Air New Zealand tops again

Courtesy Air New Zealand

AirlineRatings.com has named Air New Zealand as the world’s best airline for 2018. Other airlines that make the top ten in descending order are Qantas, Singapore Airlines (SIA), Virgin Australia, Virgin Atlantic, Etihad Airways, All Nippon Airways (ANA), Korean Air, Cathay Pacific and Japan Airlines.

According to the editorial team, airlines must achieve a seven-star safety rating (developed in consultation with the International Civil Aviation Organization) and demonstrate leadership in innovation for passenger comfort to be named in the top ten.

The evaluation team also looks at customer feedback on sites that include CN Traveller.com which perhaps explain little surprise in both AirlineRatings and Conde Nast Travel naming Air New Zealand as their favourite. (See What defines a best airline? Oct 19, 2017) Four airlines, namely SIA, Virgin Australia, Virgin Atlantic and Cathay Pacific are ranked in the top ten of both lists. These look like consistently global favourites.

Notable absences from the AirlineRatings list are Middle east carriers Qatar Airways and Emirates Airlines. While these airlines scored for service in other surveys, they may have lost the lead in product innovation for which most of the airlines ranked by AirlineRatings are commended. Virgin Australia’s new business class is said to be “turning heads” and Etihad is said to provide a “magnificent product throughout the cabins.” Looking ahead, Air New Zealand will feel the pressure from Qantas and SIA for the top spot. (See Singapore Airlines steps up to reclaim past glory, Nov 3, 2017) In the same survey, Qantas is selected for best lounges and best catering services, and SIA for best first class and best cabin crew.

For those who think best airline surveys are often skewed by the halo effect of service provided in the upper classes, AirlineRatings has named Korean Air as best economy airline.

Advertisements

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).

Delta Air Lines extends its wings

Courtesy Airbus Industrie

Courtesy Airbus Industrie

The saga of Japan’s bankrupt Skymark Airlines has shifted attention from the plight of the damsel in distress to the competition among prospective white knights in waiting. Delta Air Lines has emerged as the frontrunner to the rescue of the beleaguered carrier, strongly favoured by Skymark’s creditors, Airbus Industrie and aircraft leasing firm Intrepid Aviation Group which have become kingmaker in the game. Of course, much also depends on the Japanese government’s position on a foreign carrier’s investment in the nation’s third largest airline.

Other foreign carriers that are said to have expressed an interest, if not now but in the early days, include American Airlines although it already has an alliance with Japan Airlines (JAL), China’s Hainan Airlines, and Malaysia’s AirAsia which had previously entered into a failed joint venture with ANA, which subsequently bought out AirAsia’s stake in AirAsia Japan and renamed it Vanilla Air.

Early indications pointed to ANA as Skymark’s best bet, but that would mean returning to a duopoly between JAL and ANA, not quite the desired situation preferred by the authorities if competition across the industry is to be encouraged. Airbus and Intrepid are trying to block such an eventuality, fighting a rival plan that would see ANA take up a stake of 16.5 per cent in Skymark. As the major creditors holding more than half of Skymark’s debt of 320 billion yen (US$2.6 billion), they are in a position of influence. The troubled budget carrier may also be handed heavy penalties for its cancelled Airbus order. Airbus and Industrie are proposing that Delta be invited to buy as much as 20 per cent of Skymark.

Intrepid believes the proposal “offers the best opportunity to preserve Skymark as Japan’s third largest independent carrier and is in the best interests of the carrier’s employees, suppliers and creditors.”

But is the issue really about preserving Skymark’s independence? Or even about its survival as prospective buyers take centre stage and observers wait to see how that would change the state of play. That can best be understood in the context of what really is at stake in the game.

For one thing, ANA is more a Boeing operator with a current fleet mix of only 6 per cent Airbus and the rest Boeing. It has also said it is not interested in taking over Skymark’s Airbus A330 leases. Delta on the other hand has shown increasing support of Airbus, favouring the European planemaker over Boeing with an order of 50 jets worth US$14 billion last year. Its current fleet mix is a growing Airbus 20 per cent to Boeing 58 per cent that tells the success story of Airbus penetration into the American market.

