And then there are three

From four to three (if you exclude SIA Cargo which will be absorbed as a division of the parent airline in 2018), Singapore Airlines (SIA) will now have three carriers in its stable as sister budget subsidiaries Scoot and Tigerair announced the completion of their merger come July 25, 2017. SilkAir, defined as a regional carrier, makes up the trio.

Both Scoot and Tigerair will henceforth operate under the Scoot brand. It seems logical, considering the poor reputation of Tigerair and the plans to expand Scoot into the long-haul. Unlike Tigerair, Scoot was launched as a medium-haul budget carrier.

The merger was long anticipated as the operations of the two carriers began to overlap with Scoot operating the short-haul as well. At the same time, loss-making Tigerair’s days were numbered as it struggled through a period of difficult times both financially and operationally, scarred with customer complaints of poor service.

While it certainly makes sense for the two carriers to eliminate intra-competition and pool their resources, it also opens the field for Scoot to expand its network. Already it is trailing behind Malaysian budget carrier AirAsia, whose chief Tony Fernandes is known to be testing new boundaries beyond the four-to-five hour limitation of the budget model. While AirAsia is not always guaranteed success, it has enjoyed headstart advantages.

Courtesy AirAsia

Scoot has announced a service to Honolulu by the end of the year, six months after AirAsia launches its service from Kuala Lumpur. Both carriers will operate via Osaka. It will be interesting to see how the competition plays out.

Scoot may be advantaged by its hub connections at Changi Airport while AirAsia will rely on its wide regional network to take advantage of Kuala Lumpur International Airport’s lower costs in a price-sensitive leisure market.

Scoot will benefit from the reputation of the SIA brand association, but somehow that has not rubbed off on the beleaguered Tigerair.

The competition is set to redefine the budget game as Scoot and AirAsia battle it out to be the region’s leading carrier not only for the short-haul but also beyond.

Advertisements

AirAsia completes Asian conquest

Courtesy AirAsia

AirAsia founder Tony Fernandes said the latest agreement to set up a joint venture in China with Everbright Group “closes the loop” in the region. He added that AirAsia China “represents the final piece of the AirAsia puzzle.”

The Chinese joint venture came on the heels of the agreement with Gumin Company Limited, businessman Tran Trong Kien and Hai Au Aviation Joint Stock Company to set up AirAsia Vietnam, which is expected to commence operations in the first half of 2018.

These two ventures add to an impressive list that already includes Thai AirAsia, Indonesia AirAsia, Philippines AirAsia and AirAsia India, giving the Malaysian budget carrier a base in almost every major country in the region from India and across Southeast Asia to China. The exception is Japan when an earlier joint venture with All Nippon Airways – AirAsia Japan – was disbanded just over a year after it commenced operations in August 2012.

Notwithstanding that, AirAsia’s ambition to be the region’s main player remains unthwarted, capitalising on Asia’s growing middle class and its propensity for air travel, particularly in populous China, India and Indonesia. Headquartered in Kulala Lumpur, it is now larger than flag carrier Malaysia Airlines and is Asia’ largest budget carrier.

But Mr Fernandes enjoys wrestling with the big boys. AirAsia’s strategy is not confined to the domestic market, which will place it in good stead to compete beyond the borders in time. Not content to be just Asia’s largest budget carrier, AirAsia is once again trying to prove sceptics wrong about the viability of the long haul as it launches flights from Kuala Lumpur to Honolulu in June – this, despite its failure to sustain services to Paris and London five years ago. If success seemed elusive in the past – the same fate that had dealt similar blows to others such as Hong Kong’s Oasis Airlines who dare go where others fear to tread – Mr Fernandes deserves credit at least for trying.

AirAsia to launch Honolulu services: Revisiting the sustainability of budget long haul

Courtesy AirAsia

Courtesy AirAsia

Malaysian carrier AirAsia will be introducing four weekly services from Kuala Lumpur to Honolulu in June, becoming the first budget airline approved for operations between the United States and Asia. Flight time is anything from 16 to 18 hours.

This is yet another attempt by founder Tony Fernandes to launch a budget long haul, despite the failure to sustain earlier operations under the AirAsia X banner to London in 2009 and Paris in 2011, which were suspended in 2012. However, Mr Fernandes said operations to London will resume in 2018 when the airline receives its new more economical long-range Airbus A330-900neo jets.

