The Difficult Situation of Northern Carriers

,

There was a time, not so long ago, when Nordic airlines were the envy of other European operators.
It was the time when SAS (Scandinavian Airlines System) could be named the best airline in the world
in the mid-1980s and when Finnair was weaving its network between Europe and Asia by transiting
passengers through Helsinki. It should be remembered that these Nordic companies are among the
oldest in the world. SAS was founded in 1946, Icelandair in 1937 and even Finnair in 1923.
Despite difficult climatic conditions and very limited domestic markets, at least in terms of the
number of potential customers, these operators have managed to stand the test of time by
becoming models of regularity and customer reception. Unfortunately, times have changed a lot,
except for Finnair, which seems to be doing well.


Like all traditional operators, these airlines took the full brunt of the assault on “low-cost” carriers in
the mid-1990s, when European airspace was opened. The new entrants, with their model of minimal
services, additional revenues, modern aircraft, and staff managed without bearing the weight of
seniority, have been able to display totally unbelievable or even uncredible prices to traditional
carriers. The latter were used to selling a high price to a limited but loyal clientele a product that was
expensive to operate but which had proven its reliability. However, here we are, on their markets,
individuals often from foreign countries capable of operating on their territories by charging rates
that the traditional companies were unable to compete with because their production costs, their
mode of operation and even their culture were incompatible with the new proposals.


So, the old operators tried to resist and let’s say it they did so with quite a bit of success until the
damage caused by Covid. SAS, to name but one, found itself in a very difficult situation with the great
complexity of a capital split between 3 countries, one of which, Norway, announced its withdrawal.
And no one has come forward to join a company considered to be aging, even if this is not true. This
is what led it to fall under the Peter Pan forks of Chapter 11, which, by the way, allowed it to
restructure, but also to attract the Air France/KLM group, largely saved by public funds, to become a
conqueror again. Thus, the fierce independence of SAS was largely dented by the fact that it
belonged to the Franco-Dutch carrier.


In the middle of the Atlantic, in Iceland, the “low costs” had to bend the knee to reality. While
Icelandair continues its good way, the new entrants only make a brief visit. Recently, on September
25, the company PLAY, created in July 2019, filed for bankruptcy and stopped its activities almost
without notice. Its model was to sell transatlantic flights at discounted prices with a stop in Reykjavik.
Of course, the geography was respected because almost all flights between Europe and North
America pass over this island. Except that Icelandair uses the same model but using traditional
methods, in particular in terms of its distribution method. It may seem old-fashioned to continue to
go through GDSs and travel agents, except that to free yourself from them and penetrate the market,
you have to make considerable commercial investments just to buy positions in social networks. And
customers are starting to be wary. They no longer want to buy tickets without finding their carrier,
especially since these new companies are often undercapitalized and only have the cash flow built up
by customers who are forced to pay for their tickets very far in advance to benefit from fares that are
unable to bear the cost prices. This is how PLAY customers will always be able to frame their ticket,
which will make them a bitter memory.


The same adventure happened to the passengers of WOW, also an Icelandic company, created in
November 2011 and which was liquidated under the same conditions as PLAY on March 28, 2019. We
could also mention PRIMERA AIR, which filed for bankruptcy on October 2, 2018, or even the long-
haul part of NORWEGIAN, which was also shut down in 2020.

That’s a lot. The reputation of Nordic carriers for seriousness is very seriously dented. For a long time,
southern European airlines were singled out for their erratic management, now operators in
northern Europe are facing the same symptoms. Air transport is a particularly difficult activity and its
growth should not make us forget that to launch a new carrier, you need to have strong backs.

The Future Giants Of Air Transport

,

We are used to the ever-increasing figures of air transport, wholesale and for the year 2025, 5 billion
passengers, 1,000 billion dollars in turnover, more than 15,000 aircraft in regular operation by 1,200
carriers, 800 of which carry 98% of the market. And growth continues at the same rate of 5% per
year, which leads to a doubling every 15 years, despite the formidable environmental lobby, the main
enemy of this mode of transport. I note, however, that despite this continuous growth, air transport
produces a constantly decreasing proportion of CO² compared to other economic sectors on the
planet. It is now below the 3% mark and the figure will inevitably decrease with the arrival of a new
generation of aircraft, better airspace management and a constantly increasing average size of
aircraft.
This growth will not be driven by traditional carriers, which will continue to grow below 4% year after
year, but by new entrants. The domination of the Western world will gradually disappear in favor of
Asian, and even African, operators. Two carriers attract attention.

