I was President and CEO of Airports Council International – North America (ACI-NA) for eight years, from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2013. During those eight years, I had more conversations than I could possibly count with people who wondered why airport privatization has not taken off in the United States. Many of these conversations were with people heavily involved in running or financing privatized airports around the world. Many were held with U.S. colleagues who thought privatization would provide benefits. In the world’s largest economy, and primary bastion of capitalism, airport privatization has remained the rarest of infrastructure animals. Why?
Water stewardship means using less water, wasting less water and protecting water quality. At San Diego Airport (SAN), all are vitally important. The airport is uniquely situated in a borderline arid climate (up to 80% of all the County’s water is imported from points north and east) and on the edge of San Diego Bay.
A new Parking Plaza slated to open in late Spring 2018 will do all three at the same time. Besides enhancing customer service and meeting growing demand for close-in parking, the Parking Plaza will capture rain that falls on the 7.6-acre structure (1 acre is about 4050 square meters), routing it into a below-ground storage system with a capacity of nearly 100,000 gallons (1 gallon is about 4 liters). Instead of becoming stormwater runoff, potentially impacting San Diego Bay, the collected rainwater will be used by the immediately adjacent central utility plant that houses the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) system.
Editor's Note: Although the publishing hiatus was planned for July and August, we simply could not resist writing a post on Brexit, so now the break will be in August and September. This time off publishing will be used to improve the website, launch a new airport service and relax a bit. We will be back in October with a new post. Until then!
I was originally scheduled to write a follow up to an earlier post on the increasing challenges airports are facing in attracting and retaining talent. This is an important issue, and it is the subject that is likely to occupy much of an airport executive's time and thoughts when he or she has a few moments and can think about almost anything (I always say that the best clue to what is important to you is what you think about when you can think about anything at all). And I know from experience that the search for talent is a subject very likely to be discussed when airport executives are having a drink together. But given the recent Brexit vote, and the Istanbul attack, I decided the talent piece could wait until after the summer.
Brexit Through American Eyes
The Brexit vote was barely a couple of weeks ago as I write this, and already a good deal of ink has been spilled by people writing about it (and given the backstabbing in the British Parliament, a good deal of figurative political blood as well). What I would like to do is to talk about it from the perspective of an American; and an American who has spent a great deal of time in, and dealing with, the EU and one who works in aviation.
What you first must understand about the reaction in the US to Brexit is this: It is about us. Here in America, it is always about us. While some of us (myself very much included) care deeply about what happens politically and economically in Europe and in Britain, the overwhelming majority of Americans want to know how it will impact them. The rest is just academic, elitist, detail (and in our newly populist politics, academics and elites are not very popular here, just as they have proven not to be in Britain).
So, when Donald Trump said that the falling British pound was a good thing because it would bring more people to his golf course, most Americans just shrugged their shoulders. He was looking at it the same way they were. Most Americans don't own a golf course, but those who might want to travel spent a lot of time looking at exchange rates and air fares.
Yes, the US stock market took a big hit the first couple of days. Ironically, the financial second quarter ended on June 30th and the quarterly retirement statements we get from our retirement accounts might have gotten some attention if they took a hit. This is where Brexit might have become real to us in a personal way. But the pre-Brexit stock market rally (when most people thought Brexit would fail), and the rally since have the market about where it was when this all started. So, people have started getting their statements and there was no negative impact in them. If three hundred million people shrugging their shoulders could make a noise, that's what you would hear. But shoulder shrugging is a silent activity, and there will be no noise. Indeed, those (like Trump) who thought Brexit was a good thing might even use this as evidence that post-Brexit economic fears are overblown. Your vacation is cheaper, your retirement account is fine. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Brexit and the Presidential Race
On the political side, again remembering that to most Americans it's all about us, Brexit is a sort of Rohrsbach Test. What you see and think largely depends on your predilections before the vote. If you love Donald Trump then it just shows that the elites and politicians are driving our countries into the ground and we need massive change and we need to "take our country back." If you love Hillary Clinton, you see it as more evidence that the world is an uncertain place and we need a steady hand at the tiller.
