Poverty of leadership

Barely a couple of years ago, a portion of the asphalt overlay peeled off the airport runway at Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), causing its immediate closure for about 10 hours to allow for repairs. Over 25 flights were diverted to Clark International Airport but that seemed to be what was left of the plan. At Clark, passengers were held for hours and could not disembark, and when they did, buses and vans that would shuttle them back to NAIA were slow to arrive, to say the least.

If there were lessons learned two years ago, it would be about how unready our airports were when it came to business continuity. These lessons did not seem enough to be of help on a similar situation of another emergency closure of a NAIA runway yet again, more than two weeks ago – although not because of chipped asphalt, but due to an airplane that crashed and lost its wheels.

Thousands of passengers were stranded and left clueless; then, later on, were made to fend for themselves. Not a few asked for meals and lodgings but none were offered by airlines to make amends because the serious delay was not their fault. Not this time. It was Xiamen Airlines’ fault, most likely. But how much of the suffering was caused by Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA)? Xiamen Air would be made liable to pay MIAA for actual damages and costs of about P30 million, as reported. But for all the prolonged suffering, what of it can be blamed on MIAA and theoretically claimed as damages by those who suffered, airlines and individuals alike?

For academic discussion, let me state that government cannot be sued without its consent. MIAA is a government agency, but it has given its consent to be sued based on its Charter as it legally assumed the personality of a regular corporation. There are a number of precedents, and one of which involves the airport itself.

In this case, an individual, who was part of the welcoming party for his future son-in-law, tripped on uneven and unrepaired flooring of the open terrace at the terminal. He fell down and broke his thighbone. The court allowed the suit against the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA, now MIAA) and awarded actual damages for medical expenses, moral damages for his suffering, and exemplary damages for CAA’s “notorious negligence” for knowing that something was wrong with the terrace flooring but for years did not do anything about it.

There is no issue that airports can be sued for gross negligence. Is it gross negligence though for the airport to have an insufficient business continuity plan (BCP)? A BCP is no longer best practice; it’s a must-have. An airport’s BCP should answer, among others, the following questions:

1. What is the airport’s role when these unexpected events happen?
2. How should rescue operations of the passengers on the plane that crashed be efficiently conducted?
3. How should the airport take care of and manage passengers who are waiting for their flights, or how should the airport help them get to nearby hotels and lodgings?
4. How should their baggage be handled, considering that the plane did not take off?
5. PwC’s integrity best practices: Building trust in society

Which government agencies should immediately respond?

All these, of course, are important because even a very helpful and operational second airport does not solve the problems of people trapped in the first airport.

Now I am not saying this because I want MIAA to be sued. We certainly do not want it debilitated with civil liabilities. But we do want it to improve.

My first stop would be the composition of the board of directors, which were specified by law – or more specifically, Executive Order 903 – as follows: the board consists of the minister of transportation and communications who shall be the ex-officio chairman of the board; the general manager of the authority who shall be the ex-officio vice chairman of the board; and the minister of finance, the minister of tourism, the presidential executive assistant, the chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and the commissioner of immigration and deportation shall be ex-officio members.

You may have observed that none of the board members were placed there by law particularly for their expertise on how to run a world-class international airport, which is the very mandate of the MIAA under the law. Since MIAA has the powers and thus the obligations like a regular corporation, it should have sufficient independent directors chosen for their expertise in international airport operations, including looking after its stakeholders during crisis situations.

With all due respect, you can’t blame the board members if they are there although they are not airport experts – they are simply compelled by the law to be there. I guess if you can point out a fault, it may be along the lines of them not hiring the right resources with international airport operations experience to be part of the management team, or at the very least, international consultants with expertise in crafting airport BCPs.

We are a country with a deep pool of natural resources that tries to tap tourism and inclusive business for poverty alleviation. In the eyes of the world though, despite our economic gains, our image will continue to be impoverished. This is so, for as long as our international gateways of first and last impressions suffer from a debilitating poverty – a poverty of leadership.