Stop The Drop in Air Fares

,

We had gotten too used to it. Public pressure, unbridled competition between carriers, tremendous technological advances, the arrival of “low-costs” and the all-too-famous “yield management” have led to an almost constant decline in air fares, especially from the mid-1990s. And we had gotten used to it to such an extent that it was impossible to imagine the prices that passengers paid in the 1970s, which saw the appearance of mass transport with the arrival of very large aircraft. Well, those days are over, at least for a number of years.

Of course, manufacturers will continue their efforts to provide even more efficient devices, engine manufacturers are developing even more economical and less noisy machines, but all this comes at a price. Politicians in a hurry to give ecological guarantees to their voters are continuing their pressure on airlines by forcing them to become even quieter, and above all, to land at large airports without being detected. In other words, they are willing to use air transport on the condition that it does not harm the behaviour of the populations living near airports, and that the environmental lobbies have nothing to complain about, all the while demanding ever more competitive fares and even better services.

However, geopolitics is an essential component of air transport and sometimes, as is the case now, it creates a particularly delicate environment. The first effect of the current Gulf conflict has been a massive increase in the cost of oil and gas. While the price of a barrel had been stabilised at around $70 for at least a year, it has soared sharply since the beginning of the conflict in the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, to quote $112.66 at the time of writing. And airlines felt obliged to put the famous fuel surcharges back into circulation. And they didn’t go down without a fight. I have in mind the case of a long-haul company whose starting price is around €750 and which has added a fuel surcharge of €550, i.e. 73% of the promotional rate on which it relies to attract consumers. It is not the only one, and most operators do the same, even if not in the same proportions.

And I wonder why carriers, who are perfectly capable of adjusting their rates by the minute, choose the fuel surcharge method to charge for an inevitable increase in their cost price. It would be more honest, let’s say the word, to display the new price directly rather than maintaining the promotional hooks. It’s still taking consumers for fools. This practice is all the more curious because most carriers scream before they hurt. The largest of them practice “hedging”, which consists of protecting themselves from hazards by buying their fuel well in advance. Air France/KLM has covered its oil needs for the first half of 2026 at 87%, and Lufthansa is doing the same at 76%. That is to say, these companies do not feel the increase in the price of a barrel of oil while they make their passengers bear it, while camouflaging this increase in a fuel surcharge, thinking that consumers will accept this approach.

We can clearly see the strategy of operators who are afraid to display the true selling price, which would cause them to lose valuable positions in price comparison sites that essentially display call rates. However, customers will still have a little trouble admitting that, from a displayed price that could suit them, they end up having to pay an amount much higher than the advertised price.

I understand very well that airlines, whose economic balance is very fragile and whose profits are less than 10% of their turnover, unlike many other sectors of activity which gravitate above 20%, are very sensitive to anything that could cause their cost price to vary. It should be remembered that the price of fuel normally represents around 20% of turnover with oil at 70 dollars per barrel, but that it can easily exceed 30% in the event of a sudden and lasting sharp increase.

It remains to be seen whether the current conflict will last, in which case the carriers will have been right to familiarise their customers with this increase. If not, let’s hope that the operators will fight to be the first to stop these fuel surcharges while explaining that the time of continuous price reductions is over, at least for a long time.

Bad Times for Air Transport

,

It seems that the planets are no longer aligned in front of air transport. The latter had raised its head following the COVID disaster, which, it should be remembered, had brought down this entire sector of activity and from which it was not thought that it would recover for about ten years. The opposite happened. Within a year, traffic flows had been restored, and revenue had risen again, driven by a sharp increase in fares that was well accepted by passengers. And then, little by little, the situation deteriorated for multiple causes, each of which could be manageable but whose accumulation leads to a certain gloom.

The first and most important, for the moment, is the conflict in the Middle East, the negative consequences of which are immediate: an increase in the flight time between Europe and Asia and a sudden increase in the price of a barrel, which had stabilized at around $70 and which has risen to around $100 with peaks of nearly $120. This operational and financial difficulty comes on top of the consequences of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which has dragged on since February 2022 without any end in sight, despite the many announcements of negotiations that have led to nothing. The embargo decreed against Russia by the so-called Western countries has resulted in a ban on overflights of this country which, it should be remembered, is by far the largest on the planet. So carriers from countries associated with the embargo are subject to detours that cost them several hours of flights on their routes between Europe and Asia, which is not the case for, for example, Chinese airlines.

