U.S. Airlines' 'Handoffs' Raise Safety Concerns
Foreign Partners Come Under Scrutiny
By Don Phillips
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 7, 1999; Page A01
Every day, thousands of Americans board planes holding a ticket
imprinted with the name of a familiar U.S. airline, but take off in a jet
operated by an unfamiliar foreign carrier. That means some passengers
unwittingly fly on airlines with safety records that fall short of
standards set in the United States and Europe.
A burgeoning practice of sharing or combining flights, known as
"code-sharing," allows airlines to create marketing alliances that give
passengers almost seamless travel around the globe. But the scramble for
partnerships into regions such as Asia and Africa -- with some of the
world's least-safe airlines -- has begun to trouble some airline executives
and federal officials. In response, airline executives for the first time
are launching an industry-wide effort to raise international aviation
safety standards.
The code-share dilemma emerged recently in the crash of
Swissair Flight 111. The flight carried 50 passengers who held tickets
purchased from its U.S. partner, Delta Airlines, when it crashed off the
coast of Nova Scotia last year, killing all 229 on board. Swissair is
generally regarded as one of the world's safest airlines, but the odds of
dying on some foreign airlines are many times higher than on U.S. carriers,
in part because crew training and government oversight can vary widely from country to
country.
China Airlines of Taiwan, for example, is an American Airlines
and Continental Airlines code-share partner. Airclaims Ltd. of London,
which tracks airline accidents, lists three China Airlines crashes with 465
deaths in the past decade. And a 1996 Conde Nast survey listed China
Airlines as having an accident rate throughout its existence of 11.43 fatal
accidents per 1 million flights, compared with a 0.15 rate for American and
a 0.29 rate for Continental.
A person flying from Dallas to Taipei tonight, for instance,
would depart on American Flight 691 and transfer in San Francisco to
American Flight 6123. At least that's what the ticket would say. But
American Flight 6123, which leaves shortly after midnight, is really China
Airlines Flight 3. American has been quietly working with the Taiwanese
airline on safety in the past few months, officials said.
With no clear legal precedents establishing liability in a
code-share crash, many airline executives believe the rush to hook up with
carriers that have statistically poorer safety records has left U.S.
carriers open to lawsuits for crashes overseas. Others believe airlines
face a moral dilemma as well.
"I believe airlines enter into alliances because it's to their
advantage economically," said Kenneth Mead, the Transportation Department inspector
general, who has begun a formal investigation of the safety implications of these
marketing partnerships. "That's a legitimate
objective. There's a corresponding obligation along with it -- a safety
obligation."
The Defense Department has also told airlines that any carrier
that wants a piece of the government's $1.2 billion yearly travel bill must
assure officials that their foreign partners have safety standards that are
"substantially equivalent" to those of the U.S. carrier.
Under code-sharing, one airline buys a block of tickets on
another airline's flight and lists the flight in reservation systems under
its name, or "code." The tickets will read as if the passengers are flying
on a U.S. carrier, even though they actually transfer to a plane flown by
another airline. Passengers are supposed to be notified, but many pay
little attention until they show up at the gate and find themselves
boarding a plane of a different color.
Code-sharing is attractive for airlines because it increases feeder traffic on domestic
routes and makes an airline's international reach seem much greater.
Government employees and military personnel are particularly
affected because they usually travel under contracts that require use of
specific airline routes. These contracts favor U.S. airlines under "fly
America" rules. But code-shares qualify as "fly America" flights even if
the trip is on a foreign airline that is totally outside the jurisdiction
of the Federal Aviation Administration or the safety audit requirements
written into Defense Department contracts. Swissair Flight 111, for
instance, was popular with government officials traveling to Geneva, the
site of many international negotiations.
"The processes in place today were developed before
code-sharing," said Mary Lou McHugh, assistant deputy undersecretary of
defense for transportation policy. "They need to be adapted to reflect the
new realities of an increasingly global airline industry."
Airlines have had to engage in a delicate dance with their
foreign partners, seeking ways to boost their level of training and
oversight without being accused of safety imperialism. Efforts to impose
U.S. aviation standards on the rest of the world, including a congressional
mandate to upgrade anti-terrorism standards, have been denounced by some foreign
governments as arrogant interference in their affairs. Some U.S. airlines have had to make
odd arrangements with proud foreign carriers, such as when United Airlines agreed to
provide pilot training to a foreign airline in exchange for jungle survival training for
United personnel.
Michael J. Holland of the New York law firm of Condon and
Forsyth LLP, which is advising Delta and Swissair in crash litigation, said
there's a major benefit in a safety reputation. Airlines must understand
that helping their partners reach a higher level of safety is "the
progressive thing to do," even though some airline legal departments advise
against it. "Morally, from the point of view of the aviation industry, it's
a good thing," he said.
The Defense Department began auditing the safety of airlines
that fly military personnel after a charter airline crash in Gander,
Newfoundland, killed 256 soldiers in 1985. Two years ago, the Defense
Department broached the idea of extending audits to foreign code-share
airlines, but ran into stiff opposition from the State Department and the
Transportation Department, which warned that such audits would violate
international treaties and trample on national sovereignty.
