Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Analysis of Airplane Boarding Times
Analysis of Airplane Boarding Times
Abstract
We model and analyze the process of passengers boarding an airplane. We show how
the model yields closed-form estimates for the expected boarding time in many cases of
interest. The computations reveal a clear link between the e ciency of various airline
boarding policies and interior airplane design parameters, such as distance between rows.
Comparison of our results with previous work, based on discrete event simulations, shows
a high degree of agreement. Our work thus provides an explanation and theoretical
foundation for these previous results, while allowing greater
exibility in terms of exploring
many parameter settings.
http://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/~ebachmat/managesubmit.pdf
Most Annoying Airline Delays Might Just Be in the Boarding
By JAD MOUAWAD
Published: October 31, 2011
It’s the common tale of woe for many travelers waiting to board a plane. First the airline has to go through a long list of passengers who have priority: First- and business-class passengers, frequent fliers, elite card holders, uniformed members of the military, families with children, those who hold credit cards affiliated with the airlines, passengers who paid for priority seats.
By the time coach travelers are called, the overhead bins seem to be already full.
Airlines have been boarding passengers since the first commercial flight, but as they have added new classes of seating to their cabins and new fees for priority boarding — all in the name of more revenue — they have slowed down the whole process.
Checked-baggage fees have only added to the problem, because travelers now take more roll-ons onboard, blocking the aisles as they try to cram their belongings into any available space.
And that’s not to mention the fact that planes are now fuller.
That is why some airlines have gone back to the drawing board to rein in a lengthening process. As it is, boarding time has doubled over the last decades, according to research by Boeing. It now takes 30 to 40 minutes to board about 140 passengers on a domestic flight, up from around 15 minutes in the 1970s.
“They should have a different line for people with carry-ons like they do at baseball games with bags,” said Brian Proffit, who was flying to Houston from New York with Delta Air Lines. “The boarding process has become worse than the security lanes.”
One airline did figure out a way to sharply cut boarding time. Spirit Airlines found that passengers got to their seats much more rapidly once it started charging $20 to $40 per carry-on bag. Since it’s $2 cheaper to check a bag, more passengers do, and Spirit claims its “stress-free boarding” saves six minutes on average.
Others are reluctant to take such a drastic step for fear of alienating customers.
It should be no surprise that boarding has become one more frustrating step in airline travel. Or, as Mark E. DuPont, the vice president for airport services planning at American Airlines, put it: “Boarding can be like driving behind a slow-moving truck that you can’t overtake.”
Airlines have tried all kinds of elaborate tricks over the years to leave the gate on time. Some board passengers in the back rows first, while others give priority to those with window seats, and some come up with elaborate combinations, including one no longer used, known as the “reverse pyramid.”
But passengers can be unpredictable.
“The real world has wrecked their optimization plans,” said Matthew Daimler, the founder of SeatGuru, a Web site that helps passengers find the best seats on a particular plane.
American Airlines changed the way it boarded its planes in May. It still gives priority to business passengers and frequent fliers but then boards passengers who paid an extra $9 to $19 to get on early, guaranteeing they will find space to stow their bags.
The rest of the passengers are then brought in as three groups, sorted in an attempt to spread them out more evenly through the cabin and allow more people to find their seats faster. The approach also helps passengers stow their luggage more efficiently, nearer to their seats, allowing more people to find overhead space and cutting the number of bags that need to be checked at the last minute — a common cause of delayed flights.
The new method has cut boarding by four to five minutes, Mr. DuPont said.
All the extra fees have been a major benefit to the airlines’ bottom lines. According to estimates by Amadeus, a global distribution service, they will add up to $12.5 billion in 2011 for major United States airlines, up 87 percent from last year.
The challenge of boarding is thornier for narrow-body planes with single aisles that are used on domestic flights than on the larger planes on international flights where passengers have two possible pathways.
A scientist once said the problem of boarding a single-aisle plane was a real-life application of Einstein’s theory of relativity, where passengers are constrained in their movements through space and time.
A few years ago, Jason H. Steffen, an astrophysicist at Fermilab in Chicago, figured there had to be a better way to board after he was held up on the jetway while waiting for a flight to Washington. “If the process was efficient, there would be no line,” he said.
He set out to solve the problem using a “Markov chain Monte Carlo optimization algorithm” — a mathematical program well suited to the kind of haphazard events that occur in an airplane cabin. Much to his surprise, he found that the common back-to-front method was among the slowest: passengers must wait for those ahead of them to stow their bags and sit down. It is far better, it turns out, to let passengers board randomly. Mr. Steffen claims he found the fastest way, which involves boarding passengers from the back who are seated two rows apart.
“The lesson I learned comes down to this: you want to spread passengers out and not concentrate them while boarding,” he said. But the method is unlikely to be picked up because the airlines say it is too complicated.
Others have also searched for the holy grail of boarding. In 2002, America West Airlines, which later merged with US Airways, hired industrial engineers from Arizona State University to speed up the boarding process. The group came up with an approach that they called the “reverse pyramid.” It begins with passengers assigned to window seats in the back, and gradually makes its way to the front of the plane in a staggered pattern.
That saved time, but US Airways dropped it in 2007 because some passengers without elite status sitting in the front could not find space for their bags.
“Overhead space has really become a premium product,” said Kerry Hester, the senior vice president for operations planning at US Airways.
Another approach is used by Southwest, which says it can board its planes in around 15 minutes. It says the root of the delays is the practice of assigning seat numbers. Southwest’s passengers are instead assigned to one of three boarding groups, and then given a number based on the time they checked in.
Passengers who buy a premium “Business Select” ticket are guaranteed to board ahead of everyone, followed by Southwest frequent fliers and passengers who bought a $10 one-way “early-bird check-in” pass.
The airlines, meanwhile, keeps looking for what Scott O’Leary, managing director of customer experience at United, described as “the sweet spot between speed and a sense of order.”
A version of this article appeared in print on November 1, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Most Annoying Airline Delays Might Just Be in the Boarding.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/business/airlines-are-trying-to-cut-boarding-times-on-planes.html?pagewanted=all
Comparing Airplane Boarding Methods
Group/Zone Boarding
Boarding Systems
See http://menkes76.com/projects/boarding/boarding.htm for videos of animations
Monday, May 21, 2012
AirAsia to start Singapore hub soon, widening its network
By Jahabar Sadiq
Editor
Editor
May 08, 2012
KUALA LUMPUR, May 8 — AirAsia has received Singapore’s approval to
start a hub in the island republic soon, say sources, allowing the
Malaysian airline to expand its network in the growing regional low-cost
market segment just a week after Putrajaya aborted its share swap with
loss-making Malaysia Airlines (MAS).