But geopolitics is not the only one to blame for the prevailing gloom. Many countries are affected by repeated strikes for a wide variety of reasons. This is the case in Germany, a country renowned for the quality of its social dialogue. Now it is plagued by repeated conflicts. They reached the heart of the aviation activity with the work stoppages of Lufthansa’s flight crews: 800 flights cancelled on 12 February, then those of the PNT (flight crew, i.e. pilots) on 12 and 13 March. And that’s not all, the strikes have also severely affected airports, including those in Frankfurt and Berlin. The situation is no better in Belgium. All departures from Brussels airport, for example, were cancelled on 12 March. So what is happening in such a prestigious sector of activity that employees are showing such dissatisfaction?

And that’s not all. The situation in the United States has become very complex for some time. It began in 2025 when the failure of Washington’s air traffic control led to the collision between a military helicopter and an American Airlines aircraft that killed 67 people. In November of the same year, following a loss of an engine, an MD 11F of the giant UPS crashed in Louisville, resulting in the death of the 3 crew members but also 10 people on the ground. And recently, on March 22, an Air Canada aircraft from the Canadian operator Jazz Aviation collided with a fire truck that was crossing the runways, following an error in air traffic control at New York’s La Guardia airport. This has a negative impact, especially since a disagreement over the funding of the Department of Homeland Security between the House of Representatives and the Senate has resulted in border control officers no longer being paid, which leads to significant disruption for international flights.

Other incidents and accidents also tarnish the beautiful image of air transport. India is particularly affected. The crash of Air India Flight 171 on June 12, which everything suggests was due to a voluntary act by the pilot, even if the final report has not yet been published, caused 260 deaths. This proves that there is still a fragility in this activity, which is so controlled and which has made so much technical progress, and that is the behaviour of the pilots. The crash of the Germanwings flight in France, the mysterious disappearance of flight MH 370 and the crash of the Air India flight demonstrate this. And we don’t yet know how to settle this delicate issue. I also note that the situation is not all rosy in India, if I am to believe the somewhat surprising resignation of the director of Indigo, Pieter Elbers, who had made it one of the most important carriers on the planet in a short time.

We could also point to the failure of the software of the Airbus 320, damaged by solar radiation. All the aircraft concerned had to be grounded as a matter of urgency. However, even if not all versions were affected, 12,257 Airbus 320 series had been delivered in September 2025. Small causes, big effects.

It is time for air travel to get rid of these negative aspects. It will need a lot of optimism to face the challenges that await it.

Gulf War: Winners and Losers

,

The first losers are obviously the populations of the countries concerned, innocent victims of bombings. We cannot forget that this conflict has already caused more than 2,000 deaths on all sides. Trapped, the inhabitants have no other resource than to flee or turn their backs hoping for the end of their nightmare.

Air transport and its corollary tourism are also two of the most affected sectors of activity, but there are nuances and among the protagonists there are also winners.

The losers
It is first of all the Gulf carriers who are attacked in the heart of their activity. The two major operators, Emirates and Qatar Airways, have been almost completely shut down, not only because public airspace is virtually unusable, but also because their proud and prosperous airports have been targeted. It is not a surprise that the concentration of activity on these two very large “hubs” was inevitably bound to attract Iranian missiles, although the Emirates are neutral in this matter. But the media impact and collateral damage, in particular the impossibility of repatriating the many foreign visitors, is such that they were the obvious target.

European airlines are also impacted. No longer able to cross Gulf airspace when it was the only transit route usable by Western carriers to go to Asia, following the ban on overflights of Russia, following the conflict between this country and Ukraine, they are forced to circumnavigate the Arabian Peninsula, which further extends the flight time by at least two additional hours. Remember that the flight hour of a long-haul flight costs around 30,000 dollars.

