Singapore Airlines faces tough challenges ahead

Courtesy Singapore Airlines

The Singapore Airlines Group incurred a net loss of S$212 million (US$249 million) for the financial year ending 31 March 2020 compared to last year’s profit of S$683 million. This does not come as a surprise as SIA is not alone to be badly hit by the Covid-19 pandemic which has brought the aviation industry to almost a standstill.

While performance for the first nine months was strong, the last quarter wiped out the prospect of another profitable year in its 48-year history. Scheduled passenger capacity was reduced by 96 per cent because of global travel restrictions, and hedging losses added to the woes. ,

All three airlines – parent SIA, SilkAir and Scoot – in the Group were adversely affected by the pandemic. SIA made an operating profit of S$294, down 70.3 per cent from last year’s S$991 million. SilkAir posted an operating loss of S$112 million compared to last year’s S$15 million. And Scoot loss skyrocketed from last year’s S$15million to S$198 million.

During the year, SilkAir was also hit by the grounding of the B737 MAX 8 aircraft. Consequently the airline carried fewer passengers, down 9.4 per cent to 4.4 million from last year’s 4.9 million. Scoot’s load was flat comparing both years, and parent SIA’s volume was up marginally by 0.8 per cent to 20,9 million from last year’s 20.7 million.

Uncertainty continues to loom on the horizon even as some countries have announced plans to reopen their economies. There are concerns about the outbreak of a second wave of infection which means any relaxation will be measured and slow. This does not augur well for an airline like SIA which relies heavily on international traffic. If new protocols and travel preferences favour direct point-to-point traffic, it will not be good news for SIA.

SIA said it is making an “in-depth review of all aspects of operations to enable the Group to emerge stronger when air travel recovers”.

The pandemic is changing the game, and the challenges ahead demand bold and creative solutions.

Déjà vu for Singapore Airlines as Virgin Australia goes bust

Courtesy AFP

Virgin Australia joins UK’s domestic carrier Flybe in a list whose number is expected to increase of carriers going bust because of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Australian carrier’s request for aid to the tune of A$1.4 billion in loans convertible to equity was allegedly rejected by the government which said it “is not in the business of owning an airline.”

Virgin Australia which posted losses in the last seven years was A$5 billion (US$3.15 billion) in debt as at Dec 31, 2019. Its chief executive Paul Scurrah remained hopeful that the airline’s decision to go into voluntary administration while seeking new investors would secure its future and see it “emerging on the other side of the Covid-19 crisis.”

As Australia’s second largest airline set up to rival Qantas, Virgin Australia is trumping the card that the country needs a second airline as its exit would mean a near monopoly for its competitor.

Interestingly, Virgin Australia is 90-per cent foreign owned comprising the following partners: Etihad Airways (20%), Singapore Airlines (20%), China’s Nanshan Group (20%), China’s HNA Group which also owns Hainan Airlines (20%), and Richard Banson’s Virgin Group (10%).

For SIA, it is déjà vu as far as the Virgin brand is concerned. In 1999 SIA made headline news when it acquired a 49-per cent stake in Virgin Atlantic. A small but very successful airline which made it to the ranks of the world’s best was making a big move at a time when it was pursuing trans-Atlantic rights eyeing a link between London Heathrow and New York. However, the investment turned out to be lacklustre, and for many years after SIA made it known it was ready divest the stake. It took more than a decade for that to happen in 2012 when the stake was sold to Delta Air Lines at a hefty loss.

In that same year, SIA entered into marketing alliances with Virgin Australia and Virgin America. It was later to take up a stake in Virgin Australia, initially 10 per cent which increased to 20 per cent in 2013. It was interesting how this was then seen as a tussle for dominance between SIA and Air New Zealand (Air NZ) which was to later sell off its entire shareholding. It was reminiscent of the time back in 1999/2000 after the big Virgin hype when SIA and Air NZ were locked in battle over Ansett Australia. SIA became badly bruised subsequently in its acquisition of a 25-per cent stake in the ailing airline.