The Malaysian Insider understands that Singapore has
informed AirAsia it will get an air operator’s certificate (AOC) as soon
as possible, ending years of lobbying by Asia’s biggest low-cost
carrier to set up operations in the city-state, a leading Asian
financial centre.“Singapore has agreed in principle to issue the AOC. It will be issued soon,” an industry source told The Malaysian Insider.
AirAsia chief executive Tan Sri Tony Fernandes was quoted last February as saying he aims to get clearance this year from the Singapore aviation authorities to fly to more destinations from Singapore.
Fernandes told Channel NewsAsia he proposed to make the country a regional hub for his low-cost airline, alongside Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Japan, naming India and China as key countries to which AirAsia is seeking approval to fly to.
AirAsia will focus on creating an ASEAN brand with an operational hub in all Association of Southeast Asian Nations countries within the next five years, he said. It currently has local joint-venture units in Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines and Thailand, apart from long-distance low-cost carrier AirAsia X.
The budget carrier began flying two flights a day into the city-state from Kuala Lumpur in 2007, seven years after it began operations as a low-cost airline. It now flies 12 times a day from Kuala Lumpur apart from other direct flights to cities in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand.
“This is a good boost for AirAsia as the current economic climate means more people will fly low-cost airlines for leisure and even business from Changi, which is an international hub,” another source said, adding AirAsia can compete with Singapore Airlines’ budget carrier unit Scoot.
The Singapore budget airline’s first route will be a daily Singapore-Sydney service from June using a Boeing 777-200, said company officials, with a Singapore-Gold Coast route to follow. The airline said future international destinations will include China.
AirAsia’s biggest market remains Malaysia but it has seen growth in Indonesia and Thailand, which have large domestic operations. It has just started its operations in Japan and the Philippines and is said to be eyeing Myanmar, which has opened up its economy in the past year.
Fernandes, who took over AirAsia for RM1 and debts in 2001 when it was a two-plane operation, has turned it into Asia’s biggest low-cost carrier within a decade. His success prompted Malaysian sovereign wealth fund Khazanah Nasional Berhad to finally agree to work with him to turn around MAS, which lost RM2.52 billion last year.
But the share swap signed last August faced fierce opposition from some politicians and the flag carrier’s unions, who represent the majority of the 20,000 airline staff, pushing the government to abort the deal on May 2.
The unwinding of the share swap saw Khazanah transfer its 10 per cent or 277,650,600 ordinary shares in AirAsia back to Fernandes’ Tune Air Sdn Bhd, while Tune Air transferred its 20.5 per cent or 685,142,000 ordinary shares in MAS back to Khazanah. It was a cashless transaction and based on the same swap ratio of 2.05 based on the prices when the share swap was announced in August 2011, where MAS was valued at RM1.60 per share and AirAsia’s share at RM3.95.
OSK Research had pointed out that AirAsia was to benefit more with the unbundling of the deal, saying “as Malaysia is predominantly a low-cost passenger market with a penetration rate of over 57 per cent, this gives AirAsia the upper advantage given its low-cost structure and vast route network, hence limiting the pressure from MAS in view of its ailing financial condition.”
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/airasia-to-start-singapore-hub-soon-widening-its-network/http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/airasia-to-start-singapore-hub-soon-widening-its-network/
Turbulent skies ahead for Singapore Airlines?
Near-term earnings will be shaky due to plummeting yields and anemic demand for European long-haul flights.
While Singapore Airlines has been cutting down its staff bonus and jet fuel costs, it still won't be enough to make up for tepid passenger and cargo market demand. The revenue contributions from Scoot won't kick in until after FY13, which certainly doesn't help the near-term prospects for the airliner.
Here's more from CIMB:
Continued pressure on yields due to promotional activities, and an
increasingly weak outlook for European economies suggest that SIA could
struggle for a while yet with long-haul travel demand. We think that
LCCs remain in a better position to weather the downcycle.
We downgrade our relative call from Neutral to Underperform on
better expected returns for FSSTI. We raise our forecasts by around 30%
for FY12-13 on better yields as we were too bearish a few quarters ago.
SIA will be announcing FY12 results on Wednesday evening, followed
by an analysts’ briefing on Thursday morning. We expect a 4Q core net
profit of around S$120m, and a full-year core net profit of around
S$400m. Our previous forecasts were too low, and we are raising them in
anticipation of the results.
SIA’s 4Q (January-March 2012) ASK capacity grew by 4%, while its
RPK demand rose 7% yoy, with its passenger load factor improving 2.1%
pts to 77.6%. This was due to an easy comparison base that was affected
by Japan’s earthquake. Meanwhile, 4Q’s cargo AFTK capacity dipped 2% but
RFTK demand fell an even faster 3% yoy, leading to a 0.7%-pt decline in
the cargo load factor to 61.9%. Yields for both the passenger and cargo
segments should decline yoy due to
the current weak environment.
the current weak environment.
However, the impact on profits is partially mitigated by lower
staff bonuses than last year, while jet fuel prices also weakened from
US$135 in 3Q to US$127/barrel in 2Q.
We do not expect the results to catalyse its share price, as its
near-term outlook remains hazy. We also do not expect Scoot to be a
material earnings contributor in FY13, since it is a longer-term
project.
http://sbr.com.sg/aviation/in-focus/turbulent-skies-ahead-singapore-airlines
Friday, April 6, 2012
THE CONCORDE STORY
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/b6OCuJZ9bX4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The AƩrospatiale-BAC Concorde is a turbojet-powered supersonic passenger airliner, a supersonic transport (SST). It was a product of an Anglo-French government treaty, combining the manufacturing efforts of AƩrospatiale and the British Aircraft Corporation. First flown in 1969, Concorde entered service in 1976 and continued commercial flights for 27 years.
Among other destinations, Concorde flew regular transatlantic flights from London Heathrow (British Airways) and Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport (Air France) to New York JFK, profitably flying these routes at record speeds, in less than half the time of other airliners.
With only 20 aircraft built, their development represented a substantial economic loss, in addition to which Air France and British Airways were subsidised by their governments to buy them. As a result of the type's only crash on 25 July 2000 and other factors, its retirement flight was on 26 November 2003.
