[Anonymous]

[Tom Otley]

Ask the Travel Manager

Each month, we put questions to the travel manager. This month’s topic…

In the light of the airline tragedies of last year, and the constant need our company has to cut travel budgets, how can I be sure you choose safe carriers?

It’s a question we have been getting throughout the year and of course with the news about the Air Asia flight at the end of December, I expect it will continue for some months to come.

To answer your question directly, we do everything we can to make sure that all employees are safe, whether on airlines, staying in hotels, or using ground transport to and from the airport or indeed just driving around the country. As you’d expect, there are lists of carriers which have poor safety records, and companies sometimes have their own lists over and above these, perhaps because they are relying on information given by third party security companies they might employ.

What’s troubling about these incidents is that in all the most-publicised cases from last years, none of those airlines would have been on any of those lists, and indeed until the accidents they all had very good safety records. I know that after the Malaysia accidents, some companies did not compel flyers to use Malaysia Airlines, even if it was the lowest cost, but then I think it’s clear that so far as the second aircraft loss of MH17 over the Ukraine was concerned, Malaysia Airlines was following an approved route and it could well have been one of several other well-known carriers flying over that area along the same route that was caught in the same way.

As far as Air Asia is concerned, there is no general rule that low cost carriers have cut safety and indeed in Europe Ryanair and Easyjet are the two largest short-haul airlines, while in the U.S Southwest has an excellent safety record. There’s also no proof that Asian carriers are less safe.

I’d also point out that these issues might not be down just to the airlines, but the congestion occurring in Asian airspace generally, and the civil aviation capabilities in places such as Indonesia to handle traffic and safe pilot requests for deviations. When it becomes a macro problem such as this, there is little a travel manager can do apart from follow advice when it is available. I know that some travel managers were concerned after the head of Total Oil was killed in a private jet crash last year, since although their travellers might be in their private jet company, they can’t do any investigation over how safe the airport is that the jet might end up using.

That incident would seem to accord with what we have always been told – namely that the most dangerous part of a flight is the take-off and landing. Yet since the Air France incident out of Brazil we have now had several accidents that occurred at altitude. From an infrastructure perspective and pilot training as more pilots are needed to handle the increase in planes coming online, I think that’s something that needs looking at and I know ACTE is concerned about it.

Some frequent travellers might feel that their travel manager is a little naive when it comes to booking carriers, because many of them are desk-based and aren’t out there in the field seeing what some of those carriers are like, but it’s equally true that many of them are experienced travellers, and all of them do the due diligence.

No travel manager would put their travellers at increased risk to save money, but both Malaysia Airlines and Air Asia have shown us that the new unpredictable factor are the selection of air routes and congested airspace which travel managers can’t control on behalf of their travellers.

Lastly I’d say if an employee’s job involves travel, and they feel that the tragedies of last year are causing them stress, then they should speak to both their travel manager and possibly their human resources team to see if there’s any help they can get, whether that’s changing the pattern of travel, or perhaps even investigating Fear of Flying style courses or Cognitive Behavioural Training. It was a horrible year for those impacted directly by the tragedies we saw, but airlines’ safety has improved year-on-year and last year was the safest ever according to statistics I’ve seen.

[BAfanatic]

I really like your comment “airlines’ safety has improved year on year and last year was the safest ever according to statistics I’ve seen” – it’s essential to look at the large picture/ a broad perspective.

[LuganoPirate]

I know I’ll be condemned by many, but I’m against all these low cost airlines. They force the Legacy’s to cut prices to compete leading to a reduction in service and legroom and causing airports to become ever more congested, not to mention the environmental cost.

The congestion in the sky had led to more delays and, as it seems by first reports, the Air Asia plane could not alter course due to heavy traffic above and below. Mind you, why they didn’t crash as well is a mystery.

I wish we’d go back to the old IATA days where you could construct a fare using different airlines, stop off on the way without penalty and where a lounge was a lounge and not a glorified gin palace!

[MrMichael]

LuganoPirate, I will not condemn you for your view, but will certainly disagree. Here is a few reasons why I fundamentally disagree with your view.

The LoCo,s have opened up travel to people that otherwise could not afford it. That is particularly the case in the emerging economy’s of the Far East and indeed Africa now. That in my view is a very positive thing.

The LoCo,s have opened up places that were never on the leisure travel map before. The LoCo,s do not just satisfy demand, they create it. The economy’s of many places have been bolstered by the arrival of LoCo flights from places they never had visitors before.

The number of people employed worldwide by the LoCo’s, airports, infrastructure and services must be absolutely huge. On top of that Boeing and Airbus have massive order books from the LoCo’s.

The LoCo’s business model is being copied by other services from Parking to Coaches…..Hotels to Supermarkets…..a benefit we can all enjoy even if we do not choose to use the LoCo’s.

The impact of the LoCo’s on the legacy carriers is enormous, mostly to the advantage of the traveller like you that does not use the LoCo model. Most carriers have had to compete with the LoCo’s in the economy cabin, that has brought down prices, increased yields whereby the main carriers are less reliant on the premium cabin income now than they once were, that is reflected in prices of J class not increasing in real terms over the past 5 years ( the Middle Eastern carriers have contributed to that too).

I used a true LoCo, Easyjet last year for the first time. I am a regular on Iberia, a so called full service carrier, however when I compare the economy product of Iberia with the product of Easyjet I fail to see that IB are any more comfortable, safer, on time, better service than their LoCo rival. The only advantage to me using IB over Easyjet is the use of LHR instead of LGW….and that is just due to convenience for me as I live in SW London.