However, about six months ago, the Defense Department
apparently decided it had had enough. It was stuck in a position in which
it gave thousands of military personnel no choice but to fly on foreign
code-share partners that it could not audit, even though the tickets were
being sold by U.S. airlines that were subject to audit.
"The Defense Department suddenly had the light go on," said
Robert Baker, American Airlines' executive vice president for operations.
Despite resistance from inside and outside government, the
Pentagon told the airlines that their new contracts would require
certification that the airline "has reviewed the foreign carrier's
operations and maintenance, and based on that review has determined that
the foreign air carrier provides a substantially equivalent level of
quality and safety" as the U.S. airline.
U.S. carriers also agreed in meeting Jan. 7 with the Defense
and Transportation departments to work together to find a way to assure the safety of
code-share partners, based on international safety principles
established by the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United
Nations agency in Montreal. The airlines would use a set of airline
operational and safety principles for foreign governments -- known as Annex 6 -- to
develop a new audit program, said Thomas McFall, managing director of American Airlines'
safety department.
As code-sharing has spread through the world, some U.S.
airlines have become increasingly concerned about their potential
liability. "It's a very significant question for code-sharing partners,"
said lawyer Roy Krieger of the Washington law firm Paleos & Krieger, who
has done extensive research on the issue. "It is entirely possible they can
be held liable for the acts or omissions of their code-sharing partners,"
though there are no clear legal precedents.
Actions taken by Congress and the White House over the past few
years also may indirectly give U.S. airlines more power to take a tougher
safety line with foreign partners. Under the FAA's International Aviation
Safety Assessment Program, foreign government aviation regulatory bodies
must meet minimum international standards or their national airlines are
barred from flying to the United States. Prodded by the FAA, the
International Civil Aviation Organization is developing its own assessment
program.
In just the past few years, the government has dramatically
extended its reach with this carrot-and-stick approach. Under the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, any foreign airline
flying into the United States eventually will have to impose security
measures that are identical to those of the United States. International
airlines and airports have complained bitterly that the act is an intrusion
into their affairs.
Less incendiary but potentially as far-reaching, Lufthansa German Airlines agreed on Sept.
23 to a consent order with the U.S. government that effectively extends the Americans With
Disabilities Act to U.S. alliance and code-share partners. Lufthansa had refused to accept
a man in a wheelchair who was connecting to the airline from a United flight on a
code-share ticket. Under the largely unpublicized order, wheelchair passengers are now
accepted.
WING TO WING
Airlines in an alliance have a closer business relationship*
than those that code-share; both combine or share flights. Here are the
partners for major domestic airlines.
AMERICAN AIRLINES
Code-sharing partners:
Aero California (Mexico), Air Liberte (France), Air Pacific
(Fiji), Asiana (Korea), British Midland (Belgium, Germany, Netherlands,
United Kingdom), Canadian, China Airlines (Taiwan), China Eastern (Mainland China), Gulf
Air (Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates), Iberia (Spain), LOT Polish (Poland),
Qantas (Australia, New Zealand), Singapore Airlines, South African Airways, TACA Group
(Central America), TAM-Brazil.
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES
Code-sharing partners:
Air France, Alitalia (Italy), British Midland, CSA Czech
Airlines, Transavia (Netherlands), Virgin Atlantic (United Kingdom), ACES
(Colombia), Air Aruba, Aserca (Venezuela), COPA (Panama), VASP (Brazil), Avant (Chile),
Air China, EVA Air (Taiwan), China Airlines.
DELTA AIR LINES
Alliances:
Austrian Airlines, Swissair, Sabena (Belgium).
Code-sharing partners:
Aer Lingus (Ireland), AeroMexico, AeroPostal (Venezuela), Air
France, Air Jamaica, Korean Air, MALEV (Hungary), TAP Air (Portugal), Trans Brasil.
NORTHWEST AIRLINES
Alliances:
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (Netherlands), Air China, Japan Air
System, Malaysia Airlines, Kenya Airways, Braathens (Norway).
Code-sharing partners:
KLM (Europe, Middle East, Africa, India); Air China
(trans-Pacific), Eurowings (Germany), Martinair (Netherlands), Pacific
Island Aviation (Micronesia).
TWA AIRLINES
Alliances:
Icelandair (frequent flier only)
Code-sharing partners:
Royal Jordanian Airline, Kuwait Airways, Royal Air Maroc
(Morocco)
US AIRWAYS
Code-sharing partners:
Deutsche BA (Germany)
UNITED AIRLINES
Alliances:
Air Canada, Lufthansa German Airlines, Scandinavian Airlines
System, Thai Airways International, Varig Brazilian Airlines
Code-sharing partners:
Aeromar (Mexico), Air Canada, Air New Zealand, Ansett
Australia, Cayman Airways, Saudi Arabian Airlines, Aeromexico, Air-India, ALM Antillean
Airlines, British Midland, Emirates Airlines, Mexicana Airlines.
SOURCE: The airlines
*Such as sharing gates, frequent-flier programs and facilities.
© Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company