Concorde's name reflects the development agreement between the United Kingdom and France. In the UK, any or all of the type—unusual for an aircraft—are known simply as "Concorde". The aircraft is regarded by many as an aviation icon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=b6OCuJZ9bX4#!
The AƩrospatiale-BAC Concorde is a turbojet-powered supersonic passenger airliner, a supersonic transport (SST). It was a product of an Anglo-French government treaty, combining the manufacturing efforts of AƩrospatiale and the British Aircraft Corporation. First flown in 1969, Concorde entered service in 1976 and continued commercial flights for 27 years.
Among other destinations, Concorde flew regular transatlantic flights from London Heathrow (British Airways) and Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport (Air France) to New York JFK, profitably flying these routes at record speeds, in less than half the time of other airliners.
With only 20 aircraft built, their development represented a substantial economic loss, in addition to which Air France and British Airways were subsidised by their governments to buy them. As a result of the type's only crash on 25 July 2000 and other factors, its retirement flight was on 26 November 2003.
Concorde's name reflects the development agreement between the United Kingdom and France. In the UK, any or all of the type—unusual for an aircraft—are known simply as "Concorde". The aircraft is regarded by many as an aviation icon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=b6OCuJZ9bX4#!
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Air pockets ahead for Changi
22 March 12 The Straits Times by Karamjit Kaur
CHANGI'S quest to stay at the top of the world airports league is about to hit some air pockets. And just as a smooth touchdown depends on a match of skill and chemistry between the pilot and the control tower, the key to Changi's continued success will be how well Singapore's aviation regulator and the airport operator fly together.
The challenge for Changi is how to keep up with the rise in passenger numbers and expectations.
Earlier this month, the Transport Ministry set up an 11-member working group helmed by Minister of State Josephine Teo to assess Changi's infrastructure and other requirements in the coming decades. Recommendations will be made within a year.
Plans have meanwhile been unveiled to close down the Budget Terminal in September to make way for a newer, bigger facility slated for opening by 2017.
Until then, life is going to get busier at Terminal 2, which will absorb the budget traveller traffic. The terminal which handled 13 million passengers last year will see the traffic swell overnight to about 18 million.
Still, that is not as bad as it might seem. T2 can take up to 23 million passengers a year. In 2007 - the year before T3 opened - it handled 21.5 million passengers.
What this episode does highlight, though, are concerns about Changi's long-term capacity - the focus of the Transport Ministry's working group.
The Centre for Asia-Pacific Aviation (Capa), an industry think-tank, said recently that if Changi continues to grow its traffic by 8 per cent a year - the average since 2004 - the airport will hit full capacity by the time the new terminal opens.
Singapore needs not one but two new terminals by the end of this decade, Capa said, and a third runway as well, to cope with increasing flights.
The team planning Changi's future has a tough job, for two reasons.
One is the sheer logistics. The next phase of Changi's expansion will go beyond the current airport boundary. There is no space for another terminal on existing airport land.
The next big terminal is likely to be erected next to Runway 3, more familiar as the venue for the biennial Singapore Airshow.
If cleared for take-off, the project will be massive and costly. Not only is there a main road - Changi Coast Road - separating the area from existing airport land, Runway 3 is not connected to the other two runways.
Planners will have to find a way to move aircraft, travellers, bags and cargo between the two locations. This is a formidable, but essentially a design, challenge. Options include flyovers as well as underground links.
The second issue, which might call for even more heavy lifting by the Transport Ministry's panel, is how to reconcile the divergence in the interests of the two stakeholders - the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) and Changi Airport Group (CAG).
In 2009 when CAAS was split into two arms - one to regulate the industry and the other to run the airport - the rationale was to ensure Singapore remained a premier aviation hub.
As a corporate entity, the airport would be more independent and able to react nimbly to increasing competition, the Government said then.
But it would not be focused solely on the bottom line and the assurance to travellers was that the change would not affect the level of service they had come to associate with Changi.
Three years later, aviation insiders say the regulator and the operator do not always see eye to eye.
The ends remain the same - more airlines and flights, and happy travellers - but the means sometimes differ. And this is especially so when it comes to capacity issues.
For more than three decades, Changi's mantra - now that of the CAAS - has been to build ahead of capacity.
When T3 opened in 2008, some travellers described it as a 'ghost town' because it was so empty. Airport retailers were not happy either. Four years later, the terminal is utilising just 57 per cent of its annual passenger handling ability.
Overall, Changi's total traffic takes up 64 per cent of available capacity now.
Travellers don't like crowded terminals. They want room to move around and enough chairs to sit on while waiting for flights.
But even as it is important to please the customer, airport operators are also mindful of the need to ensure the efficient use of assets and resources so they can run viable - and more importantly, profitable - operations.
The question for Changi Airport Group then, is whether it is cost-effective to operate the airport at such low capacity levels, as is the present case, or whether it should pack more people into the terminals.
Other major airport hubs in Hong Kong, South Korea and London reportedly run at more than 80 per cent of total capacity, and are profitable.
The same goes for runways.
Even as calls are being made for Changi to operate a third runway - in line with the 'build ahead of capacity' mentality - an observer with CAG's hat on would point out that while Changi Airport handled 302,000 take-offs and landings last year, Heathrow, which also has two runways, did 476,197.
So instead of rushing to invest in a third runway, perhaps the focus could be on improving efficiency with the current two.
At the end of the day, even if there are some flight delays and terminals become more crowded, would it really hurt Changi's image that much?
The team planning Changi's future will have to tackle the differences between CAAS and CAG when deciding when to build the new terminal and who will pay for it and the related infrastructure works. All these issues will have to be considered carefully, with one eye on the need to ensure the airport's continued success and the other on Changi Airport Group's business interests.
