Feb 20th 2012, 17:35 by N.B. | WASHINGTON, D.C.
AMERICA'S Transportation Security Administration is expanding its programme to pre-screen certain passengers and speed them through airport security a bit faster. The TSA has been working to make airports easier for certain pre-screened passengers for years now. But this latest expansion suggests that the programme could finally attain real scale and have an impact on the lives and commutes of a significant number of business travellers.
Over the course of 2012, the agency plans to extend its "Pre-Check" programme to 28 of America's busiest airports, including all three of Washington, DC's major airports, Dulles, BWI, and Reagan; New York City's LaGuardia and JFK airports; Philadelphia, San Francisco, and even Chicago's giant O'Hare.
Previously, the pre-check programme—which allows passengers to keep their shoes, belts and sweaters on and their bag of liquids and their laptop in their bag—was only available at seven US airports. The TSA says that 336,000 passengers "have already been screened through a TSA Pre✓™ lane," but that's not a particularly large number compared with the millions of passengers most large airports handle in the course of a year.
The airports that will be included by the end of this year handle a huge chunk of US domestic flights. Many more business travellers will have access to the pre-check programme, which can significantly speed up the security process. You do have to be an elite frequent flyer on Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines or US Airways, but I would wager that many American business travellers already are. (You could also be a member of the US government's "trusted traveller" programme, which has the added is bonus of speeding up border crossings.)
After Pre✓ (a trial for any typist) expands to Washington's airports, I will sign up, test it out and report back. In the meantime, FareCompare's Rick Seaney has a pretty positive review.
Feb 19th 2012, 20:48 by N.B. | WASHINGTON, D.C.
MARTIN O'MALLEY, the Democratic governor of Maryland and former mayor of Baltimore, is sometimes spoken of as a contender for his party's presidential nomination in 2016. It's probably to Mr O'Malley's advantage that David Simon, the creator of the legendary HBO police series The Wire, has argued that Mr O'Malley is one of the inspirations for the show's character Tommy Carcetti, a Baltimore city councilman who eventually becomes mayor of the city and governor of the state. But presidential speculation and parallels to fictional politicians aren't the only things putting Mr O'Malley in the national spotlight these days. He's drawing praise from the left for planning to increase Maryland's petrol tax.
In America, petrol taxes are often earmarked to pay for road, highway and other infrastructure improvements. But like many states, Maryland does not index its petrol tax to inflation, so over time, the real value of the tax has fallen. Mr O'Malley's plan would phase in a 6% sales tax on top of the existing 23.5 cents-per-gallon tax and gradually replenish Maryland's Transportation Trust Fund. The governor also wants to make it harder for future lawmakers to remove money from the trust fund to pay for other priorities or fill budget gaps.
Public-transport advocates, environmentalists wanting higher taxes so people will drive less, and lefty bloggers all seem happy with the plan. But Mr O'Malley's proposal has even drawn praise from the New York Times editorial board, the institutional voice of a certain subset of America's centre-left. Why the hooting and hollering? America's liberals are happy to finally see some politician, anywhere, argue for new, broad-based taxes to pay for government priorities. Even Barack Obama says he only wants to tax the rich. Mr O'Malley's tax would hit everyone who drives. Don't think that this signals the end to America's tax revolt—far from it. But Mr O'Malley makes a compelling case for why reinvestment might require more broad-based tax increases. America's infrastructure is crumbling. It will cost money to fix it—and delaying maintenance and postponing key projects will only cost taxpayers more in the long run.
Feb 17th 2012, 14:03 by A.B.
UMAR FAROUK ABDULMUTALLAB, the "underwear bomber" who attempted to blow up a Detroit-bound jet on Christmas Day 2009, has been sentenced to life in prison without chance of parole.
Mr Abdulmutallab tried to detonate explosives hidden in his underpants, but succeeded only in burning himself before he was subdued by other passengers. When his trial started in October he pleaded guilty to eight charges, including conspiracy to commit terrorism, attempted murder and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction.
The presiding judge, Nancy Edmunds, said Mr Abdulmutallab “poses a significant ongoing threat to U.S. citizens everywhere.” The defendant's lawyers had pleaded in vain for a reduced term on the grounds that the detonation hurt nobody apart from their client. "Not one passenger lost his or her life," one said. "Not one passenger suffered life-threatening injuries."
Mr Abdulmutallab was already on the radar of US agencies before the attack, but had not specifically been placed on a no-fly list, despite warnings his family had made to the American embassy in Nigeria. Barack Obama pointed out that it was not a failure of intelligence-gathering that allowed Mr Abdulmutallab to board the plane: America had possessed “sufficient information” to uncover the plot but “failed to connect those dots”.
Feb 16th 2012, 17:26 by A.B.
WHAT do European business travellers want? More leg room. When do they want it? On every flight. This is one of the findings of a new survey by Egencia, Expedia's corporate travel site. When asked how a flight could be improved the 900 corporate travellers consulted revealed a definite preference for extra leg room, followed by the avoidance of the middle seat and access to the front of the security queue.