Another thing to look for going forward, though, is the extent to which Brexit leads to distasteful outcomes, whether economic, social or political. If it leads to economic distress and social meltdown; resulting in polls showing a lot of buyers remorse, it could persuade enough independent American voters who wanted to vote Trump to send a message, figuring he could never actually win, to reconsider that choice. As Eugene Robinson said in a Washington Post column recently, "catharsis is not a plan." Absent that, though, Brexit is likely to only reinforce whatever views and leanings Americans already had going in.
Oftentimes "off year" elections (such as those for Members of the European Parliament), are used as protest votes, resulting in unusual outcomes but minimal actual consequences. I wonder if the Brexit vote was such an occasion. Except this time consequences are real. I wonder if that may be a cautionary note for some who want to vote Trump seeking to send a message.
Everyone Hates Trade
Indeed, the major loser in the US presidential contest so far is not any one candidate, but the whole idea that international trade and commerce is a good thing. Candidates are racing to the fringes on this issue over here, and the Brexit vote and resulting rhetoric will do nothing to stop that. It is lousy economics, but right now it is good politics to be against trade and international commerce.
Everyone Loves Political Intrigue
One further thought on how Americans are viewing this: The betrayal, if that's what it is, of Boris Johnson by Michael Gove only adds to the enjoyment for Americans. For those who think Britain is all about Downton Abbey, this House of Cards element is quite juicy indeed. It may even elevate the reputation of Britain around here.
There are some of us, though, who are a bit more thoughtful about this. The Brexit vote leaves me very concerned about the future of Britain. There is a lot of focus on what Scotland might do, rightly so. Perhaps a more interesting question lies in Ireland. Once this is implemented, that is where Britain's only land border with the EU will be located. As border control seems a major motivating factor in the Brexit vote (and seems a major motivating factor in Michael Gove deciding to throw Boris Johnson under the bus) it is hard to imagine that big changes will not be coming in Ireland. I greatly fear for the roll back of progress that has been made there over the years.
Demography is Destiny
If you had told me 30 years ago that Britain would take this vote and that there would be a major disagreement between young and old on the outcome, I would have guessed the split would be exactly the opposite of what occurred. Given the success of the EU in transforming a war torn continent, and the memories my contemporaries and those older would have of the post-war years, I would have guessed they'd vote to stay, while younger people who may take their freedoms to work and travel for granted, might vote to leave. That, in the end, it was exactly the opposite, is an interesting subplot. Those who opposed the outcome the strongest have to live with it the longest. (yeah and only 30% of the young voted!)
US - British - European Engagement
This vote should call into question the wisdom of those who think NATO has outlived its usefulness. Even those in the "Leave" camp said that NATO keeps Britain and the US tied together with Europe in the most meaningful way. I would guess Hillary Clinton will try to point this out to Donald Trump (who has called NATO outdated and said the US should reduce or even end its involvement); but I don't think most people will care.
On the aviation side of things, I know the US State Department had a meeting with key stakeholders the day after the vote to talk about what might happen from here. Will Britain have to revert to Bermuda II? Can Britain be covered by the EU agreement, or some hybrid? ACI Europe has called for the internal aviation market to continue to include Britain. Several airline leaders have said the same. Indeed, airline CEOs were among the most prominent "Remain" supporters. In the end, Britain will leave the EU, but it is hard to believe the aviation landscape will be allowed to change much. But then again, a lot of things have happened this year that are hard to believe.
Many of the European low cost carriers are reassessing their plans, and even the countries in which they hold operating certificates, after the vote. For Americans this will become very interesting since many use those airlines (Easyjet, RyanAir, Vueling etc) to get around Europe on their holidays.
I recall a conversation with a friend who works for the EU commission. I said to him that it took the US two centuries to go from a country with a barebones Constitution to one that started regulating what can go into certain foods if they were going to be called certain things. Europe was attempting to do this in a few decades. I wondered if Europe was moving too fast; especially since Europe does a poor job of explaining itself to people and getting their buy-in. My concerns were dismissed by my friend, but I do think this is a lesson.
