The future of Go First pilots can’t be risked. They deserve a fair deal

Even as Go First may be optimistic about resuming flights in the near future, can pilots be equally optimistic about it? (File image)

The Go First pilots, who have tendered their resignation in the aftermath of the airline approaching the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for voluntary insolvency, want the airline to give them the requisite no-objection certificate to enable them to join another airline. As the airline has refused to comply with the request, the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) has intervened and escalated the issue. In a communication to the civil aviation minister, the FIP has demanded that Go First should be directed to issue the no-objection certificate.

How legitimate is the demand and what is the regulation on the subject

Airline’s Compulsions

It may appear to some that an airline is justified in withholding the no-objection certificate because it can’t afford to lose pilots, who they will need once the operations are resumed. But is the issue involved that simple? It was about a decade or so ago that the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) had introduced the requirement for a no-objection certificate from the incumbent airline after it was observed that pilots were submitting resignations in quest of greener pastures with other airlines. To a person not vested with the responsibility of managing an airline, the regulation may appear as absurd. The argument being that why should a pilot be denied the freedom to quit if he is financially compensating the airline for the mandatory notice period?

In normal circumstances, one can unhesitatingly aver that it’s a right and justified argument. But this would be if viewed only from the pilot’s perspective. Will that be legitimate?

There is another perspective. That of the concerned airline, which also can’t be ignored. If it’s a question of only a couple of pilots submitting resignations, there should logically be no issue. But visualise a scenario where several pilots quit almost simultaneously. The airline witnessing the exodus would see its flight schedule disrupted, leading to the cancellation of flights and consequent inconvenience to the travelling public. Since it would impair flight schedule integrity, it would also harm the airline’s image and standing with the travelling public in the long run. Can the spirit with which the regulation was formulated be faulted? No! The question to be asked is whether the spirit with which the regulation was introduced is applicable in the case of Go First pilots. Certainly not. Go First does not face the likelihood of its flight schedule being disrupted since it has already suspended its operations.

Livelihood Issues

Even as Go First may be optimistic about resuming flights in the near future, can pilots be equally optimistic about it? No! The past trend does not suggest that an airline which has suspended flights has got back into business. This glaring reality can’t be lost sight of. The issue, therefore, needs to be viewed from the affected pilots’ perspective. Should they run the risk of getting unemployed, if the airline fails to resume operations in the near future? No, again! The pilots’ request for a no-objection certificate needs sympathetic consideration. Pilots of a beleaguered airline, facing likely closure – howsoever optimistic may be the promoters – must be allowed to quit with a no-objection certificate to enable them to join another airline.

Go First ought to view the pilots' request from a different standpoint since they are not deserting the airline for greener pastures but for securing their livelihood. The difference is so obvious that it obviates the need for any debate. However, if Go First management is confident and sanguine about its revival, it needs to affirm the same with some financial guarantees. Pilots certainly can’t be expected to link their future with the airline’s uncertain fate because there are numerous imponderables involved in the path to revival.

Similar is the case with NCLT’s order which prohibits lessors from repossessing the aircraft. The leasing companies are in the business of renting out aircraft on payment and if the payment is not assured, can they keep the aircraft on the ground and lose financially? Well, one hopes National Company Law Appellate Tribunal will deal with the issue satisfactorily when it delivers its judgement next week.

Jitender Bhargava is former executive director, Air India & author of The Descent of Air India. Views are personal and do not represent the stand of this publication.