GCCAPCold chain. Clear evidence. Confidence.

30-day evidence series

When catering fails, the airline carries it

Across documented events, operational, regulatory and reputational consequences of catering food safety failure fall on the carrier rather than the caterer.

Back to incident database ›Read anchor articles ›
GCCAP EVIDENCE SERIESDAY 30
GCCAP incident database evidence visual

Incident evidence note

What this public record shows

GCCAP Ground Cold-Chain Assurance Platform Incident Database
← Incident Database
Record GL-29

When catering fails, the airline carries it

Date of recordAnalysis of records in this index
LocationInternational
TypeIndex analysis
Source tierAnalysis of Tier 1 and Tier 2 records catalogued in this database

What the record shows

Across the records catalogued in this index, a consistent pattern appears in who bears the consequence.

In the 1984 outbreak, published analysis describes worldwide operational impact on the airline and states operations could have ceased. In the 1975 outbreak, the airline's response was to change its own crew meal policy. In more recent reporting on suspected crew illness, it is the carrier that reviews arrangements and answers publicly. Where a caterer is subject to a closure order, the airlines it supplied are frequently not named at all.

Evidence gap

The party that bears operational, regulatory and reputational consequence is generally not the party generating the temperature record. Where evidence is held solely by a supplier, the party carrying the risk cannot independently verify it.

This entry is analysis of records catalogued in this index. It asserts no fault against any party.

GCCAP boundary

Evidence support only

GCCAP uses public records to identify evidence gaps in temperature-sensitive food movement. It does not certify food safety, declare legal compliance, assign liability or allege fault.