In a more recent discussion, I was speaking with an American friend who is much more conservative than I am. He was reading into the Brexit vote what he wanted to see, that it is a vote against elites and a vote to take their country back. To him, the EU was a faceless mass of regulations. I pointed out to him the role the EU has played in changing the political face of Europe. That in the decade before they joined, Greece, Spain and Portugal had all been dictatorships, and obviously the Eastern European members were part of the Soviet bloc (to me, this is the EU's greatest achievement). He hadn't even stopped to consider any of this; may not even have been aware.
The Brexit vote is a story of self-inflicted wounds. Cameron's disastrous decisions. The EU's reluctance to better explain itself. The untruths and distortions during the campaign on all sides. But this American thinks those wounds will have ramifications for years to come, that it is not all about whether my upcoming trip will be cheaper, that the achievements of the past are never assured, and that the future looks a bit murkier than it did a couple of weeks ago.
I can't sign off without at least mentioning the Istanbul attacks. I have previously written on security twice in this space and have always stated that attempts to ensure some kind of perfect security were a fools errand that would only mislead the public.
In my aviation security post and aviation security update I have made the point that many of the steps we take to provide "more" security are counter-productive and will only serve to provide terrorists with new and even richer targets of opportunity. In other pages, I have also criticized the media for hyping the fear we are all supposed to feel, and for feeding a sense that someone should be able to provide perfect security every day. Every now and then I get criticized for these points. Especially after an attack.
But there is no perfect security. Everything we do to improve, the terrorists study and try to beat. That will go on forever. Now, some people want to move the security perimeter further away. All this does is move potential targets around, indeed by creating new bottlenecks in harder to secure areas, it actually creates softer targets.
One of the most frustrating moments in the post-Istanbul coverage in the US was hearing a CNN anchor express surprise that the Istanbul airport was open the day after the attack. How could they be so....resilient?! I saw a tweet from a local reporter in Washington that included a picture of an empty Turkish Airlines ticket counter the next morning. The tweet noted the Istanbul airport is open but the ticket counter is empty. It did not note that the one daily flight from Washington to Istanbul wouldn't leave for 12 hours and that's why the ticket counter was empty.
One of the best American commentators on homeland security is a woman named Juliette Kayyem. She is the author of a new book called Security Mom, and is a welcome presence on CNN, where she provides commentary. She is a welcome antidote to the voices of so many who insist we can have perfect security and must find blame when we don't. Her message is that there is no such thing as perfect security (unless we want to become North Korea or unless we just stay home, in which case incidents of bathtub falls and accidental gunshot wounds would likely spike anyway). That we must allow for our freedom and for our country to function, while providing the best security we can. And that when something happens, we must learn from it and keep improving.
That's the true lesson from Istanbul and Brussels. Learn what happened. Get better. Stay vigilant. Ensure intelligence is of the highest order. But maintain our freedom. Resolve to be resilient. Keep moving forward. And remember that terrorism doesn't truly work if we don't provide the "terror" in response to these ghastly acts.
Dedicated to Brussels Airport
President Donald Trump.
Got your attention?
For the past eight months a reality TV star, businessman, celebrity, whatever other word you want to use, has been leading the race for the presidential nomination of one of the two major parties in the United States. There is a lot to be alarmed and surprised about. But as I thought about this post, while watching another in an endless series of interviews, debates, town hall meetings with the candidates, I started thinking about…Open Skies. Seriously.
Trump has spoken a lot of words in this campaign. And a huge (his favorite word) percentage of them have been about international trade deals. About how the United States is getting ripped off by China, Japan, Mexico, you name it. Indeed, this is his major global organizing principle. It permeates everything he talks about. Why does he want Japan and South Korea and Saudi Arabia to have nuclear weapons (he has said this by the way, or at least said he’d be good with it)? Because they beat us at trade, have a bunch of our money, and can afford it, while we can’t afford to help them so much any more. Why does he want to re-negotiate NATO (yes, he’s said this too)? Same reason. In fact, just before I hit the send button on this piece he said that he was basically going to invoice NATO members he does not feel spend enough on defense. He believes the United States has been taken advantage of, we have been losing economically, that it is because we have had weak leaders, and he will change all of that. It is his organizing principle and he fits his views on any number of international issues into it.
Clinton and Sanders Don’t Like Trade Either
Donald Trump isn’t the only one. A candidate on the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders (a self proclaimed Democratic Socialist, believe it or not) has talked almost as much about unfair deals, poorly implemented. He has even started to pull Hillary Clinton in his direction on some of those issues.
