A Call For Papers

[Ukridge]

After two years of occasionally dropping in on the proceedings of this forum, and still baffled by the press coverage of your industry, Ukridge puts out a call for papers. Respondents should limit their work to less than 50 pages, excluding supporting graphics, footnotes, and bibliography. Allowance will be made for multiple submissions if the scope of the first paper need make reference to another, more fully supported, line of thought.
Topics to be addressed;

- Role of a single government in shaping air transport. Examination of direct and indirect intervention, and more importantly, a discussion of the intended consequence as well as consideration of unseen results based upon this intervention.
- A philosophical weighing of whom is to be served by the construct of an air transport system. Is the beneficiary to be the amorphous “consumer,â€￾ with the goal of being the absolute lowest fare from Bristol to Brussels, from Manchester to Manchuria? Or is it rather to be the economy and the commercial engines, with the individual consumer playing an ancillary role?
- With limited resources (runway, airspace, traffic directors) how does the market work vis a vis governmental policy to “rationâ€￾ these resources to any one firm? How is a governmental policy framed so as to allow the market to ration, yet in a fair and equitable manner? In this allowance, how are “winnersâ€￾ and “losersâ€￾ chosen?
- Should there be even further oversight into posted pricing. The recent court ruling against Ryan Air may be illustrative as to how much a firm can shield the add-on taxes from the final cost of its product. If a ticket is advertized at price x, should that not reflect the actual price of travel.
- Although I know nothing of him other than seeing his name mentioned in nearly every news clip mentioning North American air transport, how is it that a Mr. Boyd is ready to have an answer to every enquiry? In your thread concerning Theodore, he was quick with a response. A solid examination would be fruitful of how these “go-toâ€￾ pundits have so many answers on so varied a range of topics. In one day Mr. Boyd (and those of his ilk) can be trotted out to comment on aviation topics ranging from the A380, the A350, Theodore, United’s paint, Virgin’s expansion plans, EasyJets relationship with parts suppliers, and other diverse subjects. How is it that a small cadre of commentators can carry portfolio in such a range of topics that normally would require research and reflection of at least a day’s time? For example, Mr. Tilton announces an expansion of Theodore. Within the fold of the business page, Mr. Boyd already claims voluminous knowledge that far exceeds that of Tilton’s and his staff. How is this level of insight so rapidly gained? Why does not the senior staff of the world’s airlines take this (and the other) gentleman/bloviator into its confidence when charting a business plan? With such an oracle at hand one would think that Mr. Tilton would jump at the chance of having such a font of wisdom at hand.
- Why is there not a push to amend regulatory pacts to more accurately reflect the rise of the alliances? These are the real benefit to traveler, yet the corporate body is in many ways restricted from streamlining its cost structure by not allowing central purchasing from a single body? This would seem to offer the greatest cost savings so why is there not more of a push?

These of course are just some informal suggestions. The respondent is free to choose an appropriate topic. Please, do not all respond at once. As your great wit Mark Twain once said – “First get the facts, then you can distort them at your leisure.â€￾

 

[casual rat]

After two years of occasionally dropping in on the proceedings of this forum, and still baffled by the press coverage of your industry, Ukridge puts out a call for papers. Respondents should limit their work to less than 50 pages, excluding supporting graphics, footnotes, and bibliography. Allowance will be made for multiple submissions if the scope of the first paper need make reference to another, more fully supported, line of thought.
Topics to be addressed;

