Does Air Berlin’s demise signal end of the road for budget carriers?

Courtesy Reuters

Air Berlin is folding up its wings, caused by falling pasxsenger numbers. Last month alone saw a dip of 25 per cent compared to July last year. Its biggest shareholder, Gulf carrier Etihad Airways which owns a 29.2 per cent stake, is not forthcoming with the needed financial support.

Does Air Berlin’s demise signal the end of the road for unaffiliated budget carriers, many of whom are benefitting from the currtent low price of jet fuel? Or that it is at least a forewarning of a more difficult time ahead for them in the continuing battle between them and legacy airlines which are at the same time supported by their own budget offhsoots?

That’s what Ryanair fears, accusing the German government and national carrier Lufthansa of conspiring to carve up Air Berlin. Ryanair said: “This manufactured insolvency is clearly beign set up to allow Lufthansa to take over a debt-free Air Berlin which will be in breach of all known German and EU competition rules.” A Lufthansa-led monopoly, it said, would drive up domestic fares.

How then will the game play out after Air Berlin?

Ryanair’s apprehension as a competitor is real. Air Berlin’s exit will mean a stronger Lufthansa and its budget offshoot Eurowings. Yet already Lufthansa is a dominant player with 76 per cent of its capacity focused on the German market. The Lufthansa Group posted record earnings for the first six months of 2017, increasing revenue by 12.7 per cent to €17 billion and net profit by 56.6 per cent to €672 million. Eurowings and other airlines in the Group including Austrian Airlines, Brussels Airlines and Swiss Interantional Airlines, also posted positive results. So as a group, Lufthansa has quite some msucle to flex in Europe, and the vacuum left by Air Berlin is likely to be filled by Eurowings.

On the other hand, it may be countered that competition is all but dead since airlines such as Ryanair and EasyJet also have access to the German market. However, comparatively, their market share is small; Germany represents only 7 per cent of Ryanair’s capacity and 9 per cent of EasyJet’s. There is possibility that Air berlin’s demise may mean more demand for seats on these carriers, if not opening up the market for more competition. Hence the German government has denied Ryanair’s accusation that it had breached anti-trust rules.

Clearly the competition will intensify, whether it is a battle between legacy airlines and unaffiliated low-cost carriers or one between budget airlines themselves is not any more a matter of note. The competition has levelled, with budget carriers attempting to do more and legacy airlines even adjusting down to match. Legacy airlines including Lufthansa, British Airways and Air France are fighting back, and the old strategy of doing it through a subsidiary equivalent is receivign a revival. Besides Lufthansa, British Airways (as part of the International Airlines Group which is already supported by Spanish low-cost carrier Vueling) has introduced Level, and Air France annoucned plans to launch Joon which, however, it says, is not a low-cost carrier.

The competition does not stay the same for long in the aviation business. Little surprise that Etihad has decided to step back from its acquisition spree.

Brexit gloom overstated for airlines

THE day after the Brexit referendum, it looked like all gloom and doom as the pound plummeted and the global stock market reeled. The share price of British low-cost carrier EasyJet went down 22 per cent. For their discernible dependence on the UK market, Ryanair and the International Airlines Group (IAG, which owns British Airways besides Iberia, Vueling and Aer Lingus) also suffered declines above 20 per cent. Even American carriers across the pond with the exception of domestic operators took a hit.

Reduced profits for the second half of the year are all but certain. IAG said it would not be able to match the 2015 level. EasyJet warned that fares may increase. Ryanair said it will cut back investment in the UK and focus instead on growth in the EU.

The immediate concern was that the weak sterling may mean British holidaymakers will now count their pennies before committing to an overseas vacation. UAE Director-general of the General Civil Aviation Authority, Saif Mohammed Al Suwadi, foresaw a decline of travel from the UK to the Gulf region, and this is not good news for Middle East carriers which are also benefitting from onward travel by the Brits to places in Asia and Australia. But consider what a weaker British pound could do for Britain to attract tourists into the UK. It may be more than just rephrasing the equation, and airlines including Singapore Airlines which fly to British destinations could benefit from the fallout.

So far the world’s reaction seems unduly lopsided in its view of the dire impact on the UK. Doomsayers are mistaken if they were waiting to see the UK punished indefinitely. At least for the airline industry, the gloom has been overstated. In fact, IAG believed that the UK vote to leave the EU would not have a long term material impact on its business. So too Ryanair which reassured its customers that it “will continue to offer the lowest fares in Europe and the UK.” British carrier Monarch Airlines said it is not raising fares and “will continue to remain competitive.”