The survey also reveals that, as far as business travellers are concerned, Paris Charles de Gaulle is the friendliest European airport, airport security is the pet peeve, and the hotel swimming pool is the luxury most likely to be used during a trip.
These are not extraordinary discoveries, it's true. But there is some comfort to be drawn from the knowledge that all travellers shares the same, essentially prosaic concerns. Read the whole report.
Feb 16th 2012, 14:16 by P.C.
IN THE early 2000s it looked a safe bet that the turboprop was on its way out, as far as airlines were concerned. Planes with jet engines were faster, more comfortable and somehow more modern-looking than ones with whirly things on the wings. Embraer, Brazil’s aircraftmaker, stopped making its EMB-120 Brasília and went over entirely to producing jets.
But now, even as regional airlines continue to phase out their older turboprops, a new generation of planes with propellers is taking off. ATR, a European maker of turboprops that is jointly owned by Airbus’s parent EADS and Finmeccanica of Italy, had a record year last year, winning firm orders for 157 planes and options for a further 79. Like Airbus and Boeing it now has an order book stretching years ahead. And like the bigger planemakers it is ramping up its output to meet the demand: in 2005, the turboprop’s darkest hour, ATR made just 15 of them. Last year it made 53, this year it is aiming to make more than 70, and in 2014 it wants to turn out 85.
ATR’s big order from Kingfisher seems to have gone pear-shaped in recent weeks as the Indian airline’s financial troubles have worsened. But this week the planemaker signed a big deal with Wings Air of Indonesia, which will eventually have a fleet of 60 ATR turboprops, of which 40 will be its latest model, the 72-600 (pictured), which seats up to 74.
Feb 13th 2012, 17:43 by A.B.
ZURICH has replaced Tokyo as the most expensive city in the world, according to the latest survey of the Worldwide Cost of Living from the Economist Intelligence Unit. Today's chart of the day contains a pretty graphic and an explanation.
Feb 13th 2012, 15:22 by N.B. | WASHINGTON, D.C.
THE ECONOMIST has long accepted the scientific consensus that the world is warming and that this warming is being caused by carbon-dioxide emissions from human activity. Climate scientists generally believe that avoiding potentially catastrophic warming will require massive cuts in emissions. The world has generally failed to agree on such cuts, and The Economist now believes "a dash to stay under 2°C [of average temperature increase] is no longer plausible."
Some scientists and activists believe that a concentration of over 350 parts-per-million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could lead to feedback loops (the release of methane from Arctic permafrost, for example) that could make warming almost impossible to stop. But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believes the right number is 450 ppm. Achieving that target, as David Roberts of the environmental news website Grist explained last year, is a "gobsmackingly gargantuan challenge":
It turns out, to get on a trajectory to hit 450 ppm, we’re going to need to turn off most of our fossil fuel energy, end deforestation, and build about 11.5 new terawatts of clean energy capacity by 2033 (30 years out from the 2003 baseline).
Mr Roberts goes on to highlight a series of remarkable charts and graphs from Saul Griffith, an inventor. Mr Griffith estimates that, in order to meet the 450 ppm target, the world will have to build 100 square metres of photovoltaic solar cells (with 15% efficiency and good siting, naturally) every second for the next 25 years. Also, one 100m diameter wind turbine every five minutes and one 3-gigawatt nuclear plant every week. The list goes on. You can see why The Economist is pessimistic about avoiding 2°C of warming.
Joe Romm, a prominent (and controversial) American climate activist, asks an important question: what will happen to air travel if we do eventually decide to (or have to) drastically cut carbon emissions? Clearly, jet-fuel-powered air travel would have to be reduced, and would become more expensive. Will more airlines try biofuels? That's certainly been a result of the European Union's emissions-trading scheme. It's worth noting that applying even the EU's modest (when compared with what the likes of Mr Roberts and Mr Griffith are calling for) emissions limits to airlines has been deeply controversial. But even biofuels are of somewhat dubious environmental benefit. It's a vexing problem.
My favourite vision (although I pray it doesn't come true... and don't really expect it to) of the future of air travel is from Paolo Bacigalupi, whose novel The Windup Girl won the Hugo and Nebula awards, the highest honours in science fiction, after it was published in 2009. Mr Bacigalupi's book takes place in 23rd-century Thailand, after Earth has been ravaged by the destructive consequences (notably huge floods and massive crop failures) of catastrophic climate change. In Mr Bacigalupi's world, airships—or zeppelins, if you prefer—rule the skies. Air travel is slower, more dangerous, and a lot more expensive than it is now. Whatever you think of the science of climate change, I think we can all agree we don't want that.
Feb 12th 2012, 21:19 by N.B. | WASHINGTON, D.C.
SALON's Will Doig had a nice piece last week riffing off a common theme: why does it take so long and cost so much for America to complete infrastructure projects when China seems to complete them in mere months for a fraction of the cost?
On Dec. 31, the Chinese capital opened a new subway line and greatly expanded two others. This year it plans to open four more. A total of eight new lines are under construction. The city started expanding the system in the run-up to the 2008 Olympics, and has kept pushing forward ever since. In 2001 it had 33 miles of track. Today it has 231.