Although sceptics continue to doubt the viability of budget long hauls and there have been many who tried and failed, the entrepreneurial spirit to push the boundary is still very much alive. The current slate includes Norwegian Air Shuttle which commenced services from Oslo to New York and to Bangkok in 2013, and Lufthansa’s Eurowings which and operates nonstop from Cologne and Bonn to US destinations such as Seattle, Orlando, Miami and Las Vegas. Budget doyen Ryanair is also looking at crossing the Atlantic. Singapore Airlines’ budget offshoot Scoot has announced plans to connect Singapore and Athens in June.

A number of factors have contributed to the trend.Bu dget carriers are beginning to eye distant destinations dominated by legacy airlines as they expand, and this is now made possible by technologically advanced and more fuel efficient aircraft. The budget model is changing, and the line between budget and full-service carriers is increasingly blurring as the former upgrades customer service and facilities and the latter adopting some of the practices such as product unbundling and charging for add-ons. Legacy airlines no longer view budget carriers as operating in their own niche markets but a real threat. (See Ultra-long flights: The competition heats up, Feb 7, 2017)

Whether Mr Fernandes’ Honolulu venture is sustainable or not in the long run, he has earned his feather. As a stand-alone, it will be a challenge for AirAsia, which will have to tap feeds from its regional connections – as will Scoot when it commences services to Athens. It will be a test, considering the nature of the leisure traffic and the competition posed by several airlines in the region that are already plying the route direct form their home bases or in code-share arrangements.

AirAsia woes

Photo: Mohd Rasfan/AFP

Photo: Mohd Rasfan/AFP

On Dec 28 last year, AirAsia suffered the loss of an Airbus A320-200 jet which crashed after taking off from Surabaya in Indonesia for Singapore, killing 162 people on board. Then there was talk about the weather being a factor and allegations about the lack of adequate measures governing flying permits.

A report by Indonesia’s National Transportation Safety Committee (KNKT) now points a finger at “the maintenance regime of AirAsia, as well as the actions of the pilots at the controls of Flight QZ8501 when it crashed.” The KNKT found inadequacies in the plane’s maintenance system, which may have overlooked the worrying trend of a recurring technical fault with the Rudder Travel Limiter, an inflight system that helps pilots control the aircraft rudder. Apparently the ill-fated aircraft showed a fault in the system 23 times in 12 months. And the recovered flight data recorder showed that the fault occurred four times within 40 minutes of take-off.

According to KNKT, the pilots managed to deal with all but the last warning alert, after which they apparently tried to reboot the system manually against protocol, causing a power trip that disengaged the autopilot and sending the aircraft into a violent roll or “upset condition”.

In response, AirAsia said its line maintenance crew had “rectified the fault messages at the time of occurrence in accordance with the Airbus maintenance manual and troubleshooting manual, which is why it never qualified as a repetitive fault.” But the KNTK said the carrier’s maintenance systems “did not optimise the post-flight reports.”

There is a second issue – the suspicion that the pilots of Flight QZ8501 might not have been trained to handle the A320-300 in “upset conditions”, such training that might even be considered not required because of the unlikely event of it happening. But Mr Jean-Paul Troadec, former director of France’s aviation authority BEA, said AirAsia had not followed the agency’s rules on training.

The KNKT report has opened the floodgates for potential legal suits by families of the victims. Already 11 families – and others are expected to join them – have filed a collective lawsuit against Airbus. US-based aviation lawyer Floyd Wisner who is representing them told The Straits Times: “We believe the recent report by the Indonesian authorities confirms our position that this tragic crash was caused, at least in part, by a mechanical defect in the aircraft and certain of its components.” The claims alleged that aircraft concerned was “defectively and unreasonably dangerous” in part because Airbus had “negligently breached its duty of care” in the design, manufacturing and assembling of the plane.

Mr Wisner is expected to make hay of the fact that Airbus was aware of the recurring problem, yet took no action to check the trend despite its many reported incidents.

AirAsia too may not be spared. Mr Wisner has lampooned AirAsia for “not handling the claims of its passengers pursuant to international standards.” He added, “Despite the promises of AirAsia’s owner, Tony Fernandes, that the victims’ families would be treated fairly, AirAsia is proving that it is a low fare, low compensation airline.”

