Air traffic safety requires constant investment and professional staff — that is the position put forward by Šćekić, in remarks reported by Montenegrin outlet vijesti.me, framing safety not as a milestone reached but as a continuous budget line and a continuous staffing problem.

The statement is short, but its two pillars — money and people — map directly onto the two constraints that most often determine safety performance in small European air navigation systems: capital for equipment renewal and the pipeline of licensed controllers, engineers and inspectors.

What does the statement actually commit to?

Little, on its face. Šćekić's formulation, as carried by vijesti.me, is a general principle rather than a program announcement. There is no fleet count, no budget figure, no certification date and no named procurement attached to it in the available reporting.

That absence matters. In aviation oversight, statements about "constant investments" are only verifiable against records: annual capex, equipment replacement cycles, controller licensing throughput, and findings from regulator audits. The published report contains none of these, so the claim sits in the category of aspiration rather than demonstrated performance.

Why the staffing argument carries weight

The professional-staff element of Šćekić's position aligns with a well-documented structural issue across European air traffic management: a licensed controller takes years to train and certify, and a small system cannot absorb attrition quickly.

Montenegro operates a compact airspace with seasonal traffic peaks driven by tourism. In that environment, the loss of even a handful of qualified staff, or a deferral of equipment upgrades, translates into capacity limits and network consequences — flow restrictions, holding delays, and pressure on airlines' schedules during the summer peak.

Šćekić's warning, read in that context, is less a platitude than a statement about resilience margins: systems that stop investing do not fail immediately, they fail at the next traffic surge or the next equipment outage.

What is verifiable and what is not?

Applying the standard test — separating what is certified and operating from what is promised — the report offers:

• Asserted: Safety requires continuous funding and professional personnel, per Šćekić.
• Not evidenced in the report: Specific investment amounts, staffing numbers, training program details, equipment projects or audit outcomes.
• Not addressed: Which institutions the statement concerns — the air navigation services provider, the civil aviation authority, or both.

Readers tracking Montenegrin aviation should treat the statement as a policy signal from a named official, and expect the substantive test — budget allocations and licensing data — to appear in subsequent documentation.

The cost question behind the safety argument

Safety investment arguments in small states almost always carry a second layer: who pays. Air navigation charges fund much of Europe's ATM infrastructure, and providers must balance tariff restraint pressed by airlines and regulators against the capital cycles that surveillance, communication and contingency systems require.

If Šćekić's framing is followed by concrete budget or staffing announcements, the practical benchmarks to watch are training intake, controller certification numbers, and any equipment renewal contracts. Without those, the statement remains a principle — sound, but unmeasured.

What comes next

The likely next step is a fuller account of where Montenegro's safety investment stands: vijesti.me's headline captures the position, but the numbers that would validate it — spending, headcount, audit results — have not yet been published.