Stop Going Digital!

,

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.

Bad Start to the Year for Air Travel

,

Although the increase in the number of passengers continues, reaching more than 5 billion by the end of the year, according to IATA experts, many difficulties have affected the end of 2024 and the beginning of 2025. It started with a series of air disasters never recorded in the last 5 years. And the causes are very varied, even uncommon to date while waiting for the conclusions of the investigators. I note that there is no point in making assumptions before the final report and that it can take a long time to be published.

In fact, it started at the very end of 2024. On 25 December, the Azerbaijan Airlines flight operated by Embraer 190 from Baku to Grozny was in all likelihood hit by a missile and crashed in Kazakhstan after the pilots tried everything to save it. 38 dead.

Four days later, the Jeju Air company operating the Bangkok – Musan flight in South Korea, in a Boeing 737-800 hit by birds, crashed at the end of the runway without having lowered its landing gear, killing 171 people and by a stroke of luck, 2 survivor crew members.

On January 28, an Airbus A321 of the South Korean airline Air Busan caught fire on the runway of Busan with 176 passengers on board. Fortunately, no casualties were reported, as all the passengers were evacuated in time.

On January 29, an American Airlines CRJ 700 was hit in the final phase of landing by a UH-60 helicopter of the United States Air Force and crashed, along with the helicopter, in the Potomac River adjacent to the Washington DC Ronald Reagan airport. 64 dead in the plane and the crew of the helicopter.

This is a series that would have been good to do without. It is also interesting to note that each accident has a different cause, even if the final conclusions are not known. It ranges from an unfortunate injection of birds into the engines, as happened to the US Airways Airbus 320 in 2009, which was able to end up in the Hudson without causing any casualties thanks to the talent and enormous coldness of its crew, to a military attack that was probably unintentional, but which can happen when the guns start to talk. In the middle there is a problem related to air traffic control, even though it is in a country and an area that is very closely monitored, and a huge problem that fortunately occurred on the ground.

All manufacturers are affected: Embraer for the Azerbaijan Airlines flight, Boeing with the Jeju Air disaster, Airbus with the fire at Air Busan and Bombardier whose CRJ 700 crashed in Washington. At this stage of the investigations, we cannot incriminate anyone, but it proves that air transport is a risky activity. To achieve his major objective, which is absolute safety, he deploys prodigious energy, to the point of reconstituting cabins from debris, as was done for TWA flight 800, or like the research companion of the Air France Rio-Paris flight where enormous resources were used. In fact, the safety of air travel has improved considerably because the same accident has never been repeated. This is why the findings of the investigators’ offices are so important.

But all this has a cost and the idea that flying a plane safely is very commonplace should not be allowed to pass on the effect of promotions, which moreover allow new layers of customers to have access to this great means of transport. It is also surprising that for low political reasons, some governments are determined to collect taxes that will not improve this activity, including for its decarbonization, for which the colossal research costs will have to be paid.

Air transport is a fantastic activity, which leads people to know each other and therefore to respect each other better, and which is one of the essential factors in the creation of wealth on earth for, ultimately, the benefit of all. But it remains fragile. All the more reason to respect it.

The Four Companies That Created Air Transport – Emirates – The New Standard

,

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.

$100 Billion for a new Gulf air transport player

,

100 billion dollars is the staggering sum that the government of Saudi Arabia has put on the table to develop its air transport. To give you an idea, this corresponds to nearly 4 times the turnover of Air France/KLM and twice that of the Lufthansa Group. The announcement dates from June 2024 and was reiterated at the last World Economic Forum in Davos in the Saudi Arabian pavilion by the GACA (General Authority of Civil Aviation).

What is this manna for? According to GACA’s head of strategy, Mohammed Alkhugaisi, it consists of tripling the number of passengers, developing the number of destinations served to reach 250, and handling 4.5 million tons of cargo. To do this, 50 billion dollars will be devoted to airport infrastructure, by increasing, among other things, the number of runways at Riyadh’s King Salman airport to 6. 40 billion will be used to acquire new aircraft, at 100 million dollars the average price of an aircraft, which still corresponds to 400 units. The last 10 billion will be used to create an infrastructure for logistics and maintenance. All this by 2030 if we are to believe the plan unveiled in June 2024 and confirmed in Davos.