Courtesy easyJet

Courtesy easyJet

It is easy to blame Brexit as the shock of the unexpected outcome takes its toll. Understandably, low-cost carriers such as EasyJet are more concerned about losing access to the single EU market, which has spurred their growth across a wider region. EasyJet for one has seen its profit increase manifold from GPD22.1m in 2000 to GPD548m in 2015, and its passenger load from 5.8m to 68.6m making it the second largest operator in Europe after Ryanair. Today it boasts a load factor above 90 per cent and operates from 24 bases across Europe. It may be one, being British, to lose the most if new regulations limit its operations or make it difficult for it to access its present markets. In truth, EasyJet is already facing what it described as “extremely challenging” conditions in the past two months with demand being affected by severe weather, airport issues and industrial strikes in France which resulted in flight disruptions.

Despite the harsh warning from EU leaders that Britain cannot expect to enjoy EU privileges post-Brexit, it is hard to believe that Open Skies which has come a long, long way globally will suffer a substantive setback. The UK could still negotiate access to the EU single market a la the model used by non-EU members Norway and Iceland if Britain then joins as a member of the European Economic Area (EEA). It must abide by EU rules but cannot participate in the Union’s decision-making.

The UK could also look at other models such as one adopted by Switzerland, which is not a member of the EEA but the European Free Trade Association, gaining access through a number of bilateral agreements though not for all sectors. Or, the post-Brexit negotiations could knock up a deal specific to the UK. Outside those jurisdictions, peculiar to the airline industry is the number of complex cross-border partnership agreements that have blurred regional lines.

Britain is a large market, so it is in the interest of all parties concerned to negotiate a win-win deal. The silver lining in the dark Brexit cloud is how commercial considerations will prevail over political deliberations. Politically driven regulatory restrictions will do neither the UK nor EU members any favour. It is in their interest to continue keeping the channels open for competition.

The resilience of the business in adjusting to change cannot be underestimated. Many people take comfort that the due process for any change may take up to two years. The real comfort is that implicitly, any change is unlikely to be unduly drastic or disruptive.

Ryanair to offer all-business class

Courtesy PA

Courtesy PA

Budget carrier Ryanair is back in the news with new offerings. The carrier will be offering an all-business flight on its Boeing 737-700 jet, but that will be operated as a corporate charter and not its mainline service.

The aircraft will be fitted with 60 leather seats with a 48-inch pitch. And, of course, what’s premium class with some fine dining? It is not budget business as the association may suggest.

Ryanair’s charter division will provide the cockpit and cabin crew and charge on an hourly basis. Likely p=routes may take up to 6 hours, a little longer than the usual flight time of the budget model.

Ryanair is known to introduce controversial ideas and go where many others dare not go. In fact, some airlines had tried the all-business class before and failed.

The Irish carrier has in the last couple of years cleaning up its image to be more service oriented even as it offers competitive no-frill services. It had at one time considered venturing into the budget long haul, but its best bet is really wider expansion in the region it is familiar with much to the displeasure of legacy airlines such as Air France-KLM and Lufthansa.

A spokesman for the airline has confidently said: “We offer the most competitive rate in Europe.”

Is budget long haul but a pipe dream?

Courtesy PA

Courtesy PA


Only days after announcing plans to launch transatlantic flights in five years, Ryanair retracted its position, abandoning the plans. In a statement, it said it “has not considered or approved any transatlantic project and does not intend to do so.” This ran contrary to the earlier announced approval by its board to mount budget flights between various European and US cities. Why the sudden turnaround?

The budget long haul challenge continues to entice entrepreneurs who dare go where others fear to tread. We hark back to the days when Sir Freddie Laker pioneered the low-cost model and Laker Airways took to the sky in 1977 flying between London Gatwick and New York’s JFK Airport. It went bankrupt in 1982.

Others have tried and failed. Most notable among them, Oasis Hong Kong Airlines that operated scheduled non-stop services from Hong Kong to both London Gatwick and Vancouver International Airport. Voted “World’s Leading New Airline” at the Annual Travel Awards 2007, Oasis folded its wings a year later, ending a three-year run. It went down the same path as Canada’s Harmony Airways which started services within North America in 2001, then mounted a service to Manchester in UK and announced plans to expand into Asia. It collapsed in 2007, a lesson that might have come too late for Oasis.

