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.

The case is about to be concluded. The American giant UNITED AIRLINES and the leading manufacturer of eVTOLs (Electric Vertical Take Off and Landing) ARCHER are joining forces to create the first scheduled air transport network. It should be built in the coming weeks between Newark Airport in New Jersey and the center of Manhattan in New York.

Many start-ups have taken an interest in a machine that is close to the qualities of the helicopter by eliminating its main flaw: noise. This is how electric propulsion was chosen, but it posed immense difficulties in developing sufficient energy to tear a weight of several tons from the ground.

After some failures such as the recent one of Volocopter, which was close to success and which was missing a few tens of millions of euros, it seems that the American company, based in San Jose, California, is on the way to being the first to achieve the feat of industrializing this type of machine. To do this, it needed pre-orders from reference airlines such as United Airlines, which put $10 million on the table to reserve the first 100 units of the latest version called “Midnight”. It can carry 4 passengers over a distance of 30 kilometers. It is awaiting certification of the model from the FAA, which should not be long in coming. It should also be remembered that the car manufacturer Stellantis has put 150 million dollars in the balance to reserve the exclusivity of the construction of the aircraft.

30 kilometres may not seem like much, but as the crow flies, it connects most major airports to the city centre. Only the brand new airport platforms are too far away to use this mode of transport, at least for the moment, while waiting for new and more efficient versions.

In fact, the need is not new. As early as the mid-1970s, New York Helicopter connected JFK Airport with the heliport located near 42nd Street in Manhattan from the TWA terminal with Sikorsky aircraft capable of carrying 10 passengers. In the 1980s, Héli France, in cooperation with Air France, also created a first network between the Paris airports: Roissy and Orly, linked to the Paris Heliport and the heliport of the La Défense business district. And let’s remember that Nice airport has been connected by regular flights since 1975 with the Principality of Monaco.

However, ecological pressure has won, many projects have not been able to be carried out and achievements have not withstood the administrative constraints imposed on them. It should be added that political leaders were not inclined to financially support this type of transport, which is supposed to be reserved for the rich and which flies over working-class suburbs. In short, everything has been done successfully to kill a transport facility that has a bright future.

Archer, which managed to find the right financing and the first customers, also obtained its Air Operator Certificate (AOC) on June 5, 2024, less than 6 years after its creation by Adam Goldstein, still its current boss, on October 10, 2018. Let’s salute the feat.

It should not be long before we see these aircraft in the American sky, first around New York with a complete network of services between the 3 major airports: Kennedy, La Guardia and Newark and the center of Manhattan, then between Chicago O’Hare and downtown, all with passengers with United Airlines tickets. This is a great advantage for the company, which will strengthen its offer for high-contribution passengers, who are essential to the prosperity of carriers.

One wonders why European countries are so reluctant to develop this means of opening up large cities. Instead, we see cities like Paris restricting the use of their helipad even though it is beautifully placed.

Of course, we are still a long way from fully automated eVOTLs and these devices will be physically controlled for years to come. But let’s welcome the return of a less noisy means of transport that does not consume fossil fuels.

While waiting for the generalization of these devices, governments would be well advised to put into service regular helicopter lines, if only to open up small agglomerations which, after all, also need a fast mode of transport, even if it is reserved for a certain layer of customers

On Monday, March 10, German air transport was almost completely paralyzed following a massive strike by ground workers at airports organized by the powerful Ver.di union. For example, Berlin airport was completely closed, Frankfurt was unable to provide connections, and Munich and Hamburg were also very disrupted. A total of 3,400 flights had to be cancelled and 500,000 passengers were unable to travel. The purpose of this social conflict is to obtain an increase in the salaries of all employees in this sector. There are 28,000 of them in this country, divided into a wide variety of professions, each of which can ultimately block an activity whose complexity can never be overstated.

Indeed, in air transport, a strong hierarchy has been established over time between the different activities. At the very top of the pyramid are the drivers. They are the best paid, the most considered, and the most pampered by the companies. They are also powerfully unionized and are capable of holding long-term social conflicts that are widely supported by their trade unions. They have always won their arm wrestling with the management of the companies. To tell the truth, they are a bit, because of their capacity to cause harm, the nightmare of management.

Just behind are the commercial sailors. They too are well represented by their unions.On the other hand, it is easier to train cabin crew than pilots. As a result, some carriers—particularly low-cost airlines—tend to overexploit cabin crew, knowing they are more easily replaceable than pilots.

But aircrew alone cannot operate air transport. It takes a whole complex infrastructure on the ground to fly planes safely. There is all the technical and operational part that is essential to ensure the marketing, maintenance and even security functions. We still remember the blockades of airports during the firefighter strikes. But these employees are still very well paid. And then a significant part of the airport functions is often entrusted to subcontractors chosen on economic criteria, in other words because they are the cheapest. The consequence is that they cannot pay their employees at a level close to the salaries applied to those of the major aeronautical groups. However, they too are indispensable and even if their capacity to cause harm is infinitely inferior to that of highly protected employees, I am also thinking of air traffic controllers, they are still able to show their presence. This is what they did in Germany.

Let us cite a few examples, without being sure to cover the wide variety of professions. Let’s take the registrars. Many of them belong to subcontractors. Their status is not recognized and they do not benefit from the transport facilities that their counterparts employed by the companies can enjoy. They work staggered hours, often interrupted by very long unpaid breaks and they suffer, like their colleagues employed by the airlines, the bad moods of passengers, some of whom, fortunately in small numbers, are downright obnoxious. In the chain of exploitation are baggage handlers. No one sees them, but passengers are very happy to find their suitcases on the baggage belts when they arrive. They work outside in all weathers and at all hours.

Passengers must then go through the PIFs (Screening Inspection Stations), which are also served almost exclusively by subcontracting companies. They too suffer from the bad moods of customers who are exasperated by an approach that does not always seem useful to them and sometimes too nitpicky, especially since the procedures are not homogeneous between airports and sometimes even between terminals of the same airport.

And then there are the appliance cleaning employees. They only have about thirty minutes to completely rearrange a cabin. We never see them either, but they do a very honourable job at very different hours. It is hard to imagine the state in which passengers can sometimes leave their seats. We could add the bus drivers, who are a very important component of operational punctuality and who must know how to manoeuvre their machines in the middle of air traffic, or the refuellers, without whom the aircraft would have no fuel.

I certainly forget some, but I think of them every time I take a flight and I always admire when the doors of the aircraft are closed on time and the chocks are removed in time for the aircraft to meet its schedule.