Regardless of how deadly Covid-19 turns out to be, a pandemic of anxiety has hit the world economy. And the airlines are amongst the first to suffer. The impact is sudden and dramatic.

Last month alone, China cancelled over 85,000 scheduled flights. In the UK, regional airline Flybe ceased operations citing a loss of business due to Covid-19. As this crisis plays out, IATA estimates the cost borne by airlines may reach US$30B.

Meanwhile, Cathay Pacific laid up half its fleet, then slashed its March flight schedule by three-quarters. At the same time, staff are on no-paid leave. 

As airlines react to this situation, they must remain vigilant to evolving threats triggered by events. Often overlooked is the potential harm that disgruntled staff or contractors can cause. With layoffs, no-paid leave and potential loss of earnings, it's possible that a few may seek reprisals. With misplaced anger or ill-intent at play, people can be irrational. Actions can take the form of negligence or deliberate acts of unlawful interference. 

Don't believe me? Last September, Cathay Pacific experienced seven incidents of depleted oxygen bottles on aircraft. In one instance, the suspected sabotage occurred in flight. Two fired staff are now facing a police investigation. 

It's speculated that these instances arose from the anti-government protests. Needless to say, the depleted oxygen bottles are a severe risk to safety. These and other cases caused regulators to raise 'red-flags' with Cathay Pacific. Then you have the mechanic in the US, who tampered with a guidance system to earn overtime pay. 

In the current climate, airlines must acknowledge the insider threat. To that end, existing risk management tools provide an ideal system if well-supported by senior management. Working within the local legal system, and in support of HR policies, managers and supervisors are the first line of defence. To fulfil that role, they must:

• Understand the risks posed by disgruntled insiders;

• Recognise the signs of discontent and indicators of radicalisation;

• Be confident enough to report matters, so that an assessment of risk is possible. 

Annex 17, Recommended Practice 4.1.2 - Each Contracting State should promote the use of random and unpredictable security measures. Unpredictability could contribute to the deterrent effect of security measures. 

How to achieve this? For starters, managers and supervisors need coaching to identify behavioural indicators. A sample list of matter to watch for (not exhaustive) would include:

• Threatening remarks 

• Radical opinions 

• Hints from colleagues that an individual is behaving oddly

• Significant changes in mood or behaviour 

• Enthusiastic interest in security matters beyond the scope of assigned duties

In reviewing previous cases, co-workers did not speak out for many reasons. In some instances, they'd spotted suspicious behaviour but didn't report it. In part, this was due to a lack of guidance or awareness of the issue. Also, cultural factors, including a lack of open communication, contributed to their silence. Junior staff felt unable to raise their concerns, given the management style of the organisation. Misplaced loyalty to a colleague could also be a factor.

The use of anonymous reporting is an option. But, a word of caution. Anonymous reporting is open to abuse. Thus, treat all reports with extreme caution until tangible corroborative evidence is available. 

Of course, fair and open HR policies should steer action as employers will need to prove they operate without discriminating. A blame-free environment, with confidentiality assured, is a must. Then again, a careful balance needs striking. You cannot discount the possibility of people exploiting the system to settle grudges. 

ICAO's Annex 17 standards and recommended practices can help mitigate the insider threat. It's especially important to adopt randomness and unpredictability in security protocols. Because airline staff are well-attuned to security, rote procedures create a risk. 

As airlines face tough times, and for some with their very survival in question, they can ill-afford to ignore the insider threat. While it's unpalatable to believe that staff may engage in acts that risk safety, the evidence suggests the contrary. After all, it only takes one troubled person to do untold damage.