Wednesday, April 28th, 2010
A week like no other has left everyone in the entire aviation industry reeling. Whilst many controllers, flight attendants and pilots had very little to do, airport staff and management were working overtime.
It is probably still too early to be able to come to any definitive conclusions, but some issues are becoming clear.
First, much ink was spilt, and many fingers pointed, trying to find an appropriate scapegoat. World champion contender blame-shifters at IATA blamed anyone but their airline members. The fault was clearly that of the governments around the world. This was a little disappointing; one might have hoped they had at least one attempt at pinning some of the blame on some sort of divine power. Thor perhaps, or Vulcan himself.
Secondly, once it was clear that coordinated action was called for, the current system was found wanting. The question that needs to be answered is what might be the right model. That is hard. Another question might be whether we have the collective courage to answer that properly.
Because the real answer might be Europe. Or perhaps more accurately, a revised Eurocontrol, reporting to DG MOVE. Not a committee of national administrators, not a committee of ANSPs, DG MOVE. After watching national CAAs and ANSPs fail to find a means of coordinating, DG MOVE stepped in, with a video call hook-up. The semiotics of that are delightful.
And one of the big questions that is starting to dawn is why is that not the case now? It is impossible to explain to a lay-person why there are ANSPs for national airspace, when clearly this is not a national issue.
Friday, February 19th, 2010
The blogosphere and other worthies have gone all hot and heavy about the announcement of the approval by the US DoT of the AA-BA alliances’ application for anti-trust immunity.
There are a lot of things that could be said about this decision – and most are being said. But much overlooked is that there is – finally – attention being paid to the entire issue of network dynamics. Since Pontius was a pilot anti-trust applications, indeed general regulatory review, has focused on city pairs. Sure, important in so far as they go – from one city to another, mainly, they entirely miss the point about networks.
Airlines, at least full service ones, are network businesses. There is a small, but slowly growing study in economics of network economics. When I was at IATA I tried to commission a major study on this point. At Qantas we based an entire ATI application (the first one, notwithstanding what folk in Nth America may say) on it, but it remains less well known than it should.
Fortunately, science has ridden in to the rescue. There is a growing body of study that shows that such things as amoeba work out their survival based on network theories of efficency. Hubs are important. See this article from the Economist for example: http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15328524
There is an analogy to be drawn about forms of life and airline executives, but I don’t do obvious, obviously.
The second very important point is that the DoT makes specific reference to the fact that they had worked on this with the European Commission. We are getting regulatory convergence. This has huge implications, particularly if you are a non-alligned carrier. And what it means is clear – speak now, or forever hold your peace…
Saturday, February 13th, 2010
And a turn for the worse. News this week that a Bollywood star was asked to sign a print-out of his body scan image was not really what the doctor ordered for those trying to increase airport security measures – whether or not such a move is actually going to, or indeed, has even a chance of, improving safety.
Like the image of the actor, there are a few things that need to be clear here – first, do these machines make things more secure, or just more theatrical, and secondly, what about the balance between security and safety?
Looking at the first, there is a chance, not a certainty, that the machines would have stopped the last attempted bombing. That says nothing about the next bombing. What it might do is make the security queue the new target. We now work very hard to make sure that we have a target rich environment that any terrorist with a working sense of irony might just find attractive. Perhaps it is lucky that irony is not a vital pre-requisite for the role.
As to the data issues – stand by. Europe has made clear that it intends to stand and fight on this one. Europe is not going to give ground on financial data held by SWIFT, so why should it give ground on other data?
This one is game on.
Wednesday, August 19th, 2009
You know things are bad when one of the aviation industry’s leading representative associations starts promoting its own webinars.
Yes, IATA is preparing for the future, by promoting webinars. It can clearly see which way the wind is blowing, and it is not blowing in favour of people sitting on aircraft.
Mind you, with this very cutting edge shift of focus IATA might be able to corner a new market, and remain a representative body. They wont even need to change the acronym – they can become the International Airwaves Transport Association.
Sorted.