Any air disaster of this magnitude is bad news for the carrier concerned. For as long as the memory stays fresh in the mind of would-be travellers, demand for seats to fly that same carrier is likely to suffer. It takes time to heal as the airline repairs its image. Between the time of Flight QZ8501’s fatal accident and the KNKT report, AirAsia might have regained some ground with Mr Fernandes himself spearheading the road to recovery. At the time of the incident, Mr Fernandes was quick to offer his sympathies and assistance to families of the victims. He was personally present to take charge of the situation and manage the media publicity. One year later responding to the KNKT report, Mr Fernandes graciously thanked the KNKT for its “very thorough investigations” and reiterated that his thoughts were with the families and crew of the ill-fated flight. He tweeted: “These are scars that are left on me forever but I remain committed to make Airasia the very best.”

However, as much as Mr Fernandes understands the business, the KNKT report is reopening the wounds of the fatal accident and setting the recovery back a few steps. At the time that the KNKT report was released, AirAsia experienced several flight delays out of Kuala Lumpur International Airport (budget terminal) that left hundreds of passengers stranded and angry. Call it a coincidence. Eleven pilots (some reports had the number as 13) called in sick and while there was speculation that this looked like a revolt by pilots unhappy with working hours and conditions, Mr Fernandes dismissed it as a “freak day” when a new rostering system was introduced. Echoing him, an AirAsia spokesman said: “We have over a thousand pilots. 13 is a small number.”

Sure, a small number per se but not in the context of what happened. If that response was not uttered in jest, it smacked of arrogance. Right now, AirAsia can do with a little less disruption but a little more positive reinforcement. Even in small doses.

This article was first published in Aspire Aviation, titled “Air Asia loses altitude”.

AirAsia India set to trigger price war

Courtesy AFP

Courtesy AFP

INDIA’s first carrier with foreign investment – AirAsia India – commences operations today. Owned by Malaysia-based AirAsia and India’s TATA Group, the new budget airline is likely to trigger a price war among the domestic operators.

But AirAsia is confident that it has the discipline to keep its fares low and its costs “razor-thin”, so said chief executive Mittu Chandilya. The airline has promised the lowest fare, flying between Bangalore and Goa for as low as US$17 which is cheaper than a second-class train fare

Anything goes, it seems, in India. Many carriers have come and gone, and many of the existing operators continue to incur losses. Yet the huge potential of a growing market continues to lure new investors hoping to make it big in the arena.

For now, AirAsia chairman Tony Fernandes is probably pleased that AirAsia India has beaten Singapore Airlines (SIA) to the starting line in launching AirAsia India, which is 49-per-cent owned by AirAsia. In an almost similar arrangement, SIA has also partnered TATA Group to establish TATA SIA Airlines to be launched in October. Any apparent competition between the two upstarts can only benefit TATA whichever way it swings, and, of course, the consumer as the plethora of operators undercut each other.

Is ASEAN Open Skies a myth?

LESS than a year to its full implementation, the ASEAN Open Skies remains an uncertainty. First mooted some 20 years ago, it has been a long time coming. While there was some open discussion in its early days, all seems somewhat quiet of late. Is it likely to be postponed? Or is it after all a myth?

The issue really hinges on how ready the ten-nation association are collectively. Even deeper than that, how prepared are they to overcome the hurdles, real or perceived, that stand in the way of full implementation. Unlike the European Union, ASEAN is by definition an “association” and not a common government with binding law enforcement obligations. The bloc is made up of a disparate string of nations that are vastly different in their stages of economic development. How they weigh the opportunities that such a common policy could bring against possible losses at home would determine their readiness for participation. Some nations may still prefer the seeming protection of local businesses accorded by bilateral exchanges. This was already tacit when at the outset, the various nations agreed on “the importance of the development of Competitive Air Services Policy which may be a gradual step towards an Open Sky Policy in ASEAN.”

Yet the good news is that against the uncertainty, the skies are already becoming more liberal as a number of airlines have stepped up expansion plans across the region. The battle for dominance has begun.

ASEAN nations

Courtesy The Bangkok Post

Courtesy The Bangkok Post

Indonesia is the largest nation in the association, occupying a land mass made up of more than 13,000 islands that is almost 75% the total area of the other nine nations put together. It is also the most populous with 250 million people, followed by the Philippines (98,000,000) and Vietnam (90,000,000). While ASEAN has a combined population of over 600 million – which speaks a lot about its huge market potential – expectedly the focus is likely to be Indonesia. But Indonesia, hampered by slow infrastructural enhancement and the past poor safety records of its carriers, fears the loss of domestic markets to better endowed foreign competitors. In May 2010, Indonesia declared it was not ready to fully open its skies and would limit access to only five airports, namely Jakarta, Surabaya, Bali, Medan and Makassar. Other ports would be subject to bilateral agreements and foreign carriers would not be permitted to ply domestic routes.