Turkish Airlines
It is not an Asian carrier and not a European one either. Before the year 2000, the Turkish national
airline was not talked about although it was born in 1933. But under the impetus of Racep Tayyip
Erdogan, then Prime Minister, orders for aircraft intensified and airport facilities were renovated
with the construction of Istanbul’s new airport, capable of handling 150 million passengers, twice the
capacity of Europe’s largest airport, Roissy Charles de Gaulle. So where will the company stop?
It has built a considerable network from its hub that serves 352 destinations, more than the 350 of
American Airlines, currently the world’s largest airline group. It operates 490 aircraft and has placed
orders for 352 new aircraft. This will give it the means to expand. It has already become a serious
competitor for Gulf carriers by positioning itself in their market of connections between Asia and
other continents.
This strategy has been very successful because with a turnover of $22.7 billion in 2024, 10 times that
of 20 years earlier, it has generated a net profit of $3.64 billion that would be the envy of many. This
is enough to open up the means for him to achieve his ambitions.

Indigo
This Indian carrier never ceases to amaze. Created much more recently, in 2005, it is now managed
by Pieter Elbers, the former CEO of KLM, who came into conflict with Benjamin Smith, the head of
the Air France/KLM group. There is no doubt that he will not stop taking his revenge against the
Europeans who, in the end, preferred a Canadian to head one of the three major airline groups on
the continent. Admittedly, Indigo is for the moment much smaller than Turkish Airlines, at least in
economic terms: 10 billion dollars in turnover, for a positive result of 860 million dollars. But the
operational figures are impressive: 434 aircraft in operation for 126 destinations mainly located in
the Indian subcontinent and more than 100 million passengers carried. What is impressive are the
company’s ambitions materialized by the most extraordinary order of aircraft: 1,016 to be said,
admittedly to be delivered spread over several years. But in this order there are now long-haul
flights. In other words, Indigo’s projects will not be limited to India or even to Gulf destinations.
Europe is undoubtedly in Pieter Elbers’ sights.


We could add other Asian carriers and in particular Air Asia and especially the Indonesian Lion Air,
which it should be remembered was the first victim of Boeing’s failures with the loss of the first B737
Max for which the manufacturer had blamed the operator at the time.

Just by looking at the distribution of the considerable aircraft orders, around 18,000, by recalling that
the average value of an aircraft is 100 million dollars, we can see very well that the growth of air
transport will be brought by the countries located around the Indian Ocean. However, these are not,
for the moment at least, permeable to ecological pressures.

What Is the Purpose of an Airline?

,

This question leads to an obvious answer: to transport passengers. Of course, this is its primary
vocation and the success of air transport is the most striking demonstration of this. Nearly 5 billion
passengers in 2025 and a demand that continues to grow. Let’s remember that the inhabitants of
more than 2/3 of the planet still do not have access to this mode of transport and as soon as they
can, they rush to it. He only has to look at the tremendous evolution of air travel in India, where the
company Indigo, for example, has placed an order for 500 aircraft with an average capacity of nearly
200 seats and has taken an equivalent option. So, there is no doubt that airlines have a unique
vocation: to transport passengers or cargo with planes. But that’s not all, and if you take a closer
look, an airline has other vocations.

Low costs

Basically, they are the only carriers whose sole function is to transport passengers. They have
considerably developed the layers of clientele and we owe them a very large part of the
development of tourism but also of over tourism, which is becoming a real concern. This type of
company must be economically profitable because “low costs” have nothing to expect from the
public authorities. There remains the case of Ryanair, which has built a large part of its prosperity by
charging the regions and airports that wanted to host its flights. This strategy worked because in the
end the passengers brought bring a much higher added value than the contributions paid to the
company. This is an example where without necessarily being part of his vocation, a carrier can
revive a region or even develop a country. At least this is what we can see between Europe and some
North African countries.