AirAsia X, which is an offshoot of Asia’s largest budget carrier AirAsia, commenced services in 2007, flying from Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia to the Gold Coast in Australia. It was a tactical move to build up Australian traffic feed into its subsequent services to London and Paris. Three years seem to be as long as such services could last. In 2012 AirAsia X withdrew its services to both European destinations, along with others including Delhi, Mumbai, Abu Dhabi, Tianjin (China) and Christchurch. It cited high fuel prices and taxes, and a weak market. But AirAsia X is keeping the dream alive with plans to reintroduce services to London and Paris, and adding other new destinations such as Sapporo in Japan. As recent as the end of last year, AirAsia chairman Tony Fernandes announced that “reopening of KL-London is definitely on the card.”

Courtesy Norwegian Air Shuttle

Courtesy Norwegian Air Shuttle

The latest foray into that arena is Oslo-based Norwegian Air Shuttle, which began services in 2013 to the US and Bangkok in Thailand. It has plans to also fly to Hong Kong and India. The airline, which has been profitable before flying long-haul, is reporting losses and blamed it on the costs of expansion and disputes with US regulators and competitors who aren’t too welcoming of its intrusion.

Yet the temptation to prove that the budget long haul formula can work is irresistible to many a visionary, to whom we must give credit for their derring-do. In a price sensitive market, it should work but it seems not for the long haul as the short haul. It is widely accepted that beyond four hours, at most five, passengers have different needs and their demands begin to change inversely to cost. For one thing they are likely to carry more bags and could do with some pampering to break the monotony of the journey. Harmony Airways boasted low-cost with full service, and Oasis Airlines too tweaked the Spartan low-cost model to include some element of that. But running an extremely lean outfit in an unpredictable environment of volatile fuel prices, uncertain travel demand, potential flight delays and cancellations, and unforeseen natural disruptions among other things, is a big challenge.

There are other factors such as aircraft utilization with quick turnrounds, fleet support in the event of delays and cancellations, and competition. Legacy airlines can no longer afford to ignore budget carriers as niche players outside their turf for the short haul, as they spawn offshoots to check the competition. Air France-KLM and Lufthansa introduced Transavia and Germanwings respectively to compete with the likes of Ryanair and easyJet. Australian flag Qantas carrier has its Jetstar brand. Even Singapore Airlines reputed for premium service is adding yet another budget carrier, Scoot, to its fold, the new carrier literally sharing the same arena with older sibling Tigerair although it is pitched as a medium-range operator. So if the competition heats up, you bet the big boys will flex their muscles.

It is so tempting for an airline such as Ryanair as it succeeds and grows to look for new opportunities. That it did not work for others in the past does not necessarily dictate the formula cannot work for Ryanair, which has succeeded in the short haul where many others too had failed. Others such as AirAsia and Norwegian Shuttle which have gone ahead are still testing the ground. Apparently Ryanair is treading carefully as it has been seven years since it first expressed the desire to cross the big pond in 2008. In the earlier announcement before it changed its mind, it said, quite rightly so, it would be “dependent on attaining viable long-haul aircraft”. Consider how when the oil price soars, budget carriers are the hardest hit. It will take another four to five years in Ryanair’s estimate for such an aircraft to emerge. The airline’s spokesman revealed that it was talking to plane manufacturers. So, again, the question: why the turnabout?

Is the answer close to what easyJet chief Carolyn McColl said about sticking to what it does best? Ms McColl reportedly told the BBC: “We have no intention to do long haul because we think it’s a different kind of business.” It would be too high a risk to change its short-haul strategy. But Ryanair chief Michael O’Leary is known for suggesting game-changing ideas, as revolutionary as “standing room only” flights and charging for the use of the aircraft loo, and for setting trends in the industry such as charging for printing a boarding pass at the airport, so we wait to be surprised.

Interestingly, a new “ultra low cost” concept is rearing its head. While an airline such as Qatar Airways is demonstrating that there is almost no limit to dressing up a premium product with its latest offering of a private cabin furnished like a hotel suite, a new airline in Canada, Jetlines, has big plans to offer rock-bottom airfares said to be below 40 per cent what rivals Air Canada and WestJet are charging. Jetlines chief David Solloway said the airline is ready to take to the sky. He cited Ryanair, easyJet and Allegiant Air as models. “The model of buying a seat and a seatbelt and only paying for goods and services each passenger may choose individually,” he said, “is known all over the world and is the fastest growing segment in the airline industry.”

