In this industry people rarely mean what they say. Here's what they really mean.As airline startups multiply and established carriers recruit new management teams, there is a steady influx of new blood into this industry. Newcomers listening to the old hands talking might make the cardinal error of assuming that they really mean what they say. Usually, they don't. This guide to airline speak might dispel some wrong impressions.

Take airline startups themselves. Whenever the launch of a new airline is mentioned, the incumbents always say: 'We welcome competition,' or 'We welcome a second airline.' What they really mean is: 'We'll do everything we can to stop this airline being launched. Failing that, we'll delay it as long as possible. If it is eventually launched despite our efforts, we'll get the government to restrict its traffic rights. If it still gets established, we'll buy it.'

Then there's the classic statement about alliances: 'This alliance will provide more choice for the consumer.' Who are they trying to kid? What they really mean is: 'This alliance will reduce consumer choice by combining the flights of former competitors. Furthermore, it will enable us to capture more unsuspecting high-yield passengers who would otherwise have exercised the freedom of choice which already exists.'

Whenever a new alliance is created, the newly weds always issue a statement along the lines of: 'Sixteen joint committees are being formed under the leadership of our two chief executives, to examine ways in which we can cooperate through such measures as joint purchasing, combining ticket offices and linked frequent flyer programmes.'

Literally translated, this means: 'We haven't the faintest idea how we're going to make this alliance work, so we're going to spend months trying to establish whether we can get anything out of it.'

Then, of course, there's aeropolitics, which is always a source of half truths. 'We believe in fair competition' means 'We want to be able to compete fairly against everybody else, but we don't want them to be free to compete with us.' 'Phased liberalisation' means 'delay the evil day of deregulation as long as possible.' Words like gradual, orderly, progressive and safeguarded are often used in aeropolitical discussions. They all mean 'Over my dead body.'

Such doublespeak is by no means restricted to airline executives and government officials. Take the typical aircraft salesman, who presents a complex series of unit cost and payload-range charts, all of which magically show his product in the top right-hand corner. He's probably thinking: 'We don't really know which plane's best for you, because it depends on imponderables like how your route network and traffic patterns develop, and what happens to fuel prices. The best way to tell is to buy both aircraft and fly them off against each other.'

Perhaps the greatest source of weasel words lies in the area of market forecasts. The temptation to produce market projections which show steady annual growth stretching to infinity is irresistible for anybody in this business. What they don't tell you is that the graph shows average annual growth. In some years, growth will be ahead of the trend line, but of course in others it will be below average - perhaps even negative. Working out which years are which is pure guesswork, which is tough for an airline that has just hired more staff and taken delivery of a shiny new fleet.

So when forecasters say 'traffic will reach 2 billion passengers by the year 2005' what they mean is, 'traffic will probably reach 2 billion passengers sometime. When is anybody's guess.'

Airline press releases are by no means immune from the airline speak phenomenon. Company A recently issued a statement saying: 'Mr X has expressed the wish to pursue career opportunities outside the airline. The management respects this decision and will cooperate.' Ouch!

But the winner of the Airline Business award for the most misleading press statement is Company B, a two-airline group. Its statement began with the headline: 'Profits are up all round for the Company B Group.' Unfortunately, the release failed to mention that profits at the main airline had fallen by over 50 per cent from the previous year. It then went on to say that the smaller airline's $3 million profit was up $13 million on the previous year's 'profit' (in other words on its $10 million loss.) Surely in this case 'loss' would have been a much more appropriate word than 'profit'.

To avoid embarrassment, there will be no glitzy award ceremony and the identity of our winner will be kept secret. But like everybody involved with this business, we'll be keeping our eyes open for future examples of comments and statements which cannot be taken at face value.

Source: Airline Business

Topics