Hoteliers are also in the same situation. For years, the Emirates have made a powerful communication about their quality of life, the safety guaranteed to the population, the attractive salaries and the perfection of their facilities. And it has paid off so much that these countries have become a top destination, especially during the winter season. The big hotel chains have therefore established themselves in force, and now their customers are stuck on site without necessarily having the financial resources to pay the luxury establishments. The recovery will undoubtedly take a very long time because the myth of the assured quality of life will have to be rebuilt.

In the list of losers, we must also mention travel agents who are powerless to help their customers when they are responsible for it. There will certainly be disgruntled people who take them to court when they have nothing to do with it. Insurers undoubtedly have clauses excluding their liability in the event of war, and this is quite understandable, but it would be very surprising if they could slip through the cracks. And I could add the leasing companies of the aircraft, more than half of which are operated in this form while, even if they are not paid by operators who have been unable to do so, it is very difficult for them to relocate these aircraft elsewhere.

There are also winners, of course. I am putting aside arms manufacturers and major equipment manufacturers, which are a particular subject. In the field of airlines, two are doing well: Turkish Airlines and Ethiopian Airlines. Both have organised their operations in the form of “hubs” and they continue to operate at full capacity. It is simply unfortunate that they are taking advantage of the situation a little too much to raise their prices to levels that are difficult to justify. It is not certain that their customers will not remember it when the situation returns to normal. Chinese carriers are probably the ones who benefit the most from this conflict. The two major Gulf hubs are at a standstill and Western competitors are being penalised even more. This is a good windfall, and it is difficult to see why they should not take advantage of it.

And then there are destinations, some of which were losing momentum because they were used too often in the past. I am thinking in particular of the islands of the Indian Ocean, such as the Seychelles or Mauritius. They certainly benefited from an influx of customers because a still localized conflict did not curb the desires of the European and American populations for escape and vacation.

Geopolitics, the Main Uncertainty for Air Transport

,

The powerful and constant offensive of the promoters of ecology has acted as a scarecrow on air transport, which, very unjustly attacked, has sought solutions, even if it means profoundly modifying certain aspects of this activity, such as, for example, stopping the reduction in fares. All the measures taken are not without interest because the more this sector of activity meets the criteria of good ecological conduct, the more profitable it will be. However, this requires colossal investments that will only have their full effect in the very long term, while being financed in the short term. We will not be spared from price increases to finance such complex research. But the constraints suffered by operators are only very gradually noticeable. Another factor is much more penalizing: geopolitics.

It has just been remembered since the extension of the conflict to the Middle East. Suddenly, air traffic in the region was brought to an almost complete standstill. It must be said that civilian aircraft can be prime targets when they are unable to defend themselves, and airports are important infrastructures, perfectly located, and that it only takes a single impact, even in a car park, to bring them to a standstill.

This is what happened with strikes, admittedly limited, but which hit the airports of Dubai, Doha, or Oman, to mention only the main ones. Dubai and Doha are huge hubs. They are home to the two main “hubs” in the region and among the most important in the world. So the shutdown of their exploitation has not only local and regional consequences, but also global ones. And they are difficult to replace because their efficiency is created by a conjunction between fixed equipment on the ground and two very large operators, Qatar Airways and Emirates. And these two companies operate on the entire planet.

But the consequences don’t stop there. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz immediately led to an increase in the price of oil, which has risen by 59% since December 16, when it was quoted at $58.64 per barrel, while on March 6 it rose to $93.04. This is not going to do business for air transport anywhere in the world, even if many companies have already secured their supplies, at least for the year.

And then there are the insurances. Air transport is largely covered by a battery of insurance contracts that range from the manufacture of planes to the loss of luggage. However, some events are not covered, in particular the case of weather hazards, but also armed conflicts. So customers who thought they were protected by their travel insurance are discovering that they have to fend for themselves.