Apparently some five million Canadians cross borders to board flights out of neighbouring US airports because of ultra low fares offered by US airlines such as Allegiant Air. Mr Solloway hopes to stem the outflow by offering not only very low fares but also the convenience of flying from the home base. The question is: How low can you go? So much for nomenclature. The only thing certain about Mr Solloway’s proposal is that Jetlines will be much cheaper than other Canadian carriers. He probably already knows that the leaner the model, the stricter is the demand on discipline and efficiency. And the best bet for survival is flying into secondary airports rather than the main hubs, though this is somewhat tricky considering customer preferences. You fly where customers want to go. Apparently Mr Solloway has done his homework. He said: “If you’re asking the question whether Canada could have a third airline, the answer is no. But if you ask whether Canada can support an ultra low-cost, low fare airline, the answer is overwhelmingly yes.”

While US carriers are trying to stop the thrust of Norwegian Air Shuttle, the same question may be asked of the budget long haul: Is there a market, if not ready but potential, for the business? There has to be something out there for the many enterprising founders since Freddie Laker to wager their millions. Yet as they came and went all too soon, something seemed to be missing in the formula. Or is the budget long haul but a pipe dream?

This article was first published in Aspire Aviation.

Qatar Airways nets a prized catch, expanding westwards

IT may seem somewhat crazy, but it is definitely not surprising in today’s aviation landscape of fast changing and crisscrossed relationships, some of them making most unlikely bedfellows. The ends justify the means.

Courtesy British Airways

Courtesy British Airways

Qatar Airways has acquired a 10% stake in International Airlines Group (IAG), better known as the owner of British Airways (BA) and Iberia. IAG also owns Spanish budget carrier Vueling. The act of acquisition itself by the cash-rich Middle East carrier does not surprise. Qatar lags behind rival Etihad Airways in this respect; Etihad already owns Alitalia (49%), Air Serbia (49%), Air Serbia (49%), Air Seychelles (40%), Etihad Regional (formerly Darwin Airlines) (33.3%), Air Berlin (29.21%), Jet Airways (24%), Virgin Australia (10%) and Aer Lingus (2.987%).

But coming lately, Qatar has bagged a prized acquisition, considering IAG’s bases at two major European hubs, in particular London Heathrow, and the strong transatlantic networks of BA and Iberia. Qatar chief executive Akbar Al Baker said: “IAG represents an excellent opportunity to further develop our westwards strategy.” It should be a strong partnership. Together, their networks cover Europe, North and South America, Africa, the Middle East, India and Southeast Asia.

In 2013 Qatar became a member of OneWorld, becoming the only one of the big three Gulf carriers to join a global airline alliance. More than an apparent Qatari interest in things British, this was a step forward to forge a closer relationship with BA. Qatar said it may increase its stake in IAG for which it paid £1.15 billion (US$1.73 billion). However, EU regulations have placed a cap on non-EU ownership at 49%.

Courtesy Qatar Airways

Courtesy Qatar Airways

Quite unlike Etihad, which has entered the arena as a white knight in many cases, Qatar is buying into one of Europe’s more profitable outfits. Clearly it is a strategic move. While European carriers are becoming wary of Gulf carriers making inroads in the EU market, the competition is at the same time a race among the big three Middle East carriers themselves- Qatar, Etihad and Emirates Airlines. This has become all the more prominent in recent years as they out-compete each other within their region and seek aggressively to push out their geographical boundaries, leveraging on the success of home bases such as Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha as hubs for international traffic connecting Asia Pacific, Europe, Africa and the Americas.

The rivalry for supremacy is clear in a jibe made by Mr Al Baker on the race to top the chart for extreme luxury in the air, something that carriers outside the Gulf are less disposed to think about at the same level. He said: “We always raise the bar for our dear friends around the area to try to copy us.” (The big deal about extreme luxury, Jan 19, 2015)

Courtesy PA

Courtesy PA


The timing could not have been better for Qatar as IAG looks likely to succeed in a new takeover bid of Irish carrier Aer Lingus after two failed attempts previously. This would gain IAG more take-off and landing slots at Heathrow. What is interesting is the composition of Aer Lingus partners, which include Ryanair (29.8%) and Etihad. Any opposition to the deal is likely to come from the Irish government which owns 25% of Aer Lingus, but it may be a price well worth paying for the crucial air links between cities in Ireland and Heathrow as the world’s largest hub (until topped by Dubai recently) and beyond. Ryanair has itself attempted unsuccessfully to take over Aer Lingus and objected vehemently to IAG’s proposal in the past for reasons that are not difficult to see. IAG’s chief executive officer Willie Walsh and Ryanair’s chief Michael O’Leary are not exactly the best of friends. But if money talks, the latest offer of €1.3billion (US$1.47 billion) by IAG may well carry the day.

