Now that I have recovered from my disbelief at what HIAL and Loganair seem to have done I will elaborate a bit on my concerns about what my expectations are as a paying passenger on a UK regulated flight.
When I go to a UK airport to catch a UK operated flight I expect safety and professionalism from the moment I enter the departure terminal until the moment I leave arrivals at my destination. I expect CAA, UK, European and ICAO laws and regulations to be adhered to. Many of these regulations and laws have originated from the lessons learned from past incidents and accidents. They are born in the main of wisdom not bureaucracy. What I don't expect are spur of the moment decisions that bypass these laws and regulations. I am sure that the passengers that flew from Kirkwall to Edinburgh last Friday evening expected the same application of regulations and laws regarding their flight. I know no more about what happened now then I did when I made my previous post. What was done may well turn out to be acceptable to the authorities within some interpretation of the previously mentioned rules and regulations but right now it looks wrong and I am worried. HIAL operate the airports in the Highlands and Islands and Loganair operate almost all the flights. If I want to fly I have to use them or travel by land and sea to central Scotland and fly from there. I want to know that they can be trusted.
LookingForAJob, I thank you for joining in the discussion. I posted on PPrune to seek views and enter debate. If I may, I would like to comment on your post. You said:
[QUOTE]As for whether it is safe - well, it appears that the aircraft got away without incident or issue. /QUOTE]
True as far as it goes. I am sure that the pilot who flew Emiliano Sala on his last flight thought that what he was doing was safe. I am sure that the crew of LaMia Flight 2933 who flew the Chapecoense football team on their last flight thought that what they were doing was safe. The holes in the cheese lined up and tragedy followed. There are lengthy threads on PPrune proving that their thought processes were flawed. Their passengers trusted them to operate safely within the rules and they were fatally let down.
[QUOTE]The UK traditionally has also rather over-engineered some aspects of ATS provision (although the rest of Europe is catching up fast) making it a very expensive service to provide - this might encourage alternatives to ATC to be investigated or used./QUOTE]
An Airport Fire Service is a very expensive service to provide. I have seen a Transport Scotland study document that seems to think that some Scottish airports could do without an Airport Fire Service as "no passenger had been killed in an accident at any Scottish airport or airfield since the Second World War". I am sure that legal and alternative measures could be found by some accountant to do without them.
Airport Security is a very expensive service to provide. Using the above logic, as no passenger has been killed by terrorism at a Scottish airport should we get rid of or downgrade security too?
ATC, Security and Airport Fire Services have developed into what they are today because of lessons learned in the past that have now been forgotten. They are expensive but they are necessary.
All of the above is off topic in regard to the original thread topic which is about the HIAL industrial dispute. Did the fact that Kirkwall ATC would not extend it's normal operating hours due to the industrial dispute lead to some sort mania that ended with a passenger aircraft departing from a closed airfield?
Who knows?