And it’s not over. The rights to fly over territories depend on the will of each state, which can prohibit access at will. This is the decision of Russia, in particular, which, in response to the embargo imposed on it by the so-called Western countries, has banned all airlines from these countries from flying over it. However, Russia has the largest airspace in the world, and all flights between Europe and East Asia must fly over Siberia, and if the overflight is impossible, then it is necessary to pass through the south of the Asian continent, which extends the flight time by more than 2 hours in each direction, and each hour of flight of a long-haul aircraft such as the Boeing 777 or the Airbus A350 costs around 30,000 dollars. For a round trip, the additional cost is therefore $120,000 for Western carriers, while Chinese operators can fly freely over Russia. However, since the conflagration in the Middle East, the entire area has been declared a war zone, and it can no longer be used by carriers. You then have to go around the Arabian Peninsula to get to Asia.

It is easy to see how a conflict, even a very localized one, can have harmful consequences on the entire air transport activity. I also do not forget that the supply of spare parts and the entire widely dispersed aircraft manufacturing complex may also be affected by increases in customs duties.

Basically, we can only admire the resilience of air transport, which, even in the face of all these difficulties, nevertheless continues to grow steadily. Must the inhabitants of our planet have a furious need to travel? And that’s good.

When Regulators Do Too Much

,

Surprisingly, last week, the Court of Justice of the European Union, in a final ruling after 16 years of proceedings, condemned a (so-called) cartel of airlines for collusion on service prices in the air cargo sector. This concerns Air France, KLM and their subsidiary Martinair, but also British Airways and Singapore Airlines, among others. The amount of the fines is not insignificant: 183 million euros for Air France and 127 million euros for KLM, for example.

One can legitimately question the validity of these sentences. How could an agreement between airlines, sometimes competitors, affect the smooth running of this sector of activity? As far as I know, Air France, KLM, and Martinair are part of the same capital group, and it is reasonable to try to improve the profitability of the whole. Instead, they will have to pay 340 million euros. For whose benefit?

Of course, I understand that the European Commission, as well as the U.S. federal government, seek to fight against dominant positions in order to avoid monopolies that would be built to the detriment of consumers. But then why authorize the acquisition of capital shareholdings? And, speaking only of Europe, has this in any way hindered the fierce competition between the major operators on this continent?

Let’s go a little further. Air transport has been built for more than 80 years on agreements, or even collaboration, between carriers. This is evident both in the technical field, with the safety rules imposed by the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization), and in commercial cooperation carried out within IATA (International Air Transport Association) which, in particular, manages the BSP (Billing and Settlement Plan), the global tool for the distribution and repatriation of passenger sales. Why accept joint ventures between competing carriers, such as Delta Air Lines and Air France/KLM or American Airlines and British Airways, on the major international route, the Transatlantic?

Moreover, the practice of codesharing, which consists of selling flights operated by another carrier under the brand name of a different airline, is commonly used without regulatory authorities seeing any disadvantage, while there could be much to complain about from the consumers’ point of view.

I also note that the decision of the European Court of Justice may have new consequences, particularly with regard to the latent conflict between Lufthansa and Deutsche Bank over the fuel surcharge cartel. The bank’s claims on behalf of some of its large clients amount to several billion euros.

I do not see how agreements between carriers would be reprehensible, provided that they do not aim to create a monopolistic situation, which is difficult to imagine on a continent where the freedom to operate is granted to any company approved by civil aviation authorities. Freedom of trade is a major factor in economic expansion, and the relentless struggle between competitors whose aim is only to lower selling prices—or at least display them—can only weaken a sector where margins are, on average, less than 7% of turnover, while capital requirements are considerable.

It is conceivable that the courts, and particularly the supreme authorities, have other concerns than controlling the way operators conduct their commercial strategies. The best protection for consumers remains free competition. All that remains is the allocation of operating capacity at the major airports. These are subject to ecological constraints, many of which are nevertheless highly demagogic.

The accounts of the major companies affected by the Court of Justice’s decision will not be impacted because the fines in question had been provisioned for a long time. Even if this does not change anything in the current economic situation, it is a bad sign for air transport—in freight for the moment, but perhaps for passengers in the future as well.

Change of Strategy in Air Transport

,

The financial results for 2025 are coming in, and they give a good idea of how the sector is evolving.

European airlines have been doing well over the past year, while the American giants are still struggling somewhat. All in all, 2025 will not have been such a bad year, helped by an average oil price that remained reasonable at around $67 per barrel. Remember that in 2010, analysts expected it to reach $200. This shows that making forecasts, especially in the long term, remains a perilous exercise.