Meanwhile, when you hear the completion dates for big U.S. transit projects you often have to calculate your age to figure out if you’ll still be alive. Los Angeles’s Westside subway extension is set to be finished in 2036. Just five years ago, New York’s Second Avenue Subway was supposed to be done by 2020, a goal that seems laughable now.
The sub-headline of Mr Doig's story promises suggestions for dealing with this problem, but the actual article focuses more on explaining why infrastructure projects take so much longer in America than they do in China. Bureaucracy, lack of money, politics and potential interference with existing infrastructure are the most convincing explanations he offers, although mismanagement and America's deeper concern for things like private property rights and working conditions surely play a role, too.
The Atlantic's David Lepeska has some related thoughts on why New York's Second Avenue subway line, which won't be completed for years, is costing $1.7 billion per kilometre. He notes that such high-priced transport is not endemic in America: Washington, DC's Silver Line is considerably cheaper per kilometre (partly because much of it is being built above ground) and light-rail projects in Minneapolis and Denver were comparative bargains.
Slate's Matt Yglesias, meanwhile, argues that Mr Doig and others who compare New York's subway costs with China's are missing the point. "The real issue Americans should be pondering is why our big infrastructure projects are so much slower and more costly than comparable projects in Europe or Japan," he writes. After all, "even expensive projects in big, old, rich cities like London and Amsterdam come in far cheaper than a New York subway project."
This is indeed the right question to be asking, but the answers don't come easily. American politicians often blame labour unions, but these are generally stronger in Europe than in the US. Benjamin Kabak, a blogger whom Mr Lepeska recommends, offers some theories. Alon Levy, a blogger whom we've linked to before, has a particularly interesting idea: he thinks the business culture and organisational structure of New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority could be part of the problem. Mr Levy says the MTA's in-house team managing infrastructure projects is probably too small and the agency could be too reliant on outside consultants.
I've always been an advocate of expanding public transport in America, and critics of the Second Avenue project and similar jobs too often ignore important metrics like costs per projected passenger. But there's no doubt that America pays too much for its subway projects. There aren't any easy answers, but pro-transport politicians and activists need to confront the problem, and journalists need to acknowledge it. It's good to see people like Mr Levy and Mr Lepeska taking the first steps.
Feb 10th 2012, 18:03 by A.B
TWO pieces in this week's Economist merit particular attention from aviation enthusiasts. "Fasten your seat belts" examines plans for the privatising of Guarulhos, São Paulo's main international airport, together with two other facilities. And in the Business section, a correspondent in Hong Kong considers China's objections to the European Union's plan for controlling greenhouse-gas emissions from aeroplanes.
Feb 10th 2012, 12:37 by M.R.
THE grounding of Malev, Hungary’s national carrier, shows once again how Eastern European countries are struggling to fly their flags around the world. According to a report from CAPA, Hungary is now expected to follow Slovakia in switching to a predominantly low-cost carrier (LCC) market. The report notes that, prior to Malev's bankruptcy, LCCs accounted for just 24% of capacity in Hungary, compared with more than 70% for its neighbour to the north. That figure shot up to 40% overnight, and with Ryanair circling covetously above will only rise further.
But there are few positive signs for Eastern Europe's older airlines. Slovakia has a high LCC penetration because it abandoned its flag carrier in 2007. Lithuania did the same thing two years later, while Latvia clung onto its national airline, but only by marketing it as a pseudo-LCC with pan-Baltic aspirations—baffling analysts, and perhaps government financiers, in the process. Poland and Romania seem no more confident in their flag carriers, beating paths to Turkey, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates for financial backing and feed-in traffic. While none would admit it, they are all perilously close to their own Malev moment.
Malev itself stopped flying after its suppliers, spooked by an EU ruling that the airline return $390m in state aid, demanded up-front payment for their services. However, this was much more than a cashflow problem. Hungary, like others, was styling itself as an upcoming East-to-West hub. It had noticed that the Gulf's three big carriers—Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways—were scooping up intercontinental traffic at an extraordinary pace. It had noticed, too, the response of the legacy carriers in Western Europe. Nursing hangovers from years of operational profligacy, they had retreated to their hubs and were abandoning routes to Eastern Europe. Hungary needed to hit back.
Malev's strategy was to develop its home base (Budapest Liszt Ferenc airport) as a regional hub with spokes extending across Europe, sustained by transit traffic from its partners in the oneworld alliance and elsewhere. The model was remarkably similar to the ones currently pursued by Poland, Romania, Slovenia and the Czech Republic—all of whom want to become the region's dominant hub. But while axing unprofitable long-haul routes was sensible, Malev found it no easier making money in the short-haul sector. The Hungarian market is simply too small, saddling operators with low occupancy rates and punishingly high overheads. Whenever a new route became viable it was swooped on by LCCs like Wizz Air.
