(Article written Dec 2008)
Our Industry welcomes the new Minister of Aviation, Mr. Tunde Omotoba. it is gladdening to see aviation return as an independent ministry, as events in the last two years as shown that the civil service is not matured enough to absolve all transport related agencies and parastatals under one ministry coupled, with the multiple and cross-functional legislative committees.
The young Minister is coming at a time when the airlines are expanding, using state of the art equipments. This is a contradiction when compared to the infrastructure on ground (with the exception of MMA2).
I humbly wish to sidestep the issue of technocrat or aviation professional as the last professional appointed to head the Ministry’s only achievement was moving Nigeria Airways pilot’s salary band from the archaic Civil Service Salary Structure to a professional band, while their colleagues in the Private Sector were left out. It became an ‘apomi’ (pocket) affair thereafter.
The problem in our Industry is not peculiar. India had the same problem some years ago, but had to dig deep in thinking and planning before crossing the Rubicon with the determination of the government and the encouragement given to the Private Sector.
Below are some issues in the Industry that need the attention of the Minister:
Ministry’s Budget: The Ministry’s budget should be implemented as proposed, while a supplementary application be made, if the need arises. The new Minister should stop the present practice of arm twisting parastatals and agencies to fund the Ministry’s travels, training and other out-of station expenses. This is not right and puts a lot of pressure on the cash strapped agencies. Why should FAAN be buying tickets for Ministers and other officials, when the terminal buildings are a caricature? Also all Legislative Committees coming for oversight function in the Aviation Industry should not leave Abuja without funds for transportation and accommodation. The Minister should give sanction to any agency that provides “free lunch”, he should take the lead.
Aviation Fuel: The price of aviation fuel is not commensurate with the international market price. Granted it is deregulated. The international price of the oil is just shy of $45 from a scary $150 some time this year. Airlines have responded by removing fuel related charges, while the government of India and China also intervened in lowering the cost of Jet A1 in their respective countries. Unfortunately the government of Nigeria has allowed the major oil marketers to have a field day. The implication here is that our airlines are being stretched to the limit financially while foreign airlines tanker up from base or move to neighboring countries to pick fuel, which results in loss of revenue for our country. The loss is not limited to fuel, but other associated operational expenses such as landing, parking, navigational charges and late night stops that would require catering, handling, hotel etc.
Consolidation: This is an area that needs the Ministry to take the driver’s seat with the assistance of NCAA. Chief Fani-Kayode tried to do something like that in the twilight of the last administration, simply termed re-capitalization. Unfortunately, the clock was ticking for the second term and the still born third term which was an impediment and a wishy-washy consolidation was attempted. The greatest beneficiary of that exercise was the Corporate Affairs Commission, which simply smiled to the bank reaping hefty taxes from the financially constrained Industry. The consolidation should be revisited. Airlines will be the greatest beneficiary as this will encourage interest from foreign carriers in areas of alliances, code share and investment.
Commercial Agreements: All commercial agreements and unfavorable Bilateral Air Services Agreement should be reviewed. It is important to develop our airports and our flag carriers. Stifling their growth with these agreements just because we get some foreign currency that are quickly shoved into an escrow account is definitely not better than empowering Nigerian carriers.
Fly Nigeria Act: The Ministry should liaise with Legislature for an act that will provide market for our flag carriers. The Act is to ensure that any travel being funded by the government or expressly with tax payers fund must be purchased from a Nigerian Airline. The Act is presently operated by the USA. Considering it will take some time for the Act to see the light, a subtle directive via a simple memo can be passed to test run this idea. The US Act has been in operation this since the 1970s and reviews are made regularly to fit the realities of the day.
BASA Fund: The acrimonious BASA Fund which was the subject of numerous memos, media hype and legislative declarations, is now in the coffers of NCAA, waiting to be disbursed. The Fund must be used for safety critical issues and equipment. It is likely that the Minister has many memos and proposals waiting or ambushing his table right now. He should please tarry a while before approving and ensure due diligence using safety as a priority.
