Joon’s failure re-validates old lessons

Courtesy Getty Images

In just a year after its launch, Air France is shutting down its low-cost subsidiary airline Joon which promised to carve out a new niche market among millennials. The reason, said Air France, is because the brand had been “difficult to understand from the outset.”

Strange as that may sound, it shows how a major player like Air France itself has failed to understand the market forces at play. Or, an ill-timed miscalculation of the market trend.

A little history is appropriate here. When budget travel first emerged on the scene, legacy airlines were inclined to dismiss the upstarts as unlikely competitors, believing their markets to be markedly different. The established carriers, so to speak, were not interested in the budget market and were quite happy to let low-cost operators be.

The failure of many an ambitious budget carrier supported that view, particularly at a time when the volatile fuel price moved like a yo-yo but largely trending upwards. That hit the budget carriers hard since fuel is a significant component of their cost, and cost is all that budget travel is about.

But some like Ryanair and easyJet survived the storm and made good progress. That was when the big boys decided they too wanted in on a flourishing market. A number of them set up their own budget arms, such as United Airlines’ Ted and Delta Air Lines’ Song. They didn’t last long.

As the line of competition began to blur with low-cost carriers soon attracting business away from the traditional sources, more legacy airlines carried the battle cry into the fray. Among them, British Airways which started Go, which it later sold; Singapore Airlines (SIA) which went into partnership with Ryanair to start Tigerair; and Qantas which set up Jetstar.

The budget threat heightened with low-cost carriers venturing into the long-haul. There were casualties along the way, a notable one being Oasis Airlines which flew from Hong Kong to London as well as Vancouver. Hailed as a trail blazer for good service on a shoe-string budget, it could not survive the barrage of rising costs.

But that didn’t stop others to boldly go into a domain dominated by full-service airlines, a move which many observers thought was foolhardy. Today, low-cost carriers such as Norwegian Air Shuttles, Wow! Air and AirAsia continue to rattle the hitherto safe market of the Goliaths.

It seems independent low-cost carriers are more successful than budget offshoots of legacy airlines with few exceptions such as Jetstar. Why so is this? The failure of Joon only serves to revalidate the lessons of past failures.

The overall market has shifted from one distinct full-service vs budget scenario to a common market for all airlines. For many travellers, it is a conscious choice between legacy and budget carriers, the consideration not so much in name as in value for what it costs. For many travellers, the comfort and convenience of full-service still outweigh the savings of flying budget, particularly for the long haul. But for a growing number too, despite the higher risk of flight disruptions by low-cost carriers, why not?

Studies have shown that millennials have different priorities, and the budget model of paying for only what you want may have some appeal as it means control over how you spend your money. The new and younger travellers are more adventurous and not averse to taking chances.

The shift in the market is becoming more evident in how legacy airlines are in fact no longer completely full-service as they used to be, adopting increasingly the budget pricing model in charging for ancillary services what used to be part of the package deal, such as seat selection, priority boarding, and checked baggage.

It is not a given that a successful legacy airline will be as successful in operating a budget subsidiary. On the contrary, it faces the challenge of separating the two entities to operate them on their own terms. Too often this may be compromised with the parent airline subsidising the struggling offshoot. At the same time, the parent’s product may be diluted.

Much as the parent airline likes to maintain its distance and many of them have declared that their budget offshoots are running on their own steam, the reality is far from being so. Their influence is inevitable, however indirect and unintended. That may lead to tweaking the low-cost model to be less budget and more a copy of the old block, resulting in higher costs.

This is also not helped by the expectations of the customer when the budget offshoot carries the association with the reputable parent’s brand name. For example, while SIA has earned the reputation of being one of the world’s best airline, the same could not be said of Tigerair whose customers were sadly disappointed when the carrier ran into frequent bad patches.

What can be worse is when the budget subsidiary begins to compete with the parent company for the same low-end business.

American carriers however have found a solution to that: instead of operating separate budget offshoots to compete with independent low-cost carriers, they have introduced basic economy fares with similar terms to be accommodated within the same aircraft. The practice of offering different fare types even within the same class of travel is not new, but basic economy is aimed at keeping customers who may switch to budget carriers. And the model is gaining popularity across the industry.