So it is with the less developed nations of Myanmar, Laos, Kampuchea and Vietnam even as they seek more foreign investments and ways to boost their exports. Accessibility to the landlocked outback of these nations could open up opportunities for growth, as noted at a meeting of ASEAN transport ministers in 1996 that the association aimed “to promote interconnectivity and interoperability of national networks and access thereto taking particular account of the need to link islands, land locked, and peripheral regions with the national and global economies.” The question really is how ready they are to embrace this objective to see to its implementation.

At the other end of the spectrum is Singapore, which is the smallest of the nations but the most advanced economically and most ready to go full hog with the implementation of the ASEAN Open Skies policy. After all, Singapore has been a pioneer in advocating liberal skies on the global stage. A concern among its ASEAN neighbours may be that of how they perceive Singapore carriers as benefitting from an enlarged Asean hinterland. It works both ways. Foreign carriers, particularly short-haul operators with limited capacity and resources, will benefit from Changi Airport’s hub connections to tap into other markets in the region. Besides its strategic geographical position, Changi offers excellent infrastructure and has appeal aplenty for transits,

Middle-of-the-road Malaysia and Thailand seem less passionate about the push. Brunei Darussalam, which has the smallest population, appears quite comfortable the way it is for now. However, the Philippines with a similar geography as Indonesia could benefit from more liberal connections.

Which airlines will rule the ASEAN skies?

The region’s growth is likely to be led by budget carriers. With the focus on Indonesia, its home-based carriers are not sitting by idly. Flag carrier Garuda Indonesia is acquiring smaller 100-seat planes more suited to the shorter runways of secondary airports, which will be largely served by its budget subsidiary Citilink. Asked how Garuda was gearing up for the ASEAN Open Skies, Garuda president and chief executive Emirsyah Satar said: “The ASEAN Open Skies Agreement will open up the Indonesian market to carriers from other ASEAN member countries, but our position is very strong in Indonesia and we are prepared for the competition. Our network’s aggressive international expansion and continual developments and service improvements will also prepare us for competing in a more liberal environment.” (Interview: Emirysah Satar, president & chief executive, Garuda Indonesia, 4 September 2013) He projected that Citilink would carry 19 million passengers by 2015 and there were plans to add international routes to several destinations in Southeast Asia. Garuda is also developing a new hub in Bintan, which is a hop away from Changi Airport.

Courtesy Lion Group/Picture by Rudy Hari Purnomo

Courtesy Lion Group/Picture by Rudy Hari Purnomo

Compatriot Lion Air, which is Indonesia’s second largest airline, is also expanding its fleet and gearing up its regional subsidiary Wings Air to service smaller airports. Lion Air has long expressed its intention to hub through Changi although it has also announced plans to develop Batam as an alternative transit hub to the congested Soekarno-Hatta Airport in Jakarta for both domestic and international flights. Lion Air president Rusdi Kirana said: “The distance is actually shorter if you transit in Batam rather than flying south to Jakarta to transit. The shorter flying time makes flying more convenient for passengers and it means aircraft burn less fuel, leading to significant cost savings.” From Batam, which, like Bintan, is a stone’s throw away from Changi, Lion Air hopes to fly to destinations such as Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Jeddah, New Delhi and Mumbai.

It is to be seen how the plans of Garuda and Lion Air to develop Bintan and Batam respectively will impact on Changi, which is likely to see higher growth as Singapore becomes an attractive destination in itself and as a desirable feed port for international and regional traffic. In introducing a direct non-stop service from Jakarta to London in May this year, Mr Satar has hoped that Indonesian travellers would fly Garuda instead of routing their travel out of another airport such as Changi.

Other smaller carriers are expected to go for a bigger slice of the growing pie and new carriers launched to serve secondary airports.