Legacy airlines

These are the traditional airlines. They created air transport by using the protection of states, which
in turn use them as a means of prestige, but also as a means of diplomatic pressure and even internal
politics. The 197 countries of the world, two of which are only observers at the UN, the Vatican and
Palestine and two are not registered, Taiwan and the Cook Islands, all or almost all have their own
carriers. Even very small states like Monaco have their own helicopter company. The traditional
companies have also evolved a lot and the States have gradually disengaged, at least as far as their
participation in the capital is concerned. Many investment funds have replaced the States without
the latter having given up on keeping control of their national carriers. Many have kept enough
shares to sit on the board of directors and influence certain decisions. Most of them have also largely
supported their national operator financially during the Covid period.


Traditional airlines are the vectors of traffic rights between states and they represent an essential
part of a country’s sovereignty. This is how air carriers become a real tool in the service of countries’
foreign policy, or even a means of camouflaging espionage activities, as we have seen in the past.
They are also the means for some governments to conduct their domestic policies. Ecological
constraints are often put forward to camouflage electoral objectives. It is easier and more effective
to constrain air transport to please the effective environmental lobby rather than to attack other
sectors of activity that are much more a source of pollution, such as textiles for example. But it is
easier for a government to administratively limit air transport, and first of all the national airline,
rather than looking into other sectors of activity that are more difficult to control.
And finally, airlines can become an effective means of pressure in the event of conflict. Preventing
flights between countries is relatively easy, all you have to do is remove traffic rights and not receive
the aircraft of the companies concerned.

Basically, a traditional company has many more functions than transporting passengers. It is the
symbol of a country’s independence. Without its own airline it does not really exist, but the
development of its national carrier as is the case in the Gulf countries immediately gives an influence
that could not be achieved by other means.


This is one of the reasons why air transport still has many years of growth ahead of it.

GDS Are Big Profiteers of AI

,

GDS (Global Distribution Systems) are not new in the world of air transport. Created by the major
airlines between the late 1970s and the early 1980s, following the deregulation of American air
transport decided by President Carter in 1978, they have established themselves as the essential tool
of distribution by linking travel agents to carriers’ inventory systems.


It worked so well that traditional airlines, in great difficulty following political uncertainties and the
arrival of “low-cost” competitors, gradually sold their stakes at a very high price in order to
compensate for the drift of their accounts. However, these companies, which had become economic
nuggets, were bought by investment funds that were quick to sharply increase the royalties that are
paid by the carriers. This is how, believing they were getting a good deal, the creators of the GDS
found themselves caught in a spiral from which they are trying to escape. To do this, at the request
of its members, IATA, which is an association of airlines, has developed a new protocol called NDC
(New Distribution Capability) in order to speak directly to travel agents without going through the
GDS. However, the widespread use of NDC takes time, a lot of time. A very small number of
companies have installed it. In short, it is far from being fully operational.


Meanwhile, the GDSs have been very concentrated. To date, only 3 major players dominate the
market: Amadeus, Sabre and Travelport. They gradually absorbed the original GDSs such as Galileo or
Système One and became the property of investment funds. Amadeus, for example, is more than
50% owned by 10 funds, the rest being on the stock exchange. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain
a high stock market price to ensure the profitability of the large amounts disbursed. It is therefore
unthinkable for the GDS to lose control of a sector of activity, air transport, which is growing steadily
by 5% per year and which will pass this year or next the turnover of 1,000 billion dollars with 5 billion
passengers. Let’s think that if growth continues and there is no reason for it to stop, in 2035 there
will be around 9 billion passengers who will generate a turnover close to 2 trillion dollars.


So, in order not to lose this manna, the GDSs have also embarked on the NDC protocol and they have
become pillars of it. Whether they like it or not, carriers will still have to use their services. But it
would be surprising if this stopped at the traditional range of products provided by the GDS. The
arrival of AI (Artificial Intelligence) will open up opportunities for them that we can think they will try
to take advantage of. I am talking about the famous Data, in fact the information that passes through
their hands. Because except for direct sales made by airlines, mainly via the Internet, all other
transactions go through GDSs. Even the “low costs”, who are totally reluctant to this mode of
distribution, are coming to it. This is how the GDSs will pass through their pipes a colossal amount of
information on air transport customers, but also on the ancillary services included in the NDC
protocol. Unlike airlines that will only know their own users, GDSs will have a global and detailed
view of the market.