Summing up, I think the LoCo’s have done everybody a favour other than those with a vested interest that hanker back to the days when travel was expensive, airline salarys were high, those managing and working in or for the legacy carriers were owed a living……Lufthansa/Air France spring to mind.

[Alsacienne]

IMHO, in Europe, all LoCo pilots and aircraft maintenance requirements are subject to the same legal and quality controls as legacy carriers. In particular, in the UK, Easyjet and Ryanair conform to all the safety requirements as everyone else. LoCost in ticket fares and soft product services maybe, but I have as much confidence in them as in our legacy carrier, and with all their shorthaul work, I am sure that their pilots have more experience and expertise in certain areas of the flight, given the proportion of cruise to take offs and landings in any given day’s working hours.

[Tom Otley]

I agree with that.

I don’t think any of last year’s tragedies can be put down to LCCs – although in the case of AirAsia it seems that Indonesian aviation is once again under the spotlight…

“Indonesian officials have said AirAsia did not have the traffic rights to fly between Surabaya and Singapore on a Sunday — the day it crashed. However, Singapore’s civil aviation authorities have said the AirAsia jet was authorised to fly on that day.
Although the confusion over traffic rights should not directly affect the safety of a flight, it does underline how Indonesia’s weak regulatory oversight has contributed to the country’s poor air safety record.”

Full article January 6, 2015, Financial Times
AirAsia Flight QZ8501: Indonesia cracks down on aviation sector

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bddcd5fc-94c2-11e4-8341-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3O1sHrDh7

[LuganoPirate]

I actually agree with you MrMichael but that’s why I harken back to a gentler more civilised age, and by no means was I criticising the safety of the LCC’s.

I was 18 before I flew regularly, and till then had made just five return flights by air and not travelling did me no harm, gaining knowledge through books, documentaries and of course, school.

I just think the sort of mass tourism we have today spoils so much of the local culture and does more harm than good. The popular resorts in Spain and Cyprus spring to mind as tourists demand their fish and chips or frankfurters, as do tourists who climb in high heeled shoes over statues in Egypt. All bought about by cheap travel.

While it does mean cheaper travel for me on the Legacies, and I do go for the cheapest fares, only because there’s no difference in service between the cheap economy fares or the expensive ones. Business class in Europe is a joke with little to differentiate it between Economy other than a better sandwich or snack and a glass of champagne – sometimes. Seat size and legroom is mostly the same as Economy.

I’d be more than happy, and I recognise I’m in a big minority here, to pay more for a decent sized economy seat with proper service. Alas, it’s unlikely to be!

[rferguson]

Although perhaps a bit of a contentious statement I would avoid flying airlines from countries where strict corporate hierarchy is followed and there is an element of ‘never question your superiors decision’ – especially where their flight deck crews are predominantly of the same nationality. Also from countries where admitting that a mistake was made/almost made is a big no-no and those concerned would rather ‘save face’ than admit they need to take evasive action to avoid an accident instead of ‘chancing it’ in the hope of nothing going wrong.

[canucklad]

In my case, my work insists that we use the travel management portal to book flights. You have to justify purchasing FR tickets for example as they don’t appear in the booking portal. So this restricts the choice of carriers …..
These carriers will be based on discounted prices negotiated, or the cheapest ticket price available driven by our bean counters. Or at times, in our case tree huggers. I would need to catch a train at twice the cost of a flight in order to reduce our carbon footprint.

As long as the CAA is happy, my company is happy!!

[DavidGordon10]

I agree with LuganoPirate here, but not completely.

I am pleased that LoCos provide travel opportunities for those who did not have them before, and employment and all sorts of other economic benefits.

But, “cheaper and adequate” is not everything we want from an airline. Diatribes against this or that airline on this forum show that many of us feel this.

I think there are some limited analogies between airlines and the two areas in which I work, health care and education. Of course, everything must be paid for, and while cutting costs safety can be protected – as it is in aviation. But a cheap and safe product may still not be a very good product. The universities of Cambridge and Harvard are more expensive per student than (insert the low-cost university of your choice). The student at the low cost university will get from admission to graduation safely, and if he or she is bright and works hard may be as well educated as the Cambridge or Harvard student, but do you want to drag Cambridge and Harvard down in the cause of making them cheaper?

Similarly, I know my heart attack will be perfectly well treated by my local NHS hospital, and the Mayo Clinic or the Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset are more expensive per patient: but they are also better. Those of us who spend some or most of our time in the UK know what penny-pinching (and perpetual political interference) has done to the NHS.

[Schaible]

MrMichael, “The LoCo,s have opened up travel to people that otherwise could not afford it. That is particularly the case in the emerging economy’s of the Far East and indeed Africa now. That in my view is a very positive thing.”

FYI: In FAR EAST (i.e. China) there are no low cost carriers! And the fact that traveling is affordable for more people is a result of the growing economies and salaries and NOT a merit of LCCs! In AFRICA it is the same, maybe even more obvious.

In China the government is ruling the rack rates for airline tickets and discounts. LCCs do not fit into their ideology which I support to a certain degree.

There is an LCC impact in a few South East Asian countries (Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore) where low cost airlines operate. But they can only run with the growing economy as motor, not simply by their existence.

In short: the number of people who can afford air travel simply because of the existence of LCCs is just a tiny part (less than 10%) of all travelers in respective countries.

[Author]

Posts