It would appear that SIA has a penchant for the Virgin brand. Both are reputable names, so any association can only mean strength in unity. A stake in Virgin Atlantic should give it a strong toehold in American market, as would its commercial tie-up with Virgin America. So too a stake in Virgin Australia, particularly in light of the competition with Qantas not just domestically through Virgin but internationally.

Yet the strategy seems to be not working as expected, turning out to be more expedient and circumstantial than constructive and advantageous. Perhaps when SIA finally relieved itself of the burden of ill-reputed Tiger Australia, selling its remaining stake to Virgin Australia for a dollar, it was a timely moment of strategic correction despite the conviction of then Virgin chief executive John Borghetti that “we will benefit from the economies and achieve profitability ahead of schedule by the end of 2016.”

Reading the crystal ball is no easy game. There are an abundant of risks but hopefully described as calculated rather than random. Or does one stick to the knitting? Even that comes with the risks of stagnation if you lag behind the competition.

In 2013, SIA announced a joint venture with India’s Tata Sons to set up a new airline based in New Delhi. It was third time lucky for SIA, which had made an earlier attempt with Tata but rebuffed by a change in the country’s civil aviation in 1997 that prevented foreign carriers from holding any stake in domestic markets. In 2000 they made a bid for a 40-per cent stake in Air India but met with political opposition which again rocked the application, leading to a withdrawal by SIA a year later. Within a year of operations, Vistara carried its millionth passenger.

SIA is said to be impressed by Vistara’s performance so far. The joint-venture airline which commenced operations in 2015 is expected to turn in a profit within five years. So it is crunch time to prove sceptics wrong. Perhaps then SIA has got it right this time.

News Update: Emirates reverses decision to suspend all passenger flights

Courtesy AFP

Emirates Airlines reversed an earlier decision to suspend all passenger flights, which was supposed to take effect from March 25.

The Gulf carrier said it had “received requests from government and customers to support the repatriation of travellers.”

It will continue to fly to Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States. This is greatly reduced from its usual 159 destinations.

Singapore Airlines has announced it will cut capacity by 96 per cent to end April, previously planned at 50 per cent.

Jetstar Asia will be grounding its entire fleet from March 23 to April 15.

Quick changes across the globe are expected, demonstrating the uncertainty that is gripping the industry.

Emirates suspends all passenger flights: Will the global industry grind to a standstill?

Courtesy Reuters

Emirates Airlines becomes the first carrier to announce complete suspension of all passenger flights. This will take effect on Wednesday, March 25 when its entire passenger fleet will be grounded. The airline has already cut back capacity by 70 per cent.

It is not just that more people are refraining from travel for fear of contracting the coronavirus, more countries are beginning to ban travel by foreigners into their ports. Consequently airlines are flying empty seats. And especially for airlines which rely on transiting and connecting traffic such as Emirates, this takes a heavy toll on their business.

Emirates chairman Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum said: “As a global network airline, we find ourselves in a situation where we cannot viably operate passenger services until countries reopen their borders and travel confidence returns.”

Is this a sign of more airlines following suit, notwithstanding those which are already teetering on the line facing bankruptcy?

Other major carriers which rely heavily on similar traffic as Emirates include Singapore Airlines (SIA) and Cathay Pacific.

SIA has reduced capacity by 50 per cent to the end of April. Further reduction is not off the table. The airline attributed this to “the growing scale of border controls”. SIA CEO Goh Choon Phong said: “We have lost a large amount of our traffic in a very short time, and it will not be viable for us to maintain our current network.”

Cathay too has made deep capacity cuts, particularly to mainland China as high as 90 per cent.

For the premium Hong Kong carrier, it is a double whammy as it moves from an embattled 2019 into an uncertain 2020. Profits plummeted in 2019 caused by the political unrest in the latter half of the year. The full year profit was HK$1.7 billion (US$220 million), down by 26 per cent from HK$2.3 billion in 2018.