Where the line is drawn will determine the Changi Airport that will greet travellers 10 to 15 years from now.
http://www.singaporeairfreight.com/SingleNews.aspx?DirID=137&rec_code=797131
http://www.singaporeairfreight.com/SingleNews.aspx?DirID=137&rec_code=797131
Thursday, November 24, 2011
SERVICES MARKETING ~ People, Technology, Strategy
Christopher Lovelock Jochen Wirtz SEVENTH EDITION
http://www.bschool.nus.edu.sg/Departments/Marketing/Jochen%20papers/sm7_cover_table%20of%20contents_samplechaptersandcase_2010_lgt.pdf
<iframe src="http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bschool.nus.edu.sg%2FDepartments%2FMarketing%2FJochen%2520papers%2Fsm7_cover_table%2520of%2520contents_samplechaptersandcase_2010_lgt.pdf&embedded=true" width="600" height="780" style="border: none;"></iframe>
http://www.bschool.nus.edu.sg/Departments/Marketing/Jochen%20papers/sm7_cover_table%20of%20contents_samplechaptersandcase_2010_lgt.pdf
<iframe src="http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bschool.nus.edu.sg%2FDepartments%2FMarketing%2FJochen%2520papers%2Fsm7_cover_table%2520of%2520contents_samplechaptersandcase_2010_lgt.pdf&embedded=true" width="600" height="780" style="border: none;"></iframe>
Sunday, September 18, 2011
At the heart of the American Airlines/distribution system battles that are raging in the travel industry today is the bottom line of saving money. AA wants to basically distribute for free and cut out all of the middle men. The other central issue is what American (AA) and other legacy airlines feel is the unjust relegation of their precious seats to the status of a commodity. Unfortunately, no matter what AA does, a legacy airline seat, is an airline seat, is an airline seat. For some reason, AA and other legacy airlines feel that by getting control of their own airline seats again and only selling them through their proprietary data pipelines they will stem the tide of having their airline seats sold as, well, an airline seat between Point A and Point B. I am obviously not a trained MBA or airline executive. For me a legacy carrier non-stop flight in coach from JFK to LAX is just that. The differences might be their frequent flier program and my level of membership. However, the seats are all threadbare, a percentage of the reading lamps don’t work, many seat pockets are filthy, some seats don’t recline, entertainment is limited, there is no food to speak of, tray tables wobble, blankets and pillows cost extra and the flight times are more or less the same. It makes no difference whether I buy the ticket from AA.com, Delta.com, United.com, Expedia.com (except for AA), Travelocity.com, etc. The transcontinental seat is a seat, is a seat. It is a commodity — a perishable commodity. Somehow, AA is making the argument that their direct-connect system that eliminates easy price comparisons between airline seats will allow them to “package” their seats. By “packaging” they plan to offer passengers various combinations of extra services that each cost a fee. They already do this. American now allows passengers to pay a fee to avoid possible future fees. Isn’t that nice. For a relatively reasonable price (they don’t tell you until the time of booking) passengers will be allowed to board early, fly standby on the same day of travel and save $75 off the $150 change fee should they want to change flights. Such a deal AA has for you. From aa.com FAQs: Q: How much does the Boarding and Flexibility package cost? A: Pricing for the Boarding and Flexibility Package varies and will be provided at the time of booking. Through bundles like this, marketing geniuses at AA think they can sell more tickets. Of course, included in this marketing matrix is the elimination of as much competition and price comparisons as possible. Where is the benefit to the consumer? AA’s new system eliminates the ability to create tickets that include connections between different airlines. AA makes it more difficult to compare prices when purchasing tickets. AA still hides their fees “until booking” on their website, making it more difficult to learn the total airline transportation prices. Weeks ago I sent emails to AA requesting three benefits to passengers that their new direct-connect program will provide. I still have not received an answer from this airline. I also hear repeatedly that Southwest Airlines does not work through the GDSs. AA envies the Southwest control of their seats and claims that Southwest seats are not a commodity because they are sold outside of the GDS channel. But, AA is learning the wrong lesson from Southwest who carries far more passengers domestically than AA. Southwest is not the top dog because they don’t work through a GDS. In fact back when Southwest started, AA (who used to own the biggest GDS) probably wouldn’t have allowed them into the GDSs for fear of competition (they tried to stop them every other way). Southwest is a winner and makes money, year after year, because they differentiate their product by providing what consumers want — fair prices, on-time schedules, simplicity in fare structure, honesty and great service. AA and the legacy carriers are in trouble because they have lost sight of the consumer in an MBA frenzy to squeeze profits here and there. The GDSs provide one of the most cost-effective distribution methods of selling a complex, multi-part product that exists in America. CocaCola, General Motors or any publisher would love to have the distribution costs of the airline industry. AA’s actions are misguided. Rather than focusing on customers and truly differentiating their product with quality, AA continues with hidden fees, marketing gimmicks and frequent-flier loyalty. At the same time they provide consumers a lower level of customer service and a dingy, second-class, back-of-the-plane product. Customer service is the way to change the perception of AA’s product. Look at service at Southwest. Look at inflight entertainment at JetBlue and Virgin America. Examine the clean and functional cabins at each of those airlines. Those are some examples of how to differentiate your products. I think every passenger who has experienced a transcontinental flight on JetBlue or Virgin America will choose one of those airlines every time they need to fly across the country. I can’t imagine any coach traveler who has experienced excellence in customer service going back willingly (or without the bribery of frequent flier programs) to any of our legacy carriers.
At the heart of the American Airlines/distribution system battles
that are raging in the travel industry today is the bottom line of
saving money. AA wants to basically distribute for free and cut out all
of the middle men. The other central issue is what American (AA) and
other legacy airlines feel is the unjust relegation of their precious
seats to the status of a commodity.
Unfortunately, no matter what AA does, a legacy airline seat, is an airline seat, is an airline seat.
For some reason, AA and other legacy airlines feel that by getting control of their own airline seats again and only selling them through their proprietary data pipelines they will stem the tide of having their airline seats sold as, well, an airline seat between Point A and Point B.
I am obviously not a trained MBA or airline executive. For me a legacy carrier non-stop flight in coach from JFK to LAX is just that. The differences might be their frequent flier program and my level of membership. However, the seats are all threadbare, a percentage of the reading lamps don’t work, many seat pockets are filthy, some seats don’t recline, entertainment is limited, there is no food to speak of, tray tables wobble, blankets and pillows cost extra and the flight times are more or less the same.
It makes no difference whether I buy the ticket from AA.com, Delta.com, United.com, Expedia.com (except for AA), Travelocity.com, etc. The transcontinental seat is a seat, is a seat. It is a commodity — a perishable commodity.
Somehow, AA is making the argument that their direct-connect system that eliminates easy price comparisons between airline seats will allow them to “package” their seats. By “packaging” they plan to offer passengers various combinations of extra services that each cost a fee.
They already do this. American now allows passengers to pay a fee to avoid possible future fees. Isn’t that nice.
