Pursuits: So does the future belong to the Middle Eastern carriers?

The July issue of Vanity Fair carries an article on the aviation boom in Asia – and especially West Asia.

This will not surprise those of us who live in the region – I wrote in these pages about Dubai's emergence as the world's aviation hub a couple of years ago. But what I enjoyed about the piece was the way in which it traced the history of the passenger aviation business.

 

   In the (very) old days, travelling by air was the prerogative of the very rich. The old passenger aircraft were designed like cruise ships with service to match. Apparently Pan Am was the first to break that mould by introducing an economy class fare and making air travel accessible to those of us with limited budgets.

 

   The next tectonic shift came with the development of large passenger aircraft, first the Boeing 707 and then, in the late 60s, the 747 jumbo jet. Other American companies such as McDonnell Douglas also contributed by building large jets and then, in the mid-70s the Europeans got in on the act with the appropriately-named Airbus range of aircraft. (Today the market for jets is dominated by just two players: Boeing and Airbus who fight cut throat battles in every market.)

 

   As air-travel became a mass activity, airlines wondered if they could reduce flying times. Both Boeing and an European (though largely Anglo-French) consortium tried to build planes that could fly faster than the speed of sound (supersonic) to reduce journey times. In technology terms this is easy to do: air force jets fly at supersonic speeds all the time. But was it possible to create a passenger jet that could do this?

 

   In the Sixties, Boeing scrapped its SST (Supersonic plane) programme reckoning that this was impossible: the numbers did not add up. But the British and the French persisted, coming up with the Concorde.

 

   But Boeing had got it right. The Concorde made no commercial sense. For a start, it could not fly over land at supersonic speeds because the sonic booms would disturb people. That ruled out most of the world. Then, it could not afford proper First Class seats because economics dictated that lots of people had to be fitted into a small space. So they ended up with a relatively small, incredibly uncomfortable aircraft (the one time I travelled I had such a bad claustrophobia attack that I thought I was going to die) that charged fares that were at least 20 per cent more than the normal First Class fare. No airline bought the plane willingly. British Airways and Air France, who were government-owned, were forced to buy it and even they could only use it on the Atlantic route. The venture was a huge commercial fiasco.

 

"No destination is much more than eight hours away from Dubai. Emirates has exploited this advantage aggressively."

   But there was another way of cutting journey times and that was by creating large passenger jets that could fly long distances without refuelling. I remember, as a child, flying from Bombay to London in Air-India and making four refuelling stops on the way. By the 1980s, the 747 only needed to refuel in Dubai. And by the end of the decade, the aircraft could do the journey non-stop. Now, everybody expects to do eight to ten hours flights non-stop and Air-India even flies from Delhi to New York non-stop. So they managed to reduce journey times without wasting money on supersonic jets.

 

   The next big change came in 1978 with the deregulation of the US aviation industry and the eventual end of the cosy cartel that fixed airfares between destinations all over the world. This led to the bankruptcy of such famed US carriers as Pan AM and TWA and eventually pushed European airlines into providing stark services because of huge staff-cuts that turned checking-in at airports into a nightmare.

 

   While the Western carriers lost their edge, the Far Eastern airlines, Cathay, Singapore, Thai, Malaysian etc. ---took over. The quality of their service and the courtesy with which they treated guests reminded one of the glory days of the early airlines experience. Till about a decade ago, they became the role models for every airline in the world though few could match their calibre of service.

 

   But, as Vanity Fair points out, the focus has now shifted to the Middle East. There are many reasons for this. One: the West Asian airlines (Emirates, Etihad, Qatar etc.) have thought big. They have spent huge sums on acquiring aircraft and have developed vast networks of destinations in the shortest possible time. If you want to travel to Europe or say, San Francisco from India, then there is often no Indian airline that will offer you a direct flight. Your best bet is to fly Emirates to Dubai and then change planes.

 

   Second, the Middle Eastern carriers have a great geographical advantage. Singapore has the world's best airport and one of the world's best airlines. But it is not on the way to anywhere except perhaps for Australia. Dubai, Doha and Abu Dhabi in the other hand are ideally placed for travel between the East and the West. No destination is much more than eight hours away from Dubai. Emirates has exploited this advantage aggressively. It is surprisingly strong in such markets as Australia which, you would think, have no real link to Dubai.

 

   Third, the Arab airlines capture the spirit of today's internationalised flying environment. Once upon a time, airlines focussed on national identity. So Singapore was about Asian hospitality, Air-India was about the maharaja, Air France was about French style etc. But the Arab airlines have no distinctive local ethos. The crews are drawn from all over the world. The cuisine is international. They have created a new concept of airborne luxury that transcends national and cultural borders.

 

   So does the future belong to the Middle Eastern carriers? Well may be. But the rest of the world is fighting back. By next year, Singapore Airlines will have a new hub in Delhi and Bombay and battle will be joined.

 

   For the moment, however, the world will keep coming to Dubai.