The capabilities of Artificial Intelligence will certainly allow them to shape this mass of information
and so why not sell it to the players, the companies, who could thus have practical and effective
information not on their own customers, but on competitors? Of course, personal data will still be
protected and will remain confidential, at least that is what we can hope, but the statistics and their
processing will remain the property of the operators who collect them. This information will be of
considerable value because it concerns the part of the population most likely to consume. Let’s
imagine that a monster like Amazon gets its hands on a very large GDS, given its computing power
and the quality of its engineers, they will be able to make a considerable profit from it. Finally, if they
use the possibilities offered by AI, the remaining GDSs will become not only essential in the
distribution of air transport, but a key tool for operators’ decision-making. The latter will find
themselves obliged to buy them if they do not want to be inferiority to their competitors.


Air transport will inevitably evolve both under environmental constraints, but also with new technical
capabilities and the intelligent processing of the data contained in PNRs, in other words not the
reservation files that record the markets of origin, destinations, and purchasing behavior. We haven’t
finished talking about it again.

The end of “low-costs”

,

The title is a bit provocative, but the question deserves to be asked. Of course, “low-cost” carriers are
not going to disappear, but their product and their way of operating are in line with the methods of
traditional airlines and moreover, the latter have also largely evolved their operation towards the
“low-cost” model. From then on, and at least as far as short and medium-haul flights are concerned,
there will be only one hybrid model for which it would be wise to find a name.


For quite some time now, the difference between the two concepts has tended to shrink. Incumbent
carriers have been quite easy to adopt the Spartan service on board their flights, especially for
economy classes. They have not yet become accustomed to cashing in the additional services on
board, because the flight crews do not want to handle the money, unlike those of the “low-cost”
whose remuneration comes from this source. The density of seats is more or less identical, i.e.
traditional airlines have adopted an increasingly small space between rows in order to squeeze more
and more people on board. It was also a somewhat mandatory response to the reduction in fares in
order to reach the prices posted by the “low-cost”.


The aircraft are identical and the fleets of traditional carriers are modernizing, thus matching the
performance of their competitors. And so it is that the arrival on the market of the latest generation
of twin-engine single-aisle aircraft, which make it possible to carry out much longer flights, such as
transatlantic flights, will further accentuate the uniqueness of the model even on what must be
called long-haul flights.


So what is left to differentiate the two concepts? First of all, there is still a clear difference in the
operation of the aircraft, the “low-cost” are still looking for and rotating more than the traditional
airlines in short and medium-haul flights. To do this, they have to make faster U-turns and sometimes
put online a program so tense that the last flights of the day are very often late. The management of
on-board staff is also different, with “low-cost” workers being paid largely on a performance basis
and with much more restrictive working conditions than those of their colleagues in traditional
carriers. This does not mean, however, that they are not ultimately paid as well as their counterparts.
But in the end, all these differences are fading. And economic results are affected. Regular airlines
have made considerable efforts to improve their financial performance, i.e. they have improved their
performance at a time when prices were tending to rise, including among “low-cost” airlines. Gone
are the miraculous results of the “low-cost” and first of all on the American market. Spirit Airlines
has just filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and Southwest shareholders are railing about falling profits
at a time when the major U.S. carriers are posting record profits. It is not certain that the same
phenomenon will not occur in Europe and why not in Asia. Basically, the “low-cost”, whose concept
is not so recent, are becoming gentrified, while the “low-cost” are making commendable efforts to
lighten up.


So to become more competitive, the “low-cost” are starting to adopt traditional systems, especially
for their marketing. We now see them entering the classic mode of issuing banknotes in order to be
distributed by the GDS and the BSP traditionally used by the incumbent operators and even enter the
“low-cost” system that they did not want to hear about at any price.
We can see that the rapprochement between the two concepts is being finalized, each copying the
best in the others. As a result, the term “low-cost” has less and less meaning. Who is now going to
find a name to describe the operators of short and medium-haul flights so that the public is aware of
this development?

How do airlines differ?

,

Pieter Elbers, CEO of India’s IndiGo, which has placed the largest order for aircraft ever with 1,021
planes all at Airbus, pointed out that the only real difference between airlines was the quality of the
crew. Is this really true?

