Security woes

Security is naturally aviation's biggest concern, and the impact on aviation deepens every time a plot is uncovered or foiled. The fallout of the failed attempt to blow up an aircraft on Christmas Day last year now affects millions of travellers. A few days ago I was connecting at JFK's Terminal 4 from Montreal to Dubai. Although the security queues were horrendous, no-one was complaining - except, that is, the security staff who were shouting and yelling at compliant travellers. Yes, it is a stressful job. Yes, they need to be strict. Yes, they are working under pressure, and in conditions that are not well adapted to performing security checks. But it is a sad indictment of our industry that travellers are herded and treated like cattle on the way to the slaughterhouse.

And what happens when travellers at JFK were emerging from the security checks? We were all shouted at by airline staff for delaying the aircraft departure. So much for the glamour of flying. You just can't win.

Please be kind to Monarch Airlines

A Happy New Year to all readers.

The silly season has arrived early. UK bookmaker Paddy Power reported that 100 people had a flutter over Christmas on whether Monarch Airlines will be the next airline to go bust. They shortened the odds from 50 to 1 to just 4 to 1. My good friend Tim Jeans, Managing Director of Monarch Airlines, did not find Paddy Power's 'book' on his airline at all funny. Tim did not lose a moment in reassuring people that his airline is as safe as houses. Said Tim, Paddy Power's odds of 18 to 1 on Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary to be the next CEO of British Airways would be a better bet.

But there are still people in this crazy world who are willing to bet on Elvis being alive and well.

Good news, bad news

How nice to see the 787 Dreamliner finally take to the skies, two years late but carrying the fortunes of Boeing with it. No airframe manufacturer seems immune from programme development delays, of course, so it was also good to finally see the Airbus A400M also make its debut recently.

In fact December has seen other good news. United's order for a mixed bag of A350s and 787s makes perfect sense. Splitting the order keeps the suppliers on their toes, and proves the point that scale economies of aircraft operation evaporate at some point as fleet size increases. All this is balanced, needless to say, with an announcement from that customary purveyor of dismal news, IATA. We are told (yet again) that the industry will lose US$11bn in 2009, and that things will be only slightly better in 2010, with a forecast loss of US$5.6bn. Talk about rubbing it in.... And how could we possibly enjoy Christmas without a strike? We can look forward to more than the usual chaos at UK airports as British Airways braces itself for a stoppage of 12 500 cabin crew from 22 December until 2 January.

On that note, I wish all readers a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

What goes around, comes around

I offer my congratulations to Airbus for achieving EASA approval for the full A330 family to fly 240 minute ETOPS. I know, from my days in that company, that it has been a long and arduous road for those involved. The Airbus press release (available on their website) curiously suggests that this is the first aircraft approval for 'beyond 180 minutes'. Actually, this is not the case. The Boeing 777 has enjoyed limited 207 minute operation for over ten years, and 240 minutes has also been available on specific routes, subject to very special conditions. Airbus also refers to International Civil Aviation Organisation 'rules'. Again, not so. ICAO issues recommendations, not rules.

This should not take the gloss of the achievement. But It was not always like that. I well remember being shouted at by an angry John Leahy, Airbus's petulant chief salesman. I had suggested to John that applying for 180 minutes ETOPS for the A330 would be a good strategy. "We don't want it!" he yelled at me. At the time, Leahy went on record as saying that the FAA's 240 minute proposals were a serious mistake.

Well, he's singing a very different tune now. But somehow I doubt whether he will ever tame his notorious short fuse.

Pardon me, but will you please take care of my CO2 emissions?

I've always been sceptical about carbon offset schemes. Buying offsets is rather like jumping on a kind of carbon carousel, which bounces the emissions responsibility elsewhere. I spoke with Richard Dyer, transport and climate change campaigner for Friends Of The Earth earlier this week and he told me that carbon offsetting is just an excuse to carry on usual behaviour because you've 'done your bit'.

It transpires that one of the very first travel agencies to introduce a carbon offsetting programme, Responsible Travel in the UK, has now become one of the first to discontinue such a scheme. In announcing their decision, they said that offsetting was distracting tourists from a need to act responsibly and amounted to nothing more than a kind of medieval pardon.

I couldn't agree more. Paying for offsets will never be anything other than a mechanism for either the wealthy or the guilty to sign cheques for someone else to undertake 'green' projects on their behalf. Bravo to Responsible Travel.

Rumours of Ryanair's demise are exaggerated

So, the CEO of Germanwings, Thomas Winkelmann, believes that Ryanair will ultimately fail as it does not attract the corporate market (interviewed in Travelmole on 28 October).

I am sorry, Herr Winkelmann, you are wrong! If Ryanair ever fails, it will either be due to an accident or a total collapse of customer service. The Germanwings chief implies that failure to attract the corporate market is the Achilles Heel of the strategy. Frankly, it the the corporate market that has been shaky in the crisis.

Herr Winkelmann states, "taxpayers in destinations should not have to bear the brunt of Ryanair's business model." OK, I can see the point that taxpayers do apparently foot the bill for subsidies allegedly paid to Ryanair at certain destinations, but this ignores the point that Ryanair's presence has had an enormous positive impact on local economies throughout Europe.

Let's consider this: Germanwings is owned by Lufthansa, and I seem to recall that Juergen Weber, a former CEO of the German national carrier, was convinced that travellers prefer to pay extra for better service. Well, that proved to be completely wrong too. It may be the case that Ryanair is the airline that everyone likes to hate, but their CEO, Michael O'Leary, hit the spot when he declared that Europeans are prepared to crawl naked over broken glass for cheap fares.

Green report card: Making progress but could do better

Last week ICAO staged a 'High Level Meeting' in Montreal in an attempt to get some ducks in order before the long-awaited climate conference in Copenhagen in December. There was no particular surprise that delegates rubber-stamped a 2% per annum fuel efficiency improvement target, which effectively means an extrapolation of what the industry has already been doing for many years. But at least this is more stringent than the airline industry's self-imposed efficiency target of 1.5%. However, beyond that, there was some disappointment. The ICAO delegates' Declaration talked about a further 'aspirational' goal of 2% from 2021 to 2050, plus some weak talk about supporting the use of biofuels and a need to develop an economic framework. There was no mention of carbon neutral growth from 2020, or a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 compared to 2005, which is what the industry has imposed upon itself.

So, in summary, we have a situation where the industry has set tougher targets than their regulating states, who appear content to see the airlines forge ahead with a net growth in CO2 emissions.

ICAO will have another go at debating the issue at their Assembly in September 2010. Meanwhile, the spectre of a fragmenting patchwork of regional and national schemes still hangs over the industry.

As always, it's hard to be green these days.