You are currently
in the Archives section. Please be aware that some information and links
in the archived page may be outdated.
Click here
to return to the Archives' main page to see the list of archived articles.
|
A
R C H I V E S
E D I T O R I A L
"A
YEAR OF JELLING"
by Geoffrey Arend
By
now it is no secret that 2002 was not a very good year.
Worldwide airline losses were cut 30% during
2002 but when you add that up, the numbers still total about a seven billion
USD minus as compared to ten billion in red ink for 2001.
US Airways and United Airlines went bankrupt
in 2002 while National, Midway and Vanguard went out of business altogether.
The restaurant chain Hooters might have
saved Vanguard, but that deal fell through.
Hooters found another airline company willing to sell, and apparently
will take off soon.
The Hooters episode does reinforce a wonderful
and slightly delirious thing about this industry.
Now and forever, there is always somebody
who wants to start an airline.
No one should ever doubt that like the genie
out of a bottle, once air service is established somebody will step up
and continue no matter whose name was once on the side of the airplane.
The desire of the wealthy to find some mad
money and get into the business of flying has not changed all that much
since two brothers from Ohio made a killing in the bicycle business and
later took off at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina on man’s first ‘heavier than
air’ flight a century ago in 1903.
But what lies ahead for aviation and more
to the point, the world air cargo business?
We approach 2003 after two years of crises
and uncertainty, failure and suffering, the result of terrorism and recession.
Never before in the history of aviation
have two such deadly elements conspired against our industry.
We begin 2003 with the oppressive possibility
of war and further terrorism hanging over everyone.
For a moment we can imagine possibilities,
if things just calm down.
We think 2003 will need to be a jelling
experience for our industry, a period of calm and predictable movement
toward what is now referred to as a “new normal’ in the airline business.
Nowhere in the world is it more important
that the airline business get a grip and get back somewhere in the neighborhood
of where it belongs than the United States of America.
There is an old expression here in New York
that comes to mind about Americans.
“Comes a great challenge and the citizen
army of the United States reaches down into the mass of the people and
pours them into a general hopper that turns them into builders.”
While nothing can replace the return in
greater numbers of passengers to the skies, air cargo must use this time
to unite in an effort to chart a new course putting forward the agenda
of a vital and growing industry to the world at large.
It has never been more apparent that something
must be done to foster a strong air cargo industry voice in all matters,
including security, government’s increasing role and financial interest
in the airlines business and other challenges ahead.
We are only two years out of the 1990’s
a time when business got bigger as air cargo companies got fewer and sterner
and more steely like big machines.
But now with business in free-fall, just
after reporting the worst Christmas retail season in 40 years we discover
that the 1990’s did not unbend every twig or destroy every individual.
There is still plenty good about being an
independent, small or big part of air cargo.
Right now as the new year begins, there
is time for longing, thinking, resting and living, before 2003 gets going
and it’s time to fight our way back to business gain.
This year we need to hear from the leaders
of this industry in voices, loud and clear.
Air cargo organizations and their influential
leadership must come forward with opinions, plans and some new ideas.
The free ride is over.
The Air Forwarders Association and Cargo
Network Services, TIACA and others in our view have so far displayed an
appalling case of collective laryngitis.
As 2003 dawns and air cargo and the airline
business are in a time of maximum peril, it’s like everybody has lost
their voice at the same time.
Rather than combining activities at some
posh golf resort or spending an inordinate amount of time asking us to
sponsor a coffee break at a conferences, we need our industry leaders
to tell us they are at work, building cooperation and understanding amongst
the various factions of air cargo so that a unified front can be formed
to lobby for air cargo, insuring that among other things, air cargo is
not hamstrung by government regulations.
The high-profile industry “experts” have
been no better. These writers of yearly cargo reports and earners of fat
consulting fees have without exception retreated into a collective cave
somewhere during what adds up to air cargo’s darkest hour.
Where are these consultants with their always-ready
five year and ten year prognostications and speeches at trade shows and
pay for view functions?
Plenty of small to medium companies in air
cargo are thinking, the hell with a five-year growth curve.
What will it take to survive the next year
is what they want to hear about.
In all of the horror stories of the past
two years there are not enough people willing to stick their heads up
in anything more than an observational mode to take on the critical issues
facing the industry.
It is absolutely outrageous that U.S. government
edict of not allowing parcel post aboard passenger flights.
The ban on Parcel Post must be lifted or
at least be modified once and for all.