Sadly, the contraction of Malev's route network is now being mimicked across the region. TAROM, the Romanian flag carrier, has also scrapped long-haul routes, leaving it with less capacity than the three LCCs parked up at Bucharest's secondary Baneasa airport. Flight movements in Ukrainian airspace have increased six-fold since 1993, and yet traffic among domestic operators has only doubled. LOT, the Polish flag carrier, may have fared better, preserving long-haul connections and inching closer to a deal with Turkish Airlines. But Istanbul, like its insatiable Gulf rivals, is spoilt for choice. It has also been courted by Slovenia's Adria Airways, Bosnia and Herzegovina's B&H Airlines, and CSA Czech Airlines. Even if there is room for another European hub connecting Asia to the Americas, the trouble is everyone wants it on their turf.
Hanging a 40,000-foot curtain
The options on the table for Eastern Europe's flag carriers are worryingly limited. Let's generously presume two succeed in their stated hub goals, securing catchment areas large enough to hoover up transit traffic from bordering countries. What, then, of the rest? The transport ministers of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia recently mulled over one solution—a shared Baltic carrier for all three countries, akin to Scandinavia's SAS or Central America's TACA—but their plan quickly hit political rocks. A wider point-to-point alliance across the entire bloc would be even harder to negotiate. And in its absence, notwithstanding modest operational gains from new regional jets, the LCC vultures will continue circling. The next time you complain about your American or Western European legacy airline, spare a thought for those who face the real prospect of flying with Ryanair as their national carrier.
Feb 7th 2012, 16:35 by I.C.
THE seven-year backlog of orders at both Airbus and Boeing is one of the factors changing the nature of the competition between the two aircraft-manufacturers and with their emerging rivals, notably in Canada and China. So clogged up are the Big Two's factories that airlines are starting to hedge their bets by splitting orders. Thus Norwegian, a low-cost carrier, and American Airlines recently opted to buy both Airbus A320s and Boeing 737s. Hitherto the conventional wisdom has been that having one type of aircraft yielded massive economies of scale, from the size of the order through to commonality of parts and the simplicity of servicing a uniform fleet. But these recent split purchases demonstrate fresh thinking that economies of scale are limited. An analysis of the changing market by Addison Schonland and his colleagues at the Air Insight consultancy points out that with fleet sizes beyond 50 aircraft the economies start to peter out. They suggest that the winner-takes-all orders for narrow-body planes could become a thing of the past. "This bodes well for aircraft such as the C-series (from Bombardier) which has better economics than the competing A319neo or 737-7Max," went the analysis.
Another reason for airlines to hedge their bets is the pattern of delays to new aircraft, such as the widebodies—from the Airbus A380, through the Boeing 787 (or 7Late7, as wags call it), to the Airbus A350, which has joined the others in the naughty corner after its launch date was delayed last year. As the 787 slipped further and further behind schedule, Airbus's workhorse A330 found its way into many hitherto all Boeing fleets of widebodies. It looks as though airlines are learning more about how to play the two members of the duopoly off against each other, and in the process are fragmenting the market in a way that encourages new entrants, such as the Canadians and their Chinese friends in Comac. This pair look like leading the new competition in the full-size jetliner market. The rising tide that floats all boats seems to apply even at 35,000 feet.
Feb 7th 2012, 10:20 by A.H. | TORONTO
AT ANY randomly selected point, one in 12 airline passengers in the United States is using a tablet computer or e-reader. That's one of the findings reported in a new study on the use of electronic devices on aeroplanes, trains and buses by the Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development at DePaul University in Chicago. The study also found that tablets such as iPads, Kindles and Nooks account for nearly 30% of all technology used on commercial flights, compared with 13.5% and 12.9% on intercity trains and curbside buses, respectively.
Overall, technology use on airlines increased 23.2% between 2010 and 2011, proportionately faster than between 2009 and 2010, but it still trails usage rates on trains and buses, which have developed more tech-friendly environments. For example, free Wi-Fi has been available on Amtrak's Acela high-speed trains since 2010, and some intercity buses in the US have seat-side power outlets and mini-workstations in addition to free Wi-Fi.
The study notes that the number of Wi-Fi-equipped planes has dramatically increased in the US. Almost 80% of Delta Air Lines flights were thus equipped in 2011, compared to 38% of American Airlines flights and 34% at Southwest Airlines, but those amenities are paid for. Delta is currently offering a 24-hour pass for a special rate of $11.65. The study also adds that many airlines are now installing power outlets and work stations in terminal areas.
In general—and to no great surprise—technology usage was higher on business-oriented flights (29.9%) than on pleasure-oriented ones (25.0%). Although researchers said more study is needed to better understand the difference between the types of flights, it's pretty clear tablet devices are increasingly being used by business travellers in place of notebook computers, which seem cumbersome by comparison, and audio-only devices.
What does it mean for the airlines? The study concludes that “with so many people bringing their movies, music, and news programmes with them, the need for centralised entertainment systems is gradually declining.” How long before airlines catch on and do away with the cost of such systems? Pity the poor unconnected passenger.
Feb 6th 2012, 18:07 by P.C.