Monday, July 20th, 2009
Safety is always an issue for air transport. As it should be. Airlines, ANSPs, regulators all have departments devoted to ensuring safe operations. Consequently, few subjects in aviation have had more study, more attention and more proposals put forward. But that is not to say that we have all the answers.
And, sadly, for the work that is being done, safety in air transport seems destined always to being a political football. Even before the Yemenia disaster, the on-going negotiations between the US and the EU on the second phase of the Open Skies bilateral agreement had been mired in allegation and counter allegation surrounding safety inspections.
Revelations subsequent to the Yemenia accident concerning the state of the particular aircraft, an A310, and whether it was permitted to fly into Europe, have added to the confusion. What the Yemenia disaster does do is to throw into stark relief complex international questions concerning what is an appropriate means to ensure a safe global aviation system.
The most recent proposal is that of European Commissioner Tajani – who held a press conference with no lesser light than the President of the Council of ICAO Roberto Gonzalez to put forward his big idea. Normally, after agreeing to speak, Commissioner Tajani sends someone to apologise for his non-attendance, but this time he showed up. One cannot help wondering if he might have preferred not being there – it did not go as he had planned.
The European Commission has had a black-list of carriers not authorised to fly into Europe for three years now. Recently the list has been extended to include, in some cases, all carriers from certain countries. But the EC list is based on information from the various Member States, and that is not always consistent.
Hence the situation we saw in the Yemenia case. Each European country continues to conduct inspections of aircraft and carriers flying into their airports. In a number of cases, they also discuss matters with their counterparts in the home jurisdiction of the carrier involved. You may recall that the French authorities had expressed some concerns about Yemenia until an inspection by the Yemen CAA was conducted, and the UK authorities had refused permission for the particular aircraft involved to enter UK airspace.
The underlying issue is not always about a particular carrier but the system of inspection and oversight the civil aviation authority of that country has in place. The US Department of Transport in fact conducts audits of other country CAAs (not its carriers). They are then graded in one of three categories.
Not that this process is entirely without politics either of course. Earlier this year the DoT audited Australia and found a number of shortfalls. Rather than adjust Australia’s ranking – it is Cat I – a series of remedial actions were agreed. The embarrassment to Australia of being downgraded would have been significant, and there would have been a cost to Qantas too. One may wonder if Yemen would have been afforded that courtesy.
ICAO too has in recent years, partially spurred on by the US actions, it has to be said, has also conducted audits – and, and this is a big and – it publishes the results of those audits on its website, including any audit shortfalls, as well as remedial actions undertaken. You might be able to imagine the work required to get the governments of the world to agree to a self-naming and shaming regime.
It should also be noted that IATA has made it a condition of membership to IATA that airlines pass an audit, called the IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA). This is a carrier level audit – it is not an audit of the CAA involved. Yemenia had passed that audit, and remains a member of IATA. As had Air France.
So what role the EU black list? Well, Commissioner Tajani has an idea.
He is offering the European model to the world: black ban carriers, and sometimes countries, from flying into participating countries. Which if it is actually global, would of course be all countries. So it would seem that DG TREN is saying that we need some sort of international civil aviation organisation to look at these important issues. We could call it the International Civil Aviation Organisation, or maybe ICAO for short. Tra-la! Oh.
‘The EU view is to have a broader strategy, to bring together ICAO and IATA’ into some sort of international blacklist Tajani proposed. ‘I am absolutely convinced we want to have an international strategy.’ Sadly, Commissioner Tajani was not able to explain what sort of some sort of international blacklist he had in mind.
Funnily enough, ICAO’s President of the Council Gonzalez was unimpressed. There are a number of questions about such a proposal, not least of which being the position for ICAO’s States – they would move to a position of blacklisting themselves. He made clear his disagreement with the proposal and promptly left – leaving Commissioner Tajani to clear up any misunderstandings. Like, for example, why he would organise a press conference with someone that disagreed so fundamentally with his point of view.
Commissioner Tajani should be applauded for not stage managing every element of the press conference. It shows a remarkable commitment to discussing the issues. But one might have assumed that there was some common understanding before facing the press.
Perhaps, if nothing else, what this shows is that there remains a huge need for what Tony Blair liked to call ‘joined up thinking’ on this issue.
