Interesting little spat that has arisen twixt some of the big names across the pond. Let's see if the powers that be have the guts to do something about it. The North Atlantic (NA) route has long been a no go area for the authorities. This is where a few airlines make their money and no-one, but no-one is going to interfere. If they did, this would lead to severe financial problems and would highlight the fact that, despite all the fluff and nonesense, many large airlines are arcane, old fashioned institutions riddled with just about every 1970's and 60's business vice imaginable.

Fares across the pond are a rip-off, especially if you intend to sit up front with the driver. The "Saturday Night Rule" has gone from just about everywhere (but not the NA) Seasonal variations in fares are a joke and discounted business (especially) fares now exist on just about everywhere save for, yup, the NA route. (I do not include here as practical, though all credit to them for doing it, Air India and a few others)

We have an almost daily barrage from some airlines about modern business, about being dynamic, about having to adapt to the market and, and, and. All this stops, of course, when you touch on a couple of raw nerves. The NA route being one of them and that old chestnut, slots at Heathrow, being the other.

These need to be dealt with. The NA route needs to be freed of all restraint and so too does Heathrow. The days are gone when Heathrow (or London) was important because it was the first stop after America. (and who the hell wanted to stop at Shannon). Airplanes can easily go to other places, which have much nicer airports (if there is such a thing as a "nice" airport) where the buildiongs are better, the staff are less irritable and the national airline does not wander around (still) with a "We did WIN, you know... and who the hell are you?" attitude.

We may one day - possibly sooner than people think - find that airlines no longer find London and especially Heathrow, attractive. Paris, Amsterdam, even Munich (perhaps PAR and AMS) are modern, well laid out clean (-ish) airports that have a sight less dank, congested and smelly aura than LHR. They could decide to use one of these easy, alternative airports as their European hub and so, thanks to our own national airlines intransigence and crass stupidity, we (the UK) find ourselves reduced from a world leader in airport hub terms to an also ran along a par with say, er, well, Shannon. Sure, people will still need to come to London. But for how long? Once this downward slide starts, where will it stop?

Enough of that, back to fares. I have mentioned before the wizzard wheeze of the fuel surcharge and how it neatly sidesteps just about everything - to allow price increases without, from an airline point of view, pain. Virgin "blew the whistle" ? Well, good for them. Travel agents have known what has been going on ever since Lindbergh first said "Ten quid says I make it". This may be one of the reasons why airlines will sell their product through anyone as long as it is not someone who knows about their product. Look at any fare display for a NA route on any major CRS and you will find competition. Yes, really, there is about £1 or so difference twixt airline! But this is not the point. The issue lies in the difference in the RULES applicable to each fare and it is here that lies the rub  - as much as the difference in what it costs to fly from A to B to A as it does to fly from B to A to B.

So, looks like things may get interesting. That said, we have yet to see who has the balls to sort the NA mess out - given that there are easier tasks in life, like invading a middle east oil state, for example.  What will probably happen is that the old addage will still apply : "Money talks, merit walks" And who has to pay? Yes, British Business!

Stay tuned,  

Murray