This will seriously shake up Gulf air transport. It is currently shared between Emirates Airlines and Qatar Airways, with other significant carriers such as Etihad Airways, which is recovering from its past strategic mistakes, Gulf Air, which is starting to show its nose again, Kuwait Airways, and Oman Air, not to mention the Saudi carrier Saudi Arabian Airlines and the “low-cost” Air Arabia. The arrival of a new carrier largely supported by one of the richest states on the planet is enough to cause some problems for already established operators, especially since they also have undisguised growth ambitions. The deadlines are fast. Within 5 years, a new landscape will be operational.

It is easy to imagine that Emirates Airlines and Qatar Airways will have no desire to lose their current leadership. This is exercised not only in the Gulf but throughout the world. In terms of passengers/kilometers carried, Emirates Airlines is by far the leading international carrier; it must be said that the Dubai company has no domestic market. Qatar Airways is fighting to make its mark, the company is aiming for the first, but it is not won. So the arrival of a powerful Riyadh Air will further exacerbate the competition, especially if the latter accepts alcohol on board, which is an essential criterion to welcome an international clientele. After all, it is possible that under the influence of its new leader, Mohammed bin Salman, this country will copy its neighbors’ policies on alcohol consumption.

If we count correctly, in 2030 the Gulf will have 5 first-tier carriers: Emirates, Qatar Airways, Etihad Airways, Saudi Arabian Airways, and Riyadh Air, all largely supported by their respective states, which will provide them with all the airport facilities they need and without them being held back by a repressive ecology, as will be the case for Western airlines. The strike force of these operators will be considerable. Counting the current aircraft plus orders, we arrive at a total of 577 Airbus and 641 Boeings, i.e., more than 1,200 aircraft with an average capacity of 250 passengers. This is enough to destabilize international air transport.

Because two scenarios can be envisaged. The first is to imagine fierce competition between airlines that will have to fill their aircraft well. They can only pick up customers outside the Persian Gulf because the majority of “domestic” passengers in this region will use the services of powerful “low-cost” airlines such as Air Arabia or FlyDubai, to name but two. So it is very possible that the major operators will lower their tariffs to supply their fleets. It is difficult to see how traditional Western airlines can follow such a strategy. They will be condemned to lose market share. The other hypothesis is that, in the end, Gulf carriers agree among themselves to keep a consistent fare level and that they focus their attention and investments on improving the quality of service and the ease of transit in their largely modernized airports.

In both cases, Western companies have a real concern to worry about.

Towards an impasse

,

As every year, the ranking of the best airlines in the world carried out by the London-based Skytrax organization is closely scrutinized. It must be said that this rating is not disputed by anyone and that it has been refined over time, since it began in 1999, a quarter of a century ago. This is more than enough to ensure its credibility. A few lessons remain to be learned.

First of all, the supremacy of the Gulf airlines, to which we can add Turkish Airlines, whose base in Istanbul is in the same geographical area. Well, this zone, which includes only about twenty regular companies out of the 1200 registered in the world, achieves the performance of placing 3 in the top ten places and 5 in the Top 20. We can also notice the great stability in this ranking since we find the same in 2023. Let us pay tribute to Qatar Airways, Emirates and Turkish Airlines, the latter of which has made tremendous progress in the last 10 years

American airlines, yet the giants of air transport, are conspicuous by their absence. No carrier appears in the top 20 and only 3 emerge in the list of 50, with the first Delta Air Lines in the modest 21st place. It was not until the 100 nominees were nominated that 14 carriers registered in the United States and Canada were found. This proves that just because a company is big doesn’t mean it’s beautiful and attractive. Admittedly, the American domestic market is undoubtedly less demanding than that of other continents, but it is still surprising that the mega carriers of the United States still manage to impose themselves in international competition while their quality of service leaves so much to be desired.

The Asian continent takes the lion’s share of this ranking. It represents half of the top 10 companies and almost as many of the top 50: 24 out of 50. On closer inspection, the carriers of this huge continent have imposed a level of quality much higher than that of other parts of the world, but they are also the ones who will drive the growth of future air transport if we are to believe the huge order book they hold with the two major world manufacturers. For the moment, states do not seem to be very concerned by the search for carbon neutrality, they are rather in the position of using this mode of transport to strengthen their economic growth.

European airlines are gradually regaining ground. It must be said that they had fallen very low under the governance of the famous “cost killers” and “Yield Management”. Gradually we see them return to the places they should never have left. Let’s welcome the arrival of Air France for the second year in a row and Swiss International Airlines in the top 10 airlines. The Europeans managed to place 6 carriers in the Top 20 with the progress of British Airways and Lufthansa. This proves that when Europeans want to make a quality product, they quickly reach the top of the ranking. They had to go down very low before returning to the level they had in the 1970s. We can only encourage them to continue on the same path.