- Role of a single government in shaping air transport. Examination of direct and indirect intervention, and more importantly, a discussion of the intended consequence as well as consideration of unseen results based upon this intervention.
- A philosophical weighing of whom is to be served by the construct of an air transport system. Is the beneficiary to be the amorphous “consumer,†with the goal of being the absolute lowest fare from Bristol to Brussels, from Manchester to Manchuria? Or is it rather to be the economy and the commercial engines, with the individual consumer playing an ancillary role?
- With limited resources (runway, airspace, traffic directors) how does the market work vis a vis governmental policy to “ration†these resources to any one firm? How is a governmental policy framed so as to allow the market to ration, yet in a fair and equitable manner? In this allowance, how are “winners†and “losers†chosen?
- Should there be even further oversight into posted pricing. The recent court ruling against Ryan Air may be illustrative as to how much a firm can shield the add-on taxes from the final cost of its product. If a ticket is advertized at price x, should that not reflect the actual price of travel.
- Although I know nothing of him other than seeing his name mentioned in nearly every news clip mentioning North American air transport, how is it that a Mr. Boyd is ready to have an answer to every enquiry? In your thread concerning Theodore, he was quick with a response. A solid examination would be fruitful of how these “go-to†pundits have so many answers on so varied a range of topics. In one day Mr. Boyd (and those of his ilk) can be trotted out to comment on aviation topics ranging from the A380, the A350, Theodore, United’s paint, Virgin’s expansion plans, EasyJets relationship with parts suppliers, and other diverse subjects. How is it that a small cadre of commentators can carry portfolio in such a range of topics that normally would require research and reflection of at least a day’s time? For example, Mr. Tilton announces an expansion of Theodore. Within the fold of the business page, Mr. Boyd already claims voluminous knowledge that far exceeds that of Tilton’s and his staff. How is this level of insight so rapidly gained? Why does not the senior staff of the world’s airlines take this (and the other) gentleman/bloviator into its confidence when charting a business plan? With such an oracle at hand one would think that Mr. Tilton would jump at the chance of having such a font of wisdom at hand.
- Why is there not a push to amend regulatory pacts to more accurately reflect the rise of the alliances? These are the real benefit to traveler, yet the corporate body is in many ways restricted from streamlining its cost structure by not allowing central purchasing from a single body? This would seem to offer the greatest cost savings so why is there not more of a push?

These of course are just some informal suggestions. The respondent is free to choose an appropriate topic. Please, do not all respond at once. As your great wit Mark Twain once said – “First get the facts, then you can distort them at your leisure.â€

[post="253116"][/post]​

UK, Mike Boyd sits upon a hill in Evergreen, Colorado (by himself), where he comes up with his 'observations'. I think he has access to The Holy Grail, where he consumes his Holy Port (a distant relative of the Tawny) and gains more 'insight' and 'knowledge' than anyone else.


Fact: Mike Boyd lives upon a hill in Evergreen, CO.
Distortion: The Holy Grail exaggeration.

Everyone knows Monty Python has The Holy Grail. It's locked up in a vault in Los Angeles...

 

[mweiss]

how is it that a Mr. Boyd is ready to have an answer to every enquiry?

I suspect that this particular inquiry was provided with your tongue firmly in your cheek. Nonetheless, at the risk of future sheepishness, I'll respond to this one, for it's worth a look.

Mr. Boyd does have more airline knowledge than two critical demographics, though neither demographic includes airline employees. One is the reporter, and the other is the typical reader. It's much the same as Mr. Kissenger, when discussing foreign relations. Both Messers Boyd and Kissenger are selling an off-the-cuff pontification that takes advantage of the knowledge delta to falsely produce an air of wisdom. It becomes a self-sustaining cycle, since the reporter always gets the desired result (quick, credible quotes), and the "analyst" gets the desired result as well (increased credibility, leading to paid business).

Boyd offers consulting services to airlines, so he (and/or his employees) may, in fact, be advising various airline employees. They are most certainly advising airports and Congress. But, hey, at least he's not Secretary of State!