For a relatively reasonable price (they don’t tell you until the time of booking) passengers will be allowed to board early, fly standby on the same day of travel and save $75 off the $150 change fee should they want to change flights. Such a deal AA has for you.
Where is the benefit to the consumer?
AA’s new system eliminates the ability to create tickets that include connections between different airlines. AA makes it more difficult to compare prices when purchasing tickets. AA still hides their fees “until booking” on their website, making it more difficult to learn the total airline transportation prices.
Weeks ago I sent emails to AA requesting three benefits to passengers that their new direct-connect program will provide. I still have not received an answer from this airline.
I also hear repeatedly that Southwest Airlines does not work through the GDSs. AA envies the Southwest control of their seats and claims that Southwest seats are not a commodity because they are sold outside of the GDS channel. But, AA is learning the wrong lesson from Southwest who carries far more passengers domestically than AA.
Southwest is not the top dog because they don’t work through a GDS. In fact back when Southwest started, AA (who used to own the biggest GDS) probably wouldn’t have allowed them into the GDSs for fear of competition (they tried to stop them every other way). Southwest is a winner and makes money, year after year, because they differentiate their product by providing what consumers want — fair prices, on-time schedules, simplicity in fare structure, honesty and great service.
AA and the legacy carriers are in trouble because they have lost sight of the consumer in an MBA frenzy to squeeze profits here and there. The GDSs provide one of the most cost-effective distribution methods of selling a complex, multi-part product that exists in America. CocaCola, General Motors or any publisher would love to have the distribution costs of the airline industry.
AA’s actions are misguided. Rather than focusing on customers and truly differentiating their product with quality, AA continues with hidden fees, marketing gimmicks and frequent-flier loyalty. At the same time they provide consumers a lower level of customer service and a dingy, second-class, back-of-the-plane product.
Customer service is the way to change the perception of AA’s product. Look at service at Southwest. Look at inflight entertainment at JetBlue and Virgin America. Examine the clean and functional cabins at each of those airlines. Those are some examples of how to differentiate your products.
I think every passenger who has experienced a transcontinental flight on JetBlue or Virgin America will choose one of those airlines every time they need to fly across the country. I can’t imagine any coach traveler who has experienced excellence in customer service going back willingly (or without the bribery of frequent flier programs) to any of our legacy carriers.
http://www.worldmate.com/travelog/2011/01/12/airline-seats-as-commodities/
Unfortunately, no matter what AA does, a legacy airline seat, is an airline seat, is an airline seat.
For some reason, AA and other legacy airlines feel that by getting control of their own airline seats again and only selling them through their proprietary data pipelines they will stem the tide of having their airline seats sold as, well, an airline seat between Point A and Point B.
I am obviously not a trained MBA or airline executive. For me a legacy carrier non-stop flight in coach from JFK to LAX is just that. The differences might be their frequent flier program and my level of membership. However, the seats are all threadbare, a percentage of the reading lamps don’t work, many seat pockets are filthy, some seats don’t recline, entertainment is limited, there is no food to speak of, tray tables wobble, blankets and pillows cost extra and the flight times are more or less the same.
It makes no difference whether I buy the ticket from AA.com, Delta.com, United.com, Expedia.com (except for AA), Travelocity.com, etc. The transcontinental seat is a seat, is a seat. It is a commodity — a perishable commodity.
Somehow, AA is making the argument that their direct-connect system that eliminates easy price comparisons between airline seats will allow them to “package” their seats. By “packaging” they plan to offer passengers various combinations of extra services that each cost a fee.
They already do this. American now allows passengers to pay a fee to avoid possible future fees. Isn’t that nice.
For a relatively reasonable price (they don’t tell you until the time of booking) passengers will be allowed to board early, fly standby on the same day of travel and save $75 off the $150 change fee should they want to change flights. Such a deal AA has for you.
From aa.com FAQs:Through bundles like this, marketing geniuses at AA think they can sell more tickets. Of course, included in this marketing matrix is the elimination of as much competition and price comparisons as possible.
Q: How much does the Boarding and Flexibility package cost?
A: Pricing for the Boarding and Flexibility Package varies and will be provided at the time of booking.
Where is the benefit to the consumer?
AA’s new system eliminates the ability to create tickets that include connections between different airlines. AA makes it more difficult to compare prices when purchasing tickets. AA still hides their fees “until booking” on their website, making it more difficult to learn the total airline transportation prices.
Weeks ago I sent emails to AA requesting three benefits to passengers that their new direct-connect program will provide. I still have not received an answer from this airline.
I also hear repeatedly that Southwest Airlines does not work through the GDSs. AA envies the Southwest control of their seats and claims that Southwest seats are not a commodity because they are sold outside of the GDS channel. But, AA is learning the wrong lesson from Southwest who carries far more passengers domestically than AA.
Southwest is not the top dog because they don’t work through a GDS. In fact back when Southwest started, AA (who used to own the biggest GDS) probably wouldn’t have allowed them into the GDSs for fear of competition (they tried to stop them every other way). Southwest is a winner and makes money, year after year, because they differentiate their product by providing what consumers want — fair prices, on-time schedules, simplicity in fare structure, honesty and great service.
AA and the legacy carriers are in trouble because they have lost sight of the consumer in an MBA frenzy to squeeze profits here and there. The GDSs provide one of the most cost-effective distribution methods of selling a complex, multi-part product that exists in America. CocaCola, General Motors or any publisher would love to have the distribution costs of the airline industry.
AA’s actions are misguided. Rather than focusing on customers and truly differentiating their product with quality, AA continues with hidden fees, marketing gimmicks and frequent-flier loyalty. At the same time they provide consumers a lower level of customer service and a dingy, second-class, back-of-the-plane product.
Customer service is the way to change the perception of AA’s product. Look at service at Southwest. Look at inflight entertainment at JetBlue and Virgin America. Examine the clean and functional cabins at each of those airlines. Those are some examples of how to differentiate your products.
I think every passenger who has experienced a transcontinental flight on JetBlue or Virgin America will choose one of those airlines every time they need to fly across the country. I can’t imagine any coach traveler who has experienced excellence in customer service going back willingly (or without the bribery of frequent flier programs) to any of our legacy carriers.
http://www.worldmate.com/travelog/2011/01/12/airline-seats-as-commodities/
If digital marketers would run airlines, planes would be falling out of the sky
Not a day goes by without a digital marketer complaining about their
flying experience: delays, cancellations, lost luggage. Sure, flying is
no fun. Being treated like a herd of sheep , forced to sit in cramped
quarters – well, I don’t have to tell you the sordid details.