Two continents are still lagging behind. Latin America only appears in the second part of the Top 50 with the 43rd position of LATAM and only 5 carriers are in the top 100 worldwide. There is still much to be done in this area for which air transport is so vital. The same can be said of Africa, which only places Ethiopian Airlines in the top 50 carriers in 36th place and only 7 companies in the top 100, including Royal Air Maroc in 55th place.

We can criticize this type of ranking at will, which necessarily retains a certain subjectivity even if it is built on a large number of criteria. Nevertheless, it is of great interest not only to high-rated companies or those that are moving up the list, but also to customers for whom it remains a criterion of choice, even if it is not the only one. And then it encourages carriers to continue their efforts to improve and, if only for that, the Skytrax ranking is very useful to air transport.

Air transport is 80 years old

,

This is false, you will tell me, and you will be right. The first commercial flight took place in Florida in… 1914 and before the Second World War, major companies such as Pan Am, Air France, Imperial Airways, and others were already crisscrossing the skies and had traced important international networks. Pan Am, for example, crossed the Pacific with giant seaplanes, and European operators went as far as Australia and many Asian and African countries. So why date air transport to 1944?

On December 7, 1944, in Chicago, the representatives of 52 countries signed the real renaissance of air transport by laying down the rules that would make it prosperous. This required the creation of an entity responsible for the development of regulations and their enforcement. To tell the truth, the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) only took its current title on April 4, 1947, after the ratification of the majority of the founding countries, i.e., 26, since decisions are taken by a simple majority.

To be honest, I’m still surprised by the vision of the founders. Let us remember that in December 1944, the world was really on fire. The war had reached a savagery never known in the past, and little by little, the alliance against the totalitarian countries—Germany, Japan, and their affiliates—was gaining the upper hand. At that point, there was no longer any doubt as to the winners. However, the members of this constituent assembly have laid down as a principle of future air transport that it will be managed with the same rules in each signatory country and that they will apply even to defeated countries. It was not easy, and it is the greatness of the participants in the creation of ICAO, to have understood the importance of air transport for the recovery of the planet and its future prosperity.

To date, 193 countries are members of ICAO, the same number as the participants in the UN. They are represented in this body by an ambassador. That is to say that air transport has a global governance that works rather well despite the low number of permanent civil servants, around 1,000. Many other international organizations would do well to adopt a similar system of governance.

This works well because the ICAO has mandated each of the member states to apply the rules laid down by the organization. But the Civil Aviation Directorates of each state are themselves audited by delegates from the head office, and if the inspection shows significant dysfunctions, the country in question is simply removed from the ICAO until its inspection shows that it has returned to good practices. This means that “blacklisted” countries can no longer issue navigation certificates to their airlines and that the latter can no longer operate international flights. This is probably the best way to avoid the effects of corruption that would have the effect of reducing the security of the airlines of these states. Several countries have been in such a position in the past, such as Nigeria and the Philippines. This has forced the governments concerned to review the entire organization of their own civil aviation. They did so and once again joined global air travel.

Let us keep in mind that this unique system has allowed a fantastic development of world trade while forcing air transport to become safer and more environmentally friendly. In 1983, the ICAO created a Committee for the Protection of the Environment. As a result of the standards enacted, aircraft noise has decreased by 75% since 1970 and fuel consumption by 80%. Admittedly, it seems difficult, if not impossible, to achieve carbon neutrality by 2025, which is the objective of global air transport, but the constant pressure put on all players will certainly have a very beneficial effect on the ecological impact of this sector of activity.

The ICAO only issues standards for all aspects of air transport, from radio frequencies and the standardization of diplomas to major safety rules, and they apply to all players: from manufacturers to airports and, of course, carriers. It may not seem like much, but it is thanks to these standards that air transport has reached an incomparable level of development while improving its safety to the point where we are approaching excellence.

Happy birthday to ICAO and happy birthday to modern air transport. May it continue for a long time in the same way.

Air transport, stop punitive ecology!

,

It’s a done deal: the total decarbonisation of air transport by 2050 will not be possible. Indeed, the 14,000 or so aircraft currently on order will be delivered between 2025 and 2035 and they have a lifespan of at least 30 years. However, they are built with a technology that still generates CO² and the production of SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) will be largely insufficient to ensure carbon-free air transport.