Skymark’s initial inclination was to work with JAL but was apparently advised not to exclude ANA. The benefit to any airline succeeding in the bid is Skymark’s 504 weekly slots at Haneda Airport, which is advantaged by its shorter distance to the city compared with Narita Airport. Although these slots are meant for domestic operations, it will add to ANA’s strength and increase its dominance at Haneda over JAL. However, ANA has already established other domestic brands that include Peach Aviation and Vanilla Air, and the likely outcome of such an arrangement may see Skymark being drastically downsized through fleet, route and capacity reduction, opening up opportunities for ANA and its subsidiaries – Skymark’s erstwhile competitors – to grow at Skymark`s expense. The authorities too may not be enthusiastic to see a diminished role for Skymark in the name of competition or some semblance of it for local travellers.

Courtesy Delta Air Lines

Courtesy Delta Air Lines

Delta is more likely to keep the Skymark brand intact, at least in the short term, as the Japanese carrier proffers an opportunity to extend its wings farther into the Japanese market. It is also about competition with compatriot rivals American and United Airlines outside the US. All three of them are mega carriers formed from mergers with fellow home airlines in a period of US aviation history marked by Chapter 11 protection, and consequently lifted by reduced competition at home to expand overseas. Since then, Delta has acquired a 49-oer-cent stake in Virgin Atlantic to strengthen its trans-Atlantic connections. It has also formed an alliance with Virgin Australia. What it needs now is an Asian, if not Japanese, partner, noting that both American and United have already forged alliances with JAL and ANA respectively. Hence Skymark looks like a timely opportunity.

Through Skymark, Delta will be able to gain access to many destinations within Japan, providing the channel for feed from and into Los Angeles (and perhaps other US points in the future). Viewed positively, it means Delta will have a piece of the local domestic market as well, something that is often not open to foreign carriers. Yet one is tempted to ask if Delta’s quest is all about banking on domestic connections, which many foreign carriers are quite happy to work through alliances with local partners. Delta will then be competing with JAL and ANA. Singapore Airlines tried and failed in Australia with the setup of Tigerair, which Virgin Australia as the new owner is trying to sustain as a completely local entity.

US carriers may gripe about Middle East airlines making inroads in the US market, but that too is quite a different story. First, Japan is not like the US. In fact, no single country is quite like the US unless you consider the countries collectively, such as the European Union where flying between member countries is not strictly domestic. Second, carriers such as Emirates Airlines are more interested in opportunities for direct access, connecting US cities with the world outside, operating viable links that US carriers may find eating into the domestic market for transfers.

Delta’s own experience of operating from Seattle to Haneda has not been up to the mark because of the seasonal traffic, a service which it will relinquish before the end of the year, making way for rival American to take up the Haneda slot with a second service to Tokyo in addition to its Narita route but flying from Los Angeles. This increases the competition threefold, American competing with not only Delta but also ANA. While Delta has said that the Seattle-Haneda service was intended to grow Seattle Tacoma Airport a gateway, the corollary challenge is growing the customer’s preference for Haneda, which lacks the international connections of Narita. But with an impending saturation at Narita, staking rights at Haneda is an investment for the future.

In a letter to the Department of Transport, Delta cited two reasons for the failed Seattle-Haneda service: “demand…is highly variable, peaking in the summer and declining in the winter; and Delta lacks a Japan airline partner to provide connectivity beyond Haneda to points in Japan and other countries in Asia.”

Interesting that Delta should attribute the failed service to its lack of a local partner, which therefore supports the case for courting Skymark. So also it seems the carrot is bigger than it looks. In 2010 when Skymark became the first Japanese carrier to negotiate a deal with Airbus for four Airbus A380 plus options for two more, it intended to use the aircraft for international routes from Narita to destinations such as London, Frankfurt, Paris and New York. The story sounds strangely familiar of a growing and ambitious airline, and one of a low-cost carrier that may have become neither sufficiently low-cost when buffeted by new competitors such as Jetstar Japan and Vanilla Air, nor adequately rebranded to attract corporate business and the higher end market. And the question, where Delta is concerned, is it looking a little too far into the future?