So, you would think, given the rhetoric of many U.S. airlines about the supposedly unfair deals between our country and Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (or to be more precise, the unfair way in which some U.S. airlines say those countries are implementing them), that Trump would be all over this; saying it is an example of American fecklessness. This issue seems to be teed up for Trump, and for Sanders as well.
Indeed, Trump often talks about the airports in Dubai and Doha and compares them unfavorably to those in the United States (something he has in common with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden). You might recall that U.S. airlines often like to point to the level of investment in those very airports as evidence of unfair trading practices.
So, how much do you think Trump talks about this? Well, the next time he talks about it will be the first time, to my knowledge. If the situation was even a fraction as bad as some U.S. airlines like to claim, he would be all over this. And remember, this is a guy who does not normally have much nice to say about Muslims and Muslim countries either. Again, this seems perfectly teed up for him. But…..silence.
Anti Open Skies Issue has No Political Traction in U.S.
Why is that? In retrospect, it is one of the most surprising things about this presidential campaign, and it has been a campaign long on surprises. Add to this that Trump once owned an airline and was part of the industry. It’s just kind of incredible to me.
Maybe the reason is this: there is so little to the argument some U.S. airlines are making that not even Donald Trump will join in!
At this point it is useful to recall some things I said in an earlier post about this. I first wrote about this topic in April, 2015, Open Skies: What U.S. Airlines Really Want. I pointed out then that when the airlines were using this issue largely to position themselves to gain advantage in legislative and regulatory fights, their campaign made some sense. And I think they may have gotten someplace. But, as I wrote in July, 2015, Open Skies: An Update they started to take themselves way too seriously, started to believe their own propaganda, forgot the larger context in which U.S. relations with these countries exist (Iran, terrorism, ISIS, etc.) and they also made it personal. Well, maybe that last one would not have scared away Donald Trump. But they have so over-played their hand that they are not taken seriously any more, even by Donald Trump.
Sure, they maintain a twitter account and, I guess, a Facebook page (I’m not on Facebook). But the major aviation legislation for the year has been introduced in both houses of the U.S. Congress with nary a mention. No one seems to be paying attention. The airlines pushing this are getting nowhere fast. They can’t even get Donald Trump interested!
What I do sometimes hear these days is U.S. airlines using the subsidy issue; not as a way to get new routes, or lower government taxes, or a better regulatory outcome; but as a way of explaining to their customers why their own service is so much poorer than that offered by the Gulf carriers (or by other foreign carriers, for that matter). We don’t get billions in government aid, they say. So we can’t have nice lounges and spacious comfortable cabins, or high end food and beverage. Don’t get me wrong, U.S. airlines are actually making some strides in these areas, including in their airport lounges (though some of that is from competition by the likes of American Express which has opened Centurion lounges in several major airports. It is a terrific product, by the way). But their product remain inferior to that of many international carriers, especially in the Gulf and in Asia.
In retrospect, it is almost funny that so many were so concerned a year or so ago about how this debate might turn out. I suppose there may still be some life in the argument, and no one pushing it has done anything close to surrendering. But for those who worried that the United States was in danger of overturning the entire international aviation regime, and setting back a quarter century of aviation liberalization; well you don’t have to worry about that so much any more.
When I wrote the aviation security post last year I had several people suggest to me that I was maybe a bit too glib - too willing to take risks. Some suggested I may not have learned enough from past terrorist attacks.
In the wake of the Paris attacks, the San Bernardino, California attacks, attacks in Turkey and elsewhere I am guessing some of the same people may wonder if I would like to take back anything I said in the original piece.
I'm sorry to disappoint, but if anything I believe the past year has only gone to further prove my point.
I never said that we should not do all we can to find terrorists, uncover their plots and stop them. We should absolutely do that. But we should be smart about it, and we should resist the temptation to take steps that would get press attention or satisfy some urge, but would do nothing to make us safe. I also ended the article by saying that our fear, and the associated rhetoric, is the oxygen upon which the terrorists depend; and I expressed the hope that we would deprive them of that oxygen and not allow the terrorists to breathe.