Looking ahead, the airline said in a statement that “the outbreak of COVID-19 since January 2020 has resulted in a challenging operational environment, and will adversely impact the Group’s financial performance and liquidity position.” Cathay chairman Patrick Healy added, “We expect to incur a substantial loss for the first half of 2020.”

While some carriers may fall by the wayside, it is however unthinkable that the global airline industry will grant to a halt. Some governments are already promising reliefs to help them pull through. Nobody can say for sure when normalcy will return while acknowledging it is anything but foreseeable.

Singapore Airlines’ third quarter performance: Silver lining before the clouds darken

Courtesy Singapore Airlines

Singapore Airliners (SIA)’s double-digit profit growth for the third quarter (October to December 2019) is a silver lining before the clouds darken.

SIA posted a 3Q operating profit of S$413 million (US$297 million) – S$44 million or 12 per cent more than the same quarter a year ago. This gives a 9-month total of S$878 million which is 13 per cent short of the full FY 2018/19 profit of S$991 million Of that, 4Q contributed 21 per cent.

The question is whether SIA can match last year’s performance in the current situation with the dip in global travel because of COVID-19.

SIA has cancelled almost 700 flights to destinations not only in Asia but also in the United States, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and Africa and West Asia. Some flights are suspended from February with others taking effect in the months following until May.

The full impact of the cancellations will not be felt in FY2019/20 which nevertheless will be impacted by present and continuing dip in demand.

In particular, China is a large market for SIA and its low-cost subsidiary Scoot, which has cancelled all flights to China. SilkAir which will in time be merged with the parent airline has also drastically reduced its services to China.

SilkAir’s 3Q performance was flat, posting an operating profit of S$7 million. The airline’s capacity has been impacted by the grounding of the B737 Max jet.

Scoot posted an operating profit of S$4 million for 3Q 2019/20. In light of its reliance on the China business, it is not likely to fare any better in the last quarter.

Of course, SIA is not alone in this unfortunate situation. Other airlines such as Cathay Pacific, Malaysia Airlines and Royal Brunei Airlines have also cut back services to cope with reduced demand. In the case of Cathay, capacity has been reduced by as much as 40 per cent.

It is during times like this that confidence is most needed. SIA is optimistic that the airline is “well-positioned to weather current challenges posed by COVID-19 outbreak” according to its statement released on February 14.

What’s behind the partnership between Singapore Airlines and Malaysia Airlines?

This article was published in Today on 26 November 2019

https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/whats-behind-partnership-between-singapore-airlines-and-malaysia-airlines

Review: From Seattle to Singapore vv on Singapore Airlines

I decided I might try the non-stop Seattle-Singapore run by Singapore Airlines (SIA), a route that has taken SIA a long time to introduce after decades of its inaugural flight to the United States. I flew economy.

Flight time

The flight was not as long as I had expected, between 14 and 16 hours. Not much of a jet lag if you managed to catch some shut-eye, arriving in good time for dinner in Singapore, and for an early breakfast (if you need one) in Seattle the other way around.

SQ27, Seattle to Singapore departing SEA 10:40 and arriving SIN 17:30 (15 hours 50 mins)
SQ 28, Singapore to Seattle departing SIN 09:25 and arriving SEA 07:25 (14 hours)

Inflight movies

Both ways, I was unable to find a movie that I would find myself hooked on watching despite the wide selection. Disappointing in a way, as I was looking forward to catching up on the latest blockbusters, but that landed me easily into doing the next best thing on a long flight, getting some needed rest.

Broken seats

The seat was comfortable enough compared to most other airlines.

Unfortunately, out of Seattle, I was seated behind a passenger who had a broken seat, which kept rocking to and fro every time that he moved. The seat could not be positioned upright during take-off or landing, and during the meal service. We brought this to the attention of the crew who responded with a shrug of the shoulder. So it was left to us to manage the situation during the meal service, and the passenger in front kindlyt offered paper napkins to mop up some spillage during the process.

(When I provided the feedback online after the flight, SIA responded with an apology and said the crew would have arranged for a change of seat under the normal circumstances. Well, they knew and they didn’t.)

