NewsRecord Weekly Publication

Friendly Observer

By Arthur Keefe

Good, honest service

                Modern airline transport is generally very good. Prices are reasonable and the service is normally very good. Why then are their frequent criticisms, especially from those flying often? It is partly a change in the business model used by airlines, but not yet matched by a change in passenger expectations, and partly an issue of honesty and transparency (or the lack of it) by many airlines.

                Firstly, the business model. Until quite recently, flying was the preserve of the wealthy or an occasional treat for the rest of us. Consequently, we expected to be cosseted in the air. to be treated like royalty with free food and drink and attentive stewards at our back and call. This was what the airlines delivered, but at a price. As long as the model persisted, flying would remain the preserve of a minority.

                The pioneers began breaking this tradition by eliminating these costly frills and reducing their prices. Freddie Lacker instituted the "Skytrain" between the USA and the UK, followed by Easy Jet and Ryan Aiur in Europe, and Air Asia, Tiger, and Cebu Pacific more recently in Asia.

                Their model was essentially to redefine flying as similar to catching a train or a bus, the sole purpose of which was to take you from point A to B as cheaply and safely as possible. Anything extra was chargeable, food, drinks, head phones, etc. as most flights in Europe (or in the Philippines) take under two hours, the basic services hardly constitutes a hardship. The public have generally accepted the no-frills service due to the saving cost. These no-frills airlines now dominate the market in Europe and Asia. However, even the no-frills principle has its limitations. Michael O'Leary, the MD of Irish Airline Ryan Aiur (now the biggest in Europe), has a reputation for treating his passengers like cattle, and has now proposed removing one of the two toilets and charging P 70 for use of the other. This would provide for two extra seats. The public (who at first thought this was a joke) were outraged, and the proposal has been put on ice!

                For long haul flights, the model is less attractive, as sitting in a metal tube for over 10 hours needs some comfort and the model has made limited in roads. As a regular uses of the excellent service by Qatar, I am very disappointed that they have withdrawn their service to Cebu.

                This brings me to one of the more serious problems for the industry in the Philippines. I was staggered to read in one of the national newspapers, that the staffing at Manila airport (including customs and immigration) is based on only one shift from eight in the morning to five in the afternoon. As the airport operates for 20 hours a day, all the extra hours are paid for at overtime rates, with these costs being passed to the airlines. Whether this applies at other airports such as Cebu I do not know, but Qatar claimed that local operating costs were a major reason for abandoning its flights.

                There are now no direct flights from Europe to Manila, as Lufthansa and KLM have recently stopped, and PAL and BA both stopped many years ago.

                How on earth can such an expensive inefficient operation at the airport be tolerated? The adverse impact on tourism and business of deterring such flights must be huge. Who are the beneficiaries? The workers, the management? Certainly not the country's economy or the passengers who pay higher charges on their tickets.

                Finally, airlines seek to present their fares in the best light. The practice of advertising headlines fares which are doubled by the end of the booking process has been outlawed in Europe. The flight must be available at the price specified, and any extras must be optional. The airlines try to bend the rules, but are then fined!

                Here, there is no such control. I recently booked a fare on PhilAir Express, advertised as P 650, but actually costs

P 1,300 with no options. Still reasonable, but not the advertised fare. Terminal fees are additional to this. I have booked Cebu Pacific fares advertised as one peso but actually costs

P 1,000.

                There is no excuse for such blatant dishonesty. The real fare is reasonable and unlikely to deter travelers, who simply feel cheated.

                Let's have a "truth advertising" laws which tells people exactly what the details or the cost of a product is. Quack medicines, inflated money lending interest rates, etc would also be caught by the same net. As ever, of course, enforcement would be the key to its success.

                I will not hold my breath!