 

[Ukridge]

"selling an off-the-cuff pontification that takes advantage of the knowledge delta to falsely produce an air of wisdom"

Beautiful! Absolutely top-drawer! I never thought of it in that light - that the "product" that is being marketed is really targeted to an audience consisting of reporters and the unknowing (of which I may very well be a part) newspaper reading audience. What a brilliant game is being trotted out. We seem to have a bountiful bevy of such marketiers here on the island, but they rather tend toward the political orbit. One sees their visage gracing the screen as some fawning news-presenter serves up the questions in an oleaginous manner to allow the expositor a two minute riff on the topic. Sometimes with furrowed brow, often with grave mien, but always with an air of inner sanctum court knowledge that is dispensed soto voce to the awaiting masses.
Frankly though, I am surprised that someone making such quotes as does Mr. Boyd can parley that into an income stream. I will admit that I far more appreciate the Bertrand Russell approach to a problem, but STILL, this chap can pawn off this palvum to Congress you say? I could well understand a reporter on the beat that needs to squid off a column or two, but your elected governing body B)
Well, if one must peddle the wares in the cart...... Shame I did not think of this earlier in life.
Cheers

 

[ual777fan]

Boyd started as a AA ramper at LGA in the 1970's; climbed his way into management. In the late 70's he worked for Braniff and oversaw their Texas operations including DFW and Love. So he was an airline employee for awhile.

As for Boyd, he is one of the few people out there that are constantly that are looking ahead, and what he says usually makes alot more sense than what comes out of the PR departments at the airlines and the TSA(which is a joke). His groups has a pretty good record on forecasting out about a decade and helped push a lot of new ideas into the forefront.

I don't agree with everything Boyd's group comes up with, put at least they are out there putting out the new ideas.

 

[mweiss]

We seem to have a bountiful bevy of such marketiers here on the island, but they rather tend toward the political orbit.

Oh, trust me, we have plenty of them on our side of the pond as well...far more in politics than in air transportation.

Frankly though, I am surprised that someone making such quotes as does Mr. Boyd can parley that into an income stream.

Picture yourself as an airport manager. You most likely work for some sort of pseudo-government organization, which reduces the likelihood that you've decades of air transportation industry experience. Someone comes to you with plausible explanations for the condition of the industry, and provides seemingly solid advice in exchange for cash. It's a good living.

To be fair to Mr. Boyd, he's far from an idiot. He does have a solid base of knowledge, and has a good team of employees sifting through raw data to acquire new insights. In the US, at least, there are literally terrabytes of publicly available data on the airline industry. I have sifted through a few gigabytes myself, limited mostly by the power of computing technology available to me, and time. I'd imagine one could arrive at some terrific conclusions if one could get the funding. Hence the conversations with reporters.

this chap can pawn off this palvum to Congress you say?

Members of Congress are likely to understand this industry barely more than the average business traveler, since they are, in most regards, little more than business travelers themselves. One derives far more of a listening audience by sounding credible, than by actually being credible. Certainly one as erudite as yourself would have had ample opportunity to witness this phenomenon firsthand.

 

[Ukridge]

ual777

Good responses on your part. I do need to be careful in my line of questioning concerning Mr. Boyd as I am familiar with him only through postings on this forum and a few times that his name has been quoted in the FT or a continental publication. As one who watches the use of the thought and language however, I was certainly certainly struck by the number of times that he was "consulted" for a quote or comment. Seeing the following in relation to Theodore, "What that entirely means is that they're going to paint nine more airplanes," said aviation consultant Michael Boyd. " could not help but make me think that this was not a response grounded in razor sharp rigour of analysis and thought. This quote was, in conjunction with others, revealing in its pattern of quip-like retorts that fill the ether. Not having known his bona fides as a commentator, I was unhappily lead to believe that he is not a man known for provding a thorough and well-constructed platform for his line of reasoning.
What I am saying with all this is that I, as someone who is not an expert in the field, finds his comments rather vacuous. I labour under the idea that those who are intelligent in a field on endeavor should be able to linguistically comport themselves in a manner that reflects upon that high intelligence. Barbs, quips, rejoinders, bons mots, and other flavourings are vital to a sprited exchange, but should not supplant the meat of the matter - something I see that Boyd does often. One can only trust that his staff is more formidable in basic speech than he!

Mweiss: "Members of Congress are likely to understand this industry barely more than the average business traveler, since they are, in most regards, little more than business travelers themselves"
I guess not one them will be addressing any of the first three of my original questions then now will they?