Just my luck that when I flew Singapore to Seattle, I had a seat which was difficult to adjust and the crew had to forcibly move it upright as required. At least they tried. Looks to me this aspect needs a little attention, whether pre or post flight. It would seem that it is only looked into if the crew had logged it in.

Meals

Picture: DL

I would say SIA was generous in offering three entree choices and the portions were substantial. Nasi lemak for breakfast out of Singapore was a nice local touch.

However, I thought breakfast came too soon after dinner five and a half hours before arriving in Seattle, particularly when snacks were served in between the meals (and after breakfast too). That means it may be difficult to have a good rest with all the bustling movement in the cabin. Besides, you could’t be that hungry though maybe for the exceptional few.

Toilets

Suffice to say that all the toilets all the way from Singapore to Seattle were FILTHY. Blame the passengers?

Crew

Efficient, but I miss the magic of the Singapore Girl of yore. They are still good, but some competitor airlines have become as good.

The plus is that SIA has more crew members than most other airlines, so you get attended to quickly when you need something.

I would commend the crew out of Singapore for their enthusiasm. I had not seen a more lively team.

Ground Service

I did interline check-in. Processing at SEATAC was smooth. However, check-in at Singapore Changi Aiport Terminal 3 was a hassle. I went to Row 4 (as indicated on the signboard) to bag-drop. There was an issue at the self-self kiosk. I signalled to a staff member uniformed in a a red jacket (there were a number of them hanging around outside the check-in area), but she just stood rooted to the ground, seeing me but not moving. I approached her and she followed me reluctantly. At the machine, she said I had to go to Counter 10 at Row 3 since I was travelling to the US. (I wished thiere was a sign at the booth that stated this).

So, over to Counter 10 at Row 3, and it took more than 10 minutes waiting my turn although there was only on passenger ahead of me. Then, the next blow after check-in: I was told I had to take a train to the gate at Terminal 1. Movement between terminals can be a nuisance albeit in this case via skytrain, the very reason why I chose SIA over Cathay Pacific this time because I didn’t like the inconvenience of going by shuttle to Terminal 4 when I arrived at Changi via subway.

Will I fly this route again on SIA?

Ah well, I was sufficiently encouraged to say “yes” (if not, sufficiently discouraged to say “no”). I like it being non-stop.

Are airlines treating passengers of disrupted flights fairly?

Courtesy Reuters

IF you were travelling on Singapore Airlines (SIA) out of London and your flight is delayed or cancelled, you may be compensated up to €600 according to European Union (EU) regulations. However, if it is an outbound flight from Singapore, what compensation a passenger may receive, if any, will depend on the policy of the airline.

This is because EU regulations do not apply to non-EU carriers arriving at an airport in member countries although it covers all departing flights of both EU and non-EU carriers.

The regulations have recently been extended to include connections even if these are operated outside the EU by non-EU airlines. The ruling states that “an operating air carrier that has performed the first flight cannot take refuge behind a claim that the performance of a subsequent flight operated by another air carrier was imperfect.” It is therefore obliged to offer passengers alternative transport for the disrupted flight, in addition to monetary compensation.

Over in Canada, the Air Passenger Protection Regulations introduced by the Canada Transportation Agency require airlines affected by flight disruptions to meet certain obligations which will apply to all flights to, from and within Canada, including connecting flights. Passengers whose flights are delayed or cancelled will be compensated up to C$1,000 depending on the size of the airline and length of the disruption. Non-compliance carries a fine of up to C$25,000.

Countries elsewhere do not generally legislate on mandatory fiduciary compensation of a stipulated amount for flight disruptions. In the United States, airlines are obliged to compensate passengers who are bumped off a flight due to an overbooking situation (as in the EU and Canada), but there are no federal regulations requiring them to do the same thing for passengers whose flights are delayed or cancelled.

