It’s not just down to differing definitions and here I show my scars of countless ICAO/EUROSTAT (and IATA) stats meetings trying to get statistical definitions harmonised between differing organisations so that even the definition of a revenue passenger was the same across the board.
I frequently had problems at meetings with differences in the system financial results that IATA published in World Air Transport Statistics and the Form EF-1 results published by ICAO because of definitional aspects like non airline activities etc etc etc.
You have to remember that IATA is a trade association and there to represent and lobby on behalf of its members. It does not represent all carriers and given that people like Easyjet, Ryanair and Southwest are not members (although FR was for some years) it probably represents less of the industry now than it did ten years ago.
Back in the late 80s the IATA Director General was Gunter Eser and he would not allow the IATA PR people to release any negative publicity about the airline industry unless it was absolutely necessary and everything had to go through his office for approval before public release. The next DG Pierre Jeanniot was more reasonable but his successor Bisignani is a different kettle of finish altogether for reasons I wont go into here but it is noticeable that these results were issued just before the IATA AGM in Berlin this week.
The beauty of IATA financial stats in the days when I compiled them was that the most widely used statistic could not be tied up against anything else that was published – quarterly financial statistics for international scheduled services. ICAO didn’t collect this stuff and airlines did not break down costs and revenues in their annual reports, so who could prove our figures wrong?
Sign In