Running an airline is a complex venture.
It’s about maths and probabilities. An aircraft seat is the most perishable product of any commodity going: Once the aircraft takes off, the seat is empty, you’ll never recover it again. It’s gone forever. You have to deal with the economic climate, gazillion of vendors, thousand of employees, circumstances you can’t control (Weather, political environment – you name it).
Considering this complexity, it’s a miracle that United Airlines had an on-time performance of 91.4% in November 2010. (Yes, I know, they are padding the schedule. Still.) It’s amazing that only 1 in 8,000,000 aircrafts crash.
Running a campaign and Social Media initiative is complex, too.
But, it can’t be compared to the complexity of running an airline. And, how many things are going wrong each and every day? Wrong creative, creative that misses the target, trafficking nightmares, planning horror scenarios, failed banner campaigns, wrong success metrics for SEM campaigns, sub-par SEO, failed Social Marketing initiatives, mini sites more focused on showcasing the agency, not conversion, and, and, and…
How come we have these high expectations for complex enterprises (airlines, automotive companies, hotels) but we don’t expect the same from our work? Why do we live with all the things that are going wrong in our own area of expertise but tend to complain about minor problems of other businesses, using our Social Media bullhorn?
I’m all for constructive criticism. I’m for helping companies improve the customer experience. (And I’m not defending airlines at all. There’s a lot of work to be done on their end.) But we have stop feeling entitled to complain about every little detail. Or even use our “status” in the Social Media world to force companies to deal with us.
Too often, it reminds me of the boy who cried “wolf”. When the real wolf finally showed up, nobody listened.
http://www.bateshook.com/tag/perishable-commodity/
Running an airline is a complex venture.
It’s about maths and probabilities. An aircraft seat is the most perishable product of any commodity going: Once the aircraft takes off, the seat is empty, you’ll never recover it again. It’s gone forever. You have to deal with the economic climate, gazillion of vendors, thousand of employees, circumstances you can’t control (Weather, political environment – you name it).
Considering this complexity, it’s a miracle that United Airlines had an on-time performance of 91.4% in November 2010. (Yes, I know, they are padding the schedule. Still.) It’s amazing that only 1 in 8,000,000 aircrafts crash.
Running a campaign and Social Media initiative is complex, too.
But, it can’t be compared to the complexity of running an airline. And, how many things are going wrong each and every day? Wrong creative, creative that misses the target, trafficking nightmares, planning horror scenarios, failed banner campaigns, wrong success metrics for SEM campaigns, sub-par SEO, failed Social Marketing initiatives, mini sites more focused on showcasing the agency, not conversion, and, and, and…
How come we have these high expectations for complex enterprises (airlines, automotive companies, hotels) but we don’t expect the same from our work? Why do we live with all the things that are going wrong in our own area of expertise but tend to complain about minor problems of other businesses, using our Social Media bullhorn?
I’m all for constructive criticism. I’m for helping companies improve the customer experience. (And I’m not defending airlines at all. There’s a lot of work to be done on their end.) But we have stop feeling entitled to complain about every little detail. Or even use our “status” in the Social Media world to force companies to deal with us.
Too often, it reminds me of the boy who cried “wolf”. When the real wolf finally showed up, nobody listened.
http://www.bateshook.com/tag/perishable-commodity/
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Upgraded Seletar Airport will resume normal operations on Thursday
By
Karamjit Kaur, Aviation Correspondent
During the upgrading, which kept the runway out of bounds for at least 12 hours a day, private jet operators based at Seletar had no choice but to shift their operations to Changi Airport.
Announcing the completion of the project, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore and Changi Airport Group said in a joint release that the new runway measuring 1.84km - close to 250m more than its original length - will be able to support larger jet operations, as well as heavier take-off loads.
The airport upgrading works are part of plans to develop the area into Singapore's next aviation hub. A key growth sector is business aviation, which has seen a compounded annual growth rate of 17 per cent in aircraft movements from 2007 to 2010.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Airlines call flight ban a 'European mess'
<iframe src="http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://160.96.186.100/lib/pdf/2010/Apr/ST2003.pdf&embedded=true" style="width:600px; height:500px;" frameborder="0"></iframe>
http://160.96.186.100/lib/pdf/2010/Apr/ST2003.pdf
http://160.96.186.100/lib/pdf/2010/Apr/ST2003.pdf
Budget flight service levels yet to take off
STRAITS TIMES
Nov 25, 2010
<iframe src="http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://160.96.186.100/lib/pdf/2010/Nov/ST2515.pdf&embedded=true" style="width:600px; height:500px;" frameborder="0"></iframe>
http://160.96.186.100/lib/pdf/2010/Nov/ST2515.pdf
Nov 25, 2010
<iframe src="http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://160.96.186.100/lib/pdf/2010/Nov/ST2515.pdf&embedded=true" style="width:600px; height:500px;" frameborder="0"></iframe>
http://160.96.186.100/lib/pdf/2010/Nov/ST2515.pdf
Experimental test of airplane boarding methods
Experimental test of airplane boarding methods
Jason H. Steen
Fermilab Center for Particle Astrophysics, Batavia, IL
Jon Hotchkiss
Hotchkiss Industries, Sherman Oaks, CA
Abstract
We report the results of an experimental comparison of dierent airplane boarding methods. This test was conducted
in a mock 757 fuselage, located on a Southern California soundstage, with 12 rows of six seats and a single aisle.
Five methods were tested using 72 passengers of various ages. We found a significant reduction in the boarding times
of optimized methods over traditional methods. These improved methods, if properly implemented, could result in a
significant savings to airline companies.
<iframe src="http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1108/1108.5211v1.pdf&embedded=true" style="width:590px; height:500px;" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Jason H. Steen
Fermilab Center for Particle Astrophysics, Batavia, IL
Jon Hotchkiss
Hotchkiss Industries, Sherman Oaks, CA
Abstract
We report the results of an experimental comparison of dierent airplane boarding methods. This test was conducted
in a mock 757 fuselage, located on a Southern California soundstage, with 12 rows of six seats and a single aisle.
Five methods were tested using 72 passengers of various ages. We found a significant reduction in the boarding times
of optimized methods over traditional methods. These improved methods, if properly implemented, could result in a
significant savings to airline companies.