DESPITE hostility from many foreign governments and airlines the European Union last month went ahead and introduced a requirement for airlines to buy permits to cover the carbon-dioxide emissions of all flights into and out of European airports, including the portion of those flights that is outside EU airspace. China was one of the states most vehemently opposed to Europe's unilateral imposition of this "carbon tax" and today the Chinese official news agency Xinhua said the government had banned the country's airlines both from buying permits and from adding supplements to their ticket prices to cover their cost. In theory the EU could now ban Chinese airlines from European airspace, possibly triggering a horrendous global trade war. But in practice the airlines have until early next year to account for this year's emissions, so there is still plenty of time for negotiation. It will be interesting to see who blinks first.
No doubt the Chinese airlines will in public uphold the party line, and continue to protest at being included in Europe's emissions-trading scheme (ETS). However, they may privately be looking with envy at the rest of the world's carriers, which are free to start adding ETS surcharges to their ticket prices. To explain why, here are some rough calculations that Andrew Charlton of Aviation Advocacy, a consultancy, has made about Ryanair's new ETS supplement of 25 euro-cents per passenger per flight.
Continue reading "Green taxes—a nice little earner for some"»
Feb 6th 2012, 11:18 by N.B. | WASHINGTON, D.C.
GULLIVER isn't normally prone to posting cover images from publications other than The Economist, but last week's Bloomberg Businessweek effort deserves comment. Also, Josh Tyrangiel, the magazine's editor, says the cover is a tribute to "Marvin Gaye, Airplane, and vintage Economist" (the second cover here is probably the one he was thinking about).
Phwoar! In case you don't get it, or can't see the image due to some sort of naughty-content blocker, Businessweek's cover shows two aeroplanes, one Continental-branded and one United, "getting it on". It's quite clever, if a bit fratty. The cover story isn't bad either. But the Atlantic Wire takes readers where they most want to go: inside the design process that led to this image. Here's how Richard Turley, Businessweek's creative director, explained it:
Generally speaking it's just me and Josh Tyrangiel, the editor. We're generally very informal. I don't know if you know the geography of the office but we sit literally opposite each other and that enables us to talk and not to have meetings. The cover conversations happen quite quickly. Sometimes that's a product of our proximity. Sometimes we just email a bit and say something and come up with an idea. Josh comes up with a lot of the cover ideas. It was Josh who said, "How about planes having sex for the cover?" And I was like "YES."
Now you know. The Economist called the United-Continental merger "less exciting than it sounds", which is almost too good to be true. I can only assume our follow-up will say the merger is also less exciting than Businessweek makes it look. Gawker's Ryan Tate is a bit more critical of Businessweek's design.
Feb 5th 2012, 17:19 by N.B. | WASHINGTON, D.C.
GULLIVER often covers weird and dangerous things that people try to bring on planes. But this week in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employee found something particularly strange in a checked bag. Sitting in a diver's suitcase, encased in coral, was a late-18th-century cannonball. You might not think a cannonball that's been underwater for several centuries would be dangerous, but the TSA disagrees. Here's the agency's blogger-cum-spokesman, Bob Burns:
It was determined that the coral covered cannonball was explosively viable which triggered an evacuation of the checked baggage area and a visit from a TSA explosives specialist and a Broward County bomb tech. Cannonballs found on the ocean floor can retain their explosives and have been known to detonate on their own. The bomb tech took possession of the item for further identification, diagnostics, and safe disposal.
Nearly 300 people were affected by the resulting delays.
The TSA was probably right in this case. I'm surprised anyone would think that the agency would allow the bringing of any sort of explosive device, even a centuries-old one, onto a plane. It seems crazy to imagine that an 18th-century cannonball might still explode, but absent more information, I'm not going to second-guess the people charged with evaluating the safety of such things.
I'm interested to find out how the diver in question obtained the cannonball. But the broader issue is that he probably had several better options for getting his prize home. As Lifehacker notes in its "Top 10 Ways to Travel Smarter and Cheaper" (which Gulliver wholeheartedly recommends), you can often ship souvenirs home in the post. Even if the postal service, Federal Express or UPS wouldn't take the cannonball, the diver probably could have hired a courier to bring it home for him. That would cost a pretty penny, but at least he'd still have it. After all, archaeologists and museums have to have some way to get cannonballs and the like back to their facilities for study. I suspect "in their checked baggage, without notifying the airline or TSA" isn't the best option.
Feb 3rd 2012, 18:41 by P.C.
THE future of Malev, Hungary’s 66-year-old national flag-carrier, has looked bleak since the European Commission ruled last month that government aid it had received between 2007 and its renationalisation in 2010 was illegal and must be repaid. The deeply indebted airline had no way of paying the money back and indeed was relying on continuing state backing to keep going while a buyer was sought. Early on Friday it ceased flying after the government—which is suffering a debt crisis of its own—decided to stop financing it.