This article was first published in Aspire Aviation.

Competing to be the best: How reliable are survey readings?

Courtesy Cathay Pacific

Courtesy Cathay Pacific


SKYTRAX has named Cathay Pacific as the world’s best airline in 2014, displacing last year’s winner, Emirates. In second and third place are Qatar Airways and Singapore Airlines (SIA) respectively. Asian and Middle East carriers dominated the ranks of the top ten: Emirates (4th), Turkish Airlines (5th), All Nippon Airways (6th), Garuda Indonesia (7th), Asiana Airlines (8th), Etihad Airways (9th) and Lufthansa (10th). No American carrier was placed.

Are those really the world’s best airlines?

The winning airlines are unlikely to question the validity of any survey, as you can see how many of them are listing awards from all and sundry like a laundry list as endorsement of their good reputation. The corollary must be that if you accept the accolade willy nilly, so must you recognize one and all sideswipes.

Which leads to the next question: Is Skytrax the standard?

Skytrax claims its World Airline Awards to be “the global benchmarks of airline excellence”. The winners are decided by 18.85 million travellers from over 160 countries, and that should take care of any misgiving about the survey having an inadequate population and most importantly, the bias factor or its susceptibility to political influence.

Cathay CEO Ivan Chiu said: “The World’s Best Airline award is particularly important to us because it was decided by the votes of close to 19 million travellers from around the world.” Cathay was placed sixth last year and has won the award four times, previously in 2003, 2005 and 2009.

Emirates president Tim Clark said: “These awards are widely regarded as the industry’s benchmark for excellence. To be voted ‘World’s Best Airline’ by millions of discerning travellers is something… to be proud of.”

Qatar CEO Akbar Al Baker said: “These awards are highly rewarding as they are judiciously voted by passengers a true account of the overall experience felt by customers who have travelled with the airline.” Qatar won in 2011 and 2012.

Courtesy Etihad Airways

Courtesy Etihad Airways


However, Etihad’s withdrawal from participation apparently over differences in the methodology may tell a different story. Although it had never won, Etihad was consistently placed in the top ten in the past five years, ahead of Emirates in some years. Despite its withdrawal, Etihad was still ranked in this year’s survey because according to Skytrax, “an airline cannot be withdrawn from the World Airline Awards since these results are directly decided by customers.” That statement should add to the survey’s credibility, yet without taking sides and arguing the toss about fairness, one can only suspect and understand that the subjective nature of the survey (and of any survey) is naturally exposed to dissatisfaction, whether baseless or with reasons which may well be valid, the way that the Oscars results do not sit as squarely with a lot of people. Now and then you get an outstanding actor declaring his or her disinterest in the awards.

The issue is usually one of weightage and relevance of selection. However designed, the respondents may to some degree be steered by what is being asked. Take, as matter of curiosity, the 2014 Skytrax survey readings for the top ten. SIA is ranked ahead of Cathay for inflight entertainment, cabin cleanliness, First Class amenities, First Class cabin overall, seats in First, Business and Economy, and First Class meals; but close behind Cathay in other areas except for its noted absence for airport services, Business Class amenities and Business Class meals. Yet Cathay takes the cake.

It is encouraging to see breakthroughs by airlines such as Turkish and Garuda in a game dominated by the familiar big names. Interestingly, Turkish ranks above everyone else except Emirates and SIA for inflight entertainment. It is no surprise that Garuda tops for cabin crew, the epitome of Asian service culture, in a category swept by Qatar (6th) and nine other Asian carriers: Cathay (2nd), SIA (3rd), Asiana (4th), Malaysia Airlines (5th), EVA Air (7th), ANA (8th), Thai Airways (9th) and Hainan Airlines (10th). In like fashion, with the exception of KLM (8th) and Qantas (9th), the airport services category belonged to Asian carriers: ANA (1st), EVA (2nd), Thai (3rd), Asiana (4th), Cathay (5th), Korean Air (6th), Garuda (7th) and Dragonair (10th).