Some observers may think Air France’s decision to shut down Joon premature as it has not allowed the latter time to grow. But not being clear about the product or the direction it is heading, it would be a hazy road ahead. It might as well nip the problem in the bud.

2018 Skytrax airline awards: Largely the same winners

Top airlines remain largely the same ones as last year’s.

Yet again we note how the top ten airlines remained largely the same ones as last year’s. If you’re good, you’re good, so it seems, and consistency won the day.

Singapore Airlines (SIA) which was second last year switched places with last year’s winner Qatar Airways. All Nippon Airways (ANA) and Emirates Airlines held steady in 3rd and 4th position. Cathay Pacific moved down one rung to 6th,, exchanging places with EVA Air. Lufthansa held its 7th position. Garuda Indonesian followed Hainan Airlines up one notch to 8th and 9th position respectively. The only new entrant to the list was Thai Airways International, which actually only moved up one rung from 11th last year, edging out Etihad Airways as it fell from 8th to 15th position.

So much for the excitement as the winning airlines, going by the result of the survey, continued to please their customers who found no reason to think otherwise of them.

Unlike some high-brow surveys whose results lean heavily on the premium class, Skytrax does readings across all classes.

Best for First Class was SIA followed by Etihad and Air France. This used to be the realm of Asian and Middle-East carriers, and let it not be a surprise to see two European carriers in the ranking. Lufthansa took 4th place.

Best for Business Class was Qatar followed by SIA and ANA. You would imagine that if an airline is good in First, it should not be too far off in Business. However, Air France was not placed in the top ten list and Lufthansa ranked 8th.

Best for Premium Economy was Air New Zealand followed by Qantas and SIA. It looks like the Pacific airlines are pretty good with this product. Lufthansa and Air France ranked 4th and 5th.. There was an absence of Middle-east carriers because they didn’t believe in such a class. Qatar chief CEO Akbar Al Baker had said: “We won’t roll out premium economy… I don’t think there is room for premium economy in our region, and of course in Qatar Airways. We give you a premium economy seat with an economy class price.” Sounds familiar if you recall the early days when SIA too expressed the same skepticism. However, Emirates has said its new Airbus A380 expected to be delivered in 2020 will feature premium economy.

Courtesy Star Alliance

Best for Economy Class was Thai Airways followed by SIA and Qatar. This category was dominated by Asian carriers with the exception of Lufthansa in 9th position.

Only these six airlines were placed in all three categories of First, Business and Economy (excluding premium Economy since not all airlines offer this sub-class): ANA, Cathay, Emirates, Lufthansa, Qatar and SIA. You can then rest comforted that whatever class you travel with these airlines, you will be treated without discrimination.

But is the Skytrax survey a good guide in choosing which carrier to fly with? Generally people can agree on makes a good airline. What matters when you travel with an airline? For the long haul, seat comfort is an important feature. Inflight entertainment, if you look for some distraction and are not otherwise doing something else or trying to catch up on shuteye. A good meal, if you are not one who will not eat airline food no matter what (unfortunately this is not featured in the Skytrax survey). Cabin cleanliness, of course, and that includes the condition of the washrooms. How often do you see the crew give it a clean-up and spraying some kind of deodorant to try and make it as pleasant as it possibly can be? Above all, the service provided by the cabin crew, to be treated in a friendly manner and with respect. Not forgetting service on the ground in the event that you may need assistance, as when your bag is damaged or has not arrived with you.

Perhaps the ranking for some of these more specific services may be of some help:

Best Economy seat (First and Business should be way better anyway): 1st Japan Airlines, 2nd SIA and 3rd Thai Airways.

Best cabin crew: 1st Garuda, 2nd SIA and 3rd ANA.

Best inflight entertainment: 1st Emirates, 2nd SIA and 3rd Qatar.

Cleanest cabin: 1st ANA, 2nd EVA and 3rd Asiana Airlines.

Best airport service: 1st EVA, 2nd ANA and 3rd Cathay.

But, of course, you can’t expect a single airline to be best in all categories, but you get a pretty good idea of where they all stand, perhaps with exceptions.