<iframe src="http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1108/1108.5211v1.pdf&embedded=true" style="width:590px; height:500px;" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Please be seated
THE job of the professional astrophysicist is to contemplate the
music of the spheres. Given the global nature of modern science,
however, today’s astrophysicists often spend just as much time
confronting the cacophony of the airport. Now, one of them has devised a
way to make that experience a little less tedious. Jason Steffen, from
Fermilab, near Chicago, has designed and experimentally tested a faster
method of boarding aeroplanes. By his calculation, it could save
airlines hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Dr Steffen spends his time thinking about such things as extrasolar planets, dark matter and cosmology. After waiting in a particularly long queue to board a flight, though, he began to harbour an interest in the mechanics of getting people on to planes. In 2008 he wrote a computer simulation to test different methods. Using a numerical technique familiar to him from his day job, he was able to find what looked like the best. He has put his answer to the test, and the results have just been submitted for publication to the Journal of Air Transport Management.
According to Dr Steffen, two things bog down the boarding process.
The first is that passengers are often forced to wait in the aisle while
those ahead of them stow their luggage and then get out of the way. The
second is that passengers already seated in aisle or middle seats often
have to get up and move into the aisle to let others take seats nearer
the window. Dr Steffen’s proposal minimises the former type of
disturbance and eliminates the latter.
In the Steffen method, passengers are boarded by seat type (ie, window, middle or aisle) while also ensuring that neighbours in the boarding queue are seated in alternating rows. First, the window seats for every other row on one side of the plane are boarded. Next, alternate rows of window seats on the opposite side are boarded. Then, the window seats in the skipped rows are filled in on each side. The procedure then repeats with the middle seats and the aisles.
By boarding alternate rows in this way, passengers are spaced far enough apart along the aisle to stow their luggage in parallel, all at the same time. Because passengers in the same seat types board together, they do not have to step over each other to swap seats.
To test the idea, Dr Steffen conducted a test using passengers and a mock Boeing 757 fuselage. The fuselage had a single aisle and 12 rows. Seventy-two passengers (including families with children) boarded, towing their bags and roll-aboard suitcases. In addition to the Steffen method, the team tried boarding in a strict back-to-front order, block boarding (the system now used by most airlines, with passengers assigned to groups within the cabin) and boarding in random order (which made its debut at American Airlines earlier this summer).
Standard block boarding turned out to be the slowest way to do things, taking almost seven minutes to fill the 12 rows. Dr Steffen’s system took half that time. Indeed, it was the fastest performing of the methods tested. With full-sized planes, the benefit should increase, as more people can stow their luggage simultaneously along the longer aisles.
Although Dr Steffen admits that the airline industry has shown no interest in his method so far, he points out that, in principle, there should be no barriers to its adoption. Though directing airline passengers on to a plane is a little like herding cats some airlines, such as Southwest, already try to get their passengers to line up in a certain order before boarding. If travellers believed that complying with the new arrangements really would make their lives easier, they would probably do so. And by Dr Steffen’s calculations, airlines have a pretty strong incentive to persuade them. Previous work has shown that every minute a plane spends at the terminal costs $30. Assuming the average carrier runs 1,500 flights a day, saving as little as six minutes per flight would add up to $100m a year. For hard-pressed airlines running on razor-thin margins, that really would be astronomical.
http://www.economist.com/node/21528218
Dr Steffen spends his time thinking about such things as extrasolar planets, dark matter and cosmology. After waiting in a particularly long queue to board a flight, though, he began to harbour an interest in the mechanics of getting people on to planes. In 2008 he wrote a computer simulation to test different methods. Using a numerical technique familiar to him from his day job, he was able to find what looked like the best. He has put his answer to the test, and the results have just been submitted for publication to the Journal of Air Transport Management.
In the Steffen method, passengers are boarded by seat type (ie, window, middle or aisle) while also ensuring that neighbours in the boarding queue are seated in alternating rows. First, the window seats for every other row on one side of the plane are boarded. Next, alternate rows of window seats on the opposite side are boarded. Then, the window seats in the skipped rows are filled in on each side. The procedure then repeats with the middle seats and the aisles.
By boarding alternate rows in this way, passengers are spaced far enough apart along the aisle to stow their luggage in parallel, all at the same time. Because passengers in the same seat types board together, they do not have to step over each other to swap seats.
To test the idea, Dr Steffen conducted a test using passengers and a mock Boeing 757 fuselage. The fuselage had a single aisle and 12 rows. Seventy-two passengers (including families with children) boarded, towing their bags and roll-aboard suitcases. In addition to the Steffen method, the team tried boarding in a strict back-to-front order, block boarding (the system now used by most airlines, with passengers assigned to groups within the cabin) and boarding in random order (which made its debut at American Airlines earlier this summer).
Standard block boarding turned out to be the slowest way to do things, taking almost seven minutes to fill the 12 rows. Dr Steffen’s system took half that time. Indeed, it was the fastest performing of the methods tested. With full-sized planes, the benefit should increase, as more people can stow their luggage simultaneously along the longer aisles.
Although Dr Steffen admits that the airline industry has shown no interest in his method so far, he points out that, in principle, there should be no barriers to its adoption. Though directing airline passengers on to a plane is a little like herding cats some airlines, such as Southwest, already try to get their passengers to line up in a certain order before boarding. If travellers believed that complying with the new arrangements really would make their lives easier, they would probably do so. And by Dr Steffen’s calculations, airlines have a pretty strong incentive to persuade them. Previous work has shown that every minute a plane spends at the terminal costs $30. Assuming the average carrier runs 1,500 flights a day, saving as little as six minutes per flight would add up to $100m a year. For hard-pressed airlines running on razor-thin margins, that really would be astronomical.
http://www.economist.com/node/21528218
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
The Plane Truth: Boarding by Rows Is the Worst Possible Way, Says Physicist
Let’s face it: boarding an airplane with luggage is just downright frustrating. Not only do you have to puzzle out how you are going to wrestle your carry-on bag into the aircraft’s tiny overhead compartment, but you have to do it while trying not to get swept away by the tugging current of other passengers.
Courtesy of Steffen, arXiv
Steffen timed how long it took the passengers to fill the plane under the different boarding procedures and found that the block style takes the longest, falling well behind the uber-sophisticated “random boarding” method—letting everyone on at the same time. The Steffen method was the quickest because it maximized the number of people who could use the aisle concurrently without crashing into each other.
