There are clears facts here. First, CareFree Jet focuses on cutting costs and maximizing profits and is, as part of this goal, using Ace (underpaid and used as the manager deems fit). Second, CareFree Jet’s emphasis on profits is putting at risk the lives of passengers (such as mechanical problems to the planes.
This raises an ethical issue. Ace, aware of the situation, is divided between his civic duties (as a pilot) to report the matter to concerned authorities and just go on an act like nothing is wrong, considering his private plans and financial needs (which might be affected if he reports the matter as whistleblowers are sometime opt to)
Simple ethics would dictate that Ace has to do the right thing. Indeed, Ace carries the lives of many people in his hands: the passengers, the crew and even himself. First, the plane he flies, at least once, showed signs that it was unfit to lift off the hub. Second, he has been made to fly when he is too exhausted and should not be flying. All these are putting the lives of the passengers, his own and that of the crew at risk. By extension, he is responsible for the lives of other people too, those related to the people in the plane when he flies.
In this regard, Ace as a pilot (the Captain of the ship) has the obligation to get his passengers and crew home safe. The mechanical problem to the plane and him working when he is too exhausted (and therefore unfit) to fly are undermining that obligation. The right thing, therefore, would be to report the matter to the concerned authority.
The utilitarian perspective dictates that Ace should do what brings most pleasure to most people. But this is where the problem lies. On one hand, there are the passengers and crew. On the other, there are those who work for CareFree Jet (people Ace probably knows in person), who might be affected if the company should be negatively affected because of his reporting. Moreover, considering Ace’s situation, he really needs the money and problems that may arise after his reporting might hurt responsibilities at a time when his family needs him most, especially with the new baby coming. It is easy to say one should sacrifice the self for the greater good, but it is completely something else to actually do it.
In conclusion, here are the two possible outcomes whatever Ace decides. If he fails to report, one day an accident occurs and all that Ace fears still happen: passengers and crew die; investigations find out the truth about what has been happening and CareFree Jet and even Ace still face the same legal consequences they would if he reported. In fact, if he is the one flying when the accident occurs, he dies and his family snow faces a worse situation than if he reported because then there is hope he might still get work elsewhere. If I were Ace, I would report the matter. It is his obligation, it brings pleasure to many, even to him and his family.
Isaac was right to refuse to dispatch the two flights, the one to Portland and Susie’s flight. He whistle-blew on Northeast and the actions of some of its pilots. He gets persecuted by both the Northeast management and his fellow workers for what he actions. Ultimately, he is fired for it.
The issue here is an ethical dilemma. Isaac faced a difficult choice between reporting what would have risked the lives of other people (such as passengers and crew) and not reporting because his fellow workers would like him best. He reported to the Boston ARTCC. This was the case with Susie Sausage’s plane.
In the first case, Isaac overreacted. True, he had an obligation to do the right thing, in this case stop a flight that would obviously place the lives of others at risk. However, calling the Boston ARTCC before speaking to someone of higher rank was a sign of disrespect to the management. It reflected on the organization the wrong way, something that could have been avoided by dialogue. In the second case, Isaac again could have discussed the matter with Susie and arrived at an amicable solution. If not, then again he could have gone to someone at a higher rank and had the problem solved appropriately.
Isaac did meet his ethical obligations. However, what we see is the case of workplace unity. Robert Lavender refers to pilot unity. Borrowing this premise on this matter, Isaac displayed a lack of crisis unity skills with his workmates. Crisis unity involves disparate parties perceiving a common threat and acting in unison to resist it. This calls for keeping things in-house and only reaching outwards when internal actions fail to provide a solution. It is, therefore, understandable that Isaac received the reception that he did after the two incidences.
In conclusion, though, Northeast Airlines’ treatment of Isaac is unethical. It is simple victimization of Isaac for whistleblowing. Filing the case under the FAA Whistleblower Protection Program is the right move. Isaac did not breach any explicit company policies. On that note, according to Air 21, no air carrier may discharge or discriminate against an employee for providing information regarding safety as is the case for Isaac. However, Isaac must prove that Northeast dismissed him for whistleblowing, which might not be easy considering that his dismissal is not explicitly tied to his whistleblowing. However, that his problems started after his whistleblowing ties the dismissal to it. The biggest obstacle to Isaac’s case is that he filed the complaint four months after his dismissal, which is about 30 days past the complaint reporting period (of 90 days). That might just bring the whole case down.
Flora’s Podunk is broke in the bad economy. Yet, the planes must still be serviced. That means Flora is under pressure to deliver against all odds. Mexican Wrench Turner’s cheap offer sounds good to pass on.
However, this deal raises a number of issues that may affect various stakeholders: Flora and Podunk Air (wanting an affordable deal), Mexican Wrench Turners (wanting money) and the customers of Podunk Airline (who want safe travel), among others indirectly affected.
Economically, the advantage for Flora and Podunk is that they get a cheap deal when they need it most. However, the risk is potentially bigger than the advantage. First, because of language issues, Flora does not understand the terms of the deal. That means Flora has no idea what happens if the repairs do not go well and whether Mexican Wrench Turner will be liable in case problems arise that are related to the deal and other such terms. Secondly, the deal seems to be oral rather than written. That means there is lack of legal evidence of a deal or even terms that can be referenced when needed in the future. Flora’s potential dependence on her Human Factors and Psychology knowledge to make meaning of what the person on the other side is saying is not dependable as such gestures have different meanings in different cultures. If the service is poor then it poses safety issues for the customers and ultimately for the company, which means Podunk risks losing financially (both out of the deal and the ultimate of customers).
The non-punitive stance of ASAP and the compliance and regulatory requirements of FAA seem to be in conflict, especially considering that the latter call for stiffer penalties. Ultimately, though, the two standards are aimed towards ensuring safety in the aviation industry. In the past, pilots have been reluctant to report incident for fear of FAA’s stiffer penalties, considering the FAA does not make the distinction between honest professional mistakes and deliberate wrongdoing.
Finding a balance between ASAP and FAA does not mean the former replaces the latter. Rather, ASAP facilities processes that can help avoid risks of safety (such as encouraging reporting to incidents with promise to protect those who report them against risks of unwarranted persecution by the FAA). FAA only does its job where ASAP finds evidence of deliberate wrongdoing. Of course, finding that balance will not be easy. Still, both ASAP and FAA are necessary in this case.