Much Ado About China’s Geography

Since the United States (USA) have recognized the one-China policy (following a resolution of the United Nations in the early 1970s that legitimized the sole representation of the People’s Republic of China), it would appear groundless, even against logic, that it should protest the Chinese demand for US carriers to reflect Taiwan as a Chinese territory (this applies also to the autonomous regions of Hong Kong and Macau) on their websites.

While many airlines including British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa and Singapore Airlines have reflected the change in their booking itnerfaces to comply with the ruling, US carriers – United Airlines, American Airlines and Delta Air Lines – have yet to agree, apparently at the urging of the Trump administration. But China is not budging while extending the deadline from May 25 to July 25, at the same time rejecting the US request to discuss the issue.

It may be said that there’s a fine line between politics and business, that it is difficult to separate the two. Yet it seems only expected that any company that wishes to engage in business with a country should respect its sovereignty. A way out – even if it means turning a blind eye – is to recognize the independence of business operations, that the decision of the airlines concerned is purely commercial.

So it is with Qantas, which has decided to comply with Beijing’s request after the initial resistance. As with the USA, the Australian government, while embracing the one-China policy, was critical of the Chinese ruling, but conceded that how Qantas structured its website was a matter for the company. Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said: “Private companies should be free to conduct their usual business operations free from political pressure of governments.”

So, will US carriers comply or be prepared to stop flying to China?

What defines a best airline?

What defines a best airline, considering the different surveys that rank them? Conde Nast Travel has just released its readers’ choice of the best in 2017, and it is no surprise the list is made up of Asian, Middle East, European and SW Pacific carriers.

Courtesy Air New Zealand

Of course, it depends on the readership, but recognizing that, it also points to what really makes these airlines stand out. It is clear that the premium class service weighs heavily – the seat comfort and the fine food.

Etihad Airways (ranked #16) offers “the future of first-class comfort: a three-room “residence” with a bedroom, private bath with shower, and lounge.” Emirates (#4) offers “posh perks for premium fliers – cocktail lounges, in-flight showers… part of the reason it scores so high among travellers.” And the suites on Singapore Airlines (#3) offer “a pair of fully flat recliners that can be combined into a double bed.”

Mention is made of the premium economy class in almost all the ranked airlines” KLM (#20), Lufthansa (#19), Japan Airlines (#17), All Nippon Airways (#13), Qantas (#12), Cathay Pacific (#10), Virgin Atlantic (#7), Virgin Australia (#6), Singapore Airlines (#3) and Air New Zealand (#1).

So it may appear to be the voice of the premium travellers that is being heard. Maybe coach travellers aren’t too concerned about the ranking, more driven by price and less frilly factors, although to be fair, the Conde Nast report did mention of at least one airline, i.e. Etihad Airways (#16), not ignoring “those sitting in the back.” While many travellers may resign to the belief that the economy class is about the same across the industry, it is reasonable to assume that an airline that strives to please its customers in the front cabins will most probably carry that culture or at least part of it to the rear.

Although you may draw consensus across many of the surveys, it is best best to treat each one of them in isolation. It is more meaningful to try and draw intra conclusions within the findings of the particular survey.

You will note in the Conde Nast findings, there is an absence of American (including Canadian) carriers, never mind that of African and South American carriers.

Asiana Airlines (#8) is ranked ahead of Korean Air (#11).

All Nippon Airways (#13) is ranked ahead of Japan Airlines (#17). V

Virgin Australia (#6) is ranked ahead of Qantas (#12).

The order of the “Big 3” Gulf carriers is as follows: Qatar Airways (#2), Emirates (#4) and Etihad Airways (#16).

Of European carriers, there is the conspicuous absence of the big names of British Airways (compare Virgin Atlantic #7) and Air France, and the pleasant surprise of Aegean Airlines (#9) while SWISS seems to be regaining its erstwhile status years ago as being the industry standard.

The best belongs to Air New Zealand as the quiet achiever.

Ultimately, the results also depend on the group of respondents whose experiences may be limited to certain airlines.