The American giants are showing some signs of weakness. Delta Air Lines’ net profit is down 5% to $3.8 billion. United Airlines’ is reportedly up 6%. However, American Airlines saw its net profit collapse by 87% to just $111 million, on revenue of $54 billion, double that of the Air France KLM group. The latter achieved a real performance by turning all its indicators green, with a net profit of €1.754 billion compared to €489 million the previous year. Its financial indicators, from equity to cash flow, are all improving. The only downside is that its low cost subsidiary Transavia France is still unable to make a profit, and its unit costs remain high for this sector at €6.73 per seat kilometre offered, compared to revenue of €6.64. The Lufthansa Group also achieved a good result, with a 32% increase in profit to €1.93 billion. Only the IAG group saw its profit fall, by 2.3%, to €1.4 billion.

The full results for the sector are not yet known because Gulf carriers and some Asian and African airlines close their accounts on March 31. Nevertheless, the outlook appears favourable.

The fact remains that many hazards can impact air transport activity, and they rarely move in the right direction. In 2025 alone, the shutdown in the USA certainly weighed heavily on the results of the major American carriers, as it occurred during the end of year holiday period. In addition, current or planned conflicts are seriously complicating operations. This is the case for European carriers, which are seeing flight times extended by around two hours on services to Asia following the ban on flying over Siberia and due to the situation in Iran, while Asian carriers do not face the same disadvantages. Furthermore, the thunderous announcements of the American President are at the very least disrupting short and medium term operating plans.

But amid these difficulties, to which one could add the impact of ecological constraints that have heavily penalised companies such as KLM, there are also some grounds for satisfaction.

First, and hopefully soon, the reopening of connections to Venezuela, a large country and an important destination for economic, touristic and family reasons. This will give a boost to South American services, which are in real need of it.

And then the airlines have taken a historic turn. Instead of continuing, as they have done for more than 30 years, to pursue fare reductions, which were often accompanied by a decline in product quality through reduced services and excessive cabin densification, we are now witnessing an improvement in product quality. In fact, the inflection point came with Covid. As soon as this disastrous pandemic ended, operators raised their prices and realised that this did not lead to a decline in demand. They might have suspected this earlier, but better late than never. The momentum has now taken hold. European airlines in particular have all decided to enhance their products. The most spectacular example can be seen at Air France KLM, which, it must be said, had fallen very low. Its policy of upgrading its offering appears beneficial, judging by the significant improvement in its financial results. Customers are willing to pay more for a better product. This is not new, and it is encouraging that airline executives have recognised it.

If this strategy continues, and if geopolitical conditions do not deteriorate during 2026, we can expect a further improvement in results that will make air transport the leading sector in the world, for the good of all.

Aviation, Africa’s Awakening

,

If there is one continent that truly needs air transport, it is Africa. The distances to be covered are long, and ground infrastructure is relatively weak and often in poor condition. An additional factor is security, as the continent is still affected by numerous internal conflicts. I would also add that Africa’s growth rate is among the highest in the world and that its very young population is eager for progress. In short, everything is coming together to give air travel a place like no other in the world.

And yet, this sector is still far from maturity. There are many reasons for this. First, there is the resistance of states to opening their airspace in order to protect their national airlines. Signed conventions have often not been respected, despite the triumphant declarations that marked the end of official meetings. Secondly, there is a flagrant lack of capital. Air transport requires significant equity investment, and states, most of which own their national carriers, are often reluctant to finance fleet renewal. We must also mention the corruption that persists in many countries, which limits the proper allocation of financial resources.