Viktor Orban, the prime minister, said that restarting Malev was “not impossible”. Earlier this week the airline’s boss had used the same half-hearted phrase to express his hopes of reviving takeover talks with the Chinese state owners of Hainan Airlines. However, in the absence of a deep-pocketed rescuer, the loss of confidence an airline suffers on grounding its planes tends to prove fatal. Especially when, as in this case, stronger rivals immediately swoop in to grab its customers. Ryanair, which only ten days ago had announced plans to open five new routes out of Budapest airport, said on Friday that it would increase that to 31 routes, basing a fleet of brand-new Boeing 737-800s at Budapest from February 17th. Likewise Wizz Air, a Hungarian low-cost carrier, also said it would expand its Budapest schedules to fill the gaps left by Malev.
Feb 3rd 2012, 15:09 by A.B.
AIRPORT traffic in Europe grew 7.3% in 2011, according to new figures from the Airports Council International (ACI). Having said that, it makes more sense to compare 2011’s traffic with a 2010 figure that does not include the traffic-reducing effect of the volcanic ash cloud. In this scenario the increase in traffic in 2011 is only 5.2%.
Traffic grew more strongly in airports outside the European Union than those inside (12.2% v 6.3%). The slowdown in the euro zone was partly to blame for this discrepancy. For example, Athens saw the greatest drop in passenger numbers (-6.3%) out of the continent's 50 biggest airports, and—more alarmingly—its traffic dropped 10% year-on-year in December 2011.
Problems in the euro zone explain why Olivier Jankovec, the director general of ACI Europe, expects the region's traffic to be less impressive in 2012 than in 2011.
The odds are that 2012 will be a different story. Economies have come to a stand-still in many parts of Europe with the sovereign debt crisis, which is also having a ripple effect on growth prospects elsewhere. This will affect demand for air transport. At the same time, fuel costs and national aviation taxes are going to limit airlines ’ willingness to add capacity – a serious concern, especially for regional airports.
Heathrow remains the biggest airport in Europe, with over 69m passengers passing through in 2011. Amsterdam Schiphol, currently the continent's fourth-biggest airport, will overtake Heathrow in 2019 if both facilities continue to grow at the same rate as at present. (Given that Schiphol has five runways and Heathrow two, this particular changing of the order has an air of inevitability.)
At the other end of the scale, spare a thought for the least busy of ACI Europe's 168 member airports. Arad in Romania saw 1,124 passengers in 2011—an average of 22 a week. I guess its 300 parking spaces don't see too much use...
Feb 3rd 2012, 10:20 by A.B.
A COLLEAGUE travelled through India recently on the world's eighth-longest train ride. Four days on the Vivek Express took him from Dibrugarh, a scruffy town in a remote corner of Assam, down to the southernmost tip, at Kanyakumari.
Fellow passengers, of course, offer the most. A companion in your correspondent’s cabin, who boarded in Dibrugarh, rides all the way south to Kerala. He calls himself Mr Kamil, tells stories of being a trader in coconuts and “small things”, and of roaming the country for work over the past 27 years. After so long on the rails, he says he has learned much about his homeland. Such as? “India”, he leans over to reveal, “is very, very big”.
Feb 1st 2012, 17:27 by A.B.
TRIPADVISOR has been taken to task by Britain's advertising watchdog for using "misleading" wording on its website. In an adjudication released today, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) decreed that phrases such as "Reviews you can trust", "read reviews from real travellers", "TripAdvisor offers trusted advice from real travellers" and "More than 50 million honest travel reviews and opinions from real travellers around the world" breached two codes of the Committee of Advertising Practice.
The ASA says TripAdvisor's wording misleadingly implied that all its reviews were genuine. Reviewers are required to confirm that they are giving their own opinions, but since TripAdvisor does not verify the reviews, such declarations are open to abuse.
TripAdvisor admits that the site is not perfect. I spoke to Steve Kaufer, the CEO, a while ago about the scope for abuse and his rather phlegmatic response was: “One or two phoney reviews: who gives a shit?”. TripAdvisor has ways to weed out false reviews, and it gives wronged hotels a right of reply, but it still relies heavily on its users to think hard before accepting all content at face value.
The ASA does not think this works well enough:
We noted that TripAdvisor allowed hoteliers a ‘right of reply’ to critical or negative reviews posted on the site and that they believed that users of the site had a healthy scepticism as a result of their experience of review sites more generally. However, we did not consider that consumers would necessarily be able to detect and separate non-genuine reviews from genuine content, particularly where a hotel or other establishment had not received many reviews, and nor did we consider that a hotelier’s response in itself would go far enough to alert consumers to, and moderate, non-genuine content.
TripAdvisor actually changed some of the wording on its site some months ago. “Reviews you can trust” became “Reviews from our community” in September. But it has not removed its reviewers' ugliest excesses: the Telegraph notes the prevalence of descriptions of hotel staff as "homophobic" or "racist", suggesting that TripAdvisor is not pursuing its no-toleration policy against hate speech as assiduously as it should.
The ASA was acting on a complaint filed by KwikChex, which helps companies manage their online reputations, and two hotels. KwikChex wondered today why TripAdvisor can't do more to verify reviews, given that one of its subsidiaries' websites, Holiday Lettings, only takes opinions from people whose stays at the property in question have been authenticated.