Yet, giving credit where it is due, one may question the appropriateness of comparing a carrier having limited global presence with others that are more exposed in the global arena, and how a population of largely local respondents compares with the wider global population. Hence it may be more meaningful to look at niche rankings, but we all love the sweeping titles of the best overall, don’t we? Even regionalized readings must be viewed in their proper context. The Qantas Group went ga-ga over Jetstar Airways’ win as best low-cost airlines in Australia/Pacific over AirAsia X (2nd), Scoot (3rd) and Tiger Airways (4th), but the world’s best is AirAsia followed by AirAsia X in second place ahead of Jetstar Airways (4th). Note how the preferences change when the population mix changes.

Who then really is the best overall? It may be difficult to say for sure one definite airline, and under the circumstances a wider reading of the top three or five or up to ten may be a more sensible assessment. The contest is to get into that magic circle of the elite.

Courtesy TODAY

Courtesy TODAY


Equally significant is the consistency over time. Airlines such as Cathay, Emirates, Qatar and SIA may pat themselves on the back for being there long enough to deserve their stripes. Narrow that down further, and you will see that only two airlines – Qatar and SIA – have been consistently placed in the top three in the past five years. Asiana had a good run from 2010 to 2012. Cathay was just outside in 4th place until it tumbled to 6th last year and bounced back to be this year’s winner. The wider reading should lead some airlines such as Qantas to ask why it has dropped out of the respectable club.

One survey alone cannot be definitive, hence winning across notable surveys may strengthen the reading. Compare the Skytrax results with Conde Nast Traveler’s assessment by its readers – based on the same principle of uninfluenced feedback – and you will begin to understand why. In its ranking for foreign carriers (outside America), Etihad is placed 4th behind Emirates (2nd) and ahead of Qatar (7th). Cathay is 7th, and the winner is SIA. Korean Air (8th) did better than rival Asiana (18th), and so did Japan Airlines (16th) over ANA (21st). The Conde Nast top ten includes Virgin Atlantic (3rd), Air New Zealand (5th) and Swiss International (10th).

Then there is the annual Airline of the Year award given by the Air Transport World (ATW) magazine. The criteria take into consideration financial performance (which debunks the myth that the world’s favourite airline is not necessarily the most profitable or even profitable) and visible leaps forward in services. However, naming only one winner can often lead to suspicions of political influence (the way that some beauty pageants are said to be when a winner is crowned) and the tendency to pass the honour around although airlines such as ANA (2007 and 2013) and Air New Zealand (2010 and 2012) had been named twice. Cathay (2006), SIA (2008) and Asiana (2009) had all had their turns. Delta Air Lines is ATW’s Airline of the Year 2014.

Several other magazines also dish out their own annual awards, which may be based on their readers’ feedback, or assessed by a panel of judges or arrived at combining the two methods. Some of them target niche markets such as awards that recognize the best airline for business travel. That in a way avoids spillover or halo effects and sectarian prejudices as, for example, an airline that impresses in First and Business Class may pay scant attention to what happens in Economy.

Nevertheless, surveys are useful tools in maintaining competition. Everyone loves to win, unless you do not give a hoot about how the world sees it and how that may affect your bottom line. So too, everybody loves a winner; but that is no guarantee that the traveller will necessarily fly with the named best airline. Without downplaying their influence on the market, such awards probably mean more to the airlines than the travellers.

This article was first published in Aspire Aviation.

Checked baggage: ANA compares poorly

Courtesy Reuters

Courtesy Reuters

IF you expect some flexibility in your checked baggage allowance, you may get it at some airports, but do not take your chance with All Nippon Airways (ANA).

A family of three travelled from Singapore to Vancouver via Tokyo (Haneda) on ANA, each with one piece of checked baggage. At Singapore, they were allowed a combined weight of up to 23 kg each. Returning from Vancouver, one bag was 2 kg above the 23 kg limit but they were not allowed to combine the weights of the three bags even though the other two bags were way below the individual bag`s limit. They were told to pay the excess fee, or get rid of stuff from the bag in question, or be prepared to be offloaded. All the bowing and words of apology from the Japanese supervisor could not convince them to ever again book on ANA. Besides, they had found out that compared with other airlines such as Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific and Air Canada, they had a bad deal for the fare that they had paid in addition to the long stopover of five hours at Haneda Airport on the return leg.

