Student’s Name

Professor’s Name

Course

Date

ICAO and Air Traffic Controllers Strike

Strikes in the aviation industry are gradually becoming a common occurrence, and this affects not only the national economy but, employees and businesses alike. The truth is that strikes are inconveniencing, costly and often accompanied by violence. Despite, these challenges proponents for strikes believe that International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) should legalize Air Traffic Controllers to strike during high travel season. They argue that strikes remain an essential weapon that a labor force holds against its employers. Conversely, critics suggest that ICAO should not legalize strikes because they result in financial and production losses as well as affecting consumer confidence. History has indicated that different ways can be used to solve unwelcome domination by employers and do not involve strikes. Consequently, ICAO should not legalize strikes for Air Traffic Controllers during high travel season because the action leads to severe economic consequences, customer inconvenience, tarnished industrial popularity, encourage nationwide habits, and the institution of legal issues.

ICAO should not legalize strikes since these actions affect business activities by paralyzing operations leading to loss of revenue for the government and traders. For Master Problems, industrial strikes lead to negative economic impacts because these actions injure not only the employers but also the general society. The strike of Air Traffic Controllers entails both national economic and non-economic consequences. Proponents for the legalization of strikes claim that industrial actions have no negative implications on the economy (Chansky & Nathan, 7). I am convinced that this claim is not entirely true because strikes in the aviation industry result in business incurring economic losses. Having worked for a logistics company, I realized that the majority of the business operations in any country rely on the services provided by the aviation industry. Industrial strike forces businesses to incur more costs of operations as they resort to making alternative arrangements of transport to sustain the supply chain practices. A lot of money gets wasted on the establishment of new alternatives that guarantee businesses to remain operational despite workers downing their tools. Hence, Air Traffic Controllers should not be allowed to strike during high travel season because their actions result in severe economic consequences.

The legalization of Air Traffic Controllers strikes by ICAO increases the risk of customer inconvenience. After examining productivity in transit, ICAO affirms that strikes negatively affect the general impression a customer has regarding a specific industrial service. However, there is a counter-claim by Pablo who argues that proponents of strikes believe that there is no correlation between industrial actions and customer satisfaction. Using my personal experience, I will illustrate how strikes inconvenience customers. In 2018, while on a trip to France there was a nation-wide strike that paralyzed aviation services. I was due to fly out of the country, but due to the strike, I was forced to spend more days in the country thus incurring more accommodation costs. Strikes by Air Traffic Controllers often result in customers being forced to cancel their flights as a result of the airport disruption. Bad customer experiences are characterized the forceful need to make alternative transport arrangements. Strikes during high season result in customers paying more for alternative means of transport due to the increase in demand. As a consequence, the illegalization of strikes during high season ensures that customers remain happy resulting in the growth of the aviation industry.