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.

This is a difficult subject to analyze as the interactions between governments and air transport are complex. This starts with the observation that airspace belongs to the states but that its civilian exploitation is carried out by independent operators, whether public or private. However, the latter are ultimately dependent on the sovereign power, if only to obtain exploitation rights.

The first ambiguity comes from air traffic control. This is essential, everyone will agree, and it is most often operated by state administrations whose management capacity is sometimes questionable. This is how the social management of air traffic controllers has a considerable impact on the regularity of airlines. The latter are powerless to ensure that social conflicts are foreseen in advance and that state managers are able to avoid them.

Access to airports is also largely dependent on governments, which can regulate the number of movements at leisure for a wide variety of pretexts. This can go as far as the protection of the national airline. The example of limiting the number of movements at Orly airport to 250,000 under the pretext of the environment was actually taken in 1995 to protect Air France from the probable arrival of British Airways on the airport. On the other hand, the latest limitations on European airports such as Amsterdam, Schiphol or London Heathrow respond well to environmental constraints, not to say ecological pressure.

Traffic rights are a diplomatic weapon of the first order. Since each country is sovereign, it is normal for it to grant operators the right to operate according to its national interests. This is the subject of bargaining whose results are sometimes uncertain. It is surprising, for example, to see French airlines regularly losing market share on their territory to foreign carriers. But sometimes Open Skies agreements, which are fiercely debated between groups of states, can prove to be very profitable. The case of Morocco is very interesting in this respect. After difficult times spent surviving in the face of the wave of European operators, Royal Air Maroc has finally created a Europe-Africa hub at Casablanca airport, of which it is the first user and the first beneficiary.

And then the states use their airlines as an almost obligatory instrument of influence in their necessary international trade. Having your national carrier is a mark of existence and a major economic factor. In this respect, the example of Dubai is very interesting. Once a second-tier emirate in the 1970s and 1980s, it has since become a global magnet through the development of its airport system and its iconic airline, Emirates. Since then, Dubai has passed this first milestone to become a leading economic and financial base. A country like Rwanda seems to have perfectly registered the lesson and is steadily developing its company Rwandair. The same could be said of Ethiopian Airlines, which has become a first-class standard-bearer for his country.

At the end of the Second World War, the United States largely used its two major international carriers, Pan Am and TWA, to dominate the Western world. This observation did not prevent them from abandoning them when the difficulties and perhaps their inadequacy fell on these incumbent carriers.

At its core, air travel may have become a commodity for many countries, but it is nonetheless at the service of governments. The latter also find in the customers of this type of transport a windfall to finance land transport which has difficulty balancing its accounts while air transport is obliged to do so. So instead of being supported economically by governments, it becomes a source of revenue that is blithely drained without being left with the necessary resources to finance its decarbonization, which is nevertheless being demanded loudly by political leaders.

The relationship between governments and air transport is so intertwined, so complex and so ambiguous that it is difficult to see how to unravel them. And this is undoubtedly where the main strength of this sector of activity lies.

There are countless initiatives aimed at reducing the cost of painless air transport for professionals in the sector. And yet they are the first to be impacted, as well as the customers, of course. The first, employees considered easily replaceable, I am talking about ground staff, are an easy target for cost hunters. Whenever they can be replaced by a computer tool, there is no hesitation. For the moment, the flight crews are not affected because the rule of one steward or hostess for 50 seats is still respected and there is little chance that this will change and removing part of the crew in the cockpit of planes is not for tomorrow when we know how to fly the aircraft from the ground and that, in theory, we could do without it.

This is how the all-digital approach is taking hold, with certain positive effects, but also the creation of new difficulties. I always wonder why this activity, which is so delicate, so complex, and basically so wonderful, is looking for a constant reduction in costs in order to increase the number of passengers to compensate for the lack of revenue linked to ever lower fares. This is all the more strange because the more it develops, the more air transport is attacked for its contribution to global pollution, while there is still no radical technological leap to achieve carbon neutrality. The latest innovation to date is the equipping of the two-storey cabins with seats or double-decker seats, as you wish. In this way, the filling coefficients could be further densified.

The first effect of this excessive digitalization is the disappearance of staff in the terminals, replaced either by computer tools linked to smartphones, or by terminals that are difficult to talk to and, for the last subjects, the provision of telephones where there were counters and agents to whom passengers could speak. Of course, I don’t forget that these new tools can be good. The release of boarding passes without going through a check-in counter is certainly a unanimously appreciated progress. Lost baggage tracing systems are becoming more and more efficient. More detailed analyses of operations and operating programs allow for very substantial fuel savings. The arrival of Artificial Intelligence will be very useful for the entire air transport industry, from the manufacture of aircraft to the rules for their maintenance. In short, we must not deny progress.