Airports: FAAN as presently structured cannot meet the challenges of the industry neither can it cope with the prospects of the future. To avoid a looming infrastructural and operational chaos, the Minister should endeavor to seek a reputable and internationally recognized airport company to partner, manage and restructure FAAN. The cherry picking policies of the former Minister whereby only viable airports were given preference is retrogressive for a developing economy like Nigeria. A holistic approach involving all the government owned airports should be adopted. We should look at the models used by the Argentine and Indian governments and develop a suitable one for our airports.
The government of Argentina sometime in 1998 started by awarding a 30-year, $5 billion concession for all thirty three of the country's airports to a group led by Milan airport operator, Societa Esercizi Aeroportuali (SEA). It is noteworthy that only eight of the thirty three airports sold in Argentina are profitable, therefore it is suspected that international airlines operating in and out of Argentina may have subsidized the rest.
The Indian government invited foreign investors to develop their airports on public and private participation basis (PPP). They started by dividing the airports into Greenfield (new airports built from scratch) and Brownfield (modified or upgraded from existing facilities) Airports. Government retained 26% shareholding in these airports (either through the Airport Authority of India or through the State Government).The government took these actions to save the industry from collapsing as the airlines were expanding in the face of decaying infrastructure. Recently, the Parliament passed the Airport Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) into law to support the quick implementation and supervision of the programme.
Ground Handling: An immediate and successful privatization of SAHCOL is the only option for now. A core investor that is an internationally recognized ground handler should be invited or nominated. Please no hastily arranged or a CAC “quickie” registered consortium should be allowed.
Also, all recently disengaged staff of the company must be paid their entitlements whether it is SAHCOL or Ex-Nigeria Airways Staff.
Catering: ASL has monopoly and this is not good for competition, service and price. The only competitor is the government owned Skypower Catering. That organization with assets spread around the country is a glorified ‘bukka.’ The organization is more of an ‘owanbe’ venue, which was not the dream of the original owners. The government should take a decision on the company, the staff and assets, which are simply rotting away. The industry needs a competitive catering arm that will pass IATA Catering Audit, which is underway and Nigeria will not be excluded. Skychef and Servair are reputable international catering organizations and can be invited to manage Skypower Catering. Servair already has a strong presence in Africa.
Training: Government should either put NCAT in the market or get a technical or investing partner. This idea was proposed by the last government but it evaporated almost immediately. NCAT has lost her glory and needs more than Government subvention to get out of the woods. Fortunately, Kwara State Government is looking at our training needs and is on the verge of setting up a world class training school.
This is encouraging and the new Minister should encourage the establishment of more schools. Presently South Africa is reaping bountifully from our resources as Nigerians flock there for training and our precious foreign currency is being converted to South African Rands just because they have close to 30 training schools that are recognized and technically competent. We should encourage individuals and organizations to set up these schools here so the funds can remain here boosting the economy and the Industry at the same time. BASA funds should not be sent to these schools but invested in safety sensitive infrastructure.
Navigational Aids: The Industry is in dire need for an upgrade of navigational instruments and equipment. NAMA was able to join the rest of the world in implementing the Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) and for now cannot be privatized as obtained in developed economies. The government will have to fund the purchase of the equipment while at the same time ensuring a re-organization of the agency. The air traffic controllers are stretched to the limit using outdated and broken down equipment in an era of increased air traffic.
The airlines have borne the associated expenses of these delays on land and in the air, such as schedule disruption, burning of fuel, crew and passenger fatigue etc.
Passengers & Users of Aviation Services: The Minister should ensure Nigerians are treated well by foreign and domestic airlines. He should concentrate on the diplomatic front, while NCAA applies and ensures compliance with the rules. The persistence of Chief Fani-Kayode is sometimes needed when unfavorable rules and policies are placed on the Nigerian route and passengers by the dominant foreign carriers. The Minister should see the Office as that of the Chief Customer Services Officer.