It must be acknowledged that until recently, there have been more failures than successes. Major companies have disappeared, in particular Air Afrique, the first multinational airline on the continent, which could not resist the political interference and privileges granted to officials of its member states. South African Airways, the major operator in southern Africa, had to file for bankruptcy before painfully rebuilding itself. Tunisair is struggling to regain stability, as it has been managed by leaders appointed by political authorities without proven competence. Many operators simply disappeared, although some were later rebuilt, including Air Mali, Air Gabon, Air Senegal and Air Seychelles, to name but a few. It is a sobering picture, and yet…

However, African air transport is recovering, and not just marginally. A few leaders are driving this development. Foremost among them is Ethiopian Airlines. Founded in 1945 and initially built with the support of the American carrier TWA to international standards, it has consistently maintained its independence regardless of Ethiopia’s political changes, although it remains entirely state owned. Remarkably managed over the years by successive presidents, it has built a powerful operational platform based on a hub strategy. Today, it is the leading carrier on the continent, expanding not only through its own operations but also by developing a network of subsidiaries, of which the Togolese carrier Asky Airlines is a prominent example.

Others are also waking up, and quite strongly. This is the case for Royal Air Maroc. The airline was initially hit hard by fierce competition after the country signed an Open Skies agreement with Europe, which triggered a surge of European low cost carriers. In response, it created a hub between Europe and Africa in Casablanca and, after a difficult period of adaptation, this strategy is now proving successful. So much so that it has significantly strengthened its fleet, which now totals 67 aircraft, and is showing serious ambitions in the South Atlantic market.

For its part, Egyptair is renewing its fleet. The oldest African airline, founded in 1932, has placed orders for 33 new aircraft. It is still somewhat constrained in attracting certain European markets due to its ban on alcohol on board, but circumstances can evolve quickly. Even Kenya Airways, long underperforming, is in the process of recovery, having posted a profit of 42 million dollars, something that had not happened for years. Air Algérie is likewise engaged in renewing its fleet.

We are also seeing newcomers such as Rwandair emerge. This central African operator does not conceal its ambitions. After developing a medium haul network from its base in Kigali, it is now expanding its operations to Europe with high capacity aircraft.

Governments increasingly seem to understand what air transport can contribute to their economies. The liberalization of African skies is underway. It will take time, but progress appears inevitable. Infrastructure development remains essential. Ethiopia has committed to building a new world class airport, and Rwanda’s new airport is expected to be operational in 2028. Of course, many existing airports still require improvement, particularly Casablanca, which is approaching saturation, but the momentum is now clear. The growth of African air transport will be a major driver of the continent’s development.

The Impasse

,

The 5 billion passenger mark will have been passed in 2026. To reach this exceptional level, no fewer than 28,000 aircraft will be needed in service to serve just over 4,000 airports around the world. This volume of traffic is starting to cause serious problems. First of all, sufficient airspace is required, especially in very dense areas such as the United States and Europe. Secondly, it must be acknowledged that air transport is a source of CO2 emissions, even if it represents less than 3% of total emissions. Finally, we must take into account the attitude of populations living near major airports, who find it increasingly difficult to tolerate aircraft flying overhead, even if they are becoming quieter and quieter.

The outlook shows that the management of this activity will be complex over the next 20 years or so. Continued growth of around 4% to 5% per year is expected, which corresponds to carrying 250 million additional passengers each year and putting 1,400 new aircraft into service annually. The challenge is significant, as it is necessary to take into account not only aspects related to safety and security, but also the ever increasing demands of consumers who are less tolerant of delays, lost luggage, or lack of comfort, while at the same time demanding ever lower fares.

We are not far from a dead end. How can we ensure continued demand for air transport while respecting environmental constraints and consumer expectations? Governments will certainly continue to levy taxes, if only to satisfy environmental lobbies and fill their coffers, while imposing compensatory obligations on companies for operational hazards they must endure. How can this squaring of the circle be resolved? It will certainly be necessary to carry more passengers with fewer aircraft, at least through the use of larger, less congested airports.

A first response is provided by the entry into service of a new generation of aircraft derived from widely used models such as the Boeing 737 or the Airbus A320. These are long range versions with lower capacity than the aircraft used until now, which are only profitable when operated on very large routes, feeding major airports that are already difficult to manage given environmental pressures. This new generation, symbolised by the A321XLR with a capacity of 200 passengers and a range of 8,700 km, will be capable of operating profitably on medium demand routes that until now have been consolidated through major hubs, as well as on routes as significant as transatlantic or US coast to coast flights.