 

[ClueByFour]

Two items of interest:

Boyd's firm is generally known for working with smaller communities to attract air service, or working with medium sized communties to attract LCC service. As a necessary preparatory step to this, it appears that Boyd's firm has a very good grasp on traffic and trending data (or, at a minimum, is able to convince airlines or governments of the bona fides of their projections).

I do agree that Boyd does come over as a very sharp witted chap which surely does aid in the "quotability factor," which in turn brings more reporters his way.

Ukridge, might I suggest you briefly peruse http://www.aviationplanning.com/ which may give you some additional data with which to form an opinion on Mr. Boyd and whether his voice is adequately backed to support the claims (and, for that matter, the with with which they are typically delivered).

 

[mweiss]

With that low-hanging fruit now picked and mostly consumed...

Role of a single government in shaping air transport.

On a most fundamental level, one could be forgiven for expecting a representative government such as yours and ours to define the role of government in air transport as one of maximizing benefit to the constituents. Of course, when one has government comprised of representatives from widely disparate locales, one could also expect to have something more akin to a camel than to a horse.

But this begs your second topic

A philosophical weighing of whom is to be served by the construct of an air transport system.

If one wishes to serve the community, does it make more sense to maximize the quantity of jobs, the amount of currency in wages, the return on the taxpayers' investment, the ability for local employers to use the system in a fashion most suitable to them, or the ability for local residents to use the system in a fashion most suitable to them?

These are all, to varying degrees, competing interests. It is another representation of my oft-stated observation that "fair" taxation is inherently mythological in nature.

With limited resources (runway, airspace, traffic directors) how does the market work vis a vis governmental policy to “rationâ€￾ these resources to any one firm?

Here is a question that I feel more able to address adequately. The goal should be to make the best use of the limited resources. For example, it is in the best interest of the airport to encourage fewer larger aircraft at a reduced frequency, rather than more, smaller aircraft at an increased frequency. This places less burden on the airside infrastructure, and provides opportunity for more innovative approaches to the landside infrastructure.

Or perhaps an airport could establish a rate structure on an exponential scale, whereby a single airline doubling the number of departures within a particular window in time would result in quadrupling the total departure fees. This would, of course, hurt the hubbing airlines the most, perhaps not the best goal.

Should there be even further oversight into posted pricing.

Absolutely. In my opinion, fair trade requires transparent and standardized information. How else can a consumer make an informed decision before purchasing? This should apply to all industries, not just air transport.

Why is there not a push to amend regulatory pacts to more accurately reflect the rise of the alliances?

Because treaty law is immensely complex. It's sufficiently difficult for a single nation to agree on such regulations without throwing additional nations into the mix. Witness the difficulties the European Union has in determining the degree to which regulations must be standardized within its member nations. That difficulty rises quite a bit when the less-yielding United States is added.

 

[Ukridge]

ClueByFour - Thank you for the link. I will take a look at it in order that I may give Mr. Boyd a fair hearing. I say this of course in complete jest, but I would have to take a little different view of your statement: "I do agree that Boyd does come over as a very sharp witted chap ." The problem is that I gained the impression that he was a dullard with a wit as flat as the earth

mweiss - Thanks for the ideas. I raised the questions that I did (other than Boyd) as I have grown in awe of just how complex the decision making process is, and as you said, just how disparite the various elements are. I cannot help but think of William Pitt who instituted a "window tax" when he was the PM. Not targeting lens making at all, the result nevertheless was a shift of quality glass making to a region of Germany. So good was the optics industry that sprung up there, that German glass (lenses for telescopes originally) had the highest of reputations.
I would like to at least see the thoughts that you described at least brought out for governmental consideration. Not of course, that they should be the one to have a hand on the harness at all times, but neither can they feign innocence in the process. For all the barbs that are flung at public policy makers, I often do not envy them.
As for the EU, we now have a standard tomatoe (or is it tomato???) Is that not just the best of government at work?