Is this a reason to do nothing? Certainly not. The airline industry has been tackling the problem head-on for at least a good twenty years. Today’s aircraft are much less fuel-hungry and less energy-intensive. Despite the cries of outrage from some apostles of ecology, air transport has not waited for them to work on this issue, if only because it is profitable. The less fossil fuel the appliances consume, the more profitable the sector is.

But the ecological revolution will not happen with a wave of a magic wand. Several hundred billion dollars will have to be devoted to research, and it will have to cover the entire spectrum of this activity. And first of all, the manufacture of engines, because this is the major factor of pollution. Designing new machines that consume very little fuel is a long-term task. Imagining new systems to provide sufficient power for the take-off of 400-tonne aircraft is not currently conceivable, at least in the current state of research. And it will also be necessary to gain in decarbonization in the assembly of aircraft, but also – and this is undoubtedly the first progress to be made in the reorganization of airspace in order to shorten distances and consequently travel times. Much remains to be done in this area and we know, at least in Europe, how to proceed with the implementation of SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research), in other words, the management of European airspace in a single entity and not fragmented into 43 control centres as is the case now. Everything is ready, all that remains is to convince the states and the air traffic controllers’ unions and this is perhaps the most difficult.

In short, we will have to put money, a lot of money into research. The subject is exciting. Creating carbon-free aviation is great, especially since air transport is essential to the survival of the planet and the prosperity of peoples. So why does he have to suffer the vindictiveness of political leaders? The latter, at least in some European countries, including France in the first place, but this is also the case in the Netherlands, Germany and even in the Nordic countries, are determined to put the brakes on airlines and, when this is not possible, to tax the air sector in favour of land transport. I am thinking mainly of rail transport. Do we seriously believe that subsidizing the train by taking money from the plane is the right solution to bring air transport to be decarbonized? How can we reasonably divert a so-called Chirac tax, the purpose of which was to provide the means to vaccinate the populations that are in dire need of it, to the benefit of a general budget that no one seems to be able to control anymore?

What kind of jealousy or demagogy drives the deputies to tax the users of the plane on the pretext that they must be able to pay? Of course, the enormous financial needs necessary for research will have to be paid for by someone, and it will certainly not be the states that will always have other priorities. So, of course, these hundreds of billions of dollars will inevitably have to be provided by air transport itself, and first and foremost by consumers. But everyone will have to get involved, whether it’s passengers, manufacturers, engine manufacturers and even airports. And instead of working in a dispersed manner, it would be wise for the collection of money to be centralized with a global organization, why not the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) which could set the main lines of research and distribute the necessary funds in a balanced way with a single goal: the decarbonization of global air transport.

We should listen more often to Bertrand Piccard, the founder and director of Solar Impulse. He talks about the future without blaming the present. He talks about real technological leaps that are not only the improvement of current processes but real innovations, which means that we don’t know about them nowadays. For him, ecology is not a constraint but a real progress that cannot be achieved by destroying the present. I can well imagine him at the head of the huge investment fund that I ardently hope will be created.

How do companies differentiate their product?

,

Recently, a senior executive of a major airline asked me what I think differentiates the product from carriers in order to guide customer choices. I admit that I suggested a moment of reflection and here are some avenues.

First of all, we will only talk about the major carriers, the only ones to compete fiercely, and their survival is at stake. The slightest failure can come at a high price, especially with business customers who, with less than 50% of passengers, account for more than 2/3 of the companies’ turnover. Very large operators are characterized by fleets of several hundred aircraft, networks of more than 100 destinations, more than 30 million annual passengers and a turnover of at least $20 billion. Suffice to say that these are very large companies, which are often grouped into even larger groups with many subsidiaries or associated carriers such as the Lufthansa Group, Air France/KLM or IAG in Europe, Delta Airlines, United Airlines and American Airlines in the United States, or Latam resulting from the merger between Lan Chile and the Brazilian TAM. Other very powerful airlines have not found the need to partner with anyone, the Gulf carriers, for example, or Ethiopian Airlines in Africa and Qantas, Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines and the other major Asian carriers that are reluctant to mix with others.

So what differentiates one company from another? First of all, its network is obvious. No carrier claims to go to all points of the planet, even if, with alliances, companies try to capture the clientele of mega companies that have global transport needs. For the rest, the fundamentals are strangely similar. The major airlines operate the same aircraft from only two manufacturers: Airbus and Boeing, which are eerily similar in terms of standard cabin layouts. These aircraft fly at the same speed, have comparable ranges and operate to the same major airports. So how can you differentiate yourself from your competitors? And finally, why would the passenger choose this or that carrier? On the transatlantic route alone, more than 20 airlines operate hundreds of flights every day. All major operators use the same model of transfer platforms commonly known as “hubs”.