But this will not be enough to relieve congestion at major airports. One option is to create gigantic platforms such as Dubai World Central or Al Maktoum International, built to handle 250 million passengers, as well as the new airports in Beijing or Istanbul, which are slightly smaller but nevertheless larger than most older hubs, with capacities exceeding 120 million passengers. However, these large complexes will have to be built far from urban areas, if only to secure the necessary land, such as the 140 km2 required for Dubai World Central. By comparison, the surface area of Paris is 105 km2. It will therefore be necessary to create substantial new ground transport links, which will further impact the environment.

There is another solution, which would be to return very large aircraft such as the B747 or the A380 to service after their withdrawal following Covid. They alone are capable of carrying between 600 and 800 passengers, effectively replacing four aircraft with an average capacity of 200 seats. Of course, these aircraft had supposedly become too expensive to operate. However, in recent years the oil shortage predicted in the 2010s, when a barrel was priced at 125 dollars, has been replaced by relative abundance, with prices falling to around 67 dollars per barrel at recent quotations. As a result, most operators have returned their A380s to service. Not only Emirates, which has always believed in this type of aircraft and whose Sir Tim Clark has been calling for an improved version from Airbus, but also British Airways, Singapore Airlines, Qantas, Qatar Airways, Etihad Airways and even Lufthansa. Only Air France has not taken this step.

And then, to accommodate the additional 4 to 5 billion passengers expected between now and 2040, it will be necessary to design an aircraft capable of carrying between 800 and 1,000 passengers, not over very long distances but on flights of four to five hours, which are likely to multiply.

I hope that manufacturers already have such aircraft on their drawing boards and that the current major airports will be ready to accommodate them.

The Fragilities of Air Transport

,

What better recognition of air travel than its success and steady growth since its revival at the end of the Second World War. It has reached 5 billion passengers, $1,000 billion in revenue, around 20,000 aircraft in service, and each new version is more efficient than the previous one, and the outlook is still optimistic despite the many obstacles along the way.

During his speech to the BAR (Board of Airline Representatives) of France, Willie Walsh, the Director General of IATA, pointed out the difficulties that this sector of activity has to face, difficulties that could be overcome with a little goodwill.

A very complex supply chain that is difficult to control.

Aircraft are becoming more and more complex and yet they must be more and more secure. And it is not easy. Indeed, to achieve excellence, you have to call on a multitude of partners, each one a specialist in his or her field. An aircraft manufacturer cannot afford to bring together all the skills in its workshops. He is an architect and a final assembler before delivery to operators. For example, the wings of the Airbus A220, whose program was taken over from the Canadian company Bombardier, were bought from the American company Spirit AeroSystems, which had them manufactured in Ireland. This does not mean that the device is unreliable, quite the contrary. Each of the subcontractors is an expert in its field. However, it may turn out that some defects pass through the controls, which are very numerous. This is what happened to a Boeing 737 operated by Alaska Airlines that lost a fuselage panel in flight. The defect in the assembly of the door was identified at Spirit AeroSystems, which supplied the fuselages to Boeing. However, no fewer than nine checks were carried out on this cell, both by the manufacturer and the operator. Thus, despite the best goodwill in the world and the assistance of the latest technology, a simple forgotten bolt can lead to serious consequences.

European air traffic control needs to be rebuilt.

This is Europe’s default. This small continent, if we consider only its surface, is also divided into about thirty states, each of which is master of its airspace and consequently of its control tools. However, it is enough for one of the control centers to fail for technical or social reasons to disrupt the entire European aeronautical operation. Willie Walsh estimates that the losses caused by flight delays due to air traffic control will be 16 billion euros in 2025. France and the repeated strikes of its air traffic controllers are being blamed. Of course, we could unify the management of the European skies, but each country is reluctant and each government is afraid of social conflicts. In other words, we know how to do it. The SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research) program has been ready for years and we are doing nothing. However, the most serious estimates show that this would save 8 minutes of flight time on each trip. We expect the ecologists, who are so effective in their lobbying, to support this project with their governments.

Punitive taxation.