Air transport is organised in such a way that all operators have the same opportunities because they
are ultimately dependent on the same rules, regardless of their country of origin. This is the only way
to be able to exchange passengers and goods from one country to another and this is what has
greatly contributed to the rapid development of this activity.
Looking at the details a little, we can see that the carriers have, in total, few possibilities to express
their originality. They use the same aircraft because, whether they are produced by Airbus or Boeing,
their performance is more or less identical: the same speed, the same ranges, the same type of
comfort, the same safety qualities. In addition, they fly to the same major airports, they use the same
distribution techniques: GDSs and they finance their fleets using the same methods: partly by
purchasing and partly by leasing from the major leasing companies.

In short, the fundamentals of air transport are available to all airlines, but the customization
capabilities between operators remain infinite. Just like with 7 notes of music, you can compose an
infinite number of works, from the most mediocre to the absolute masterpieces.
Of course, the first differentiation comes from the market in which the company operates. In this
sense, the major American carriers hold a privileged position. But what can be said about an airline
like Turkish Airlines, which for a long time was almost non-existent in the world concert and has
become almost unavoidable between the European market and Asian and even African destinations?
How can we explain the eminent position held by Gulf carriers when they do not have a natural
market?

In fact, with the same tools and facilities, airlines can still customize their offering significantly.
First of all, by the cabin fittings. Depending on whether you want to position yourself in the “low cost”
or the high-end, the choice of cabin composition is essential and manufacturers have understood this
well because they deliver aircraft that comply with the specifications of the airlines who can decide
on the entire range of interior equipment from the number, layout and comfort of the seats but also
the galleys and leisure equipment. To this personalisation, we must of course add the quality of the
services served on board, which can make a big difference, especially for long-haul flights. We now
see more and more frequent flights of more than 15 hours.

And then there are an infinite number of factors linked to the great complexity of air transport. The
regularity of operations and their ability to respect their schedules remain particularly important for
customers’ choice, especially when journeys are made with connections at very large airports.
And how can we miss the rates that remain such a determining factor for the choice of many
customers. Curiously, however, these vary from day to day or even hour to the next according to the
fluctuations imposed by the “yield managers”.

Let’s take for example a transatlantic journey that will vary from 7 to 11 hours of flight. Carriers are
violently competing in this economically profitable market. Several dozen carriers share this cake
with roughly the same number of seats offered by operators on each side of the Atlantic. The aircraft
are identical, the airports are common to all, the schedules are very comparable and the fares are
subject to the “yield managers” who use the same IT tools. And yet the flight experience is very
different depending on whether you use an American or European carrier and even with strong
differentiations if only between European airlines. Each of the operators strives to respond first to
the wishes of its main market and the expectations are not the same on both sides of the ocean.
Companies are making great efforts to personalize their product and moreover they are essentially
advertising their personalization, especially since the end of Covid which marked the end of the race
for the lowest prices. So how can we explain this unfortunate practice of “code share” which consists
of putting flight numbers of a European company on a route operated by an American carrier and
vice versa? How can a commercial approach based on the personalization of one airline be justified if
it ends with a flight operated by another that also differentiates itself in a different way? I admit
that I have a lot of difficulty, not only to understand this practice, but to accept it as a customer.
It seems that this is a factor of profitability. Why not, but then you might as well sell the carrier’s
flights directly without camouflaging the reality. The “Interline” agreements between carriers that
allow these exchanges between companies have existed since 1948 and they work very well.

Enough is Enough

,

On July 3 and 4, 2025, a small minority of French air traffic controllers: 272 on Thursday, July 3 and 251 on
Friday, July 4, 2025 out of a total of 3,462 air traffic controllers employed by the air navigation service DSNA,
which depends on the DGAC, the French Civil Aviation Directorate, went on strike. The result was devastating:
in France alone, 933 flights were cancelled on Thursday and 1,125 on Friday, i.e. between 25% of traffic on the
Paris platforms and 50% in southern airports such as Nice, for example. The icing on the cake is that all business
aviation flights have been cancelled. If we take an average of 150 passengers per flight, the 2,058 cancellations
impacted just over 300,000 passengers, not counting delays and customers of private flights. And not to
mention the 1,500 or so European flights forced to be cancelled because it was impossible to fly over French
territory, through which a large proportion of flights from the continent transit.