Going into a little more detail, there are still some factors that can tip the balance for this or that company. First of all, its customization. Airlines are the true ambassadors of their country and each one reflects the personality of its origin. You can’t go wrong when you enter an aircraft between an Asian carrier and an American, a European or an African one. This is reflected in the cabin crews’ uniforms. I’m not talking about the pilots, all dressed in the same way regardless of their country of origin. So if the customer prefers a French atmosphere, he will choose Air France and if he prefers the American style, he will take Delta Air Lines or American to make the same trip. The experience of the flight will be different, if only by the language commonly spoken on board. We do not understand why air transport invented code-sharing, which consists of selling a product other than the one purchased by the customer. It’s a deception because you have to call things by their name, except that it’s legal. Who knows why!

And then there is the reputation of the companies. In this sense, respect for schedules and regularity of operation is decisive between two close competitors. In its time, the Belgian company SABENA has had the bitter experience of this. For the front classes: Business and Premiere, ground service is also a differentiating element. Trade fairs where you spend a lot of time ultimately lead to certain choices. However, the same type of product must be available in all destinations, and this is almost never the case, except for the two major Gulf carriers: Emirates and Qatar Airways, Emirates having shown originality to the point of a higher level of on-board equipment with the massive use of the A380s. The quality of the services provided is also appreciated by those used to long-haul flights, as is the electronic equipment.

The major argument remains: loyalty programs. Customers are ultimately very loyal to the carriers with which they can earn their miles, even if only 40% is actually consumed.

I’m not talking about the rates, which are so important, but they fluctuate so much at the whim of the Yield Managers that they cannot be analysed objectively.

Of course, the differences are much more noticeable for long-haul flights. As far as medium and short-haul flights are concerned, the airlines’ services are all converging towards the low-cost model, which has undoubtedly won the game.

How to make African air transport prices affordable

,

ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) is a place where exchanges can lead to concrete measures. Admittedly, the organization created in Lagos on May 29, 1975 is currently in a bit of difficulty with the pseudo exclusion of 4 states located in the middle of this geographical area: Burkina Faso, Guinea, Mali and Niger, all governed by military powers which, concerned about the independence of their country, have cut the ties they had with France, which,  incidentally also has repercussions throughout Western Europe.

Recently, at a meeting of the civil aviation officials of the member states, 11 countries, if we remove the four that are at odds with the Organization, put the price of air tickets within the territory covered by the states at the center of their debates. And this is quite normal if we compare the rates charged to those in Europe. Here are a few examples taken on the most direct route with a one-way trip on December 10 and a return trip on December 17, 2024 in economy class: Bamako/Lomé 4h30 return flight, €891 with the company Asky – Accra/Douala 8h20 journey because there is a stopover €1,194 still with Asky – Abidjan/Dakar 5h25 flight,  price €525 with Kenya Airways. And by comparison on the European routes Paris/Rome: 4 hours and 25 minutes of flight, price €66 with Ryanair or Paris/Athens in 6 hours and 50 minutes round trip for a price of €176 with Transavia or London/Athens 7 hours and 50 minutes of flight time, €114 by taking EasyJet. I chose comparable great circle distances.

Differences also exist on identical routes depending on whether you travel in the south/north direction or the other way around. Examples always taken on the same dates and in economy class: Abidjan/Paris €1,208 but Paris/Abidjan €993 with the same carrier, Air France, or Accra/London €1,466 and London/Accra €1,216 travel with British Airways.

We have to face the facts, at the same distance the rates are always more expensive, even much more expensive for Africans than for Europeans, yet the cost of living is much higher in Europe than in the ECOWAS countries.

The African air transport leaders meeting in Lomé pointed to several factors to explain these discrepancies: airport charges, air traffic control charges, various taxes imposed by governments and this is probably only the beginning of their reflection. But seen from the outside, there are other reasons why banknotes in Africa are so high.

The first is the atomization of African air transport. Apart from 4 airlines: Ethiopian Airlines, Kenya Airways, Royal Air Maroc and Egyptair, no operator has reached the size of the airline to compete with international competition that is still very active. However, none of the four carriers named above is based in the territory covered by ECOWAS. Thus, European companies can sell at higher rates than they do elsewhere and they do not hide it, because they are not afraid of African competition. The first answer would be to create a good-sized company based in this region.