Thursday, July 2nd, 2009
Last week the great and the good of the ANSPs gathered in San Diego for CANSO’s AGM. Social events included a beach party at an artificial beach area, complete with a huge pool with a wave machine. The wave machine was pumping, the analogy machine nearly went into melt down: riding the waves of change; wipe-out; you can imagine the rest.
Boeing’s chief economist made a very interesting presentation that did not fit with the wave line at all. Flat is the new up, she said. No surfing analogies there.
On cue, sure enough, the IATA crie du couer also resonated around San Diego. One of the curious things about CANSO is its fascination with IATA. Jeff Poole gave his usual speech, ending with a quote from a book on the battle of Agincourt. True to the keeping of Chairman Mao, one of IATA’s strategies is clear – close to friends and closer still to enemies. What does the battle of Agincourt teach us about which is which? You be the judge.
Even as CANSO itself is starting to realise the importance of the regions, and to establish regional offices, including a new Middle Eastern office, agreed at the AGM, IATA still sits at the head table. IATA’s members’ share of the traffic falls year on year, regional groupings become more important, but somehow, IATA is always welcome at a CANSO meeting.
It is not like the affair is reciprocated. Every year at the IATA AGM, the Eagle Awards are handed out to the best behaved monopolistic service providers. One of the ATM IATA Eagle Awards, the one for the ANSP with the neatest handwriting (or something like that), went to the ANSP from Vietnam. Not a CANSO member; as was obvious from the sniffy CANSO press release. It praised the other winners, Singapore (best and fairest) and Bulgaria (best homework); members to a fault, but ignored Vietnam completely.
CANSO inaugurated an operations standing committee, to give ANSPs a united voice in operational matters. This is a positive step for CANSO and, assuming they can find consensus on the various issues, will give ANSPs a much better voice at the table.
There was also a very strong stress on the growing need for performance measurement and performance based management. This rather begs the question of what alternatives there might be to managing by performance. Whatever they are, apparently they are currently in action.
The more important point is not management but charging on the basis of performance. The new approach is performance based remuneration. The alternative to that is clear: cost recovery regardless of performance. Its supporters argue that with cost recovery long term planning is more secure, safety never compromised, stability guaranteed. This was debated, literally, in San Diego. As with all good debates, there are arguments on both sides. This is an area that needs considerable further thought.
But, the big news at the CANSO AGM was the announcement of the resignation of Alexander ter Kuile, the Secretary General. He will not seek a renewal of his third three year contract at the end of the year. Given the development and growth of the organisation in the 9 years he has lead it, finding a replacement to walk in those shoes will be an interesting task.
Perhaps the best solution is to find someone keen on a pre-emptive reform programme. With the challenges around, now is not the time for a safe pair of hands. For CANSO to continue to grow, it will need to take some bold decisions.
Thursday, June 11th, 2009
June is annual general meeting month for air transport – and IATA set the ball rolling in Kuala Lumpur with a scream of pain that must have been heard in Singapore. The situation is so dire that even Giovanni Bisignani’s speech writers seem to be running out of purple prose.
The IATA AGM runs with all the cool spontaneity and sophistication of the Chinese Communist Party Annual General Assembly at the best of times, and this year, it seems that some of the Great Leader’s personal management theories came into their own. You know the ones: wonderful slogans; activity not action; friends close, enemies closer; that sort of thing.
And true to the workings of the Great Leader, we are to have a solution right out of 1950. ‘Centralise in the hands of the party!’ the Chairman exhorted. ‘Expel the running dog lackies of the imperial service providing profit making class!’ OK, I might have paraphrased that last bit.
What was actually said, in nearly so many words, was ‘give us the regulatory freedom to dictate to everyone else what they need to do for us’. No part of the service chain was left unscathed from the attack. Travel agents have never had it so good, so they need to give some of their profits to the IATA carriers; airports – well airports, they need to be taught a lesson and regulated back into the ground; labour – flogging is too good for them; and as for ANSPs? Well, clearly, the solution is more, more and then still more regulation. What could airports and ANSPs know about their businesses that the airlines couldn’t dictate to them via their friendly regulators?