TripAdvisor's response was: "we believe all travellers, not just the one individual who made the reservation or has the receipt, are entitled to share their honest feedback about where they have stayed. Requiring a proof of stay would dramatically reduce the number of reviews on the site, and we know from user feedback that our visitors value both the quantity and quality of the reviews available." That's fair enough, but if this really is TripAdvisor's approach, why does it require authentication for reviews on Holiday Lettings?
In response to the ASA's ruling, TripAdvisor pleaded a certain amount of helplessness. "The ASA upheld the complaints on the basis that we could not provide 100% certainty that that every single review on the site was written by a real traveller and could be trusted," the company wrote in a statement. "No system, verified or not, could provide this."
These strike me as reasonable defences. People enjoy using TripAdvisor because all the world is allowed to comment. Consequently, popular hotels have hundreds of reviews, and users can either wander around the sprawling site and read everything, or they can look at properties' average ratings for an overview. Yes TripAdvisor needs to be careful about excessive claims to genuineness; and it needs to be vigorous in responding to complaints from hotels. But if users of the site keep their brains fully engaged, they should have little bother benefiting from the wisdom of the travelling crowd.
Jan 31st 2012, 13:14 by A.B.
WHAT happens when you step off a plane in a foreign country and immigration officials refuse to let you in? If you’re Christopher Johnson, a Canadian journalist living in Japan whose story earned a great deal of interest recently, you end up on a flight to Vancouver after a rather harrowing experience in the basement of Narita airport.
The Japanese authorities refused to discuss the circumstances of Mr Johnson’s deportation when contacted by The Economist, but the country’s immigration service emerges with little credit for the manner of the deportation, even if the reasons for it are still murky.
Moving on to the point of this post, I want to research a wider piece on the way immigration officials in the developed world treat arriving foreigners whom they don’t want to allow in. More specifically, I would like to hear what happens when the foreigners being turned away reckon they have the right (and the correct paperwork) to be allowed in. If this has happened to you, please do share details of what happened in the comments or by email, if you want some privacy—and I may follow some stories up. I’d like to know what reasons were given for the denial of entry, how you were treated, why you think you were treated in this manner, and what the short- and long-term outcomes were.
Jan 31st 2012, 10:17 by N.B. | WASHINGTON, D.C.
DRINKERS of the world, today I'm pointing you to this blog post from the Atlantic's James Fallows, who offers what is probably my favourite travel tip of all time. It meets all the criteria for a great tip: it's not totally obvious, you don't see people doing it all the time, it saves you money, it can make travel a little more fun, and it offers some of the satisfaction most of us get from flouting authority just a wee bit. You can thank me (and Mr Fallows) later. Here you go:
As someone that enjoys a drink as much or more than the next guy (and is also frugalish), the fluids rules for flying were a huge bummer for me because it was my practice for morning flights to build myself a nice big bloody mary in a disposable bottle for consumption as I passed my way through the security apparatus and inevitable downtime before the flight. Rather a good deal compared to the pathetic offerings for top dollar otherwise available to travelers.
Which brings me to my travel tip: Minis (the tiny little liquor bottles) happen to fit into your TSA quart sized baggie and are perfectly legal to take through security. A bottle of OJ on the far side of the line and you're in screwdriver heaven. Although, please be discrete as the US still has insane open container laws.
Which brings me to my story: Not long after I figured out this loophole, I tossed my baggie full of minis in the x-ray bin and the TSA screener looked at them and gave me a broad grin and said, "Now there's a man 'at knows how to fly." To which I could only grin and nod in agreement.
Let's say it again: there's a man who knows how to fly. Dean Martin and Dylan Thomas would be proud.
Now, since America's Transportation Security Administration (TSA) hates fun and merriment and America's airlines probably don't want you bringing your own drinks on board when you could be buying from them, it's important to be discreet about this travel tip. Don't bring 20 minis on the plane, get drunk, try to open the door mid-flight, and ruin it for everyone else. As they say in the adverts, please drink responsibly.
But if you follow the rules, this tip should allow you to mix your aeroplane drinks just how you like them (even in coach!) and save a few dollars, too. Until 2005, bizarre laws made South Carolina the world capital of miniature liquor bottles. In 2012, thanks to Mr Fallows's tip and the TSA's three-ounce rule, aircraft might take the title. Prost!
Jan 30th 2012, 11:00 by N.B. | WASHINGTON, D.C.
EASYJET, Europe's second-largest discount airline, surprised analysts last week by posting better-than-expected results for the fourth quarter of 2011. Revenue rose 16.7% to £763m ($1.19 billion) and passenger numbers increased over 8% to nearly 13m. Revenue per seat, an industry benchmark, was up 7.7%. As Reuters notes, much of the growth was driven by business travel:
Last year, easyJet agreed a string of deals aimed at giving it a larger share of the business travel market.
The airline said some 200,000 more business passengers flew with the carrier in the quarter year-on-year, despite a general decline in business travel.