Airline relationships in today’s industry are more complex, if not blatantly promiscuous. While global alliances offer the broad framework for cooperation, it is not uncommon to find rival airlines connected in some way through a third party. The numerous cross-border codeshare arrangements are testimony to the multi-faceted connections. Less than half the world’s airlines belong to any of the three global alliances: Star (27 members), SkyTeam (20 members), and OneWorld (15 members). Although many major carriers are already members, there are notable exclusions such Virgin Atlantic (although CEO Richard Branson who made an about turn in 2012 announcing Virgin might join one of the alliances soon) and the other two of the big three Gulf carriers Emirates and Etihad. While Aer Lingus itself is unaffiliated, and so are part owners Ryanair and Etihad, IAG’s influence cannot be precluded although it has said Aer Lingus would continue to operate independently.

It is best to adopt a detached view of the business. Alliance membership may but not necessarily suggest a like-mindedness that brings friends to the same table. There is no reason why friends and foes alike may not put their money in a common proposition that will help further their respective positions. OneWorld membership may have eased Qatar’s way into the IAG stable, making it easier for Mr Walsh to be “delighted to have Qatar Airways as a long term supportive shareholder.” Not sure if he would be any less delighted if it had been Emirates or Etihad. But for Qatar, as part owner of IAG which is set to take over Aer Lingus, it is stealing a march on rival Etihad.

This article was first published in Aspire Aviation.

A conscionable call as oil price plummets: Will airlines reduce airfares?

AS the oil price plummets – some 55 per cent since June last year – the question topmost in the mind of the consumer must be: Will airlines reduce airfares?

Many of them have chosen to be silent on the subject, the excuse being that the historical volatility of the market is such that the trend can turn any time. But it has taken a while, and long enough for some conviction from the airlines, now that analysts are convinced that the cost of fuel is likely to stay low for at least another year.

Travellers on American carriers can stop wishing to share in the bounty, even as US carriers are reporting hefty savings as a consequence. Southwest Airlines estimated it would save US$1.7 billion on fuel in the current year, and Delta Air Lines more than US$2.0 billion. Other airlines that include Untied Airlines and Alaska Airlines are forecasting similar cost reductions. But, say the airlines, fare reduction is not on the card. Instead, shareholders will reap the benefits while the airlines themselves see this as a well deserved windfall and respite to recoup past losses and pare down debts.

Courtesy Getty Images

Courtesy Getty Images

United Airlines spokesperson Megan McCarthy delivered the cold reality of the business when she said: “It has been our position all along that fares are not cost-driven. They are demand-driven.”

That, we all know, is the simple economics of the law of supply and demand. So consumers have themselves to blame. Airlines are enjoying near-full loads that there is no incentive for them to want to lower the fare. In Europe, even budget carriers such as easyJet and Ryanair are looking forward to even higher profits from not only savings on fuel costs but also higher fares. So McCarthy was darn right there. But airlines too have learnt to make the formula work better for them, ceteris paribus, as they reduce capacity particularly in the US with merged operations to hold up demand and maintain airfares.

The consumer’s best hope lies in competition as how it should work in the liberal world, but with consolidation which has seen the merger of big entities in the US, raising questions about the assumed competition itself. Today four airline companies control more than 80 per cent of the US market. Little wonder how US carriers have collectively signalled that airfares will not fall in response to the falling fuel cost.

Where competition does not work, the consumer can hope that some conscionable authority will be able to address the fair fare issue. On that second score, you might fault McCarthy for turning a blind eye, but United, like any other, would contend with some validity that it cannot be both operator and watchdog. Company with conscience is a preacher’s prerogative, more idealistic than operative.

Still, the likes of United may be reminded that back in the days not too long ago when the fuel price reached giddy heights, airlines were raising fuel surcharges as many as four times within a year. Strange as it sounds, they have always maintained that the surcharge is not part of the fare, but not as far as the consumer is concerned. Even so, the corollary must apply as the fuel price dips. No lesser a person than Toby Tyler, director general of the International Air Transport Association (Iata), has said that airline fuel surcharges should begin falling as the drop in oil price works its way through the aviation fuel system. Tyler said: “In many cases, airlines operates now with a basic fare and a fuel surcharge of some kind and the fuel surcharge in many airlines is directly linked to the price they’re paying for fuel.”

