The dispute between the national airline’s management and the Society of Aircraft Engineers has escalated into a situation that continues to severely disrupt flight operations and inconvenience passengers. Over the past six days, dozens of flights were cancelled and more than 125 experienced delays, according to airline sources and passenger reports. At the heart of the crisis is an accusation from airline officials that aircraft engineers are actively opposing the government’s proposed privatization of the carrier — an allegation that engineers categorically deny.
Airline management claims that the engineering workforce has been deliberately impeding operations to apply pressure against privatization plans. Management representatives say this has manifested in operational slowdowns and alleged work stoppages that have affected routine maintenance and dispatching of aircraft. These disruptions, the administration argues, jeopardize safety standards, tarnish the carrier’s reputation, and burden travelers with cancelled itineraries and lengthy waits.
The Society of Aircraft Engineers, however, rejects the accusation. In a formal response, the society stated that its members do not oppose privatization. Instead, the engineers assert they are in favor of reforms that strengthen the airline, improve safety, and protect employee rights. The society further claims there has been no attempt to contact them for meaningful negotiations; they say management has neither engaged in discussions nor presented proposals that address engineers’ professional concerns and job security in the event of a sale or restructuring.
Tensions between the two sides date back to an earlier phase of the dispute, when, following disagreements over administrative decisions, the airline dismissed the society’s president and general secretary from their positions. That action inflamed the situation, leading to protests and calls for reinstatement from the engineering community. The dismissals were framed by management as disciplinary measures; engineers and their representatives maintain the actions were politically motivated and retaliatory.
Public reactions have been swift and emotional. Stranded passengers and those affected by delays have urged both sides to prioritize continuity of service and passenger welfare. Travel agents and cargo clients have reported lost business and mounting logistical headaches, while civil aviation authorities have called for calm and a rapid restoration of normal operations. Some independent aviation experts have emphasized that, regardless of the dispute’s political or administrative dimensions, operational safety must never be compromised and that maintenance work should proceed without interference.
Privatization of state-owned carriers is a politically charged topic. Advocates argue that private ownership can inject much-needed capital, professionalism, and market-driven efficiency, enabling the airline to modernize its fleet and service. Critics, however, stress the risks: layoffs, erosion of worker protections, and diminished oversight. The engineering workforce in particular is often wary because aircraft maintenance is a specialized, safety-critical area where institutional memory and skilled personnel are vital. Engineers fear that hurried or ill-planned changes during a privatization process could undercut safety, reduce training standards, or outsource critical functions.
The Society of Aircraft Engineers has outlined a set of demands it believes are essential before any structural change takes place. These include formal guarantees of employment and benefits for current staff, commitments to maintain maintenance standards and training programmes, transparent negotiation channels with the airline and government, and safeguards that prevent cost-cutting measures from endangering flight safety. The society insists that these points are not anti-privatization; they say these are pragmatic conditions to ensure that safety and continuity remain front and centre in any reform.
Government officials, who have been weighing privatization as part of broader fiscal and institutional reforms, are in a delicate position. Privatization could be framed as a solution for fiscal pressure and poor performance, yet it requires careful stakeholder management to prevent labour unrest and operational breakdowns. Observers suggest that any future steps should include mediated talks with unions and professional societies, independent safety audits, and a phased approach to structural changes so that core operational capabilities are never compromised.
For passengers and the general public, the immediate need is operational normalcy. Aviation authorities and the airline’s management must prioritize restoration of the flight schedule and ensure transparent communication for affected travellers — offering rebookings, refunds, and support where required. Simultaneously, opening an honest, well-documented negotiation channel with the Society of Aircraft Engineers could help defuse tensions. Independent third-party mediators or aviation sector experts might facilitate discussions to reconcile the management’s reform objectives with employees’ safety and job-security concerns.
