TSC Row: Enforce Revenue Remittance, Don’t Drag Unions Into It – Expert

Aviation analyst James Odaudu has weighed in on the escalating debate over airlines’ remittance of statutory charges, arguing that the issue is being misdirected into the turf of trade unions, and that is a mistake.

In an interview, Odaudu said accountability for government revenues is unquestionably necessary. Any airline that collects Ticket Sales Charge (TSC) from passengers and fails to pass it on to the state should face investigation and, where proven, sanctions.

But he drew a sharp line: that does not automatically make non-remittance a legitimate ground for union picketing or industrial action.

“There is nothing wrong with demanding accountability,” Odaudu said. “But the enforcement of statutory revenue remittance is primarily the job of regulators and relevant government institutions, not trade unions.”

He pushed back against what he called a conflation of two separate domains. Trade unions, he stressed, exist to protect members on wages, working conditions, job security, and collective bargaining. Revenue collection is a matter of regulatory compliance, public finance, and enforcement. Those are not the same.

“Investigating non-remittance belongs to the relevant government agency, regulator, tax authority, law enforcement, or court. Not a trade union,” he said.

Odaudu made a pointed distinction: “There is a fundamental difference between saying, ‘This airline’s conduct is affecting our members, and we demand it be corrected,’ and saying, ‘This airline owes government money, therefore our union is entitled to shut down operations until the money is paid.’”

The first falls squarely within industrial relations. The second, he argued, crosses into regulatory enforcement, and that is not a union’s lane.

He acknowledged that strikes are a legitimate tool in democratic societies, but insisted the right is not absolute, especially in aviation, where disruptions can affect public safety and national infrastructure. Citing examples from the UK, France, Germany, the US, and Australia, he noted that even in those jurisdictions, industrial action is subject to procedures, conciliation, notice periods, and sometimes emergency restrictions, especially in safety-critical services.

“Airports are not just commercial workplaces,” Odaudu said. “They are components of national transportation and security infrastructure. Pilots, air traffic controllers, maintenance crews, and security personnel perform functions where a shutdown can have consequences far beyond the immediate employer-employee relationship.”

He warned against framing the debate as a simplistic “workers’ rights versus passengers” face-off. The real challenge, he said, is how to simultaneously protect workers’ rights, passenger safety, and the continuity of critical services.

That said, Odaudu acknowledged that the labour side has a valid grievance: employers must not be allowed to ignore legitimate disputes indefinitely. Any government move to restrict industrial action must not create a one-sided regime where workers face deadlines and penalties while employers remain free to dodge their obligations.

“If the government proposes restrictions, it should not create a regime in which workers are subjected to deadlines and penalties, while employers can ignore legitimate grievances indefinitely,” he concluded.