Right now, I think, the terrorists are having no trouble catching their breath. Certainly in the United States, the images and rhetoric are full of fear, and of "ideas" that would not make us safer. Some want to get rid of visa waiver and various trusted traveler programs that in reality allow us to focus on the most dangerous people and waste precious little time on folks that do not need our attention. Indeed, these programs provide us better information on travelers, and in the case of visa waiver, allow better information sharing between and among countries. Getting rid of such initiatives does not make us safer.
And then of course there are proposals such as that about banning Muslims from even entering the country. It is "ideas" such as this that provide ISIS not just with oxygen but with a massive shot of adrenaline.
I said that we have lost the ability to avoid being terrorized by every incident. That is not to say that people should not be concerned or anxious. Indeed, a major mistake President Obama has made has been not doing enough to understand that anxiety. In this, he could use a bit of Bill Clinton empathy.
But that is different than being, and remaining, terrorized. Two deranged idiots killed 14 people at a holiday party and posted a message saying they pledged their allegiance to ISIS. This is the kind of thing that should concern counterterrorism officials, and the kind of thing that presents a major challenge. But, as President Obama said in his State of the Union address, it is not an existential threat and it does not mean that ISIS is "on the move." And it should not lead to rhetoric or actions that will actually make us less safe, and will give the terrorists that oxygen they crave.
Many of the things I said a year ago I was concerned about have come to pass in the United States, and our presidential election has served to magnify them. We are, in many ways, less safe than we were then. Not because of what happened in Paris or San Bernardino. But because of the way we might be reacting to those, and other, incidents.
So, let's keep in place programs that work. Let's avoid rhetoric or actions that allow the terrorists to say to those they are trying to convert that we are acting just as they say we will act. Let's surprise them. And then let's suffocate them.
These are difficult and controversial issues, worthy of discussion and debate. Please let me know your thoughts. I look forward to discussing them with you.
Airport Suppliers is a new exclusive resource for airport professionals. If you are an airport supplier, add your company on NewAirportInsider.com. Take advantage of the special introductory offer of 299 Euros for one calendar year and join our Airport Suppliers list.
In April 2015, I wrote about the fight brewing in the U.S. between the three major international air carriers (American, Delta and United) and the three Gulf carriers (Qatar, Emirates and Etihad).
My thesis was that this was part of a strategy to get better treatment from the U.S. government in a variety of areas, and to attain a favorable outcome during consideration in the US Congress of legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration (the legislation includes many of the taxes and fees airlines and their passengers must pay). While there were some wild statements from both sides, I believed this was a more limited strategy. And if you read, for example, the speech given by Airlines for America CEO Nick Calio at the International Aviation Club in Washington last Fall, there is much evidence for that.
What Has Happened Since?
In my view, the US airlines have taken a strategy that was plausible and pretty well considered and made a hash of it. They began to believe their own rhetoric, a cardinal sin of such campaigns. The fact that several major European carriers joined in just spooled them up further. They made new enemies along the way including the cargo carriers and some of the other passenger carriers and they even questioned the motives and integrity of some of the individuals involved (another cardinal sin, don’t make new enemies along the way and don’t make it personal). They also failed to understand that in the rapidly changing Middle East, their issues would pale in comparison to Iran and ISIS (as Benjamin Disraeli once said, “a leader must know himself and the times in which he lives.” (The airlines made the cardinal sin of forgetting this).
The more attention they got, the more they overplayed their hand. And now, with the Justice Department opening an investigation into their pricing and capacity practices, the going has gotten a whole lot harder. (Though I am not sure how much there is to these allegations).
The US airlines were, in fact, gaining some traction with their arguments. As a tactic in an overall strategy to get what they saw as better treatment from the government and Congress, their plan was starting to work.
But just as it was starting to work, they overplayed their hand and committed three cardinal sins of such campaigns. They:
- Began to believe their own rhetoric.
- Made it personal and started to make enemies.
- Forgot the larger context.
It is not too late for them to realize this and change tactics.
But there is little in the history of such fights to lead me to believe this will happen.
Today, we welcome Nadine Itani, a new guest contributor who writes an opinion post about open skies.