So much for the quantified damage, but it does not reflect the stress of passengers forced to stay on the
ground or that of airline and airport staff who have had to endure the understandable bad mood of their
customers without being able to take any action to resolve their situation. Of course, the date was well chosen,
it was the date when families can finally meet again after a year of separation.

The most beautiful thing is the reason for this work stoppage. For the past 2 years, controllers have had to
comply with a time clock so that their employer can ensure their presence, since the staff is also sized to move
air traffic safely. Except that until now, no one checked who was the wearer of the badges inserted in the time
clocks, which allowed all accommodations between employees who clocked in on behalf of absentees who were in charge of revenge. To mitigate what is nothing more or less than a form of fraud, the DGAC, i.e. their employer, has decided to introduce facial recognition linked to the wearer of the badge inserted in the time clock. Horror among the controllers who will no longer be able to take hours or even days of absence when they have decided themselves on the number of staff necessary to route the planned traffic. The best part of the story is that the motive of the strikers is precisely to demand additional staff.

Basically, we can’t blame employees for always wanting more, after all they have very short working weeks and
even if their profession requires particularly sustained attention and unfailing professionalism, they are not
alone in the control room and there are several of them on the same workstation in the event of an expected
overload of work. They could just as easily demand large salary increases, even if they are part of the
proportion of the highest paid civil servants, with an average salary of €5,000 net per month, which
corresponds to an average gross salary of €6,250.

In this lamentable case, what is most shocking is the laxity of the authorities. The latter are perfectly aware of
the practices that take place in the control centres and they have been turning a blind eye for years. In
addition, they are unable to organize a continuity of service with only 272 strikers present in two minority
unions out of a total of 3,462 air traffic controllers, i.e. 7.85% of the workforce. I don’t know of any company manager who puts his activity on hold for 7.85% of strikers. How can we accept this lack of authority and
management? How do those in charge accept to put 300,000 people in distress so as not to be able to
reorganize their workforce?

I am told that the controllers are untouchable and that the last time civilian control was handed over to the
military was in 1973, which resulted in a mid-air collision over Nantes. Yes, but that was 52 years ago, more
than half a century ago. Since then, technology has evolved significantly. Are we sure, for example, that foreign
German, Swiss, British or other control centres would not be able to regulate traffic to compensate for the
shortcomings of French centres? For years, Europeans have been working on a European management of air
traffic control. That would be welcome. At the time, the American controllers decided on a massive work
stoppage, but they came up against the will of President Ronald Reagan who proceeded to dismiss all the
strikers, i.e. 2/3 of the workforce. Of course, this caused a monster mess in the sky for at least 3 months, but
since 1981 and the 11,000 layoffs we have not heard of an untimely work stoppage in the USA.
The Minister of Transport, Mr Philippe Tabarot, cannot be satisfied with condemning the attitude of the
strikers in the media. Should the law be changed to stop these acts? Why not, in any case enough is enough
and let the leaders of our country take their responsibilities.

ICAO: A Supranational Power?

,

There are powers vested in certain international organizations that are greater than those of sovereign states. This is the case of the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) created in November 1944 by the historic Chicago Convention which laid the foundations of modern commercial aviation. Originally 52 countries were part of this organization, there are now 192, in other words almost all the states of the planet. One of its main roles is to enact the rules that ensure the safety of this fragile sector of activity. The same directives are applicable everywhere in the world and their application is entrusted to the Civil Aviation of the participating countries. These are responsible, among other things, for issuing the famous AOC Air Operator Certificate. However, in order for its authority to be respected, the ICAO has inspectors, attached to the major political units, such as the European Union for example, and these can take away from a country the right to issue the essential CTAs.

This is what has just happened in Tanzania. The inspections carried out by the EU delegates have found very significant deficiencies in the functioning of the Civil Aviation of this country. As a result, all airlines under Tanzanian authority have been placed under a European “Blacklist”. Of course, these carriers can continue to fly in their country but international flights are forbidden to them because neighboring or even distant states must respect the decisions taken in accordance with ICAO rules and moreover no insurance company will dare to cover an operator placed on the “Blacklist”. This is an interesting example of super sovereignty, certainly for a limited part of the economy of countries, but which is imposed on governments, even if the latter exercise their power in a completely legitimate way within their country.

