Originally posted by Saab 2000
Well the need for a more business like approach to aviation is obviously well overdue; 9/11 was just a catalyst. In other businesses such a financial crisis would have sparked off larger businesses taking advantage of economies of scale and the weakest going under. In aviation you have a totally contrasting idea.
In Europe it is well regarded that a national carrier is a symbol of a State’s infrastructure and identity. An airline might be emblazoned with a national flag, which links the world to that particular country and capital. So from this, due to pride, we see states continuously bailing out flag carriers and political opposition givimg a country a national carrier. Again it is a case of redefining “nationality,” which many countries are uneasy to do.
But I think now though that now governments realize the need for consolidation, they are easing the path. The relaxation of ownership laws and bilateral agreements will no doubt help with greater emphasis on existing airline alliances. You would point to large alliances such as Star or Oneworld taking advantage of partners and taking stakes in them. For example, LH’s relationships with LOT, SAS and Austrian grow and they are turned into feeder services with excess capacity going straight to one major hub at FRA.
I mean, in Europe you have one country having one national airline with an over-inflated network. This doesn’t work anymore, why not have three or four major airlines (I point to the large EU players of France, Germany and the UK here) who merge with other airlines or take them over? AF/KL, BA/IB etc, are just other examples with Swiss’ entry into Onworld possibly being a backward step.
agreed there totally. The national airline is a countrys symbol that also represent the country on its international routes. Seeing so many of them go down like this is sad. Specialy KLM, worlds second oldest airline.
Sign In