Courtesy Airbus

Courtesy Airbus

Not to be left out of the race, AirAsia and Tigerair made early moves to establish their presence in the huge Indonesian market. Until a full open skies policy is in place, joint ventures are the expedient way to gaining a foothold. Indonesia AirAsia, which is 49% owned by AirAsia, operates beyond Indonesia to Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Phuket and Ho Chi Minh City. AirAsia chief Tony Fernandes’ ambition is to dot the region with the AirAsia brand. The Malaysian budget carrier has also set up joint ventures in Thailand and the Philippines. This means AirAsia, which is headquartered in Kuala Lumpur, and its joint-venture airlines are serving destinations in all the ten Asean countries, as summed up by Mr Fernandes: “Think we are done in Asean.” But liberalization offers more than just opportunities within Asean; AirAsia is well positioned to connect its passengers beyond to destinations in Australia, Japan, Korea, China, India and the Middle East.

Responding to AirAsia’s thrust into Indonesia, Lion Air teamed up with Malaysia’s National Aerospace and Defence Industries to launch Malindo Airways for services from Kuala Lumpur across Asean and to China, India and Japan, a move that Mr Fernandes had rebuffed as no match for AirAsia’s strong brand and positioning as Asia’s largest budget carrier. So far Lion Air appears to be one with the biggest plans, which include an airline leasing company to be situated in Singapore, a new full-service airline Batik Air which was launched in May last year and which plans to fly to Singapore as its first international destination sometime this year, and a premium charter under the Space Jet brand.

Not so lucky is Tigerair, whose partnership with Mandala Airlines Indonesia is teetering on the brink, as was its partnership with SEAir in Tigerair Philippines which has since been sold to Cebu Pacific Air. Its attempt to spread its wings across the region had met with a string of failures added to a blemished record of poor service. Its ambiguous relationship with sibling airlines within the Singapore Airlines (SIA) stable has not improved its fortune; today Tigerair and Scoot are competitors on some routes. Scoot, which is 100% owned by SIA, looks likely to overtake Tigerair in the game. It has partnered Nok Air to operate a domestic service in Thailand. Nok has hoped that this will be its vehicle for expansion overseas. Regional carrier SilkAir continues to fly in the shadow of parent SIA, which may have to continue to shore up the fortunes of its offshoots with feeder traffic from and into its long haul services.

Jetstar Asia, the only other airline based in Singapore that is not part of the SIA group, has proven to be a tough competitor. Parent Qantas has been actively promoting the Jetstar brand across Asia, having also set up joint ventures in Japan, Vietnam and Hong Kong.

Whether the Asean Open Skies is finally formalized or not, regional carriers have already started to prepare for the eventuality. The question as to whether it is a myth is no longer relevant. Clearly, the end-date is not as important as the progression towards it.

Move over, Ryanair, the new low-cost model is Jetstar

Courtesy AFP/Getty Images

Courtesy AFP/Getty Images


REPORTING a net profit of 602m euros (US$831m) for the six months to end-September and despite an increase of 1% year-on-year, Ryanair yet again warned that profits are likely to fall for the full year. The airline reiterated an earlier exhortation about the numbers dipping as low as 500m euros compared to last year’s 570m euros, thus negating the gain made in the first half.

It is bad news that profits will fall despite an expected drop in fares by 10% over the winter months. Ryanair attributed this to “increased price competition, softer economic conditions in Europe and the weaker euro-sterling exchange rate.” As a result, the airline may ground some aircraft.

The truth is that Europe’s biggest low-cost carrier is beginning to feel that its hitherto successful modus operandi, hailed as a true budget model, may be finally running up against the wall. Surprise, surprise, surprise it is that the airline is talking about change, and more specifically in the department of customer service when previously it may even be said to have been sitting pretty comfortable and breathing arrogance about being labelled brusque, unfriendly and uncompassionate. Ryanair chief Michael O’Leary acknowledged it is now time to “listen to customers” in a somewhat belated but hopefully never too late attempt to retain customers and attract new ones.

Among the measures to be introduced are: the return of allocated seating in February next year for a smoother boarding process and to enable families and other groups of passengers to sit together; the allowance of a small second carry-on bag, which will be a bonus compared to other low-cost operators; and a 24-hour grace period to allow passengers to correct minor booking errors, a far cry from the alleged erstwhile practice of faulting or penalizing passengers on the slightest technical inaccuracy. It is a lesson learnt that in an increasingly competitive environment, customers do have a choice.

But, of course, many upstarts in the same niche market as Ryanair have failed to make the same strides as the Irish carrier. Some of them tried in vain to tweak the low-cost model to do one better and then ran the risks of evolving an expensive but misplaced hybrid model. Ryanair made no secret about flying the dollar and that everything else was baloney. Can you blame it that in its robust years it had not anticipated that this day of reckoning would arrive?

