J.O. Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 It's quite disturbing that a judge can over-rule an aviation safety authority on the suspension of an AOC. Mexico court ruling: Aviacsa allowed to fly again Aviacsa resumed operations after winning a court ruling overturning a government order grounding its planes for the second time over safety concerns. The Transportation and Communications Department first grounded Aviacsa's planes June 2, 2009 following inspections. Aviacsa resumed flights four days later after a judge overturned the government's order. On June 11, 2009, the government re-grounded the airline after a federal appeals court reinstated the order. That same day the Fifth District Judge in Ciudad Valles determined that 20 airworthy aircraft of Aviacsa were allowed to resume flight operations. These aircraft are: XA-TTM, XA-TTP, XA-TUK, XA-TVD, XA-TVL, XA-TVN, XA-TWJ, XA-TWV, XA-TYC, XA-TYI, XA-TYO, XA-UAA, XA-UCG, XA-UIU, XA-UIV, XA-UJB, XA-UJC, XA-TWO, XA-NAF, XA-NAV. Meanwhile the U.S. FAA decided to no longer allow Aviacsa to operate flights to the United States until safety matters are resolved. (Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes) (aviation-safety.net) *************** Mexico risks IASA downgrade as Aviacsa again resumes operations Some Mexican carriers are concerned the inability of Mexico's DGAC to ground Aviacsa over alleged safety concerns could lead to the country being downgraded under the FAA international aviation safety assessment (IASA) programme. Mexico's Secretary of Communications and Transportation (SCT) and Aviacsa are now locked in a complex legal dispute over the legitimacy of a decision by its DGAC to ground the carrier. Aviacsa, after being grounded by the DGAC on 5 June, resumed operations on 8 June after it secured a highly controversial ruling by a judge in San Luis Potosi which reversed at least temporarily the grounding order. The DGAC re-implemented the grounding order yesterday, forcing Aviacsa to cancel flights last night. But Aviacsa today was able to again resume operations after receiving a document from the same court authorizing it to operate all 26 of its Boeing 737s. The SCT has vowed it will continue to challenge the ruling, claiming the DGAC has a right to ground carriers for safety concerns. If it continues to have an aviation authority that is unable to implement its own grounding orders, Mexico risks being in violation of ICAO regulations and subject to a downgrading by the FAA from IASA category 1 to category 2. "Absolutely that's my concern," says Interjet chief executive officer Luis Garza. "It has severe implications for the whole industry." Garza questions how a court was able to overturn the original grounding order and why the Mexican government is unable to enforce its own orders. "The government has a mandate to oversee safety. That is not renounceable," Garza says. "They have to enforce it somehow." An Aviacsa official, however, claims the carrier is complying with all airworthiness requirements from the Mexican DGAC. He says the carrier is also now complying with new safety-related requests from the DGAC and will continue to fight claims by the SCT that the carrier should be grounded because 25 of its 737s are not airworthy. "That's why there's a judge. That's why there is a court," he says. "We expect to finish this chapter and focus on our operation." But the case could drag on for months and will likely continue to raise questions about Mexico's ability to enforce its own aviation regulations. "It demands a very serious examination," Garza says. "In principle when I see something from the authorities I have no reason to doubt that. The situation needs to be clarified very soon." An FAA spokesman says "we are aware of the issues surrounding Aviacsa" but would not comment on whether the agency is considering downgrading Mexico's IASA rating. For now Aviacsa continues to operate all its domestic routes as well as its one international route, which links Monterrey with Las Vegas. "Everything is regular," says the Aviacsa official. He says traffic has been down about 40% since Aviacsa's original resumption of services on 5 June and the carrier has been operating at an average load factor of only 55%, compared to its normal average load factor of 75%. But he expects traffic will return to normal levels over the next couple of weeks even if the legal dispute with the SCT continues. "People trust Aviacsa," he says. "We've been in business for 20 years. The current government has only been around for two years." Aviacsa now operates 80 to 85 flights per day. Over the last year it has reduced capacity from a peak of about 120 daily flights due to the economic downturn. But it has the flexibility to add back flights during the peak summer season if demand warrants because it currently doesn't fully utilise its fleet of 23 737-200s and three 737-300s. Meanwhile, Aviacsa continues to wage a separate legal battle that began last August after the SCT tried to ground the carrier because it is behind in paying air traffic control and airport fees. The SCT has said it will continue to fight this case as the carrier remains behind in paying government providers. "We've been complaining about this because this is unfair," Garza says. "Everyone is paying their bills on time. Aviacsa is not. Something has to be done. Everybody has to be treated the