The philosophy of post Covid air transport

 

by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne in  Montreal

"For there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so" (Hamlet, 2.2.257-258).

At the outset I must stress that what is to follow is a philosophical and conceptual essay.  It does not offer a practical approach to post COVID air transport but merely discusses  the semantics of air transport for the reader to draw a conclusion.  All it says it that there is nothing called the right way, or the wrong way.  Eventually what matters is what works and what doesn’t work. I must also hasten to add that what would prevent the workability of an approach is if the reader were to reach a  non sequitur from this  philosophical discourse.  One has to beware of that trap.

We can see that air transport, which was relegated to a moribund state is now gradually being revived.  Just as an example, The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union (EU) and its Member States had at the Extraordinary ASEAN-EU Senior Transport Officials Meeting held virtually on 2 June 2021. concluded the negotiations on the ASEAN-EU Comprehensive Air Transport Agreement (AE CATA).  This far-reaching agreement gives airlines of ASEAN and the EU greater access to each other’s territories by granting opportunities to operate passenger and cargo services between and beyond both regions. Airlines of ASEAN and the EU will be able to fly any number of services between both regions. In addition, airlines will be able to fly up to 14 weekly passenger services, and any number of cargo services via and beyond to any third country

There is no doubt that The AE CATA will bolster connectivity and economic development among the 37 member states of ASEAN and the EU and, in a post COVID world, will help rebuild air connectivity between ASEAN and Europe which has thus far been decimated by the pandemic, and open up new growth opportunities for the aviation industry in both regions.

The question that arises is, should the rest of the world go this way and  how should air transport be revived, or, in other words, what principles should apply?  Would an AE CATA model comport with the recommendations of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)?

The Council of ICAO has permissive functions in Article 55 of The Chicago Convention which gives the Council a proactive role in the context of revitalizing air transport.  For example by virtue of Article 55c) the Council may conduct research into all aspects of air transport and air navigation which are of international importance, communicate the results of its research to the contracting States, and facilitate the exchange of information between contracting States on air transport and air navigation matters; and in 55d) the Council may study any matters affecting the organization and operation of international air transport, including the international ownership and operation of international air services on trunk routes, and submit to the ICAO Assembly plans in relation thereto.

ICAO’s efforts in this context are clear. CART (ICAO Council Aviation Recovery Task Force)  and particularly its Recommendation 10 is directly in point: “Member States should consider appropriate extraordinary emergency measures to support financial viability and to maintain an adequate level of safe, secure and efficient operations, which should be inclusive, targeted, proportionate, transparent, temporary and consistent with ICAO's policies, while striking an appropriate balance among the respective interests without prejudice to fair competition and compromising safety, security and environmental performance”.

A Report released by CART recommends that the above economic measures  “should be inclusive, targeted, proportionate, transparent, temporary and consistent with ICAO's policies, while striking an appropriate balance of interests without prejudice to fair competition. States and the civil aviation industry will need to commit towards building a more resilient air transport system, supported by clear communication and the recognition of aviation's vital role as a worldwide enabler, more so in times of crisis. In particular, States should identify and bridge gaps, with ICAO's assistance, to ensure adequate support to vulnerable segments of the international community and provision of essential services. A major element for future preparedness will involve analysing insights and experience gained from this crisis to improve processes and coordination mechanisms”.

CART concludes that the success of aviation's recovery today and future resilience is best achieved with collective efforts among stakeholders across regions and  sectors. Quite apart from the health recommendations in the Report of CART, which are more compulsive and impossible for States to ignore, the economic measures are replete with the usual ICAO language: “States should provide the most appropriate means for supporting stakeholders across the civil aviation sector, if and when deemed necessary, (my emphasis); possibly through regional or international economic cooperation; these measures must be inclusive, targeted, proportionate, transparent, temporary, limited to what is necessary to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and consistent with ICAO's policies while striking an appropriate balance among the respective interests without prejudice to fair competition or compromising safety, security and environmental commitments”.

Certainly, the AE CATA Model comports with CART’s recommendation of “ regional or international Cooperation”. What remains to be seen is whether the rest of ICAO policy as laid down by CART vis a vis “ striking an appropriate balance of interests without prejudice to fair competition” where  “States and the civil aviation industry will need to commit towards building a more resilient air transport system” is ensured. 

This is where we come to philosophy and semantics.  Clearly, ICAO policy is reflected in the Preamble to the Chicago Convention where the specific words used to represent “fair competition” are “equality of opportunity”.  These words are very important to revitalizing air transport with governmental help as “equality of opportunity” is equality of opportunity to compete, as against equality of opportunity to operate air services.  Some have even argued that the phrase should be interpreted in the air transport context as “equality of results”.

The Twentieth Century philosopher John Rawls in his book A Theory of Justice argues that fair and equal opportunity would not make for a morally just system, as a purely level playing field would inevitably favour those with the greater talent and resources. In the words of Rawls:” a fair meritocracy still permits the distribution of wealth and income to be determined by the natural distribution of abilities and talents”. The inevitable truth that emanates from Rawls’ argument is that even a system which  achieved true equality of opportunity would not necessarily be a just system. 

For a start, there goes CART’s “fair competition” out the window.  To compensate for this perceived inconsistence, Rawls recommends what is called “The Difference Principle” which advocates that winners share their winnings with those who are weaker and cannot compete equally.  Rawls encourages those able to function at full speed to do so but to make sure at the same time that competitors are not annihilated.  Seemingly, this approach would augur well for those who are already licking their wounds from hits dealt by the COVID Pandemic. It is “ an agreement to regard the distribution of natural talents as a common asset and to share in this distribution whatever it turns out to be”.

We are in the throes of a crisis with the pandemic. Pre pandemic liberalism can be questioned particularly as we seem to be clinging to blanket phrases that justified the status quo ante. Less endowed airlines face more acute issues in fleet configurations and slot commitments that those that, for instance,  enjoy with the AE CATA model.  The philosophy of Austrian Friedrich Hayek, that market forces would be the powerful determinant, may have to be tweaked to accompany principles of justice over merit, talent, and superior resources.  Rawls talks of a Just Scheme, where legitimate expectations   based on duties and rights would be considered preeminent.

In this sense it is evident that CART is rehashing old and hackneyed thinking.  As Richard Arneson, interpreting Rawls said: “distributive justice stipulates that the lucky should transfer some or all their gains due to luck to the unlucky”.  Perhaps this is carrying things a bit too far.  However, the general principle that the aviation community may wish  to follow should be based on the general principle of the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant – that of universality and the moral consideration of treating the interests of all stakeholders equally.  This would then be a parallel way of the difference principle of John Rawls where the cornerstone is justice upon which certain safety nets can be established and preferential measures are accorded to struggling aviation entities. The following universalities might be a starting point for a universally acceptable base for post COVID air transport: consider the interests of all the affected stakeholders in any decisions made; all affected by the universality rule/s should be consulted and principles, regulations and policies are discussed  before a rule is made; the interests of one stakeholder or interested party  should never perforce take priority; every company or entity must have a genuine duty to do good by the community; and business conduct must accord with the rule of law and principles of natural justice.

Perhaps it is time to abandon rehashing words and regurgitating 75-year-old terminology.  As Heraclitus, said in the 6th Century BC, “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”