No smoke without fire - SAS vs. Bombardier

Why couldn't SAS consider the possibility that the recent accidents may have been a result of sabotage?

I confess that I have never felt at ease flying on a Dash aeroplane. I prefer larger aircraft, and have therefore always planned my trips to ensure that I always end up on a somewhat (to me anyway) sturdier one. I simply cannot bear the thought of having to travel on a propeller aircraft.

When the news of the first accident with a SAS-operated Dash aircraft was reported, I imagined that it was just that - an accident - and that the investigators would discover the reason for the crash soon enough. Thankfully, no-one was hurt. But when this was followed by a spate of similar accidents, apparently after years of silence on the security of these aeroplanes - it was the first time I (and undoubtedly many others) was hearing that SAS had always had problems with Dash aircraft - that I thought that it could very be the case that a disgruntled employee in the maintenance workshop lay behind the crashes, i.e., that they could be the result of sabotage. It raises the question: why had SAS remained silent about previous incidents regarding the aircraft?

Instead, they found it more suitable to publicly accuse the manufacturer of the aircraft (Bombardier) without having first investigated the obvious - who had had access to the aircraft and how well had these been maintained? Isn't this the standard practice in the airline industry? Other airlines conduct such investigations almost as a reflex action, and have done so long before "terrorism" became widespread. The American airline companies, which are always anxious to keep their customers and stave off competition, seldom take anything for granted. Furthermore, they are aware that it would cost them dearly, should they accuse a manufacturer of delivering a faulty product, only for it to be revealed that it was their own employees who hade been at fault.

But no. The management of SAS has apparently ruled out such a scenario as impossible from the very beginning, since they labour the strange impression that the company, which has been hit by numerous staff conflicts in recent years, could never, ever, be a victim of carelessness or deliberate sabotage, much more at the hands of one of its own employees. This is an incredibly stupid attitude to take. Like many other companies in Sweden, self-righteousness will be the death of their organisation.

"This is a very un-Scandinavian behaviour that they are adopting in a bid to get rid of us," says SAS' spokesman Bertil Ternert to di.se. What did I say? What on earth does he mean by un-Scandinavian behaviour??? As if Scandinavians would never dream of behaving in exactly the same manner. Self-righteousness - it is never far from the surface in Scandinavia.

But Bombardier is now hitting back. So far, they had been content to wait until the Danish Accident Investigation Board had completed its investigation, while SAS occupied the airwaves through leaked reports and accusations. And the Swedish media has been complicit in the creation of the imbalance, since they have not exactly been impartial in their reporting. Not a single one of the media houses have raised the idea that the accidents might actually have been a result of negligence or sabotage. Bombardier has apparently had enough, and is hitting back by claiming that the fault lies with SAS' technicians. Nonetheless, the matter is far from over. It will therefore be interesting to see how things develop in the coming weeks.

Sources: Financial Post, International Herald Tribune, Aftenposten, DN, DN, DN, DN, DN, DN, SVD, SVD, GP, SVD, SVD