Consumer rights groups have long been pushing for fairer treatment of travellers under these circumstances. Besides arranging meals and hotel accommodation in the event of a long delay, some airlines hand out in-flight gift vouchers, but most do not make any form of financial payment. In many cases the affected passengers get not much more than an apology while they wait to be put on the next available flight.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recognises the vulnerability of passengers and supports “due attention… (which) could include rerouting, refund, care and/or compensation”, but it stops short of spelling out specifics and making them industry standards. The International Air Transport Association is however concerned that airlines may be adversely affected, advocating “an appropriate balance between protection of consumers and industry competitiveness.”

Affected passengers therefore by and large can only rely on the goodwill of the airlines, whose policies differ across the industry. Many of them have come to realise that to take the matter further on their own – including bringing an airline to court – can be tedious, frustrating and, more often than not, futile. What they need is the support of an authority who can enforce compliance within a legal framework.

Yes, even with mandatory compensation in place in the EU and Canada, there have been complaints that the airlines are not forthcoming in meeting their obligations, citing extraordinary circumstances that do not render them liable or delaying payment indefinitely. Still, in the context of good governance, what the EU and Canada have introduced is a significant step forward in recognition of the uphill challenge passengers face in their battle with the airlines for fair compensation.

Some airport authorities fine airlines for flight delays or operating off-schedule because it disrupts and causes less-than-optimal resource allocation that can be costly to the airport’s operations. By the same argument, passengers of disrupted flights deserve to be fairly compensated. The disruption can be costly in terms of making alternative arrangements, staying in some place longer than planned, and losing opportunities as in failing to make a business deadline. Above all, it causes anguish and distress.

The amounts recommended by the EU and Canada are miniscule compared to the fines of up to US$27,500 per passenger imposed by the US Transportation Department for planes left on the tarmac for more than three hours (or four hours for international flights) without taking off. American Airlines and Southwest Airlines share the honour of holding the record fine of US$1.6 million, the former in 2016 and the latter in 2015.

Non-US airlines that have been penalised by the US Department of Transportation (DOT) include Japan Airlines which was fined US$300,000 for two incidents in 2018 in which passengers were made to wait more than four hours on the tarmac before they could deplane.

All these measures serve the common goal of encouraging airlines to ensure their flights operate as scheduled and hopefully too that they become more conscientious about how they treat their customers. However, the fines imposed by DOT do not directly benefit the passengers who are the very reason why an airline is in business.

An example of how an airline may take the EU regulations seriously is when British Airways, faced with the threat of strike action by its pilots recently, informed its customers as early as two weeks of cancellations of some flights to avoid paying compensation.

However, do not expect similar regulations to be introduced any time soon in other parts of the world. For one thing, consumer rights groups do not appear to be as aggressive, and many countries especially Asia are less prone to industrial action. Besides major Asian carriers known for good customer service are more responsive to feedback and complaints and may already be offering some form of compensation even if they are not as generous.

But as the number rises, there is a greater need to ensure that affected passengers are fairly treated. The powers that be can ensure that. According to aviation data and analytics experts at Cirium, about 3.9 million flights or 10,700 a day were delayed by over 30 minutes or cancelled worldwide in 2018. Take a typical day on 5 August 2019.there were 22,386 delays and 1,107 cancellations globally, of which 29 per cent of the combined total occurred in the United States, 26 per cent in Europe, and 34 per cent in Asia Pacific.

Until then, here’s a poser for SIA and the likes: Will they accord the same level of comnpensation to all passengers even if they are not bound by regulations, for no better reason than simply one in the name of fairness?

2019 Skytrax World Airline Awards: Who are the real winners?

It’s that time of the year when the airline industry is abuzz with the Skytrax World Airline Awards announced recently at the Paris Air Show.

There are surveys and there are surveys, if you know what I mean. Skytrax, which launched its survey back in 1999 (according to its website) is generally viewed with some regard. It is said that more than 21 million respondents participated in the 2019 survey.

But what can we read of the results?

Which is the real winner: Qatar Airways or Singapore Airlines?

Qatar Airways switched places with last year winner Singapore Airlines (SIA) to be the world’s best airline.