Gulf carriers, such as Emirates Airline, Etihad Airways, and Qatar Airways, have expanded enormously and have established an intense global competitive network. These carriers’ future growth prospects depend on their ability to gain access to markets in Europe and America. Existing bilateral air agreements and the US incumbent carriers lobby hamper the Gulf carriers' expansion plans through restricting market access.
US Carriers to US Government: Reform Open Skies
Competition between Gulf carriers and the ageing big international US carriers has broken out in the open again in recent months, with US carriers filing a claim to the US administration that the Gulf airlines are not playing fair and are endangering US air carriers’ sustainability and threatening US aviation employment opportunities.
In March of this year, the three major US carriers American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines made public the document that supposedly claims their Gulf competitors are operating successfully due to more than $40 billion subsidies from their governments.
Related article by Greg Principato: Open Skies: What U.S. Airlines Really Want
The big three US carriers confirm that they support “open skies” but they simply believe that the competition with Gulf carriers is not being “fair”.
A Compelling Argument?
Reading between the lines of the US carrier CEOs press conference reveals the real incentive behind this peculiar campaign. When the three biggest international US carriers unite and get the support of their union groups, then one should look up for the true story.
First, protecting jobs is a sound case to defend, but isn’t it the same as competition, and shall be defended reasonably through a solid argument?
Second, why did the US carriers spend too much time (2 years) to produce the document that contains the super “breakthrough” financial data of the Gulf carriers? Unfair competition is a crucial accusation, when a party owns evidence against its rivals; it shall be promptly taken to court. And, if the findings were so harmful, why was this report not announced publicly earlier, instead of exchanging confidential papers around the White House and US Government agencies?
Third is on the perspective of subsidy. It is generally known that subsidy is a sum of money granted by the state to help an industry or business keeps the price of a commodity or service low. The problem is that what US carriers fight against under the name of subsidies is being practiced in the US under Chapter 11. Chapter 11 is a “one of a kind” exit plan that allows US airlines passing through critical financial situations to hold off its credit payments, get rid of debts and embark in a restructuring process. International observers define Chapter 11 as a subsidy, while US carriers insist that it is not. As a personal opinion, how you explain subsidy is insignificant, and allowing it when it suits the US context while suing international competitors for it is a huge sin. If Chapter 11 and antitrust immunity systems are not to be considered facilitating any form of subsidy, then what explains the huge investments of American Airlines (the world’s largest carrier) in new fleet and products while the carrier has just came out fresh of “bankruptcy protection”.
Gulf Carriers Defend Position
We are not here to take down other airlines, and Emirates contributes to the U.S. economy, through the aircraft orders.
The Big 3 US carriers may first want to check their own balance sheets. Since 2006, they transferred billions of dollars of pension liabilities directly to US government while leaving creditors holding the bag for billions more through multiple bankruptcies. They received billions in cash payments and guaranteed loans in a direct government bailout while enjoying the advantages of antitrust immunity to fix transatlantic fares with their European partners.
As Tim Clark promised a “robust, fact based, point-by-point rebuttal” of the charges, he delivered on 30 June in Washington, a hard-hitting document to answer the claims laid against his airline (and against Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways) by the US carriers. The document – entitled “Emirates’ response to claims raised about state-owned airlines in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates” – runs to nearly 400 pages and it has been prepared by an in-house team at Emirates led by Clark himself and advised by lawyers, financial consultants and industry experts.
Until today, US airlines don’t seem to have a compelling case, and it is unclear whether their claims are real about subsidies threatening their ability to compete vigorously and fairly on the international stage.
US airlines should simply “stop complaining and start competing!”
More Related Articles Rebuttal of the Emirates to US accusations Emirates’ response to US open skies claims – allegation by allegation Emirates CEO Tim Clark Blasts Big Three U.S. Airlines, Especially Delta -- Since 'Delta is Delta' Competition from Middle Eastern carriers may mean lower fares to Europe, Middle East
Image credit: Vitor Azevedo
New! Digital Marketing Services
New Airport Insider now offers digital marketing services. So if you need any help with digital marketing, request our 1-page pdf by sending a mail to hello[at]newairportinsider[dot]com and add "Digital Marketing Services" in the subject line. That's it!