Safair sues SAA Technical for R21m after aircraft collision at OR Tambo

Safair has launched a R21m damages claim against SAA Technical over a bizarre aircraft collision at OR Tambo International Airport that left one of its Boeing 737-800s grounded and the airline facing millions of rand in lost profits.

The dispute stems from an incident on November 11 2022 involving an Airbus A320 which allegedly broke free from the tug vehicle while it was being towed by SAA Technical employees, and veered from its towing path, colliding with the Safair aircraft which was parked in its bay.

The summons, lodged in the Johannesburg high court on September 2, identifies Y Rocker as the employee operating the tug and L Gumede as the employee in the cockpit of the Airbus, where he was “riding brakes”.

According to Safair’s version, Rocker managed to move the tug out of the path of the Airbus after the shear pin broke and attempted to get Gumede’s attention.

“Gumede failed to notice or respond to Rocker’s attempts and only became aware that something was wrong after the A320 collided with the 737-800.”

The impact caused physical damage to the Boeing and it had to be taken out of commercial service while repairs were carried out.

The airline’s case is that the incident was not simply an unavoidable mechanical mishap, but that Gumede failed to take a series of precautions that a reasonable person in his position would have taken.

Safair alleges that he failed to maintain a proper lookout for nearby aircraft, failed to remain alert to the progress of the tow and the possibility that the tug could lose control of the Airbus, and failed to maintain communication with the employee operating the tug.

“Gumede failed to notice, or respond to, Rocker’s attempts to attract his attention after the shear pin sheared off, keep proper control of the A320; and/or apply the A320’s brakes, either timeously or at all.”

Safair alleges that the Boeing’s absence from its fleet during the repair period disrupted flights that had already been scheduled for December 2022.

It says the aircraft would have been used on domestic flights between December 1 and December 22, but its unavailability forced the airline to cancel planned flights and the corresponding reserved or intended airport slots.

The airline has calculated the resulting loss of profit at R21.1m.

Its claim breaks down the alleged lost opportunity into 132 flight sectors over the December period, based on an assumption that the Boeing would have flown six sectors a day.

Gumede, as an employee of SAA Technical, owed a duty of care to Safair to avoid causing physical damage to nearby stationary Safair aircraft while towing SAA aircraft during the course and scope of his employment.

—  Safair

The aircraft had a capacity of 189 passengers per sector, giving Safair a potential 24,948 seats across the 132 sectors.

Safair says it would have sold an estimated 24,070 of those seats based on its actual average load factors for the period.

The airline is holding SAA Technical responsible for the alleged negligence of its employees.

“Gumede, as an employee of SAA Technical, owed a duty of care to Safair to avoid causing physical damage to nearby stationary Safair aircraft while towing SAA aircraft during the course and scope of his employment.”

It said Gumede foresaw, or ought reasonably to have foreseen, that his conduct or alternatively omissions would cause the collision, physical damage to the 737-800 and Safair’s consequential loss of profit.

The airline is asking the high court to order SAA Technical to pay the R21m damages claim, together with interest and legal costs.

But despite taking the matter to court, Safair has indicated that it remains open to resolving the dispute without a trial.

In its Rule 41A notice, filed alongside the summons, Safair said it believed the matter could be settled through mediation. This follows earlier settlement discussions between the parties, which failed to produce an agreement.

SAA Technical had not pleaded to Safair’s action when the mediation notice was filed, meaning the issues in dispute had not yet been crystallised in its formal response.

SAA Technical will have an opportunity to respond to the allegations in its plea.