That seems like good news for the airline and Carolyn McCall, who took over as CEO in March 2010. And it's not surprising that business travel is at least partially driving easyJet's better results—many airlines are dependent on business travel for their bottom lines.
But all is not well at easyJet: Stelios Haji-Ioannou, who founded the company and still owns the plurality of its shares, is not happy. He says easyJet has exaggerated how much business-travel bookings have helped it, and argues that the airline is paying its executives far too much. Mr Haji-Ioannou has been battling easyJet's board for years—in addition to the pay dispute, he's also upset about its aeroplane-acquisition strategy. The Guardian (which is owned by a company that Ms McCall once ran) has one of the better explanations of Mr Haji-Ioannou's complaints about executive pay:
The easyGroup entrepreneur, who has waged an on-off conflict with the carrier over a range of subjects since 2008, said directors were in line for share awards of around £8m over the next three years.
The shares were issued to 10 executives under the company's long term incentive plan this month and will pay out if the airline meets what Stelios described as a "phoney" return on capital employed (ROCE), a measure of how efficiently a business invests its capital.
"The gravy train has gone wild at EZJ ... we must stop it," said Stelios. He believes the way easyJet calculates ROCE delivers a figure three times higher than the rate of return using a different method of calculation.
As you can see, even one of the better explanations of the issue leaves much open to dispute. But this much seems clear: ongoing boardroom chaos can't possibly be good for easyJet. Stock-price increases in recent weeks are a sign the markets think the company was undervalued. But turmoil at the top will eventually trickle down, and three years is a long time for a board to bicker, especially so publicly. As The Economist wrote when this fight first broke out in 2008, "There is never a good time to have a full-blown boardroom brawl in public." It's past time for Mr Haji-Ioannou and the rest of the board to sort out their differences. It's hard to imagine easyJet's other shareholders are thrilled about the company continuing to be an object of media drama.
Jan 26th 2012, 18:28 by A.B.
AN ARTICLE in this week's Economist looks at Boeing and its struggles to fill its orders.
At Boeing’s Renton factory near Seattle the existing version of the 737 is now being turned out at a record rate of 35 a month, after a recent speeding-up of the two assembly lines. At the front of assembly line number one, a plane destined for flydubai, an airline that can’t afford capital letters, is ready to roll. Behind it is the latest addition to Ryanair’s huge fleet of 737s, which has just had its engines fitted. Next, a Korean Air plane which is about to receive rows of seats; then an Azerbaijan Airlines jet, its toilet cubicles lined up alongside ready for installation. The plan is to increase the production rate further, to 42 a month by 2014. Fortunately, there is space to squeeze a third assembly line into the giant hangar.
Jan 25th 2012, 17:41 by I.C.
HERE'S a traveller's tale that belies the woes of the euro zone and highlights the difference between sturdy northern Europe and struggling economies below the olive belt. When Europe's largest ever aircraft order comes from a carrier few outside the Nordic countries have heard of, it is time to take notice. Norwegian Air Shuttle (trading as Norwegian) has ordered 222 single-aisle Boeing and Airbuses. This is a breakthrough deal for Boeing, being only the second order for its souped-up 737, known as the 737Max. For Airbus, with its well-established new-engine option A320 sweeping the market in the past year, this is an entry into what was an all-Boeing zone. That an airline with a market capitalisation of only NKr 2.3 billion ($390m) could order planes worth $22 billion at list prices speaks volumes of the creditworthiness of a country with a wealth fund of $570 billion saved from oil and gas revenues. No wonder the American and European export credit agencies were happy to back the deals. Norwegian's shares rose on the deal, which is seen as another nail in the coffin of ye olde SAS, a carrier saddled with public-sector legacy issues.
Jan 25th 2012, 16:55 by A.B.
• SWISS International Airlines is—by some distance—the best of the European short-haul carriers according to a new survey. Its “customer score”, in a poll of more than 6,000 people by Which?, a consumer watchdog, was 76%. Aer Lingus came second with 67%. Swiss was the only airline to receive a five-star rating for its check-in procedure, and the only one to earn four-star ratings for its cabin environment and value for money. The table was propped up by Thomas Cook Airlines in 19th place on 37%, just behind Ryanair on 38%. Which? notes that Ryanair gets four stars for its costs, but only two stars for "value for money". "Passengers have perhaps realised the hard way", went the write-up, "that cheaper doesn't necessarily mean better."
• A report by Amadeus (pdf), a company that provides technology to the travel industry, looks at the way technology is changing the face of travel. There's talk of translation tools, augmented-reality tools, intelligent-recommendation tools and luggage that can let you know where it is. One of the outcomes of these developments is that business travellers will morph into "business tourists", thanks to all the useful new services that hotels will provide. We can but hope.
• This is not very recent, but Brendan Nelson's take on the military strategies needed to get a seat on London's public transport during rush hour is beautifully put together.
In this blog, our correspondents inform and entertain business travellers with news, views and reviews that help them make the most of life on the road. Sign up for our weekly "Gulliver's best" newsletter to have the blog's highlights delivered to your inbox »
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.
Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter
See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.