Around the world, a number of countries have been placed in the same situation. They are generally so because the Civil Aviation Authorities concerned are too corrupt and they grant exploitation rights outside the elementary precautionary rules set by the international agency. In fact, the penalties affect carriers first. In some countries only some of them are placed on the death list, but in other countries this sanction affects all registered operators. This is the case for at least 10 African countries, a continent that unfortunately leads by a wide margin, hit by endemic corruption, at least for the affected countries. The list of countries concerned is public, it is not here that we are going to point the finger at them. Some, such as Nigeria, have made considerable efforts to return to international rules, others, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, are unable to get out of this situation, even though this country, by its size and wealth, should obviously join the concert of International Civil Aviation.

The “Blacklisting” is very similar to the embargo placed not only on the economy of the states concerned but also on their ability to pursue relations with other countries. However, one of the essential prerogatives of a government is to be able to trade with other neighbors, whether state or not. And what is the most effective instrument for this if not air transport? I am always surprised to see that the countries concerned in the world, there are about twenty or so closer to ten others impacted by one or other of their airlines, do not agree to make the necessary efforts to join the great mass of countries authorized to trade with the rest of the world. To do this, you have to accept a few basic rules: solid training for the leaders of the national Civil Aviation and an elementary rule: an Air Transport Certificate cannot be purchased from your national authority.

Finally, air transport is a good indicator of the economic practices that allow the world to exchange people and goods, because the 180 or so countries involved in world trade exercise it with identical safety rules. I am well aware that there are still serious disparities between states, whether on fiscal or social aspects, but air safety rules are not up for discussion, or else we have to accept to leave international relations.

ICAO is the regulator and guarantor of safe air transport. It is thanks to this organization that this activity has been able to grow by constantly improving its reliability. Let us imagine for a moment what would have become of air transport and even the world economy and even relations between states if the ICAO had not been created in a certain month of November 1944.

The difficult relationship between the media and air transport

,

There is no doubt that air travel is one of the media’s favourite subjects. This activity has become
accessible to the general public even if a very small number of the inhabitants of the planet have
already practiced it. And then it is not natural for an earthling to be propelled into the air, at an
altitude of 10,000 meters to fly at 900 km/h in order to arrive at a destination several thousand
kilometers away in countries that sometimes speak a foreign language. In short, taking a flight is still
very anxiety-provoking and it is not the crossing of airports that will ease the apprehension of taking
the plane. At least 50% of passengers are still afraid in this mode of transport. All this probably
explains why the media are so interested in this sector of activity. Let’s add that air transport makes
very beautiful images that televisions and magazines are fond of.


And yet it cannot be said that the media treat air transport in a completely neutral way, especially
since the generalization of social networks. Not a day goes by without a blurb mentioning an incident
that occurred on board an aircraft. One flight was diverted because a passenger felt unwell, or
because an altercation, even a benign one, occurred on board. And the treatment is always dramatic.
The XY Airlines flight was forced to turn back for such an incident. Of course, this is news, but is it
normal to dramatize what is most often only a usual procedure intended to ensure the safety of
passengers?


Basically, customers are now the first providers of news and even images, which are very practical for
filling programs or publications when the activity is not urgent. And innocuous incidents are thus
going around the world, pushed by social networks without all the information having been
prioritized.


Of course, airlines are not free of defects and these must be brought to the attention of consumers,
but sometimes they deserve a technical explanation which is not always provided because it is not
very accessible to the general public. Take the example of plane delays. A certain number of them
are due to technical constraints attributable to the company, others come from a malfunction that
prevents the aircraft from taking off and this is very fortunate, and still others come from air traffic
control, which is divided into several areas, each of which can be a cause of delay. I am thinking in
particular of the repeated strikes affecting European and particularly French air traffic control, which
are a source of delays that are ultimately blamed on the carriers by passengers who are legitimately
irritated by these setbacks.


Next to that, the enormous work done by this sector of activity to achieve excellence is often
overlooked. All it takes is for individuals in need of media coverage to sabotage an aircraft by
painting it green for it to make the front page of the media while the huge investments made for the
decarbonization of air transport are ignored. However, it should be recognized that those in charge
of air transport do not always take the necessary steps to publicize their efforts and that the various
components of the sector spend more time complaining about each other rather than valuing this
difficult activity together.


