In 2011, the low-cost carrier Tigerair (used to be called Tiger Airways) was accused of altitude breach. Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) said that the A320 plane “descended to a level below the lowest safe altitude” 1 when it was flying to Melbourne Airport. ATSB final report2 released two years later reveals that the plane was being flown following operational documents which were materially incorrect, increasing the risk of confusion and misunderstanding by flight crews. Consequently, the plane flew over the Leopold housing estates at 400 feet below the safe minimum altitude of 2,000 feet. The main cause was Tigerair inadequate internal safety procedures. The circulation relating to Melbourne airspace structure was incorrect and it was only after this incidence that Tigerair withdrew and revised the documents and implemented additional training programmes for the flight crew.
This incidence questions whether the minimal safety checks by internal safety department is ethical or unethical. Undeniably, any safety breach will affect various stakeholders and Tigerair’s ability to achieve its organizational objectives. However, increasing the level of internal safety procedures might inflate cost and put a pressure on the margin. Tigerair’s vision3 is “to remove as much cost as possible from flying, whilst providing a reliable, convenient and safe travel in the Asia-Pacific Region”. As such, increasing cost might hamper Tigerair’s ability to provide low fare flights to its customers. This then poses an ethical consideration to Tigerair.
1http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/12/18/safety-report-details-breach-that-got-tiger-airways-grounded/
2http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-076.aspx
3(2014)Tiger Airways Holdings Annual Report

The report will first identify who are the affected stakeholders. They include