快運誤導非託辭 監管失職現死穴

<轉載自2017年10月6日 明報 社評>

香港快運航空（下稱快運）取消國慶黃金周18航班，暴露公司管理不善，亦揭露民航處監管不力，未能根據蛛絲馬迹順藤摸瓜，及早防止混亂情况發生。民航處可以推說快運航空「失信誤導」，然而當局的監管思維也明顯存在問題。民航處側重監管航空公司的飛行安全，對於服務質素和管理混亂一類問題是否上心，叫人懷疑，今次事件正正戳中死穴。政府有責任加強監察本地航空公司營運狀况，不能一味抱着「自由市場不應干預」的心態，放任自流，否則只會重蹈覆轍。

民航處監管重安全 營運管理易受忽略

國慶黃金周前夕，快運突然取消18航班，令千計乘客大失預算，行程泡湯。快運承諾退款，行政總裁安浩思離職，惟並不代表事件就此告一段落。今次事件的起因，是快運安全培訓導師悉數離職，公司未能及時填補空缺，為機師及空服員提供安全培訓。法例規定，空服員必須接受過安全訓練才能登機服務，快運無法湊夠人手，唯有臨時取消大批航班。快運內部管理混亂，在事件中表露無遺；民航處作為監管部門，同樣責無旁貸。

民航處最新資料顯示，處方早在8月中已留意到快運取消一名安全培訓導師評考，認為事態不尋常，同月17日召見快運管理層了解，得悉安全培訓部門導師集體離職。9月中，快運書面匯報，表示已有短期應急方案，公司已填補導師人手空缺，重新展開安全培訓，保證航班運作不受影響。民航處以為白紙黑字可信，還同意快運的要求，批准快運將空服員接受安全培訓的期限，延長至13個月，未料9月28日突然接獲快運通知取消航班。

民航處言下之意，似乎是一切錯在快運，沒有想過書面承諾竟是一紙空文，暗示處方遭到「誤導」，錯信快運。問題是民航處既然一早知道快運安全培訓問題可大可小，可能嚴重影響航班服務，理應提高警覺，安排專責人士密切跟進，確保問題圓滿解缺，沒理由不加核查便輕信匯報。日前民航處助理處長聲稱，不清楚快運有否要求延長安全培訓期限，更令人丈八金剛，懷疑民航處內部溝通是否有問題。

民航處失職之處，並非未有及早介入，而是跟進處理掉以輕心，太過大安旨意。民航處對本地航空公司的監管，側重航空安全，對於營運管理和服務質素要求流於寬鬆。也許有人認為一分錢一分貨，消費者選擇廉航，「食得鹹魚抵得渴」，對航班有較大可能誤點甚至臨時取消，應有心理準備，倘若某間航空公司服務太過不濟，乘客自然會唾棄，云云，可是這並不代表政府就應該放任自流，撒手不管，徒靠業界自律去維護乘客權益。

檢視監管哲學盲點 勿再輕信監管對象

今次快運取消大批航班，與兩個月前興德小學鬧出「影子學生」風波，驟眼看來是風牛馬不相及的兩件事，可是兩者卻折射了相似的監管不力問題﹕涉事機構內部管理混亂無方，雖然監管部門一早察覺不尋常現象，卻輕信涉事機構解釋，沒有認真徹查，直至亂局一發不可收拾，才知問題嚴重。究竟問題出在監管部門官僚心態作祟、跟進核查意識不足，還是囿於「少干預少介入」思維，過度輕信監管對象，值得深思，政府應該好好檢討監管哲學是否存在盲點。

本地航空公司管理出現嚴重問題，導致千計乘客受影響，有損香港國際航空樞紐形象，當局除了着眼航空安全，也應多留意航空公司營運情况，在節日航班高峰期來臨前，更應格外着緊一些。廉航不惜一切節省成本，容易衍生種種流弊，為此歐盟特意收緊條例，加強對航空公司取消航班等罰則，以收阻嚇作用，特區政府可以借鑑參考。快運管理不善嚴重影響服務，政府應徹查是否存在違規行為，更應派員到快運「數人頭」，核查實際人手狀况，不能單靠快運自行處理；倘若情况短期內未見顯著改善，更應考慮牌照問題，保障乘客權益。

HK Express affair exposes authorities' oversight

PRIOR to the National Day Golden Week holiday, HK Express suddenly cancelled 18 flights, leaving thousands of passengers in limbo and ruining their holidays. HK Express promised to give a refund to passengers and its CEO, Andrew Cowen, left the company. But that does not mean that the matter is over. The affair happened in the first place because HK Express's trainers left their posts en masse. The airline was unable to fill their posts in time and provide safety training for pilots and flight attendants. According to related regulations in the law, flight attendants have to receive safety training before they can get onboard and provide services for passengers. As HK Express was unable to have enough manpower, it had no choice but to cancel a large number of flights. The lack of organisation within HK Express's management is on full display. The Civil Aviation Department, which oversees such matters, must also shoulder responsibility.

