Flight International magazine makes an interesting comment about regulation and safety.  “Regulation does not produce safety; it just sets boundaries for legally acceptable operating practices.  It is an acknowledgement for care but it is not the care provider.  The airline is.”  This is, of course very profound. 

In the article entitled “Virtual Safety” the author talks about what he or she calls virtual airlines.  In the Australian regulatory parlance, this is similar to an interposed entity.  Often the virtual carrier or interposed entity may be nothing more than a ticket agency that purchases all of the aircraft seating capacity and then, on-sells the seats to individual consumers. 

In 2011, a smaller airline in the UK called Manx2 allegedly sold tickets for another carrier which eventually crashed a Metro liner and killed six passengers.  Most of the passengers probably assumed that the responsible carrier was Manx2 who allegedly denied any liability to the passengers.  We have seen similar events in Australia where interposed entities (mostly for general aviation) sell seats to consumers who do not fully understand or have the ability to make reasonable enquiries about the actual air operator.

The article concludes by stating that good airline safety is caused by unbroken lines of responsibility and control, a corporate safety ethos and proper procedures.  I think that this statement can be improved by adding, “And the consumer of aviation services has the ability to make reasonable enquiry about the actual carrier and make judgements about them and their level of acceptable risk.” 

I make no bones about it.  I do not like the concept of interposed entities (however called); never have.  I also do not believe that this issue is unsolvable by regulators, and I strongly believe that efforts should be made to eliminate this currently legal concept from our aviation operating environment.