Other airlines ranked in the top 20 of the Conde Nast survey: Finnair (#14), Turkish Airlines (#15), EVA Air (#18).

Joon: Basic yet chic

Courtesy Air France

What’s basic yet chic? That, says Air France, is the design of the uniform for cabin crew of its new subsidiary airline, Joon. You can expect to serve flight attendants in trendy casuals that include blazers, polos, ankle pants and sneakers. Apparently it is Silicon Valley inspired.

A statement issued by Air France said: “Its visual identity is based on an electric blue colour code symbolizing the airline’s dynamic attitude, as well as the sky, space and travel.”

Believe it, the colour has much to do with the kind of image projected by the airlines. Targeting millennials, Joon moves away from the convention of a neutral and sedate hue for something more in line with the outgoing disposition of younger jet-setters.

Many years ago when Singapore Airlines (SIA) launched a regional carrier called Tradewinds, there was much ado about the crew uniform to project the more casual mood of leisure travel – something you might wear on a vacation. That changed when its successor SilkAir took over to target business travel and other more serious travellers as well.

Courtesy Scoot

But it is Joon that is going completely millennial, right down to white trainers.

Courtesy Air Canada

Meantime, Air Canada is going retro. Its maple leaf logo design returns to the airline’s look 24 years ago, incorporating the circle loop. Black replaces red in the letterings on the aircraft, and flight attendantswill match with black uniform highlighted with a red tie or scarf.

Looks like you either go hip or nostalgic if you want to make a statement.

What do millennials want?

Courtesy Air France

Air France may have struck it right in launching Joon as a “lifestyle brand” targeting millennials, designed to meet the requirements and aspirations of a young working clientele whose lifestyles revolve around digital technology.

Goodbye baby boomers, hello millennials!

Air France defines the new generation of travellers as aged between 18 and 35 years. Quite aptly, the name Joon is a play on the French word “jeune”, which means “young”.

What do millennials want, travelling?

Millennials are IT-savvy and rely on electronic tools and applications going about doing the things they do. For them, for example, a paper boarding pass is a thing of the past when a smart phone can do the job. Social media is very much a part of their lives.

Millenials value immersion in cultural experiences more than mere sightseeing and collecting souvenirs of the places where they have been. Instead of popular tourist destinations, they prefer adventures to exotic places that are usually off-the-beaten-track.

While millennials are not particularly thrilled by frivolous frills, that does not mean they travel cheap. Far from it. They are in fact brand conscious, and would pay for something that they fancy or must try. But they will not spend on stuff that do not value-add their experiences. That way, they can afford more experiences, travelling more frequently.

Millennials are the NOW generation, who are prepared to rough it out if they had to. For them, travel is more a means to an end. They are therefore less likely to complain about not being pampered by the crew on board, but they do expect efficiency and immediacy of result. Hence, the absence of fuss, boosted by technology capability that allows room for them to exercise some degree of control of what they need and want, appeals to them.

It is this new generation of travellers, says Air France, who inspired the formation of Joon which will take to the sky in fall.

Airlines target millennials with lifestyle branding

http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/airlines-target-millennials-lifestyle-branding

Air France to “boost” performance with new low-cost carrier

Legacy airlines in Europe have long been feeling the pinch from low-cost carriers such as Ryanair and Easyjet. Now it looks like Norwegian Air Shuttle and WOW Air are pushing them to look farther before they lose more ground.
Lufthansa already offers a low-cost trans-Atlantic option from Europe to Las Vegas, Orlando, Miami and Seattle in the United States.

The International Airlines Group which owns British Airways, Iberia, Aer Lingusm and Vueling has just added another low-cost carrier – Level – to its stable. Level, based in Barcelona, will fly to Los Angeles and Oakland in California USA, Punta Cana in the Dominican Republic, and Buenos Aires in Argentina. Fares start at the familiar €99 reminiscent of the Norwegian and WOW Air’s promotions.

Courtesy Air France

Following in their footsteps is Air France, which announces the formation of a new subsidiary low-cost airline – Boost as its working name – planned to commence operations in winter. The airline will fly from the main hubs of the Air France/KLM group to destinations in Italy, Spain and Turkey initially, and then farther to destinations in Asia. Norwegian is already flying to Bangkok and will in October connect London with Singapore.

