airline put more emphasis on the safety of its travellers than Virgin Airlines and in this respect, Qantas Airline was ready to forego revenues that would be generated by risking the lives of its travellers. The second argument for grounding of flights by Qantas airline is that there is a possibility that the company is risk-averse and thus it operates on certain situations and thus its grounding of flights was caused by the fact that the volcanic ash clouds caused an uncertain situation. It is important to note that Sally Cutter, an expert from Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre, stated clearly that it was dangerous to fly due to volcanic ash because the ash or volcanic fumes may have stopped the engines from running. She continued that individual airlines had the autonomy of relying on expert opinions or carry out their individual risk assessments in order to determine whether they were prepared to take the risks of flying under and around the danger zone. After carrying out the assessment, Qantas airline possibly found out that the risk was immense and since the company is risk-averse then it grounded its flights. The third argument for grounding its flights could possibly be an internal operation reason. Qantas engineers could be well aware of the conditions of the company’s airplane engines. The engines of the airplanes could not have been in good condition and any slight interference with the running of the engine could have caused the engine to stop. In order to avoid such a situation from occurring the company engineers advised against flying into the danger zone. In contrast, there are also several reasons why Virgin Airlines decided not to ground its flights. Firstly, there is a possibility that the company’s main focus or emphasis is to make profits regardless of the risk associated with its operations. In this perspective, the volcano ash cloud was an important business opportunity or a cash-cow because all other competitors in the airline industry grounded their flights. Hence, it can be construed that virgin airline emphasizes more on continuing its trend of revenue generation rather than emphasizing on the value of human lives when undertaking its operations. Secondly, as a business or profit-making organization, there is a possibility that virgin airline is a risk-taker which means that the company can go to any lengths to generate revenues even in the most risky situations. The reason for this is based on the fact that expert opinion such as Sally Cutter, an expert with Volcano Ash Advisory Centre pointed towards the recommendation that it was risky to fly in the dangerous zone. However, Virgin Airline relied on its risk assessment and went on with its operations. It can be construed that the company is a risk-taker. Virgin Airline had another reason for not grounding its flights. Basing on the opinions of Mr. Smith, the former chairman of CASA, the company relied on the argument that the volcanic ash had spread widely in more than two thirds of the world and other airline companies were also carrying on with their operations. Hence, the company considered the degree of risk posed by the volcanic fumes as minimal and thus continued with its operations. Looking at the above arguments, I think I can conclude that while Qantas had enough reason for grounding its operations, Virgin Airline had also reasons for carrying on with its operations particularly flying under and around the danger zone. However, based on the expert opinion that the volcano ash posed risk to the running engines makes it clear that Qantas Airline considered the expert opinion than Virgin Airline did. If in the future, airline companies develop the habit of ignoring every slight expert opinion, what consequences are likely to be experienced? The answer to this question is clear. The most possible and probable consequence is deaths for numerous travellers who will be coerced by airline companies to travel even when experts warn against flying when there is volcano ash in the flying zones. Hence, I can clearly state that, although there were no adverse consequences experienced by Virgin Airline by flying under and around the danger zones, the airline set a bad precedent of ignoring expert opinion. In this regard, Qantas airline made the best decision by grounding its flights which was an indication in the eyes of the public that the company is ready to cause inconveniences to the travellers as well as forego short term revenues for the sake of ensuring the safety of its passengers. Qantas airline also made the best decision because it also demonstrated that in the wake of the numerous airline accidents witnessed almost every day, the company was prepared to avoid such accidents by ensuring that its flights were safe. It is important to reiterate that expert opinion was clear that there was immense risk associated with the volcano ash and that airline companies had to take individual responsibilities for their own actions. Qantas airline set a positive and good precedence that could be emulated by other airline companies in order to prevent the numerous accidents witnessed in the airline industry. References Benton M J (2005). When Life Nearly Died: The Greatest Mass Extinction of All Time. Thames & Hudson. Casas, J. Chile Volcano ash may disrupt air travel for months. Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/14/us-chile-volcano-idUSTRE75D6QK20110614 Christopoulos, G. et al. (2009). "Neural Correlates of Value, Risk, and Risk Aversion Contributing to Decision Making under Risk.". J Neurosci 26,(24): 6469–6472. Cutter, S. (2011). "Volcanic ash makes it dangerous to fly, particularly for jet engines, due to the fact it can cause the engines to stop, so it's really up to each individual airline to assess the risk they're prepared to take," ABC News. Gohardani, O. (2011). “Impact of erosion testing aspects on current and future flight conditions” Prog Aerospace Sci. Grindle, T, & Frank, W. (2003). Engine Damage to a NASA DC-8-72 Airplane From a high altitude Encounter with a diffuse volcanic Ash Cloud, California: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. http://www.abc.net.au/ra/innovations/stories/s1018099.htm. Haim L. (2006), Stochastic Dominance: Investment Decision Making under Uncertainty, Springer. Heiken, G. & Wohletz, K. 1985. Volcanic Ash. University of California Press, Berkeley Lim, C. 2010. The Dangers of Volcanic Ash. Available from http://www.askcaptainlim.com/component/content/article/40-general/926-the-dangers-of-volcanic-ash.html Marti, J. & and Ernst, G. (2005). Volcanoes and the Environment. Cambridge University Press. Mercer, P. 2011. Chilean Volcanic Ash Causes Flight Disruptions in Australia, VOA, Voice of America. Pratt, J. (2004). "Risk aversion in the small and in the large," Econometrica 32, 122–136. Robock, Alan (2000). "Volcanic eruptions and climate". Reviews of geophysics, 38, (2): 191–219 Ross, M. (2011). Dick Smith Laments ash cloud no-fly zones. ABC News. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-15/dick-smith-laments-ash-cloud-no-fly-zones/2759328 “When a killer cloud hit Britain” BBC News. January 2007. Read More