Basically, the relationship between the media and air transport is “I love you, I don’t love you either”.
There is both a fascination for this activity, which is widely reported in the newspapers, and a
reluctance on the part of operators to disseminate information that is often very explanatory and
which would make air transport even more accepted by the population. Let’s just take the example
of noise. The media regularly relay the complaints of airport residents about the movements of
aircraft forced to fly over them, without it being mentioned that these same residents take full
advantage of the economic activity generated by the airport platforms, which explains why they have
settled nearby, and why we never see any mention that the noise of the aircraft decreases from year
to year under the effect of the very expensive searches paid for by the various operators. An aircraft
of the latest generation of medium-haul aircraft, the most common category, makes 5 times less
noise than an aircraft of the same capacity from the 1990s.


It is not a question here of passing judgment on the merits of the treatment of aerial information,
but just of emphasizing certain misunderstandings between the air sector and the media universe. A
little effort on either side would not hurt.

Aren’t Air Transport Customers Asking for Too Much?

,

There was a time, admittedly a little long ago, when air travel was expensive, not very comfortable and frequented by wealthy aficionados. This has changed a lot. It has now become a commodity, accessible to the vast majority of populations at least in developed countries. It is now more comfortable no matter what people say because the devices have reached a remarkable level of quality and safety and in addition it is now much less expensive than in the past. Everything could go in the best of all possible worlds, except that the behavior of some passengers makes this type of transport sometimes very stressful.

Of course, airlines are primarily responsible for the development of customer strata with a policy that tries to rake in all wallets. Admittedly, carriers are showing a little too much imagination with the introduction of variable tariffs driven by increasingly efficient “yield management”. Admittedly, “code-share” agreements, which lead one carrier to put its mark on another’s flights, lead to regrettable confusion. But this does not prevent us from questioning the behaviour of some passengers whose attitude pollutes the journey of others.

We are now witnessing a lack of civility that forces operators to resort to increasingly restrictive regulations. Take hand luggage, for example. Since some airlines charge for the storage of baggage in the hold, many customers abuse the carry-on or hand luggage. This is how we regularly see passengers entering the plane with a carry-on suitcase, but with a large backpack plus so-called hand luggage. It is clear that the racks of the devices are not equipped to receive more than one calibrated suitcase per person. So, knowing the difficulty of fitting their many pieces of equipment into the space above their seats, many passengers load the racks as they find a seat, often at the front of the plane, which leads to remarks from the crews that are more or less well received by the offending customers and a struggle to fit all the loads into the restricted space dedicated to them. This is why companies now charge for cabin baggage with the sole purpose of clearing up space so that reasonable passengers can place their belongings above their seats. Customers complain about these measures, which are certainly unpleasant, but complainers are usually the first to blame.

Do we need other examples? Complaints made by passengers who are dissatisfied with the service on board, or who are reluctant to pay for the services sold when they have worked hard to find the most economical fares, which do not include ancillary services.

It is always interesting to see the behaviour in the check-in or boarding queues. Regularly free riders try to force their way through, leading to unpleasant remarks from other passengers. And what about claims when planes are late? Of course, this is very stressful for customers who are a little worried about taking a plane or missing a connection in one of the gigantic “hubs” of the big operators. But let’s admit that if some companies don’t really have the religion of leaving on time, many customers use delays to obtain compensation that is certainly perfectly regulatory but which could often be avoided. This is how the European administration changed the compensation rules to the benefit, this time of airlines. Going too far inevitably leads to a return of the pendulum.

Basically, air transport is a victim of its own success and of the policy it has brought for at least a quarter of a century. By dint of announcing ever lower prices in order to come out on top in the price comparison sites, airlines have devalued a product that is so complex to use. Finally, if this product is worth so little, why would customers refrain from complaining as soon as a little annoyance is imposed on them. Respect is lost since the price is announced so low, and as soon as the rate actually paid no longer corresponds to the displays, the frustration of customers is all the more intense.

It cannot be said enough how regularly flying planes at an altitude of 10,000 meters, at 900 km/hour over distances of several thousand kilometers and in complete safety is an exercise that requires flawless expertise, colossal investments and perfect coordination between those involved on the ground and in flight. This deserves respect, first and foremost from customers.