Courtesy Airbus

Courtesy Airbus

But it looks like it is not happening quite as quickly as Mr Tyler was convinced that it would when he said in October last year: “You’ll see the fuel surcharge very quickly come down.” Still, better late than never. Better somewhere else if not in the United States. Japan Airlines (JAL) announced lower fuel surcharges for international flights from February 1, recognizing the genesis of introducing such levies back in February 2005 in response to rises in the cost of fuel. Now that is one conscionable airline. JAL said it would revise the surcharge, whether upward or downward, if the fuel price fluctuates further. Fair enough. American and other carriers waiting on the sideline, take note.

Qatar Airlines has also announced it will reduce the fuel surcharge although it has not committed to a date for implementation.

Courtesy flyertalk

Courtesy flyertalk

Australian airlines are among the first to drop airfares in response to the falling oil price. Two forces are at work: competition and the authority. Nowhere else in the world is there more bitter rivalry than that between the two Australian carriers of Qantas and Virgin Australia. Virgin took the lead, and Qantas followed suit. Virgin said it would not get rid of the fuel surcharge altogether, but incorporate it into the fares; however it is packaged, the bottom line should see a reduction. Virgin said the “reductions reflect the benefits of the decline in global oil prices” following monitoring over recent months and “in anticipation that fuel costs will continue to remain at lower levels than the record highs seen in recent years.”

At the same time, the Australian government is putting pressure on the airlines to respond to the drop in fuel costs. Rod Sims, chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said: “It is not against the law to introduce a surcharge – what is against the law is to mislead customers.” The ACCC announced it was investigating the matter. In a statement that it released, it said: “The ACCC has confirmed that it is considering whether representations made by airlines imposing fuel surcharges, following the fall in wholesale aviation fuel prices, are misleading. Under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 businesses must not make misleading, deceptive or false representations about the price of goods or services. This includes when making representations about the reasons for rising fuel costs.”

In this connection, Qantas said: “The bottom line for consumers is that Qantas fares already in the market are some of the cheapest in years. Fuel surcharges are already included in the advertised price and those fares remain extremely competitive.”

The issue is not about the fares already being the cheapest in the market but rather whether they should be even cheaper as a result of lower fuel costs that have saved the airlines millions to billions of dollars.

Meantime the British government is studying the need for intervention. British Airways circumvents the issue with no clear commitment, saying it has launched several sale initiatives. Virgin Atlantic said it has reduced the fuel surcharge before last Christmas and will “continue to monitor the situation and fuel surcharges under review to make them as affordable as possible.”

Courtesy Delta Airlines

Courtesy Delta Airlines

It is a world of ironies. The consumer may as well confront the hard truths about the market. The door does not always swing both ways. As the global economy improves, the demand for seats picks up. And when demand exceeds supply, the game belongs to the airlines so much so that Delta CEO Richard Anderson has suggested to passengers who are looking at reduced fares to “shop around”. He said: “The marketplace is incredibly competitive, and there are always differences in fares.” The consumer can only hope that competition is well and alive without the need for state intervention. If Anderson had come across as being somewhat arrogant, he probably knew he could afford it. But heed his advice anyway.

This article was first published in Aspire Aviation.

Ryanair gives better service, gets better results

Courtesy PA

Courtesy PA


LAST month Ryanair raised its profit forecast by 20 per cent. Following a healthy November performance with passenger numbers bumping up to 6.36 million people for the year thus far, Ryanair is expecting even better results of the full year’s profit. The budget carrier has raised its forecast yet again to between €810m and €830m (US$100b-US$1.03b) from the last revision of €750m-€770m.

Interestingly, Ryanair said the good results were in part attributed to improved customer service. (See A humbler and more caring Ryanair, May 22 2014) This is an achievement considering the carrier’s past notoriety for bad service. What we miss however is Ryanair chief Michael O’Leary’s propensity to make aviation news with controversial statements, something which Mr O`Leary had himself admitted, referring to his high profile, as not doing Ryanair a favour.

But good for Ryanair, that together with competitor easyJet, are sending out signals to legacy airlines that the market is not exclusively theirs. With a reasonable level of service added to low cost, budget carriers have become veritable competitors. As an added attraction, Ryanair has reduced check-in baggage fees and now allows passengers to book their seats in advance.

With full-service airlines such as Air France and Lufthansa being prone to industrial strikes, the dice are rolling in favour of the likes of Ryanair and easyJet.

With full-service airlines such as Air France and Lufthansa being prone to industrial strikes, the dice are rolling in favour of the likes of Ryanair and easyJet.