Nut rage on Korean Air: Will passengers be compensated for the delay?

Courtesy AFP

Courtesy AFP


THE nut rage on Korean Air when senior executive and daughter of the airline delayed a flight out of New York for Incheon because she was served macademia nuts in a bag and not on a plate has certainly given it worldwide publicity that it can do better without. The chief steward who was ordered off the plane alleged he was forced to kneel before Ms Heather Cho Hyun-ah to ask for forgiveness, that he was called names and that she had also hurled a folder of documents at a junior steward before yelling order to “stop the plane”.

Apart from having to deal with all that public criticism about Ms Cho’s unbecoming conduct, Korean Air has certainly other serious issues to think about too. The South Korean transportation Ministry said it would investigate whether her behaviour had violated aviation safety laws. Causing disturbances on board a flight is not tolerated under the law.

Although both Ms Cho and Korean Air chairman Cho Yang-ho had apologized (the latter additionally for “failing as a father”), it would take a while for public anger to settle. Ms Cho has been called “a national embarrassment” on Facebook and some people have called for a boycott of the airline. Ms Cho has resigned from her post, and barring any other development of an adverse nature, the business will heal in time.

Now, the big question that must arise as the dust settles: Will Korean Air compensate passengers for delay of the flight? Airlines are generally protected by the caveat when a delay is said to be attributable to “an act of God” or circumstances beyond their control. It should be easy enough to exclude this one in question.

By the way, it is reported that the sale of macademia nuts has shot up.

Female Asiana crew want to wear pants

Photo credit: GETTY

Photo credit: GETTY

THINK again if you believe female cabin crew should only wear dresses and skirts. Asiana Airlines has been asked by South Korea’s human rights commission to ease its dress code to allow female flight attendants to wear pants. The ruling is not binding, but the airline said it would consider pants as an option in future uniform designs.

Many airlines, notably those in the west, have already included pants as part of the uniform for their female crews. For the Asiana crew, it is a victory for the 3,400 female staff who are said to be subject to a very stringent dress code that includes no glasses (which the airline has now allowed), a limit on the number of hairpins and manicured nails at all times.

Three reasons have been cited for the relaxation. First, safety, the one reason that no one wants to refute. But really, where does one draw the line? As Asiana spokesperson Min Man-ki said, “(We) cannot expect flight attendants to wear track suits and sneakers just for safety.” Now one imagines if the sexy qipao worn by female crew of Chinese carriers such as China Airlines, and the unique sarong kebaya won by those of South-east Asian airlines such as Singapore Airlines are any less safe. It is almost inconceivable that they should trade those for pants.

I risk being branded sexist to say I will not forget the elegance of a Korean Air flight attendant in her hanbok paring a pear. Indeed, as Mr Min explained to CNN, “The uniform was designed based on hanbok, Korean traditional dress — women didn’t wear pants traditionally when they wore hanbok.”

At which point therefore does maintaining a certain image become sexist, and upholding a certain standard of grooming become unreasonable? Which, perhaps, goes to explain the noticeable difference between the immaculate presentation of Asian crew compared to the not so fastidious image of American crew. I am told that in the early days of one Asian airline, the crew would stand in line to be inspected lest their nails were unpresentable or their hair was falling out of place.

A second reason cited for Asiana’s consideration was comfort. Perhaps so, and an important criterion. Then again, Mr Min’s comment about track suits and sneakers may be as applicable here. But that would be stretching the argument a little too far. Sure, some budget carriers have gone the way of t-shirts but for the “hang lose” image they wish to project.

Third, the rights to choose. This is probably the thrust of the move upon which the first two reasons were included to lend support to. Denying women that rights would be deemed to be discriminatory, though male crews are unlikely to ask to be permitted to wear dresses and skirts. And dare anyone say that women do not look as good in pants!

Air Canada goes budget

AS the popular folk ballad ‘Blowing in the Wind’ goes, “When will they ever learn?” In announcing plans to consider launching a long-haul budget carrier, has Air Canada not learnt from the failure of Hong Kong-based Oasis Airlines, which commenced operations first between Hong Kong and London in 2006 and then between Hong Kong and Vancouver in 2007 only to fold up its wings in 2008?

