Airline responses to the HIV/AIDS pandemic have been a mixed bag, with some squeezing through loopholes in disability legislation, while others show leadership and social responsibility

Disability legislation in many countries, including the US, Canada, Australia and South Africa, prohibits discrimination on the basis of HIV/AIDS status, and prohibits pre-employment testing except in exceptional circumstances. While some airlines go one step further in offering comprehensive support to HIV positive employees, others have found reasons to deny employment to those with HIV.

VISIONARY SCHEMES FELL WITH BANKRUPT AIRLINES Two airlines in Brazil broke new ground in the region in relation to employee care and support, but both eventually succumbed to market pressures. The Brazilian national carrier Varig ran a respected prevention and treatment programme, supported by the union Sindicato Nacional dos Aeronautas (SNA), for almost 20 years until economic difficulties culminated in bankruptcy in 2003. Under the scheme, employees and their families had free access to voluntary counselling and testing and comprehensive treatment including antiretroviral therapy. Rosangela Domeico, social assistant for SNA recalls: “Varig’s programme distributed expensive imported medicine to employees with AIDS, as well as to members of the community who could not afford the high prices. The employees had discounts up to 100 per cent, depending on their ability to pay. One member from Santos came to Varig in São Paulo to get medicine that was not available in the public health system. To other people, Varig would not charge the transportation of the medicine from abroad.” Following its latest buyout, the “new Varig” has recently received authorisation to fly, and the details of its labour polcies are still awaited. Up to now the airline’s HIV/AIDS policy has continued to stipulate that employees will not undergo pre-employment testing for HIV, are not required to disclose their status and cannot be dismissed or discriminated against on the grounds of that status. Previously Rosangela Domeico was involved in another radical scheme (implemented by Gaziella Baggio, now president of the SNA), while working for the crew members’ association of the now defunct smaller Vasp airline in Brazil. In this capacity Domeico managed a fund made up of monthly contributions by association members, which offered medicines not available in the public system and even specific treatments for complications brought about by HIV/AIDS. A former crew member from São Paulo, for example, had his dental and eye prosthesis paid for by the programme, which assisted around five people per month who had the virus.

One well known case in South Africa is that of Hoffman v South African Airways in 2000. The airline’s contention that its commercial interests would be threatened if it employed an HIV positive individual as cabin crew was initially upheld by the High Court. Later however this was thrown out by the Constitutional Court, which focused on the rights of South Africa’s large HIV positive minority when it stated:

“We must guard against allowing stereotyping and prejudice to creep in under the guise of commercial interests.”

It also stressed: “The greater interests of society require the recognition of the inherent dignity of every human being, and the elimination of all forms of discrimination.”

More recently, in 2005, a US court ruled that American Airlines may have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it rescinded job offers to three men who had lied about their HIV status on the application form.

The job offers were said to have been withdrawn because the men had lied, not because of their status, and in general American Airlines’ approach to HIV/AIDS policy appears to be well received. However the men contended that the provisions of the Act meant the question on the application was not only inappropriate but illegal. Furthermore, they complained that their blood was tested for HIV during the company medical without their knowledge – a breach of privacy. Following an initial district court ruling in the company’s favour the case was returned on appeal, and the men’s grievances were upheld.