According to latest information from itself, the Civil Aviation Department first noticed in mid-August that HK Express cancelled the assessment test to be taken by a safety trainer and, deeming the incident unusual, summoned HK Express's management on 17 August for more information, thereby learning that the trainers of the safety training department had left their posts en masse. In mid-September, HK Express submitted a written report, saying that it had come up with a short-term contingency plan. It had filled all the vacancies and relaunched the safety training programme, guaranteeing that flight operations would not be affected. The Civil Aviation Department thought that a promise made in black and white would be honoured, so it gave consent to HK Express's request to extend the safety training period for flight attendants to 13 months. But the HK Express, out of the blue, notified the Department on 28 September that the flights would be cancelled.

What the Civil Aviation Department implies is that HK Express should shoulder all the blame, as the Department never thought that a written promise would be an empty one. It signaled that it had been misled into believing HK Express.

Th Civil Aviation Department neglected its duty not by failing to intervene earlier but by taking a too casual approach and taking everything for granted. Its supervision of local airlines is focused on flight safety, while requirements on operation management and service quality are too lax. Some might say that you get what you pay for, and those who choose budget airlines cannot have the cake and eat it. They should be prepared that their flight might be delayed or cancelled without prior notice, some might argue, adding that if one of the airlines provides services that are not up to standard, it will be shunned by customers. But that does not mean that the government should take a non-interventionist and hands-off approach, hoping that the industry will protect passengers' rights through self-discipline.

The fact that a local airline has run into such a serious problem that has affected thousands of passengers has damaged Hong Kong's reputation as a hub of international air traffic. Apart from aviation safety, the government should also pay attention to the operation situation of airlines, especially before peak holiday seasons. As budget airlines will try every means to save money, problems are likely to happen. For this particular reason the European Union has tightened regulations and imposed harsher punishments on airlines that cancel flights so as to increase the deterrent effects. This the HKSAR government can learn from. The government should conduct a thorough investigation as to whether any irregularities were involved in HK Express's mismanagement. It should dispatch officers to the airline to do a head count in order to verify its exact manpower instead of hoping that HK Express will do this itself. If the situation fails to improve promptly, the government should think about whether to renew HK Express's license in order to safeguard the interests of passengers.

快運誤導非託辭 監管失職現死穴

國慶黃金周前夕，快運突然取消18航班，令千計乘客大失預算，行程泡湯。快運承諾退款，行政總裁安浩思離職，惟並不代表事件就此告一段落。今次事件的起因，是快運安全培訓導師悉數離職，公司未能及時填補空缺，為機師及空服員提供安全培訓。法例規定，空服員必須接受過安全訓練才能登機服務，快運無法湊夠人手，唯有臨時取消大批航班。快運內部管理混亂，在事件中表露無遺；民航處作為監管部門，同樣責無旁貸。

民航處最新資料顯示，處方早在8月中已留意到快運取消一名安全培訓導師評考，認為事態不尋常，同月17日召見快運管理層了解，得悉安全培訓部門導師集體離職。9月中，快運書面匯報，表示已有短期應急方案，公司已填補導師人手空缺，重新展開安全培訓，保證航班運作不受影響。民航處以為白紙黑字可信，還同意快運的要求，批准快運將空服員接受安全培訓的期限，延長至13個月，未料9月28日突然接獲快運通知取消航班。

民航處言下之意，似乎是一切錯在快運，沒有想過書面承諾竟是一紙空文，暗示處方遭到「誤導」，錯信快運。

民航處失職之處，並非未有及早介入，而是跟進處理掉以輕心，太過大安旨意。民航處對本地航空公司的監管，側重航空安全，對於營運管理和服務質素要求流於寬鬆。也許有人認為一分錢一分貨，消費者選擇廉航，「食得鹹魚抵得渴」，對航班有較大可能誤點甚至臨時取消，應有心理準備，倘若某間航空公司服務太過不濟，乘客自然會唾棄，云云，可是這並不代表政府就應該放任自流，撒手不管，徒靠業界自律去維護乘客權益。

本地航空公司管理出現嚴重問題，導致千計乘客受影響，有損香港國際航空樞紐形象，當局除了着眼航空安全，也應多留意航空公司營運情况，在節日航班高峰期來臨前，更應格外着緊一些。廉航不惜一切節省成本，容易衍生種種流弊，為此歐盟特意收緊條例，加強對航空公司取消航班等罰則，以收阻嚇作用，特區政府可以借鑑參考。快運管理不善嚴重影響服務，政府應徹查是否存在違規行為，更應派員到快運「數人頭」，核查實際人手狀况，不能單靠快運自行處理；倘若情况短期內未見顯著改善，更應考慮牌照問題，保障乘客權益。