The second reason comes from the scarcity of supply. To achieve a reasonably low level of costs, operations are needed that are much denser than those available to the market. Each pair of major cities, I am thinking first of all of the economic capitals, should be served by at least 3 daily round trips and this is very far from being the case. It is not normal to take more than 6 hours to reach Douala in Lagos, 746 kilometers away. For the same distance, there are nearly 40 daily flights between Paris and Nice. The same is true between Accra and Douala, where it takes more than 4 hours to cover 1,122 km. The demand for transport is there, especially if fares fall to a reasonable level. To achieve this, we must, once again, create a real low-cost carrier in this region. Make no mistake, low-cost airlines are the only reason for the huge drop in European fares. They have also snatched up nearly half of the market and forced traditional airlines to align their fares with theirs.

And then it would be wise for the composition of the fleets to obey only economic and not political criteria. Ethiopian Airlines, although entirely owned by the Ethiopian state, has always kept its full independence in terms of its strategy and the choice of its equipment.

Africa, and more specifically this region, is a real Eldorado for air transport: a young, fast-growing, often well-educated population, little ground equipment and economic development just waiting to take off. Air transport is perhaps the essential means of ensuring this development.

Ancillary income legal deception

,

The first question to be answered is: what are you buying when you purchase a plane ticket? There is a distinction between before and after the arrival of low-cost airlines. Previously, a plane ticket covered the entire service: the transport of passengers from one airport to another, their seat on the plane, the transport of their luggage (with a weight limit due to the less efficient aircraft used at the time), as well as the check-in of passengers with seat and luggage allocation. There was different onboard service depending on the class chosen by the customer, including newspapers and a film (selected by the airline and the same for all passengers), all included in the ticket price. In exchange, fares were proportionally higher. In 1970, there were only two classes on board: first and economy, with business class introduced in the mid-1970s to allow for some fare flexibility.

The arrival of low-cost carriers disrupted the services included in the ticket price by subjecting traditional airlines to new, aggressive competition to which they were unaccustomed. For years, these airlines denigrated—even despised—this new way of selling plane tickets, but eventually they were forced to adopt it, in response to losing customers who were content with the minimal service offered by low-cost carriers, in exchange for much lower fares.

However, from the outset, low-cost airlines recognized that the price of the plane ticket, offered at incredibly low levels, would not be enough to balance their accounts. It was therefore necessary to reduce services to such a degree that customers would have to purchase additional services to enjoy a minimum level of comfort. This led to reduced space between seats, with an extra charge for more legroom; the sale of boarding priority, as the companies no longer allocated seats to passengers (a measure they have since reversed); and the sale of services that traditionally would be included in the ticket price, such as Ryanair’s recent, controversial policy of charging customers for airport check-in. Gradually, nearly all airlines began to adopt similar practices.

This is where it has become problematic. Air travel has aligned itself with a kind of deception: announcing prices far below actual costs to secure the best positions in the displays of major consolidators, then compensating for these losses by selling ancillary services, assuming the customer would not notice. This approach treats customers as naïve, and ultimately devalues air travel by setting prices that do not cover costs. To cover the cost of a transatlantic flight (around 11,000 km), a traditional airline needs about €900 with a cost of 8 euro cents per seat-kilometer, while a low-cost carrier requires around €700, with costs closer to 6 euro cents per seat-kilometer. This means any fares below these amounts are essentially sold at a loss, which is prohibited in most Western countries. Nevertheless, when I checked a popular consolidator this morning, I found transatlantic round trips at €633, or a Bangkok-Tokyo round trip (a 12-hour flight) at €534.

Managers often argue that the availability of such discounted rates is limited and that they compensate with revenue from ancillary services. In other words, they lure customers with an offer that does not cover costs—knowing that the offer is very limited, without making this clear—while ensuring additional revenue from charging for ancillary services, sometimes even for basic needs, such as baggage fees for cabin and checked luggage. This practice is unreasonable, as customers remember the advertised price and are surprised when they must add essential services to be able to travel.

The sums involved are far from negligible. In 2024, the estimated revenue from ancillary services is nearly $150 billion, out of a total turnover of around $1,000 billion—representing 15% of total revenue.

It appeared that after COVID-19, carriers returned to better practices by initially posting significantly higher fares that covered costs. However, the trend toward pricing below cost seems to be on the rise again. How can we encourage carriers to stop underestimating their customers?