U.S. carriers are losing at least a half
billion dollars annually because of government restrictions as to what
may be carried in the bellies of passenger flights.
So far the only solutions that have bubbled
up and been made public specific to future cargo security is employing
bomb sniffing dogs or forcing airlines to go from bread and butter pallets
to reinforced containers to carry belly cargo.
Both solutions raise serious questions and
doubt to say the least.
Around the world, cargo people to a person
must wonder at what is going on in America.
But the fascination is also tinged with
concern that eventually U.S. Government and specifically the Transportation
Security Agency (TSA) will rear its head with ugly knee-jerk mandates
for international flags.
There is something we can do to help the
air cargo industry at the grass roots level.
Clubs and organizations here in America
and worldwide should gather themselves into a mighty voice, each of themselves
and let government know that it is beyond time for air cargo to be given
the benefit of its expertise in the form of a voice, as the new “secure”
airline business is established.
Elsewhere while everybody with an airplane
and a dream is trying to figure out how to get hooked up with Mainland
China, perhaps the most compelling recent events in Asia aside from the
surprising and horrible terror bombing in Bali and the anemic sinking
fortunes of Singapore is the “new normal” albeit “unofficial” relations
between Taiwan and China.
Make no mistake, unless Mainland China does
something overt, military or just plain stupid, the drawing together of
China and Taiwan gathers even greater momentum in 2003, as business continues
to seemingly know no borders.
Those Lunar New Year flights between Shanghai
and Taipei are just the beginning.
In late December, Beijing and Taiwan sat
across from each other at a table at the Warwick Hotel in Geneva with
seven other members of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The discussion was about steel but the buzz
was about China and Taiwan. For the first time in memory, both had somebody
on the other side at the same table that spoke the same language.
Anybody who thinks the Chinese don’t know
how to be great capitalists and will not eventually work out their differences
is not paying attention.
Recent China Airlines (CAL) order with Boeing
that needed U.S. President Bush intervention to get done, is an indication
in the most strident terms that Taiwan increasingly sees its future business
interests not with America, but with Mainland China.
But give Hong Kong some attention and some
credit for a stellar effort as well, if you are in marketing anywhere,
including a gateway or an airline.
There can be little doubt that the future
of China lies beyond the former Crown Colony.
Right now as Shanghai prepares to sink billions
into a huge combined airport/seaport free trade zone, and tens of thousands
of Taiwanese business men are gleeful about flying home in a couple of
weeks minus the change plane delay/ bottleneck, Hong Kong has managed
to host what must be a record number of trade shows, brought forward a
new open skies agreement with the USA and forged a cooperation and development
deal with the other major gateways in China.
SAR cannot look kindly upon any arrangement
that would open Beijing/Taipei direct flights.
But publicly the airport authority unveiled
charts and statistics that pointed to less than gloom and doom for the
gateway if and when those flights become permanent.
Hong Kong will eventually find a new purpose
and level in the 21st Century much as New York did when international
airlines expanded services to other gateways all over America after deregulation
in 1978.
In the meantime Hong Kong’s Chek Lap Kok
is top dog airport in China.
The airport authority in Hong Kong as mentioned,
has done a masterful marketing effort of a quality and duration that someday
should be studied by anyone who wants to do that job right.
Getting TIACA to show up last year for their
bi-annual confab was one thing. TIACA has become notorious for following
the money rather than showing in the airport or city that matters.
As example, TIACA passed on LAX for Washington,
D.C. in 2000. Last year it took the money and gave SAR the nod over Shanghai.
But when 9/11 ripped the guts out of sponsors
for the TIACA Hong Kong fest, the airport authority came up big, getting
both sponsors and saving ‘face’ for the TIACA 2000 show.
|
If
I may, I’ll start with an ancient quote, from an ancient Roman,
which was prompted by your recent
editorial regarding “Jabba the Hut”:
“No sooner
did we form into teams than we were re-organised. I was to learn
later in life that we tend to meet every new situation by re-organising;
and what a wonderful method it is for giving the illusion of progress,
whilst only producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralisation.”
Petronus
A.D.66
As
you will be fully aware, the European aviation security regime has
been based on a policy document produced by the European Civil Aviation
Conference (ECAC Doc. 30) which was expanded in content from the
ICAO Annex 17, and was the aviation security policy document for
the 38 member states of ECAC (greater Europe), much of it being
implemented via JAA requirements on airlines.
Following the tragedy of Lockerbie
in 1988, a number of the ECAC member states amended their own national
aviation security programmes, and incorporated into them the provisions
of the “regulated” air cargo agent.