See the pattern? Everyone is out of step except us – so make them lose step. Not for nothing are they called legacy carriers. That is legacy, as in a gift of property.
And true to the Mao style of management, it is important that the slogan says the exact opposite of the actuality. For example: ‘We don’t want any subsidies or State Aid’ actually means ‘please ensure that no-one else touches these slots, because they are mine, even if I am not using them right now’.
Another Mao-ian touch was in the environment area – an area, it is true, ripe for such flourishes. IATA proudly announced a new target for carbon neutrality. 2020. Like your hindsight. Mark your calendars.
Sounds great, until you remember that the aim of the Copenhagen meeting in December, and all the preparatory meetings leading up to Copenhagen, is to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020 around the world. You don’t need a very strong calculator to work out that if everyone else is reducing by 20% and you are staying still then everyone else will need to reduce by more than 20% to reach the target.
And the next 5 year plan for agricultural production will mean that we can feed all of the people in China, or something. See what I mean? It is quite addictive, once you get into the habit.
Monday, June 8th, 2009
When all else fails, KL will pop up for an IATA meeting – this week it is the AGM. And a flood of press releases has been raining down on us. The first, least happy of course being the doubling of the losses. These are hard times for airlines.
Most entertaining was the new deadline for airlines to go carbon neutral – you may remember that the old challenge was 2050. A good date that, well into someone else’s watch. Now, the deadline has been brought forward to 2020. Why did they choose that date I wonder. Wait a minute, could it be that someone somewhere inside the bowels of IATA realised that the rest of the world had been talking about that as our target date for action under the new CopenhagenProtocol (lovingly known as Kyoto2 – not sure who would be the more surprised to discover they were being compared with the other as cities) for about, oh, let me see, oh, 3 years.
Never knowingly late our friends at IATA.
It is part of a bigger picture, one that sees IATA move 180 degrees on the environment – whilst never losing sight of the famous 4 pillars of course. Thank heavens they did not call them principles.
Wednesday, May 13th, 2009
As perhaps befits a conference and exhibition devoted to business and small aircraft flying, there are a number of dog-fights going on at EBACE – obviously, the most important is which will be the most abused cliche. But there are a couple of others too. The environment and how to bring BusAv into the European ETS being one. Slots is another.
In the red corner down at the cliche slam-down is ‘opportunity, not threat’. One more use of the O word will be plenty. Opportunity to grow, to consolidate, to get ahead etc etc. Opportunity, not threat: right, got it. In the blue corner is ‘flying through turbulance’. So very droll.
Not surprisingly, the EBAA/NBAA folk started the case for the opportunity side. Stirring, troop rousing stuff. Daniel Calleja, Director of air transport within DG TREN, after his mandatory apology for the non-appearance of Commissioner Tajini (does this man actually exist?) got the turbulance analogy underway. But, he did so in a most unwelcome way (unwelcome for the hosts). He said, yes, this is turbulance, but the aviation industry knows what to do with turbulance – does it for a living.
Calleja is a friend of BusAv, knows the industry well, and is smart. And in the time honoured diplomatic formulation that real friends tell the truth he was blunt. Polite, but to the point anyway. The ETS is here to stay, EASA is here to stay, SES is here to stay, he said. Straighten up and fly right.
Monday, May 11th, 2009
The legacy carriers fought long and hard to get the winter season slot freeze in place – perhaps giving up much in return for what may be a one season gain. But now it turns out that not even all the legacy carriers are sure that this is worth it.
A Japanese airline is now letting it be known that they are adamant that they disagree with this. This is curious, and rather begs the question of why? There might be a few reasons: perhaps the Japanese carriers have become devotees of the free and open market system and the intellectual impurity of the freeze is offence to them. Right. Alternatively, they want to snap up some bargains when slots are left unused. Maybe. Or, there is a fear that the traditional legacy Japanese carriers have lost so much of their clout with the Japanese Dept of Transport and the JCAB (which anyone who has dealt with will know stands for Justifying Considerable Additional Bureaucacy) that they could not guarantee that Japan too might impose the conditions on such a freeze that the Europeans have imposed – a full review.
Answers on a postcard please.