same. It's very unfair if any of our competitors are receiving special treatment." The Aviacsa official, however, says the carrier is being unfairly singled out and other carriers are also behind in these payments. He says the company is confident it will ultimately prevail in both legal cases. Interjet, which has a fleet of 15 Airbus A320, currently only operates domestic services but has been considering launching services to the US. If Mexico is downgraded to category 2 under IASA, Interjet and other Mexican carriers currently not serving the US would be blocked from launching US services. All Mexican carriers currently serving the US also would be unable to expand their US operations until Mexico returns to category 1. Source: Air Transport Intelligence news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTFA Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 It's quite disturbing that a judge can over-rule an aviation safety authority on the suspension of an AOC. Or is it more disturbing that the Mexican aviation authority can ground an airline for unjustifiable cause? Is the airline in compliance or not? The judge says they are, the airline says they are. Where's their OC? Or is there more to this than what meets the eye? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebean Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Or is it more disturbing that the Mexican aviation authority can ground an airline for unjustifiable cause? Is the airline in compliance or not? The judge says they are, the airline says they are. Where's their OC? Or is there more to this than what meets the eye? Sure, they can fly, but will passengers bother booking with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Sure, they can fly, but will passengers bother booking with them? You know they will - if the price is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted June 15, 2009 Author Share Posted June 15, 2009 Or is it more disturbing that the Mexican aviation authority can ground an airline for unjustifiable cause? Is the airline in compliance or not? The judge says they are, the airline says they are. Where's their OC? Or is there more to this than what meets the eye? Given how the justice system works in Mexico (i.e. justice is only for those who can "afford" it), I have chosen to place my limited faith on their aviation authority. At least they're trying to do the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Welcome to Mexico...land of the $how the ca$h justice system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTFA Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Given how the justice system works in Mexico (i.e. justice is only for those who can "afford" it), I have chosen to place my limited faith on their aviation authority. At least they're trying to do the right thing. J.O. You have contradicted yourself. You recognize that justice must be paid for yet you will not give the credit to the operator who may not have had the dineros to maintain their "account" with the aviation authority. Would a judge say that the requirements were met if they weren't if he was paid enough? Or would the safety board say they were unsafe even if they were, if they weren't paid enough? My point is WHO KNOWS??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rozar s'macco Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Don't be naive, that's how the courts work everywhere: JUSTICE FOR SALE. At least the Mexicans have the good grace to make it transparent. More so than the USA and Canada, anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTFA Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Naive??? About what? Do you think that any given arm of the Mexican Gov't isn't as prone to financial influence as the courts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Don't be naive, that's how the courts work everywhere: JUSTICE FOR SALE. At least the Mexicans have the good grace to make it transparent. More so than the USA and Canada, anyhow. Did you just justify corruption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 GTFA: Aviacsa is attempting to deflect the real and serious safety concerns that the Mexican authorities have voiced about their company. It goes way deeper than unpaid landing fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTFA Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 . . . how a court was able to overturn the original grounding order and why the Mexican government is unable to enforce its own orders. "The government has a mandate to oversee safety. That is not renounceable," Garza says. "They have to enforce it somehow." An Aviacsa official, however, claims the carrier is complying with all airworthiness requirements from the Mexican DGAC. He says the carrier is also now complying with new safety-related requests from the DGAC and will continue to fight claims by the SCT that the carrier should be grounded because 25 of its 737s are not airworthy. The question is WHO is telling the truth. The problem is how do we establish WHAT is the truth. Mexican justice. Isn't that a facetious figure of speach? Mexican stand-off, isn't that a derogitory phrase relating to a no-win confrontation? It's the safety of the travelling public and integrity of the industry in the no win situation here. The whole predicament is indeed troubling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.