These programmes contained legally
enforceable requirements on the regulated air cargo agents for both
international PAX and all-cargo air uplift. Although these regulated
programme requirements were seen initially as a great financial
and operational imposition on the industry, the need for them was
fully understandable. The passage of time has not seen any great
expansion in the number of European countries that followed this
lead, and it was really only a matter of time before another aviation
security disaster took the matter further.
In fairness to the European Union,
the concept of “One Stop Security” was raised by DG TREN in spring
of 2001 with the issue of a white paper. ECAC was already committed
to the harmonised implementation of its aviation security policy
in consultation with other international organisations (ICAO and
the EU), and the policy advocated the one stop security concept
for its 38 member states.
The tragedy of 911 cannot be understated,
nor the impact for the aviation industry worldwide be underestimated.
The immediate cessation of flights, and the follow up imposition
of draconian transatlantic cargo and passenger security measures
required urgent operational and administrative amendment which the
industry is still living with today.
The European Union pushed forward
its “one Stop Security” aviation measures, but instead of starting
from scratch, immediately consulted with the body of European expertise
in these matters -ECAC. Aviation security was effectively taken
forward as a joint enterprise EU/ECAC.
Although there were many lively discussions
within the European legislature, with final conciliation on 6th
November, the Rapporteur for the regulation within the European
Parliament (Jacqueline Foster M.E.P.) was able to issue a report
on 19th November, 2002, stating that the Parliament and Commission
had reached a jointly approved text for establishing common rules
in the field of aviation security. The European Parliament resoundingly
accepted the proposal on 5th December, 2002. The document now goes
before the European Council of Ministers, and is expected to be
adopted in mid-December. The legislation will become EU enforceable
regulation approximately 20 days after that adoption date.
There are a number of issues yet to
be resolved, not the least of which will be cross border issues,
and lead time allowance by EU member states for many of the requirements
of the regulation - each member state has to adopt the EU regulation
into its own NASP within 3 months. The effects on the cargo industry
will be varied, but there is no doubt that considerable costs and
operational changes will be the order of the day. The EU is addressing
the ongoing, and implementation of, aviation security issues with
a management committee which will comprise the member states and
stake-holder organisations. There will be, hopefully a full and
frank exchange of views within this body, as to the mechanisms of
implementation, and future issues.
The matter of financing of the EU
regulatory requirements has been left to the discretion of the relevant
member state, and this of course leads immediately to the application
of an un-level playing field. Many of the EU member states still
have nationalised aviation industries, operators and airports. The
likelihood of the privatised sectors being funded or aided by national
governments in the application of the requirements is seen as highly
unlikely.
The all-cargo express air operators,
via the European Express Association, have long had a good working
relationship with ECAC, and the relationship has been further advanced
with the inclusion of the association as a stakeholder, within the
EU management committee. It is to the credit of all parties involved,
that the EU (with the ECAC expertise) has produced a regulation
that we, as industry, know is workable, although I am sure that
some operators will see it as an unnecessary and over-reactive burden.
The EU did not decide to re-invent
the wheel, but effectively placed a regulatory power onto an already,
albeit only policy, document that the member states, and industry,
were used to.
Of the 15 EU member states, the majority
will be applying regulatory cargo measures for the first time following
the adoption of the EU regulation into their own NASPs. A further
10 countries are in various stages of application to join the EU,
and these countries will have to comply with EU Regulation in this
matter prior to their accession. As a body representing the express
cargo/integrator community, the European Express Association faces
a challenging time to ensure the ongoing harmonisation of the measures
required in each of the member and applicant states.
Legislating against the possibility
of unpredictable and unforeseeable acts of terrorism is a delicate
balancing act to be applied by the relevant national regulatory
authority. As one of the infamous Murphy’s Laws states:
“If you perceive that there are four
possible ways in which a procedure can go wrong, and circumvent
these, then a fifth way, unprepared for, will promptly develop.”
The tipping of the security measures
scales one way or the other can have disastrous consequences either
for the aviation community and its customers, or the cargo industry
in terms of servicing the requirements of international trade. Let
us, as a cargo industry, help our regulatory authorities achieve
that balance, and by the active and informed expertise of both parties,
produce an effective and workable solution to the problems posed
by terrorists to the aviation industry.
John Goldsworthy
Chairman EEA Security Committee
Security Manager TNT Express
Tel:+44.1604.643.651
john.goldsworthy@tnt.co.uk
|
|