By FRED CHUKWUELOBE
The recent operational statistics released by the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA), indicating that more than 60 per cent of domestic flights were either delayed or cancelled, understandably generated concern among the traveling public.
The report identified Air Peace and United Nigeria Airlines as recording the highest number of delays and cancellations during the period under review. But this is hardly surprising. The two airlines operate among the highest number of domestic flights in the country and, by sheer volume of operations, will naturally record a significant number of delays when disruptions occur.
To many passengers, the conclusion appears straightforward: the airlines must be failing in their obligations. However, a closer examination of the realities of airline operations in Nigeria reveals a considerably more complex picture.
Airlines must, of course, take responsibility for issues within their control. But a significant proportion of flight disruptions arise from systemic challenges and external factors over which individual carriers have little or no control.
Notably, the NCAA figures focused largely on delays and cancellations without providing sufficient corresponding context on passenger loads, airport congestion, weather disruptions, navigational limitations, bird strikes, security-related restrictions and other infrastructure challenges that routinely affect flight operations.
Several recurring factors account for a substantial proportion of the disruptions experienced by domestic airlines.
APRON CONGESTION
One of the major challenges confronting airline operations in Nigeria is inadequate apron capacity at major airports, particularly Lagos and Abuja.
An aircraft may have completed boarding and be fully ready for departure, yet remain unable to push back because another aircraft is occupying a critical position or movement around the apron is restricted. The aircraft must wait until clearance is obtained.
A delay of 30 minutes on one sector can trigger a chain reaction across an airline’s network, affecting several subsequent flights. When such delays extend into the evening, airlines may be forced to cancel later flights, particularly when crew duty-time limitations are exceeded or destination airports do not have adequate night-landing facilities.
POOR NAVIGATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Nigeria’s aviation infrastructure also remains inadequate for the demands of modern air transport.
Some airports lack fully functional Instrument Landing Systems (ILS), while others have equipment that does not adequately support operations during low-visibility conditions. Consequently, pilots may be unable to land or depart safely during adverse weather, even when similar operations would continue in countries with more advanced navigational infrastructure.
In many developed aviation environments, aircraft can operate under significantly lower visibility minima. In Nigeria, visibility below prescribed limits - sometimes between 2,000 and 3,000 metres, depending on the airport and prevailing conditions - can result in aircraft holding, diverting to alternate airports or returning to base.
The resulting delays and cancellations are subsequently reflected in airline performance statistics, even when their immediate cause is inadequate airport infrastructure.
BIRD STRIKES
Bird strikes remain a major operational hazard worldwide, but the problem is particularly acute at some Nigerian airports.
Airports surrounded by vegetation, wetlands, open drainage and refuse dumps can attract large concentrations of birds. When birds collide with aircraft, particularly engines, the consequences can range from costly repairs to the prolonged grounding of an aircraft.
Nigerian airlines experience numerous bird-strike incidents annually. Every aircraft withdrawn from service because of such damage inevitably disrupts schedules and contributes to delays and cancellations.
VIP MOVEMENTS
Security protocols surrounding the movement of the President, Vice President and other high-ranking officials can also require temporary restrictions on airport operations and airspace.
During such periods, arriving aircraft may be placed in holding patterns while departing flights remain on the ground awaiting clearance. The disruption can extend well beyond the duration of the VIP movement itself, creating a ripple effect across an airline’s schedule.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
Aircraft are sophisticated machines operating under some of the most stringent safety regulations in the world.
Technical defects can occur unexpectedly despite rigorous maintenance programmes. When a potentially serious fault is detected, a responsible airline has only one option: ground the aircraft until the defect is properly rectified.
Passengers may understandably regard this as an operational failure. But the reality is that safety must take precedence over schedule integrity. No responsible airline should be expected to operate an aircraft that does not meet airworthiness requirements simply to avoid a delay or cancellation.
FOREIGN OBJECT DEBRIS
Foreign Object Debris (FOD) on runways, taxiways and aprons is another potential source of disruption.
Loose metal objects, stones, tyre fragments and other debris can damage aircraft engines, tyres and landing gear. Routine runway inspections and the prompt removal of such hazards are therefore essential to safe operations.
When FOD-related incidents occur, aircraft may have to be delayed, grounded or subjected to additional inspections. Again, the consequences appear in an airline’s delay statistics, even though the originating cause may lie elsewhere.
THE MISSING CONTEXT IN THE NCAA REPORT
Against this backdrop, the NCAA’s publication of delay and cancellation figures deserves closer scrutiny.
According to the authority’s report, Air Peace operated 1,864 flights in August, with 1,330 delayed and 666 cancelled. However, figures obtained from the airline indicate that it operated 2,564 flights during the same period.
The airline further stated that internal operational issues accounted for 391 delays, while external factors beyond its control accounted for 1,257.
The disparity between the NCAA figures and the airline’s own operational records raises legitimate questions about methodology, classification and context.
Even within the category of internal delays, some disruptions may have resulted from circumstances such as bird strikes, ground-operation incidents, infrastructure constraints or other events that cannot simply be reduced to managerial incompetence.
This raises important questions.
Why was August selected for publication when airline operations during the month were affected by industrial actions, bird-strike incidents, aircraft damage arising from ground operations and other extraordinary disruptions?
Why were first-quarter statistics not released with similar prominence? And why have reports for some preceding months not received comparable public attention?
These questions are not intended to absolve airlines of responsibility where they are genuinely at fault. Airlines must be held accountable for poor scheduling, inadequate operational planning, avoidable technical failures and other deficiencies within their control.
But accountability must be based on accurate data and proper context.
A delay is not necessarily evidence of airline incompetence, just as a cancellation is not automatically proof of managerial failure. The critical question is why the flight was delayed or cancelled.
That distinction is important because aviation is an interconnected system. Airlines, airports, air traffic management, security agencies, meteorological services, ground handlers and regulators all contribute to the efficiency—or otherwise—of the travelling experience.
Civil aviation thrives when regulators and operators work together to advance safety, efficiency and growth. Around the world, aviation authorities combine strict regulatory oversight with efforts to facilitate the development of the industry.
Publicly releasing statistics without adequately explaining the underlying causes, therefore, risks creating an incomplete or misleading narrative and could unnecessarily undermine public confidence in an industry that remains vital to Nigeria’s economic development.
The Federal Government has demonstrated a commitment to improving airport infrastructure and expanding the country’s aviation capacity. The NCAA, as the industry’s chief regulator, should complement these efforts by not only measuring airline performance but also identifying and addressing the systemic challenges that contribute to operational disruptions.
The objective should not be to apportion blame for every delay or cancellation. It should be to identify deficiencies, determine responsibility where it genuinely exists, improve infrastructure, strengthen safety systems and create an operating environment in which Nigerian airlines can function more efficiently.
Ultimately, the travelling public does not merely need statistics. It needs reliable aviation services—and a regulator committed to explaining honestly why those services sometimes fall short.
Only by confronting the real causes of disruption, rather than reducing every delay to an airline failure, can Nigeria build an aviation sector capable of delivering the dependable air transport service its citizens deserve.
~Chukwuelobe, journalist and public affairs analyst, writes from Lagos.
0 comments:
Post a Comment