To those of us who enjoy the questionable benefits of frequent flyer status in Indonesia, the recent announcement that all Indonesian air carriers are banned from EU airspace, and that EU citizens are strongly advised to avoid flying with them, comes as little surprise. If anything, most of us assumed that such a ban was already in place. What is more interesting (and depressing) is the reaction of the Indonesian government.
The reaction was in two parts. Firstly, the government expressed the suspicion that this was a neo-colonial EU plot to exclude Garuda (Indonesia's flag carrier) from EU airspace so as to shield indigenous carriers from the competition. I can imagine that BA, KLM and Lufthansa are slightly concerned about the lean and hungry Asian competitors that may one day come and steal market share from them, but I somehow doubt that the noble Garuda logo figures very often in the powerpoint presentations of the executives. Garuda's market positioning in Indonesia is predicated on that fact that it is slightly less bad than all the others, many of whom (such as Merpati) operate planes inherited from Garuda, such as the 1970 fleet of Fokker 27's and 28's, which have featured many times on this blog.
The second point made by the government was that it was unfair of the EU to focus on safety issues, when other factors should have been taken into account, The argument appears to be that flying Garuda (or Adam Air, Batavia, Mandala etc.) may be unsafe, but, hey, look at this free towelette. The beef rendang is pretty tasty too. No doubt a cynical anthropologist would point out that this attitude reflects Indonesian fatalism, that somehow worrying about safety is to lose sight of one's small place in the great cosmic plan. It is too individualistic, and, frankly, Western. This may explain why most of my fellow passengers to Jakarta recently, many of them on a transit flight from doing the Haj pilgrimage in Mecca, prayed earnestly for deliverance on take-off, and then gave thanks to Allah for their safe arrival in Jakarta.
I am quite prepared to give Garuda the benefit of the doubt on many things (is this beef rendang edible? Why does my seat smell of vomit?) but where safety is concerned I think a faith position is probably unwise. Where the Indonesian government misses the point is that they have consistently prevented the results of investigations into the many transport accidents from becoming public. This gives the impression that some kind of cover-up is going on to protect those with good political connections. It also encourages leaks and rumours which (as in the case of the recent Yogyakarta crash) causes distress for the families of the victims while a blame culture prevents the real facts from emerging. The Yogya crash may well have been pilot error, but often the airlines find it convenient to blame one pilot rather then admit to systemic maintenance problems and under-investment.
Our neighbour in Jakarta is an Australian airline pilot who flies wealthy Indonesians and politicians as far away as Los Angeles on a top-of-the-range gulfstream private jet. Private jet travel is a a growth industry in Indonesia, which has a remarkable number of very rich people who see no reason to share the risks that ordinary people must face when travelling.
Sadly, Government ministers are more interested in avoiding accountability when they should be hanging their heads in shame that Indonesia, now almost a middle-income country, is unable to properly regulate its airlines or place the safety of travelers over the comfort of the corrupt businessmen and politicians who fly by private Gulfstream jet on their frequent shopping trips to Singapore.






Recent Comments