As far back as 2010 until now, the two airlines have been ranked one behind the other in the top three spots, except in 2012 when Asiana came in second place between Qatar the winner and SIA in third position. In the ten year period, SIA came behind Qatar in eight years, except in 2010 when SIA was second and Qatar third, and last year when the Singapore carrier became the world’s best ahead of Qatar in second placing.

It looks like a tight race between Qatar and SIA for the top spot, and going by the survey results, Qatar has outranked SIA. It has become the first airline to have won the award five times, one more in the history of the awards.

But SIA is still ranked ahead of Qatar for first class and economy class.

In the first class category, Qatar is not even a close second to SIA in first placing but fifth behind Lufthansa, Air France and Etihad as well

In the economy class category, Japan Airlines is tops followed by SIA and Qatar in second and third placing respectively.

Besides SIA has the best premium economy in Asia, second only to Virgin Atlantic worldwide. But,of course, Qatar does not offer that class of travel.

Additionally SIA tops for cabin crew, and Qatar is farther down the list in 9th position.

But Qatar wins for business class, followed by ANA and SIA in second and third placing respectively. So it seems there is heavier weightage for this segment which has become probably the fiercest battleground for the airlines. First class included, it also suggests the halo effect of the premium product, but it is the business class that is the primary focus in today’s business.

It also attests to the impact of the recency factor. Qatar obviously impresses with its cubicle-like Qsuite that comes with its own door to provide maximum privacy. Quad configurations allow businessmen to engage in conference as if they were in a meeting room and families to share their own private space. And there is a double bed option.

Which brings up the importance of having to continually innovate and upgrade the product to stay ahead in the race.

The top ten listing: Consistency equals excellence

The ranking does not shift much from year to year. Besides Qatar and SIA, there are some familiar names: All Nippon Airways (3rd this year), Cathay Pacific (4th), Emirates (5th), EVA Air (6th) and Lufthansa (9th). So there is not much of a big deal as airlines switch places so long as they remain in the premier list.

Hainan Airlines (7th) is making good progress, moving up one notch every year since 2017. Qantas (8th) is less consistent, moving in and out of the top ten list, Thai Airways retained its 10th spot for a second year.

It is no surprise that the list continues to be dominated by Asian carriers which are generally reputed for service. You only need to look at the winners for best cabin crew: Besides SIA, the list is made up of Garuda Indonesia, ANA, Thai Airways, EVA Air, Cathay Pacific, Hainan Airlines, Japan Airlines and China Airlines. With the exception of Qatar, no other airline outside Asia is listed.

If you to look to find out how the United States carriers are performing, scroll down the extended list of the 100 best and you will see JetBlue Airways (40th), Delta Air Lines (41st), Southwest Airlines (47th), Alaska Airlines (54th), United Airlines (68th) and American Airlines (74th).

Home and regional rivalry

Rivalry between major home airlines or among competing regional carriers is often closely watched.

Air Canada, placed 31st ahead of rival WestJet at 55th can boast it is the best in North America. That’s how you can work the survey results to your advantage.

ANA (3rd) has consistently outdone arch rival JAL (11th). In fact, ANA has been the favoured airline in the past decade till now. It has Japan’s best airline staff and best cabin crew. Across Asia, it provides the best business class. Internationally, it provides the best airport services and business class onboard catering.

Asiana (28th) is favoured over Korean Air (35th ).

The big three Gulf carriers are ranked Qatar first, followed by Emirates (5th) and Etihad (29th).

Among the European carriers, Lufthansa (9th) leads the field, followed by Swiss International Air Lines (13th), Austrian Airlines (15th), KLM (18th), British Airways (19th), Virgin Atlantic (21st), Aeroflot (22nd), Air France (23rd), Iberia (26th) and Finnair (32nd).

What about low-cost carriers?

Worthy of note is how some budget carriers are ranked not far behind legacy airlines. AirAsia (20th) is best among cohorts. EasyJet (37th) and Norwegian Air Shuttle (39th) are not far behind the big guys in Europe. Among US carriers, Southwest Airlines (47th) is third after JetBlue (40th) and Delta (41st).

