Asia Pacific Airlines, a cargo carrier headquartered in Guam, has been ordered to pay over $2 million in compensation after a pilot was found to have been wrongfully terminated for raising safety concerns. The decision follows a three-year investigation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which revealed systemic issues in the airline’s maintenance protocols and retaliation against the whistleblowing pilot.
The Case and OSHA’s Findings
The controversy began when Captain Brant Swigart flagged concerns regarding improper maintenance practices. Swigart alleged that the airline’s team routinely approved aircraft repair reports without correctly diagnosing engine issues. This led to unresolved engine malfunctions, posing significant safety risks. Swigart further reported a specific incident where he refused to operate a Boeing 757-200 cargo plane due to engine reliability concerns.
OSHA’s investigation concluded that the termination of Swigart was directly tied to his repeated reporting of safety violations. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) supported Swigart’s claims, stating that improper troubleshooting methods prevented the identification and resolution of critical engine problems.
In a strongly worded statement, OSHA Assistant Regional Administrator Ryan Himes criticised the airline, stating:
“Asia Pacific Airlines has shown an unacceptable and potentially catastrophic disregard for safety and shamefully viewed pilots’ safety concerns as employee conflicts.”
The airline was ordered to pay Swigart $419,267 in back pay, eight years of future wages, $27,596 in loan interest, $75,000 for emotional damages, and attorney fees. Additionally, the company must expunge his termination from his employment record and train its staff on whistleblower protections under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR21).
Asia Pacific Airlines’ Rebuttal
Asia Pacific Airlines disputes the ruling, claiming Swigart’s termination was unrelated to his safety concerns. Instead, they argue it stemmed from a 2021 incident at Honolulu’s Daniel K. Inouye International Airport (HNL), where Swigart admitted to prematurely powering up a plane’s engines while ground crews were in close proximity. The airline has labelled this as a severe breach of safety protocols.
In a statement, the airline remarked:
“Asia Pacific Airlines strongly disagrees with these findings, which inexplicably ignore significant evidence, including sworn statements of material witnesses.”
The company plans to appeal the decision to the Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law Judges.
Why This Matter
This case highlights the ongoing tension between operational safety and corporate accountability in aviation. Asia Pacific Airlines, which operates a fleet of Boeing 757 freighters across the Pacific, has faced regulatory scrutiny before. Earlier this year, the FAA grounded the airline over pilot training concerns, underscoring recurring safety issues within its operations.
For the aviation industry, this case serves as a reminder of the critical role whistleblower protections play in safeguarding flight safety. Regulatory bodies like OSHA and the FAA are vital in ensuring that safety concerns raised by employees are addressed without fear of retaliation.
Conclusion
While Asia Pacific Airlines continues to defend its position, the case sets a precedent in enforcing whistleblower protections under AIR21. For travellers and the broader aviation industry, the ruling reinforces the importance of transparency and accountability in maintaining safety standards. Whether the airline’s appeal will succeed remains uncertain, but the case underscores the need for rigorous adherence to maintenance and safety protocols in an industry where lives are on the line.