But Boost will be taking on full-service airlines as well, such as the Middle East carriers of Emirates Airlines, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways which are already ruffling the feathers of the regional big birds of Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific.

The developments point to a gradual convergence of the low-cost and full-service product perceived value wise. It’s the antithetical success of low-cost carriers pushing to bridge the gulf and the failure of legacy airlines not being able to maintain if not increase the differentiation. It looks like the European tug-of-war is pulling the legacy airlines towards the centre line.

Airlines brace for the hard times of a troubled Europe

Two British Airways aircraft, with British Airways plane taking off in background.

Two British Airways aircraft, with British Airways plane taking off in background.

IT is easy to blame Brexit. International Airlines Group (IAG) which owns British Airways (BA) and EU carriers Iberia, Vueling and Aer Lingus, says the weak pound has caused its operating profits for Q2 (Apr to Jun) to fall below forecasts, even the number (€555m) (USD618m) is higher than a year ago ((€530m). The weak pound has cost the airline €148m.

But, of course, BA is a key contributor to IAG’s bottom line. IAG is not too upbeat about the immediate future as it “continued to experience a weaker trading environment in our UK point-of-sale business, which represents around one third of total revenue.”

The situation is definitely not helped and in fact made worse by the slew of terror attacks across the continent. Other European airlines such as Air France-KLM and Lufthansa are also under a lot of pressure to keep the numbers up, warning that travellers would avoid coming to popular destinations in their home countries.

Air France-KLM reported a 5% dip in revenue for Q2 to €6.22bn. The airline said: “The global context in 2016 remains highly uncertain… resulting in an increasing pressure on unit revenues and a special concern about France as a destination.”

So the problem is not entirely Brexit. And as the pound weakens and reduces purchasing power, and so too as travellers stay away from popular tourist destinations across Europe, the paradox is that airlines will be persuaded to reduce fares to shore up the demand for seats.

Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary, referring to recent bombings, said: “Airlines have to respond with lower prices to keep people flying.” This will at the same time exert pressure on rival airlines to similarly take the same course. Mr O’Leary predicted average fares to fall approximately 7% this year.

Fortunately the continuing low fuel prices are working in the airlines’ favour although many are already complaining about the need to lower prices. So don’t expect the fuel surcharge to come down.

Budget phobia grips European airlines

Courtesy Getty Images

Courtesy Getty Images

THE strike by German airline Lufthansa’s pilots may be over a different personnel issue, but it reflects similar circumstances faced by Air France (see Air France/Union dispute reflects a divisive and unsure industry, Oct 3, 2014).

European airlines are gripped by budget phobia as both Air France and Lufthansa have blamed the strikes not only for the costly disruption of flights but also for hindering their efforts to effectively compete with the likes of Ryanair and easyJet through their respective subsidiaries, Transavia (Air France) and Germanwings (Lufthansa).

On the one hand, it is an issue of fair employee compensation and welfare, and the integrity of the human resource administration. On the other, it is a matter of survival in the competition that ultimately must address the issue of costs.

The imbroglio can only benefit the budget carriers, as disgruntled travellers switch their allegiance. easyJet announced a windfall riding on the Air France/union dispute, which had boosted its revenue by £5m (US$5.35m) (see Easyjet rides on Air France’s troubles, Oct 8. 2014).

Lufthansa management has offered to retain the pension scheme for employees who joined the company before this year. The scheme allows pilots to retire at age 55 but they will continue to receive up to 60 per cent of their pay before regular pension payments kick in at 65. However, Lufthansa will increase the retirement age for new recruits.

Apparently the pilots union has proposed a plan to cover the costs of retaining the current scheme. It would be interesting to find out what.

The industrial action has cost Lufthansa 70m euros (US$89m). The airline failed to get the court to declare the strikes as illegal, and the Vereinigung Cockpit (VC) union does not rule out further action.

Until the dispute is settled, budget carriers can look forward to a better year-end season as travellers make advance bookings for Christmas and the New Year. easyJet announced it has sold 25 per cent of its seats for the next six months.