Image courtesy ABC

Image courtesy ABC


Younger Jetstar Airways and its sister airlines operating in a different part of the world might have gleaned some valuable lessons from the doyen’s experience. A subsidiary of Australian flag carrier Qantas, Jetstar has made its mark not only domestically but also in New Zealand and across Asia with local partners in Singapore, Vietnam, Japan and soon Hong Kong. It is fast becoming the region’s favourite low-cost carrier, competing with AirAsia and Tigerair whose founding fathers included Ryanair. Ranked tops in Australia, Jetstar Airways was second to AirAsia for best low-cost carrier worldwide in the Skytrax 2013 survey. Singapore-based Jetstar Asia was ranked seventh in the same category, but there was no mention of either Ryanair or Tiger Airways (now Tigerair) in the top ten list. In the Asia category, Jetstar Asia was ranked ahead of Tiger Airways. For Europe, Ryanair was outside the radar.

Jetstar is spreading its wings across Asia as Ryanair has done in Europe. It is enjoying an Asian boom, posting double-digit passenger growth. Since 2009, it has flown 23 million passengers within Asia and 10 million passengers from Australia to Asia. However, as pointed out by Jetstar CEO Jayne Hrdlicka, “low fares are just part of the story.” For too long while the going was good, competing on the lowest fares was everything for Ryanair. Price leadership has to be complemented by good products and services. Jetstar has identified “customer advocacy” as one of its drivers for growth. Providing a consistently good experience each time that a passenger flies is the surest way of attracting returning as well as new customers. It is the best advertisement that you can get.

Jetstar has contributed positively to the bottom line of the Qantas Group even though its last full year (ending June 2013) profit dipped by 32%, attributable largely to start-up losses in Jetstar Japan and Hong Kong. Is Jetstar, compared to standalone Ryanair, advantaged by its being an offshoot of an established legacy brand? Jetstar may attribute its success largely to its focus on local and independent management, but you cannot rule out parental influence. The airline is not alone in that aspect, if you consider the many others so conceived. This could well be the reason why AirAsia failed to work with partner All Nippon Airways (ANA) in the Jetstar Japan venture which has since been fully assimilated by ANA and the airline renamed Vanilla Air. Yet Qantas and Japan Airlines so far seem to have done all right in the case of Jetstar Japan.

It is not a given. The parental association can benefit or be detrimental to the offshoot carrier. United Airlines and Delta Airlines were reluctant parents to Ted and Song respectively. Or, it can disappoint. The magic of Singapore Airlines has not seemed to rub off Tigerair, not even Scoot that it wholly owns.

Good bloodline may provide an advantageous lift-off; the rest depends on the offspring coming into its own. Jetstar has scored many firsts since its inception, among them the first LCC in Asia-Pacific to introduce customer self-service for changes and disruptions, SMS boarding passes, and the unbundling of check-in bags. It was also the first LCC to put on board iPADS with the latest content and the first LCC to offer interline and codeshare flights. Soon it will be the first LCC to launch avatar chat (“Ask Jess”).

In all fairness to Ryanair, it is an equally innovative airline and it should be commended for being a bold one too. Here is where the path diverges for both airlines. As a true blue low cost carrier, Ryanair is focused on measures aimed at reducing costs further. The first principle of economics is that ceteris paribus, consumers will go for the lowest cost. If, for example, you do not fancy eating up in the air, why should you subsidise the cost of meals that other passengers tuck in? You pay only when you want to eat. Budget carriers, including legacy airlines – notably North American carriers – operating domestic or the short haul routes are already subscribing to that principle. Ryanair goes further with other measures such as charging a fee for counter check-in and has no compunction about bumping off a passenger who arrives at the airport without a pre-printed boarding pass. Scrimping on staff numbers to provide customer service also helps to reduce its operating costs. Mr O’Leary raised some brows when he suggested charging for the use of the aircraft loo and providing standing room only fares. The vibes turn out to be negative.

Jetstar on the other hand offers more positive solutions to perceived constraints that may be considered by many travellers as necessary evils of the budget travel mode. It has adopted a consolatory approach that has earned it brownie points. What little additional costs it incurs on the swings, it more than makes up for it on the roundabouts. Ancillary services are a major earner for the airline.

Move over, Ryanair, the new low-cost model is Jetstar. Still, it is quite something to hear Mr O’Leary say: “Listen to customers.”