[JonathanCohen09]

Hello all,

If there is already a thread similar to this then please tell me and I will ask for this to be closed as no need for duplication but I could not find one.

I am very curious to hear the thoughts of my friends and fellow posters as to what they think the future may hold for the airlines and hotel sectors?

With Flybe, SAA and Air Mauritius already gone and or in administration what to the future of Virgin, Norwegian and others. Ryan Air and Easyjet will probably survive even with a different structure and smaller route networks.

What of the big legacy national carriers like IAG Group, LH, AF/KLM, SAS, Alitalia the perennial basket case (no disrespect intended). They will all take advantage of the EU allowing state aid during this period but will that mean higher prices and reduction in services or do people thing that to get us flying again fares will remain competitive and attractive?

The hotel sector is a whole other question, will the big chains survive, will they support their franchisees?

Very curious to hear people’s thoughts on all of the above and anything else I might have missed.

Stay safe everyone!!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Bullfrog

[Bullfrog]

I think it’s a great question, but the fabric is far too complex to know how things will look in 1, 3 or 5 years time.

Whilst a vaccine & treatment are unavailable, all countries are responding differently. The UK’s proposal of placing everyone in quarantine for 14 days after arriving in the UK from June 1 will severely restrict visitors & make most UK residents think twice about going abroad.

Government loans to large UK hotel and airlines who need them will provide a lifeline.

Smaller hotel groups & privately owned establishments will only survive if they are able to preserve their cash liquidity.

The future for the travel trade is gloomy.

[esselle]

But on the positive side;

People will still want to travel, explore, discover, for leisure, both cheaply, and in the super luxury spheres.

Businesses will still believe that face to face stuff needs to happen even if technology allows “contact” easily and cheaply.

Price will not be a barrier for this reason for those who can afford it.

Eating out, drinking, socialising, showing off, relaxing, mingling will all stay part of people’s way of behaving.

So the question really is how do the providers of all of these services and facilities adjust their offers to make them sufficiently attractive and how do they sell them as being “safe” enough to get people to choose?

Human nature does not say lets just stay in and be safe. It says how can we venture out whilst minimising risk.

And in the meantime big pharma will provide some options.

5 users thanked author for this post.

Jacob, first_class_please, ASK1945, transtraxman, Bullfrog

[AMcWhirter]

Interesting and topical thread Jonathan.

What about rail ?

Use of trains (UK and mainland Europe) was already on the increase as we have reported on numerous occasions.

But the open access firms may struggle to survive. Some will fare than others however.

In the UK both Hull Trains and Grand Central suspended services. In both cases their situation meant both operators only gave a few hours’ notice (of service suspension).

Italo (Europe’s only open access HS operator) seeks assistance from the Italian govt.

Rail operator Italo seeks government assistance

While France’s SNCF is already saddled with debt of many billions or Euros and it seeks more funding owing to revenue losses during the lockdown.

Lockdown costs SNCF €2 billion in revenue

[canucklad]

The travel industry is unique in its set up. It has a reliance on each others sectors success in order to maintain a viable business.

The one aspect of all this is that the more you probe into how its going to look, the more it becomes blindingly obvious that effective social distancing is just not practical or economically viable.

Lots of talk about trains and planes. Little talk about how hotels are going to manage to move people up and down floors. I’m sure we’ve all been frustrated at having to wait ages for a lift just to find you’ve another wait because the lift is jam packed

What I suspect is that business will implement strategies not to fully make us safe, but in my opinion to give us a sense of safety through flawed reassuring messages.

Travel will only return to something like normality once we all collectively decide that the benefits outweighs the risks. As seasoned travellers we’re a pretty resilient lot, so as time goes by we’ll see that can do approach return

2 users thanked author for this post.

AMcWhirter, Bullfrog

[MartynSinclair]

I view the success of the airlines and hotels (international travel) will largely depend on how each country controls it’s borders post pandemic. For airlines to get bums on seats and the hotels being able to welcome their guests, passenger flows through airports have to work in timely fashion.

I think in the short term there will be more demand for long haul point to point flights, to reduce the risk of additional checks in a third country passengers may not intend visiting. Hubs will need to consider how they will deal with transit passengers..

[CathayLoyalist2]

I lived in Singapore during SARS where if a hotelier got 6% occupancy, there was a party in reception. BA´s flights to London whilst still operating were very empty. No one wanted to fly at “normal” prices until, if I recall correctly, an economy return ticket to LHR dropped to something in the region of GBP 350. All of a sudden the risk was worth it. I think you will see some extraordinary deals across the board just to tempt people back. Will they bite? Only time will tell.

1 user thanked author for this post.

K1ngston

[Roa1]

I remember reading a paper while I was in the military (air force) about the transportation network infrastructures; rail, sea and air and their their contribution and strategic value to the country’s economy and social well being. Those three transport infrastructures provide the country’s economic and social bread basket. Without any of those, the economic activities, social cohesion, political and strategic responsibilities would simply grind to halt. The UK is an “Island economy” and requires a strong network of transport links both domestic and to the outside world. It also has a strong political, economic ties and other responsibilities to the off-shore islands scattered around the world, and a strategic network of air and sea transport links to them are essential to maintain free flow of goods and services.

For those reasons, in a worst case scenario, the gov’t may well feel that it has a duty to protect and support one of the key “strategic air transport” infrastructure networks, British Airways rather than allowing it to fail. A similar argument could also be made for intervening and nationalising the railway networks as well. Saving any other secondary airline would serve no purpose because they are competing and flying on duplicate routes anyway, so there is no value in providing public funds for two different airlines to run on parallel routes and competing against each other.

