About Ryanair and missing the point

The continuous assault on the claims of Ryanair and more specifically the latest article by Matthias Merzhäuser (The Sunday Times, July 3) makes one wonder why such resistance to change is really necessary.

There has been a continuous campaign against the possibility of bringing such low-cost airlines into this island but I fail to understand why we continue to oppose the possible operations of such carriers from our island whether or not they live up to their claims or even half of them, for all it matters.

Ryanair is one of the first low-cost carriers to operate from Europe, imitating similar carriers in the United States. It is also one of the most successful, boasting one of the largest fleets and its success story is set to continue at least in the foreseeable future.

Such was the success of this airline that other well established airlines, like British Airways (what we call legacy carriers), decided to try to imitate them (compete) by introducing their own version of low cost.

This proved to be unprofitable and today legacy carriers keep on making the most of their profits from long-haul flights, unable to keep up the pressure and price competition of low-cost carriers.

Low-cost carriers and Malta

When Ryanair set up their hub in Hahn, Germany, the airport had approximately 8,000 passengers a year. Ten years later this figure is up to 400,000 passengers; that's 50 times as much, with further plans of expansion in the future.

What we expect to get in Malta I would not know and I would not dare to speculate, but surely getting Ryanair or similar carriers here is certainly a win-win situation, whatever way you look at it.

Having said that, we already have low-cost operations here from other carriers, such as Air Berlin, Central Wings, Condor, Club Air, Maersk Air and Snowflake, albeit on a much smaller scale.

The problem remains that Malta is one of the highest taxed airports in the world and setting up low cost operations is virtually impossible, especially if the government continues to see operations from such carriers as a threat to our own legacy carrier.

Good sense should prevail to make low-cost operations feasible even at the cost of reduced profits for our national airline. The coherent advantages of getting low-cost carriers into Malta are too great to be ignored and the government should be well aware of this. The low-cost revolution will benefit the economy in more ways than one.

Infrastructure

Mr Merzhäuser tells us that the infrastructure will not cope with additional tourists but I wonder what he is talking about when he talks about overcapacity in hotels, for example. Only a few weeks ago the MHRA issued a report saying that occupancy in hotels was around 60 per cent, which is well beyond overcapacity in my opinion.

I also wonder whether hotels would refuse a few more customers, given half a chance. We cannot really talk about infrastructure until we see with our own eyes what impact low cost carriers will have.

People using low-cost airlines vary from weekenders going shopping or a bachelors' or hens' party group of friends to businessmen. Some people even fly out for just a day or one night when tickets are at such low prices.

This will mean more business for restaurants and more incoming business travel. It will also mean more customers for special interest tourism, such as golf, diving and sailing. All in all more people doing more business and bringing in more money, which would have been spent somewhere else.

This also means the ability for people in colder countries to take that small break and fill our hotels in winter and shoulder periods, which otherwise would have been lost. The infrastructure? Who would not be ready to invest in more infrastructure, if this means more jobs and more money in our pockets?

Airport infrastructure

Malta International Airport must be one of the most underutilised airports in the world. If Mr Merzhäuser has ever been on the ramps in front of the terminal (Park 9), he would be pleased to find that the park is almost empty in particular periods of the day (i.e., after the Air Malta morning and afternoon flights leave).

Should we need more capacity at the airport, why should we be afraid to upgrade it? There have been talks about introducing a parallel taxiway along runway 14/32 for a very long time and I always wondered how come Air Malta never insisted on it, given the fact that it might save them several minutes of taxiing delays, not to mention the increased safety for all operators.

Is this too much to sacrifice one chapel, if needs be? (This can be demolished and rebuilt anyway.) Why does he insist that we need to do this just for Ryanair, anyway? Will not a taxiway benefit all carriers, including our very own in the first place?

Low-cost carriers make very short turnaround times (typically 30 minutes) and the need of more efficient handling at the terminal is needed. This can be done at the present terminal. However, I fail to understand why Mr Merzhäuser mentions only Park 4 as the possible solution.

What about the old terminal, which is currently being used as a cargo terminal and is just one big eyesore when viewed by passengers having to use Park 8. The parking and the required infrastructure already exists or can be modified in such a way as to give that extra handling capacity we need for low-cost operation.

Other possible locations would be Park 2 or Park 3, where both are more accessible than Park 4 and can also be used to handle cargo.

If we still need to use what we have without investing in infrastructure, then the solution would be of introducing landing slots, as in busier airports, which would clearly define when and how the airport can be used by carriers during specified times to reduce congestion.

What about us?

There should be no excuse and no ties, which should stop low-cost carriers from operating into Malta. Air Malta is very able to survive even in this scenario by providing better service (and bringing back newspapers on its flights, perhaps) and serving those destinations which are critical for its customers.

What Air Malta needs to do is to continue in its cost saving efforts and being more efficient on its human resources, for example, but not at the cost of demoralising its employees, as has happened in recent times by reducing the take home pay of pilots, for example.

Air Malta is an asset for the economy and needs to stay that way for as long as possible. There can be no excuse of lack of infrastructure, either. If the money rolls in, so will the opportunity to spend it on infrastructure be made available.

Finally the government should do away with the exorbitant taxes it has imposed on travelling and help low-cost carriers (or any carrier, for that matter) to start their business in Malta as much as possible.

I will not fail to mention the benefits expected to the Maltese traveller and to the whole business community with the introduction of low-cost carriers. Helping to bring Malta closer to Europe with low cost airfares is helping us to be more European after all.

Anthony Mangion has an M.Sc. in Air Transport Management.