So also is it said that fools rush in where angels fear to tread, but can Air Canada do it any differently in order to succeed where other hopefuls had so quickly failed?

Besides Oasis Airlines, Air Canada could have also considered very carefully the case of defunct fellow carrier Harmony Airways, which started as HMY Airways in 2002 and was renamed in 2004, operating to various destinations within Canada and beyond to the United States, Mexico and United Kingdom. The airline received favourable customer feedback and was eyeing the growing China market, but that was to be an unrealized dream when it ceased operations in 2007.

Harmony Airways preferred to be called a niche player than a low-cost carrier as it took pride in providing good service and serving hot meals on board. But it was hurt by soaring fuel prices in a highly competitive environment. It did not have the muscles to stand up against the larger carriers like Air Canada and WestJet. According to spokesman Peter Bruecking at the time, Harmony Airways had banked its future on gaining access to the China market, but delays in agreement between the two countries inevitably forced it to reshape its course, hence its demise.

Perhaps it was this very disappointment expressed by Harmony Airways then that has given new hope to Air Canada today as both China and Canada relax the rules for more Chinese travellers and carriers to enter Canada. Vancouver International Airport (YVR) has been working hard to promote itself as the gateway to North America and not just Canada. As admitted by President of the airport authorities Larry Berg, “Much of Vancouver Airport Authority’s focus in attracting new routes, passengers and airlines over the past number of years has been on Asia, given the growth potential of markets in the region.”

Three major airlines from China, namely Air China, China Eastern Airlines and China Southern Airlines, are already operating to Vancouver. A fourth airline, Sichuan Airlines, will inaugurate services on 22 Jun. YVR is also well served by other Asian carriers such as Cathay Pacific, China Airlines (Taiwan), EVA Air, Japan Airlines, Korean Air and Philippines Airlines.

How well the new Air Canada carrier will fare against the competition is a real poser, especially when the parent airline itself is highly prone to industrial disruptions and not as highly regarded for service as some of its competitors. However, as a low-cost operator, the new carrier will understandably compete on price, but considering the low fares charged by some of the established carriers, the differential may not be adequately compensatory for the deprivation of creature comforts on a long-haul flight.

Yet again, this raises the question as to whether the budget long-haul is a viable proposition, having seen the dissolution of Oasis Airlines and, lest you cite AirAsia X otherwise, you will note that the Malaysian carrier has ceased its long-haul operations from its home base in Kuala Lumpur to London, Paris and Christchurch, and is refocusing on shorter runs.

All said, Asia is still the Holy Grail that most airlines are after. Interestingly, when Air Canada chief executive officer Calin Rovinescu first mooted the idea of a budget carrier, he was thinking of Europe, But with the economic crisis hanging over Europe, the priority shifted to tapping the potential of Asian destinations instead.

Unfortunately, geographically, Air Canada is not as fortuitously positioned as, say, Qantas, to penetrate the region, which leaves it to either dress up or dress down its operations and to rely on sustaining the flow of long-distance traffic between Asia and North America. That is why China, with its growing nouveau riche, is an attraction. Yet, unlike Qantas, which believes the demographics favour a regional premium carrier (however, understandably so considering the proximity of Australia), Air Canada intends to go low-cost to attract the masses.

Almost paradoxically too, when the Harper government of Canada has been courting businesses in China to connect with Canada, and its successes would boost traffic between the two countries.

 It may be said that Air Canada has been somewhat slow in latching on to the frenzy of budget travel beyond its national borders. Mr Rovinescu has said the launch of a budget carrier is a top priority. In a speech to shareholders, he said: “We need to participate in this segment of the market in one manner or another.”

A more interesting development in the plans allegedly is for Air Canada to eventually operate only domestic flights and flights to the United States, Mexico and the Caribbean. All other flights beyond these countries will be handled by the new budget carrier in which Air Canada will participate as a partner. When that happens, Air Canada will have completed its transformation from full-service to budget status, since its domestic and regional flights are already largely no-frilled. O Canada, can you see that day coming?