But on the other hand, I have the very strong impression that in all this evolution we have forgottenan important part of air transport, the customers over 65 years old, retirees who have, at least in most Western countries, significant financial means and a lot of free time that they use to visit the world. This segment of customers is in fact subject to the new digital devices that govern air transport without mastering them, sometimes they do not have the necessary iPhone, or even a computer and the Internet remains foreign to them. This is a considerable source of frustration, especially when you are in an airport environment where there is no one to talk to. Not all of them are accompanied by a younger relative who is perfectly capable of mastering these new tools.

Far be it from me to think that we should go back. First of all, it is not possible and it would certainly not be healthy in all respects. But I plead for the return to the entire air transport environment of agents whose gradual disappearance saddens me. Replacing an electronic terminal or a telephone that is often answered only by a machine with a person with whom you can talk would be real progress, would both bring appreciated comfort and remove stress that would be detrimental to the appreciation of this magnificent means of transport.

I will be told that it costs money. It is likely, but is the mad race to the lowest costs to justify permanently falling rates that no longer allow travel agents to be properly paid and to pay travel agents as they should be normal?

In our somewhat brutal world, let’s try to keep a little humanity and if air transport can set an example, it will be all the more accepted, including by those who see it as an enemy.

In the mid-1980s, no one could have bet a dollar on the future of Emirates, whose creation on 15 March 1985 followed Gulf Air’s gradual withdrawal from Dubai services. Operations commenced on 25 October 1985 using two Boeing 737s leased from Pakistan International Airlines with flights between Dubai and Karachi. At the time, Dubai bore no resemblance to what the city has become today, largely due to the contribution of its airline, which had no domestic market. And the political situation in the area has gone through strong shocks with two wars in Iraq and a number of latent conflicts between the Gulf states. And yet, almost 40 years later, it has become the world reference for air transport. How can this be explained?

Admittedly, from the beginning, the Dubai government provided the necessary funds for the creation and start-up of the carrier by injecting $80 million into the operation, but this is the only financial contribution it has received from the beginning. We must look elsewhere for the keys to success. I see three of them for the most part.

First of all, there is a great deal of stability in the management. Since 1985, Emirates has had only one Chairman: Sheikh Ahmed bin Saheed Al-Maktoum and two CEOs, Maurice Flanagan and, since 2003, Sir Tim Clark. And this team agreed perfectly to decide on a strategy that has never varied: to connect the countries of the East of the World to the countries of the West by having passengers transit through an extremely high-quality facility, which more than compensated for the lack of a local market. This is what has forced the company to always achieve excellence in its product, whether in operations or on-board service, but also in all the peripheral trades that make it possible to create this new standard of quality, I mean training, ground handling, engineering, all down to the smallest details,  such as the choice of typefaces, colors, or reception in trade fairs in Dubai.

It also took a lot of audacity to become the first and soon the only major customer for the largest civil aircraft, the A380, which allowed Emirates to define and put into operation a product of unparalleled quality. This is how the Dubai-based carrier has become completely dominant for First and Business class customers for all passengers transiting through the Gulf. This is also the reason why the Dubai “hub” has faced strong competition from Western European airports, whose quality of service has become so incomparable with that of the major Gulf hubs. It should also be noted that this model has been copied with varying degrees of success by its competitors in the same area: Qatar Airways with a certain success and Etihad Airways which has suffered a resounding failure.

In any case, all airlines, with the notable exception of the American ones, whose strategy is primarily dependent on the domestic market, have had to position themselves in relation to Emirates. The first concern was to have modern fleets that were more comfortable and more economical to operate, and then to be able to use airport facilities of a level and organization unknown until then. It is also clear that a large part of Emirates’ success is due to the complicity between the company, its airport and its handling company, all of which are owned by the Government, which avoids conflicts of interest. I note that all the new major airport facilities in Europe, I am thinking of Istanbul and in Asia, China, Indonesia or India, are designed on the same principle.

So it is not unusual to recognize that Emirates has initiated and developed a new standard for international long-haul air transport. This has also been profitable because since its creation, the company has only had two years of loss in 2021 and 2022, as has the entire air transport industry. In 2023, it posted a net profit of $3.2 billion on a turnover of $32.6 billion, and as far as we know, the figures for 2024 (the company closes its accounts in March) will still be much higher.

The lesson is clear, quality pays off and customers are willing to pay the asking prices and even choose a transit through Dubai even if it means extending their trip a little to benefit from a service on board that it would be too long to recount here.