How else can we explain this avalanche of taxes that hit air transport. We can see populism showing up behind all these measures taken in general under the pretext of penalizing an activity that is a source of CO₂ production, by directing the large levies not to carry out research that could lead air transport toward zero carbon impact, but by drowning them in general budgets when it is not just to subsidize rail transport. And I am not talking about the delusions of which private flights are the target under the pretext that they are used by privileged people, when in reality the vast majority of them are used to develop economic activities.

An airport route to be rethought.

Willie Walsh did not mention this aspect in his speech, but let us recognize that it is a great source of frustration for passengers. Of course, safety is a major aspect of all public transport. But this concern should apply to all means of transport, including rail or road. This is not the case, and yet attacks have also hit rail transport without security checks being applied in stations, if only because we do not know how to do it. One thing is certain, however. The difficulty of getting to and through airports is one of the reasons for the transfer of a large number of air transport customers to trains, or even cars, for distances of less than 800 km.

Decarbonization requires the use of a new fuel, SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel), but this is difficult to produce and very expensive, probably because of its scarcity. This is another obstacle that air travel is facing, and I am not talking about cybersecurity, which will certainly become a major concern in the coming years.

Good luck!

Can airlines dictate their law to the states?

,

The tug-of-war has begun between Ryanair and the European states. The latter, seeing the steady growth in air passenger flows, and thinking they were giving assurances to ecologists, have all taken the path of taxing airlines. In their eyes, this has a double effect: firstly, to slow down traffic volumes, in particular aircraft movements, which are sources of pollution targeted by some voters, and above all to bring money into the public coffers, which badly need it. Taxing passengers is well regarded electorally because they are still in the minority compared to other voters, so why deprive oneself of a source of income that does not seem about to dry up.

But things are not that simple. First of all, the new taxes that companies will have to pay will be fully passed on to consumers, and they are seriously starting to complain. And the transporters have a ready-made solution: since the states do not like them, they simply leave. This is exactly what low-cost airlines are doing. The latter have played an essential role in maintaining the economies of regions neglected by industrial development. Their economies have transformed from manufacturing to services and tourism. And the “low costs” have found themselves in a position of strength in these areas because they have the only model that allows them to bring in consumers to replace declining populations.

Basically, these new entrants play a real role in regional development. So they are beginning not only to threaten to withdraw, but also to take action. This is what is happening in the countries of southern Europe. This is not necessarily going to suit governments. Indeed, the volume of expected levies is likely to be much lower than expected, as the adage “Too much tax kills taxes” appears to be confirmed. In addition, this withdrawal risks leading to a considerable loss for the tourist regions that live off the contribution of these operators’ customers.

On the other hand, these same airlines, encouraged by continued growth and an efficient business model, have ordered a considerable number of new aircraft from the major manufacturers. The only five largest European “low-cost” operators, Ryanair, easyJet, Wizz Air, Vueling and Pegasus, have 1,354 aircraft and 983 on order. Opposite them, the three major groups, Lufthansa Group, Air France/KLM and IAG, certainly have 2,065 aircraft, but only 425 on order. However, all “low-cost” aircraft are short-to-medium-haul, while those of the major traditional operators are mainly used for long-haul flights. That is to say that the “low cost” carriers now hold power over European services, and this will probably be strengthened in the future.

Admittedly, geographically speaking, Europe is a small continent on which surface routes can become fierce competitors to air transport. High-speed rail lines have become very important, and the coaches of large private operators are crisscrossing the motorways and offering fares that even the most efficient “low-cost” operators cannot bear. Does this mean that European states will be able to do without their services if they decide to close ports of call, as they intend to do if governments do not reverse their taxation decisions? This is something that deserves reflection.

The balance of power between the public authorities and the airline operators is fairly even, and governments have no interest in seeing the very serious network of air services, patiently built up by the “low-cost” operators, shrink. The construction of a new motorway or a new high-speed railway is now facing fierce opposition from environmentalists, who will soon no longer have air transport to sink their teeth into. Admittedly, some air operators such as Ryanair have sometimes shown reprehensible behaviour, which is sanctioned by the courts in many countries. They will also have to improve both their social relations and their links with customers. They will have to comply with the compensation rules imposed by the European authorities. But for all that, states must not consider them enemies.

It is time for governments and operators to learn to talk to each other to provide the best service to the population.