 

[mweiss]

Ukridge,

One of the more sticky wickets of taxation is the inseparable elements of revenue generation and commerce "friction," if you will. The frictional component necessarily retards the revenue component, thus making it a rather ineffective way to generate revenue...except (with apologies to Mr. Churchill) for all of the other methods available to government.

 

[Ukridge]

Not to dredge up a subject that mweiss accurately described as the "low-hanging fruit," but I did look at Mr. Boyd's web site this morning and found it actually raised some interesting points. I will have to admit to a certain unfamiliarity with the specific geographical layout of your smaller markets, but Boyd does make a good cause for the loss of service to smaller cities as larger carriers draw down. Again, this returns to that question of, is this what the government intends? Are these smaller markets vital to your larger economy? Yet, one cannot fault the market mechanism of forcing unprofitable operations from providing service. This is something that is now on the table in Europe. Were the hotly contested 'supports' from certain cities to RyanAir not in place, what level of service would be merited? How does one measure the economic gain versus a subsidization? We have talked about this with Swiss, who seems to be a "loss-leader" for the nation.
I will though, have to stand by my initial reaction that Mr. Boyd's quotes are not what I would expect from a dispassionate commentator. Perhaps it is a cultural preference, but the Economist quotes experts regulary who skip the funnery and hew to the business at hand. Everyone has something to sell as the old adage goes, perhaps schtick is part of his package.

mweiss, Any idea if someone could accurately calculate the "co-effient of friction' regarding the taxation of the air industry. Would prove most revealing as to how the government 'gently' guides the purportedly invisible hand of the market.

Cheers

 

[mweiss]

...Boyd does make a good cause for the loss of service to smaller cities as larger carriers draw down. Again, this returns to that question of, is this what the government intends?

It's hard to say that it's what is intended, in a first-order manner. There is a program in place called "Essential Air Service," whose purpose is to subsidize air service in remote locations. Naturally, it's also an opportunity for boondoggle, but EAS doesn't seem to be rife with such graft. The value of EAS has diminished somewhat as the road system of the US improved.

Are these smaller markets vital to your larger economy?

This is a tougher question to answer. In some instances, the smaller markets contribute significantly to the larger economy. However, at the same time, many of the businesses in these remote locations could relocate to areas with better air service. Would it improve the national economy to do so? Perhaps, but most certainly at the expense of a local economy. I'm certain that you recall the Labour fight against Mrs. Thatcher during the privatization of the coal industry. It can be tough to make changes that improve the nation as a whole if it requires seriously damaging local economies.

Any idea if someone could accurately calculate the "co-effient of friction' regarding the taxation of the air industry. Would prove most revealing as to how the government 'gently' guides the purportedly invisible hand of the market.

I've little doubt that there are plenty of economists who would claim to be able to accurately calculate this coefficient. At the same time, I doubt that they really could, simply because it is nigh impossible to separate the signal from the noise. One would have to calculate the coefficient not as a constant, but rather as a variable, dependent upon the varying elasticities of demand between, at the very least, the business and leisure modes of travel demand.

 

[jimntx]

As for the EU, we now have a standard tomatoe (or is it tomato???) Is that not just the best of government at work?

[post="253211"][/post]​

Off topic, but ask I must...

Is the EU standard tomato as tasteless as the "thick-skinned for greater transportability" tomato usually available in U.S. markets?

 

[jimntx]

On the stated questions about government's role in the maintenance of air service to smaller cities...

Considering the government's total lack of concern regarding the loss of small businesses in those communities when Wal-Mart opened a big box store outside of town next to the interstate, do you really think that the government will be concerned over the loss of air service to those cities?

Particularly considering that the working dynamic is the same in both cases...
Mega-donations to political parties (note plural) by Wal-Mart and the airlines compared to the donations possible from small business owners/cities. Yeah, yeah. I know. It's illegal for corporations to make political contributions. And, if you believe that it ain't happening, I have a lovely bridge (antique and on the National Registry of Historic Structures) to sell you.

Cynical? Moi? How dare you!