Sometimes air travel is difficult to understand. Some thunderous practices or announcements
generate misunderstandings, at least as far as I am concerned. Here are a few examples.

The price of the planes
Recently, following his visit to the Middle East, he and Donald Trump’s team may have announced a
massive order for Boeing aircraft from Qatar: 160 long-haul aircraft divided between B787
Dreamliner’s and the latest B777X for a total of 200 billion dollars. I accept that the price of planes
has risen enormously recently, but I don’t see how we can reach such amounts. Let’s take the largest
aircraft, the B777X with 400 to 430 seats depending on the version, the price displayed, before
discounts, is 440 million dollars. This is a far cry from the $1.250 billion average cost of the devices
displayed by the White House press releases. In fact, we would be closer to a total of $120 billion if
we count the letters of intent for half of the number of aircraft announced. Why these
announcements that are not based on any economic reality?

This is all the more curious since Boeing is still unable to predict the date of the first deliveries of the
B777X for the good reason that the aircraft is not yet certified. I am always amazed at the effects of
announcements during which astronomical sums are lined up at leisure, no doubt to make more of
an impact than those of the competitors. In the end, no one really knows the true selling price of the
devices, even approximately. For this to happen, the accounts of manufacturers and buyers, whether
airlines or leasing companies, would have to be a little more detailed. But apparently, no one is
interested in this.

Yield management
This is a very good idea, at least on paper. It is a question of maximizing the revenue of each flight. To
do this, it is advisable not to leave any space empty because it costs as much as those occupied
without bringing in anything. Except that the equipment of the aircraft is not very flexible and it is
impossible to adapt the seats according to their potential revenue, which is unknown. And advances
in computer science have brought their capacity for complexification. In short, the rates evolve
according to the “Yield Managers” who, behind their screens, are responsible for ensuring that the
flight for which they are responsible brings in as much revenue as possible. This is quite normal,
except that customers no longer understand anything and that they have simply noticed that either
they manage to benefit from such cheap rates that they do not cover the costs, or they have the
enormous frustration of having had to pay much more for their journey than their neighbours, all for
exactly the same service. Basically, to fill the last empty seat, airlines have had to accept load factors
often above 90% of the capacity of the aircraft, which causes real discomfort both for passengers and
for crew members who have to deal with the annoyances of their customers.

It would perhaps be simpler to display clear and simple rules by accepting to lose a few points in the
occupancy rate, but keeping an equivalent revenue After all, air transport developed well before the
famous “yield management” was led to such excesses that one can find up to 100 different fares on
the same long-haul flight in the same class of service. A little common sense wouldn’t hurt.

Passenger protection in the event of bankruptcy.
Air Belgium recently filed for bankruptcy, leaving customers who had bought their tickets in advance
in the lurch, pushed to do so by fare rules. They are creditors of 8 million euros and will never see their money.

How is it that air transport officials do not oblige airlines to create a guarantee fund to
compensate for their possible failures? Carriers who are the first to demand this provision from their
distributors should have the decency to do the same on their side vis-à-vis their consumers. By
always wanting to postpone this necessary provision, they expose themselves to the fact that
European and American legislators will take measures infinitely more restrictive than they could
agree. Never asking others what you don’t want to do yourself is very understandable.

It’s always hard to name the best airline in the world. What criteria should be used as a basis? How
can they be controlled? How can we ensure continuity of service? Of course, some classifications
exist and they are made with the best objectivity, at least we can credit them with it. And then
everyone can make up their own mind and I give you mine here.

Let’s go back in time. For years, the airline icon was the famous PAN AM. It ruled air travel for at least
three decades. It created all the standards still used today, whether they are related to technical,
operational or commercial aspects. The number of “firsts” it has opened is impressive, from the
crossings of the Pacific aboard giant seaplanes to the entry into service of the extraordinary Boeing
747 developed by the manufacturer at the express request of Juan Tripe, the company’s CEO. But
even myths can disappear. Thus, carried away by a certain arrogance, the company did not survive
the fierce competition that was exerted on international networks from the 1980s onwards.
For a while, European airlines, and Air France in particular, had the wind in their sails. Their quality of
service was unanimously recognized and they were able to put the Concorde online, even though
only 16 aircraft were operated by British Airways and Air France. And then, gradually, these carriers
lost their aura by wanting to compete with the “low costs” without reducing their internal costs. So
European airlines have made their customers pay for the savings by densifying the aircraft beyond
what is reasonable and by removing what made their charm and reputation, the service. And
European operators have had to leave the top spots to other competitors from Asia and the Persian
Gulf.

That’s what I’m getting at, because in my opinion, the best company in the world is now in this part
of the planet. Let’s say it right away, two stand out for the continuity of their service and their
economic performance, I am talking about Singapore Airlines and Emirates. Of course, these two are
not the biggest operators, they are even relatively modest in size compared to the American giants.
Singapore Airlines operates 142 aircraft to 137 destinations and its counterpart in the Emirates 250
aircraft to 148 destinations. This is relatively small compared to the 1,500 or so aircraft operated by
each of the three American giants American Airlines, Delta Airlines and United Airlines. Only the
Americans carry out most of their activity on their domestic market, which is obviously impossible for
both Emirates and Singapore Airlines.

These two airlines have therefore had to conquer their customers far from their bases and to do so
they have had to operate state-of-the-art fleets with impeccable service, carried out on each of their
flights and each destination. Let’s add that both have always made money, with the notable
exception of the years 2021 and 2022, for the good reason that Covid has wreaked havoc. It should
be remembered that the three American giants had to go through bankruptcy and that they were
only able to survive thanks to the facilities granted by “Chapter 11” and the massive layoffs that
followed. None of this for Emirates and Singapore Airlines.

So it remains for me to decide between the two contenders whose merits are equivalent. My
preference is ultimately for Emirates for at least two reasons: the power of its operation, recalling
that of the 250 aircraft operated, 116 are A380s, the current giant aircraft that European leaders
have described as a losing machine, while Sir Tim Clark, the CEO of Emirates, has made it a cash
machine with a historic net profit of 5.2 billion dollars in its last financial year ended in March 2025.
For its part, Singapore Airlines’ result is also up to its ambitions with 2.690 billion in net income. And
then Emirates manages, with the diversity of its destinations, to be among the very first if not the
leading international carrier, maintaining the same quality of product, including in ground services.

Let’s recognize that one of the main advantages of both carriers is their “hub” of exceptional quality.
They have airport facilities that are recognized as the best in the world, which allows them to transit
their customers without them being penalized.
Emirates is certainly helped by its government, but what campaign is not? And then would Dubai
have become what it is without its airline. ? Let’s not babble and let us warmly congratulate the
managers of these two carriers, wishing them not to come down from their pedestal.