So, Steffen argues, if airline companies started implementing his method, they could save money by shortening the amount of time the planes have spend in the terminal. But can you imagine how long it would take to get people to line up in the correct order in the first place?
Reference: J. Steffen and J. Hotchkiss. Experimental test of airplane boarding methods. arXiv:1108.5211v1
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2011/08/29/the-plane-truth-boarding-by-rows-is-the-worst-possible-way-says-physicist/
How to cut boarding time in HALF
<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/o9-XjEI8VmA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
http://www.rdhub.com/?p=7236
Boarding a plane is a completely
miserable, time-consuming experience. How often are you left waiting for
that oversized man jam his oversized luggage into the undersized
overhead compartment? Ridiculous! That’s why every airline needs to try
this new boarding method. It cuts the time in half.
Amazingly, it was invented by Dr. Jason
Steffen, an astrophysicist in his day job but a man more adept at
running airplanes than the airlines themselves. In his method, window
seats on alternate rows on one side of the plane boards first. Then
alternating window seats on the other side. Then alternating middle
seats on the original side, then alternating middle seats on the other
side. And then on and on and on until the plane is filled. Watch the
video, you’ll see a perfectly choreographed dance that maximizes aisle
space and overhead compartments.
Steffen figured out this method using the Monte Carlo optimization method
and promises that it can cut boarding time in half. It won’t cure the
ineptitude of airlines in other areas but it can make air travel less of
a pain in the ass. Delta? United? American? JetBlue? Virgin America?
Who’s in? [WBEZ via Consumerist]
http://www.rdhub.com/?p=7236
Flying straight into the competition
Karamjit Kaur
The Straits Times
Publication Date : 19-08-2011
The Straits Times
Publication Date : 19-08-2011
Australian
airline Qantas is looking at either Singapore or Kuala Lumpur as the
base for a new premium carrier it plans to launch.
Its decision either way will have an impact not only on rival Singapore Airlines (SIA) and local carriers, but on the hub status of Singapore's Changi Airport. Qantas' new start-up is among several initiatives to boost business and salvage its loss-making international operations. Chief executive Alan Joyce has not disclosed much about it. What is known is that the new entity will be a separate brand from Qantas' distinctive flying kangaroo, and will kick off with a fleet of 11 single-aisle Airbus 320 aircraft. Many aviation watchers think Qantas will pick Singapore. But KL's appeal cannot be dismissed either. In some ways, Singapore is the obvious choice because Qantas and its low-cost arm Jetstar, is already the largest single foreign player at Changi, accounting for about 10.5 per cent of the total number of weekly seats. The SIA group, including regional airline SilkAir, controls 40 per cent of the market. Singapore is also a key hub for Qantas on the Australia-Britain route. In contrast, Qantas does not fly direct to KL. Picking Singapore would allow the new Qantas carrier to leverage on Changi Airport's position as a hub for premium and business travellers, and let it tap Changi's network of over 100 airlines operating to more than 200 cities. Kuala Lumpur International Airport is served by about 60 carriers. But there are also sound arguments in favour of KL being the base of the new carrier. For one thing, it allows Qantas to deepen existing partnerships with AirAsia and full-service carrier Malaysia Airlines (MAS). In January last year, AirAsia and Jetstar inked a deal to pool resources and expertise in a drive to slash costs and lower ticket prices. More recently, Qantas sponsored MAS' entry into the Oneworld global aviation alliance, which includes Qantas, British Airways and Cathay Pacific. This allows Qantas, which has a limited presence in Asia, to leverage on MAS' network to expand its own reach. But business links between the Qantas family and the MAS family do not necessarily mean that the Australian carrier should plant its new flag in KL. Flying out of KL could be counter-productive as the new entity could take away market share from the local players. By the same token, a new Qantas arm in Singapore that targets the premium market is going to hurt SIA and its regional carrier SilkAir. Already, SIA's market share and yields have eroded in recent years, in the face of competition from regional budget carriers and improved service from full-service airlines like Emirates and Cathay Pacific. A new Qantas-backed carrier flying out of Singapore will intensify the heat on SIA. SIA is already preparing for a more competitive skyscape. It plans to launch its own long-haul low-cost carrier by the middle of next year. It recently struck a deal with Virgin Australia to code-share - sell seats on each other's services - and coordinate flight schedules for seamless transfers. Whether its preferred choice is Singapore or KL, Qantas will need the official nod from the relevant civil aviation regulator to launch its new carrier. If Qantas wants to fly its new carrier out of Singapore, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) must scrutinise what value the new carrier will bring to Singapore. How will the new carrier enhance Singapore's position as a premier air hub in the region and make Changi more attractive to both airlines and travellers? Will the new carrier launch new routes and markets? Or is the intention merely to snatch market share away from SIA and other incumbents that fly out of Singapore? CAAS will have to strike a balance between promoting Changi as an air hub, and safeguarding the interests of existing airlines, including SIA, that fly out of Singapore. Its assessment must be guided ultimately by what is best for the country. Unlike some other countries reluctant to open their skies to foreign carriers for fear of weakening their own local airlines, the Singapore Government has always adopted a liberal stance. Having more airlines and linkages out of Singapore makes Changi attractive to travellers, and promotes business links and overall economic growth. The interests of SIA and other local airlines sometimes have to take a back seat to this paramount objective. This was a position then Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew reiterated when he got involved in a dispute between SIA and its pilots several years ago. He had declared in January 2004 that if budget airlines were to eat into SIA's profits, his reaction would be: "So be it". This was because the more important objective was "our remaining a busy air hub". This of course does not mean that the Government does not push for SIA's rights and that of other local carriers. When air deals are sealed between countries, these are often the end result of delicate manoeuvring, with one eye on the commercial interests of the country's carrier/s and the other on the wider benefits that increased traffic will bring to that country. The ideal scenario from Singapore's point of view would be for the Australian carrier to fly out of Singapore in return for SIA getting air rights between Australia and the United States which it has long lobbied for. But even if no such deal is struck, CAAS should consider an application from Qantas on its own merit. If satisfied that Qantas' new arm will benefit Changi Airport and Singapore's aviation industry, then it must say yes to the kangaroo, even if it hurts Singapore's national airline SIA. But even that need not be a zero sum game. In fact, one can argue that SIA's success to date is due in part to the airline having to constantly upgrade and improve its services and products to deal with the competition. To its credit, SIA has risen to the challenge. There is every chance it will do so again, even if Qantas is allowed to plant its new flag at Changi. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)