Although there are published standards by universal conventions, air travellers are often confused by the varying practices even by the same airlines at different ports. A number of airlines, principally those operating from the United States, have moved away from the traditional complimentary free two-piece for economy to only one-piece and even none in the case of many domestic services. Charging for the second bag and excess weight has become a lucrative revenue source along with other ancillary services. There is also the confusion between the piece and weight concepts, and for travellers that switch airlines en route, the problem is compounded by different airline practices. “No problem” at a previous port does not guarantee the same concession at a latter port.

Then there is the industrial issue of baggage handlers at certain airports being protected by union regulations from lifting bags that exceed a certain weight, generally cut off at 32 kg. There have been instances of such bags being repatriated to the culprit station. Do not think that you can escape that clamp-down with self-check-in and bag drop; at Vancouver International Airport, for example, the weight is automatically read before the bag disappears down the chute and the handler is ever ready to take it off it is found to be overweight.

Except for travel to and from or within the United States which uses the piece concept, many airlines still practice the weight concept. The latter is more prevalent with airlines that operate to and from Asian destinations. At a time when competitor airlines such as SIA, Cathay and Malaysia Airlines are using generous baggage allowances to lure customers, ANA compares poorly. Compared to ANA’s only one piece up to 23 kg for economy, other airlines including Cathay, SIA., Air Canada, Qantas and home rival Japan Airlines allow two pieces up to 23 kg each on flights to North America.

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.”

All Nippon steps up to become Asia’s dominant player

Photo courtesy AFP/Toru Yamanaka

Photo courtesy AFP/Toru Yamanaka

IT is interesting how All Nippon Airways (ANA) so soon after pushing AirAsia out of the AirAsia Japan partnership – the erstwhile partnership airline was subsequently re-launched as Vanilla Air – went on to acquire a stake in Myanmar’s Asian Wings Airways (AWA). It looks like it is doing an AirAsia, whose head honcho Tony Fernandes is reputed to be constantly shopping for additions to the Malaysian budget carrier’s stable.

The 49-per-cent stake in AWA cost ANA 2.5 billion yen (US$25 million).

Yet it should not come as a surprise considering that ANA had earlier in the year made known its intention to seek acquisitions and partnerships across Asia. The Japanese carrier, arch rival of Japan Airlines (JAL), is said to have also held preliminary discussions to acquire a stake in Philippine Airlines.

At a time when many airlines are still floundering in an uncertain global economy, and ANA itself having experienced a series of setbacks resulting from the grounding of its B747 Dreamliner fleet earlier in the year, ANA is taking a bold view of the future and stepping up to become Asia’s dominant player. Already Japan’s largest carrier by revenue and fleet size, the airline is literally expanding its aviation empire to take advantage of the region’s growth potential.

Director of strategic planning Toshiaki Nonaka said: “There’s still a lot more room for growth in travel in Asia. We want to actively go and seize that growth. With this tie-up we’re expanding our base for flights to other Asian countries.”

ANA has also expressed interest in Thailand and India.

At home, ANA is constantly engaged in a tough if not bitter tussle with JAL for slots, and feels disadvantaged by the government’s bias towards the latter which it helped out of bankruptcy through what some critics had alleged to be “public assistance”.

It does make one wonder where were some of the region’s big names when ANA stood in the front line as soon as Myanmar relaxed its rules on foreign investment. This is not saying willy-nilly they should all have jostled with ANA for a foothold in the new arena. It is a gamble on potential and not one without risks. But in light of the impending Asean Open Skies becoming fully enforced by 2015, ANA appears to be hitting a right note.

asian wings
Myanmar is a key growth prospect in the region as the country moves towards a more open economy politically. AWA, which operates to domestic tourist destinations since its inception in 2011, has plans to expand beyond Myanmar. It is said to be acquiring 10 Airbus A320s over the next five years. This is probably what ANA hopes to see AWA become, and that AWA (along with other acquisitions and joint ventures) will complement ANA’s presence across Asia the way that Qantas is doing through its Jetstar budget subsidiary. And, perhaps, though unspoken, it becomes the envy of JAL.