Also, pedigree parents do not necessarily produce top-ranked offshoots. Placed farther down the list are SIA’s subsidiary Scoot (64th) and the two Jetstar subsidiaries of Qantas – Jetstar Airways (53rd) and Jetstar Asia (81st). So too may be said of so-called regional arms. Cathay Pacific’s Cathay Dragon is ranked 33rd, but SIA’s SilkAir is way down at 62nd.

Pioneer of the modern budget model Ryanair is ranked 59th.

Down the slippery road of decline: Aisana Airlines and Etihad Airways

If it is difficult to stay at the top, it is easy to slip down the slippery road of decline. Asiana and Etihad are two examples.

Asiana was ranked world’s best airline in 2010 and became a familiar name in the top ten list up to 2014, after which its ranking kept falling: 11th (2015), 16th (2016), 20th (2017), 24th (2018) and 28th (2019). Its erstwhile glory has been whittled down to being just best cabin crew in South Korea.

Etihad did reasonably well for eight years until 2018 when it was ranked 15th, and a year later suffered a dramatic decline to the 29th spot. That, despite beating Qatar to be this year’s best first class in the Middle East.

As I stated at the onset that there are surveys and there are surveys. Some are not specifically targeted , whether its interest is business or leisure for example. There is always an element of subjectivity and bias in the composition and weightage, and this renders no one reading as being definitive. At best, we can read across several creditable surveys to know with some conviction how the airlines really measure against each other.

Read also:

https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/can-singapore-airlines-overtake-qatar-worlds-best-airline

Is the Boeing Max ready to fly?

Courtesy Boeing

Airlines looking forward to fly their fleet of Boeing B737 Max 8 aircraft have just got their planned schedules jiggered up by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s announcement that it may take up to a year before the jet is cleared again for commercial flights.

According to the BBC, FAA chief Daniel Elwell said: “If it takes a year to find everything we need to give us the confidence to lift the (grounding) order so be it.”

It may be read that underlying this is the FAA’s understanding that time is needed to regain the world’s trust – in both the aircraft and the FAA as regulator. While Boeing seems ready to sign off the improved jet, saying it has finished updating the pertinent flight-control software, FAA in an apparent redeeming move following censure of its lax oversight is assuming control as the final authority to certify the jet’s safety.

According to Bloomberg, Mr Elwell added at a meeting with representation from across the globe, “If there is a crisis in confidence, we hope this will help to show the world that the world still talks together about aviation safety issues.”

In Boeing’s favour, some airlines have voiced their support of the Max. Understandably so, particularly if the airline owns a sizeable fleet of the jet. American Airlines (AA) for one is confident of an “absolute fix” but CEO Doug Parker was also quick to add, “But…it’s not for us to decide whether or not the aircraft flies. It needs to be safe for everyone.” The airline, which has a fleet of 24 Max jets, has cancelled thousands of flights and has now cancelled Max schedules through mid-August.

Another airline which has pledged its commitment to Boeing is Singapore Airlines (SIA). The airline is pledging its commitment to purchase 39 Dreamliner jets and its re-commitment for a previous order of 30 planes. Although this is not related to the Max aircraft of which its subsidiary SilkAir has six of them, it gives Boeing a boost of confidence after reports of shoddy production and poor oversight at the Boeing plant in North Charleston surfaced, and following grounding of some Dreamliner jets because of problems with the Rolls Royce Trent engine fitted to the aircraft.

Read also:

https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/grounding-boeing-max-and-dreamliner-planes-how-can-singapores-airlines-reassure-customers

It’s good to have friends, indeed. But while it’s not yet known if airlines such as AA and SIA have sought or will seek compensation from Boeing, others which have made known their intention include Norwegian Air Shuttle, Ryanair and the big three Chinese carriers of Air China, China Eastern Airlines and China Southern Airlines. A strongly worded report from the Chinese Global Times newspaper said: “We must use punishment and tell the Americans their practice of using concealment and fraud to extract benefits from others, while benefiting themselves, is unfair.”