The “hotel industry” is of no strategic or national value compared to the country’s transport infrastructures. Hotels are owned by brands from the US, Middle East and the Far East conglomerates, and frankly, why should we care about them when we are in a near-total breakdown in such a widespread economic, social failure and gripped with uncertainties!

3 users thanked author for this post.

Montysaurus, canucklad, ASK1945

[K1ngston]

[postquote quote=998504][/postquote]

I totally agree with you CL, if you want to get bums on seats then you have to make it attractive for people to get on a plane, boat, come to a location, and once this is done you will see people start to get out and about, it is simple economics, and for those that will worry and not set foot outside they will live in there vacuum bubble safe in the knowledge that they may live longer whilst others are out enjoying their lives to the best of their abilities…..

1 user thanked author for this post.

Bullfrog

[Raffles99]

“The “hotel industry” is of no strategic or national value compared to the country’s transport infrastructures. Hotels are owned by brands from the US, Middle East and the Far East conglomerates, and frankly, why should we care about them when we are in a near-total breakdown in such a widespread economic, social failure and gripped with uncertainties!”

Eh? Do you have the slightest idea how the hotel industry works? Your nearest Holiday Inn is more than likely owned by a small local company which has chosen to pay Holiday Inn (which is itself a British company and UK quoted PLC) a small fee per room booking to use their brand. It is no more ‘foreign’ than your local McDonald’s, which is also 82% likely – I just looked it up – to be owned by a local small businessman rather than the US parent.

You’ll be telling me next that you believe Weetabix is long-established British family business, when actually it is owned by a massive Chinese conglomerate. Or Cadbury etc ….

4 users thanked author for this post.

FaroFlyer, ASK1945, esselle, canucklad

[canucklad]

[quote quote=998532]Eh? Do you have the slightest idea how the hotel industry works? Your nearest Holiday Inn is more than likely owned by a small local company which has chosen to pay Holiday Inn (which is itself a British company and UK quoted PLC) a small fee per room booking to use their brand. It is no more ‘foreign’ than your local McDonald’s, which is also 82% likely – I just looked it up – to be owned by a local small businessman rather than the US parent.[/quote]

Particularly noticeable with the Express Brand– There’s always got a brass plaque near reception telling you who the owner of the franchise is.

Linking this to the VS topic, I’m going to make a prediction that as the US carriers inevitably seek Chapter 11 protection , the US government will invariably put stringent self preservation protectionist conditions on to the Chapter 11 agreements. And with that in my mind I wonder what one of the 3 main players will retract back into the domestic market. My guess would be Delta ?

[FaroFlyer]

Another industry to be considered is the cruise industry. Many flights are transporting passengers to and from cruise departures, and many hotels have hotel stays tagged on.

Having said that the cruise industry is of importance to air and hospitality, I would not advocate bailing out any cruise lines as their regulation, and taxation, are designed to minimise taxes payable by employees. The hotel industry is different as, by and large, it pays employees locally, who pay taxes locally.

[Roa1]

Raffles99

The State has long term aims, interests and responsibilities in planning, funding and supporting the country’s national and strategic assets like those that I have described above, such as the Rail, Air and Sea transport infrastructure networks. Those are the country’s national and strategic assets. The gov’t has widespread legal powers over them, and they are accountable and answerable to Parliamentary Select Committees, gov’t dept, and other select groups who scrutinise and audit their activities. Those industries are regulated, including employees like; pilots, flight attendants, train drivers, engineers and so on.

The hotel industries are NOT defined as belonging to “strategic assets or values”. They operate under different legal and administrative system and are entirely different compared to those who come under the “strategic assets”. The likes of Holiday Inn, Ramada, Hilton have no priority or precedence over the strategic assets. That is a fact.

If you are suggesting that the hotel industries are just as important, or more important in the order of priority than the country’s “strategic or national assets” then say so, instead of referring to Weetabix, McDonald, Cadbury et al, which doesn’t support your claim?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Montysaurus

[canucklad]

Isn’t it ironic, that the reticence and irk we currently have towards sharing our email address at almost every turn might just be the key that helps us , get back to some degree of normality.

I’d reluctantly be happy to offer my contact details if it allows me to start moving around my locale, Scotland , the UK and abroad.

A pain in the butt it might be, but if taking 5 minutes to share your contact details every time you enter a restaurant, hairdresser, pub, airline lounge, or whatever regardless of where you are in the world, so if it’s the key that unlocks us from this travel misery it’s a price I’m happy to pay

Logistically , i’d say that the airlines, train companies and hotels are already in a good place as a substantial amount of us have already sold out personal souls to their data bases

4 users thanked author for this post.

capetonianm, Montysaurus, ASK1945, esselle

[MartynSinclair]

Not a great fan of Ryan, but MOL’s interview on Ian King (Sky) this morning, was very persuasive. Very straight and direct:

1. Hoping to get 40% of his schedule up and running to 90% of his destinations in 6 weeks time

2. Middle seat will be sold

3. Face masks compulsory on board

4. Openly suggesting UK quarantine is unenforceable and will largely be ignored

5. A nonsense for private border deals like the one between France and UK

6. No q’ing for toilets, need to request to cabin crew

7. Social distancing wont work on board.

Interesting point will be in flight, what the protocol will be for face masks to be removed when eating and drinking.

2 users thanked author for this post.

FaroFlyer, ASK1945

[Author]

Posts