Yamoussoukro Decision: The much misrepresented and parroted decision and declaration without action should be a priority for the Minister as he joins his colleagues in Yamoussoukro next year to deliberate on the way forward. Let us pray it will not be another “Meeters and Greeters” conference.
He will need to spear head it through our regional group, ECOWAS so our flag carriers can continue the dominance and expansion of the West Coast, which by and large should cover almost all the countries in West Africa. The present liberalization on the Lagos – Accra route should be extended to other cities in West Africa, which will improve connectivity, competition, tourism, service and reduced fares. ECOWAS should take a cue from the Southern Africa Development Coordination Conference (SADDC) states which will implement YD in their region from January 2009. An executing agency and Joint Competition Authority has been set up to achieve this objective. Also, the Minister should look into the Essential Air Service & Tourism Route Development Scheme (ESTDR) as espoused by ICAO, so implementation can start within the sub region with Nigeria taking the initiative. Lastly an airline should quickly be designated on the Kampala route as agreed with the Uganda Government recently with marketing and route development support.
Welcome Honorable Minister the industry is growing with the Principle of Variable Geometry. Take a good lead role and history will do the rest.
Monday, July 12, 2010
COMPELLING NEED FOR A “FLY NIGERIA ACT”
(article written November 2008)
Having considered the inability of our carriers to command presence on the international routes, withdrawal of designated flag carriers on some viable but highly competitive international routes and stranglehold on some of these markets by foreign carriers with the accompanying capital flight vis a vis quality of service on the Nigerian route when compared to other routes, I strongly feel the time for a “Fly Nigeria Act” has come.
The act will protect and give market share to Nigerian airlines and most importantly public funds will not be filtered and ferried away by foreign airlines but ploughed back into the country by Nigerian airlines. This will generate more employment and revenue in the industry, access to capital, foreign investment, career projection for core professionals and most importantly ignite a dash for code share and alliance with Nigerian carriers.
Presently the USA has such an act – LAW 49 US code 4118 while some other countries have it as executive directive (real & subtle). The US act basically states that US carriers shall be used for all commercial foreign air travel of employees/property, dependants, consultants, contractors and grantees when air travel is being funded by the government.
General provisions of the Act require that US flag carriers be used regardless of added cost or travel time implications to the traveler. Interestingly, it should also be noted that, according to the US State Department (DOT) the Fly America Act applies equally to non-US nationals and non-US companies or their representatives both within the USA and ex-territorially, regardless of enforcement difficulties or possible infringements of international law and personal liberty that this could represent.
The Act provides balance against some of the existing, largely obsolescent and, in many cases, inequitable bilateral US/non-US Air Transport Agreements. The Act also accepts Code Sharing (Airline Alliances) of flights by US and non-US flag carriers utilizing the equipment of the non-US flag carrier. If a US flag air carrier has an arrangement to provide passenger service in international air transportation on the aircraft of a non-US air carrier under a “code-share” arrangement with a non-US air carrier, Federal regulations have been revised to indicate that the ticket (or document) must identify the US Flag air carrier’s two letter designator code and flight number. In a nutshell that ticket must be purchased from the US member airline in that alliance.
This act was introduced in the 70s and has regularly been updated in line with present Civil Aviation realities with some permissible exceptions being introduced recently. Some exceptions to the Act include if total travel time is 10 hours or more than would travel by non-US carrier; if the airport abroad is an interchange point, and use of a US Carrier would require the traveler to wait six (6) hours or more to make connection or would extend the total travel time six (6) hours or more than would travel by non-US carrier; if travel by non-US carrier would eliminate two (2) or more aircraft changes en route.
Also, for all short distance travel, regardless of origin and destination, use of a non-US carrier is permissible if the elapsed travel time on a scheduled flight from origin to destination airport by non-US carrier is three (3) hours or less and service by US carrier would double the travel time. Other exceptions are emergencies, budget constraint e.t.c.
In Nigeria there is nothing in place to protect our flag carriers either in policy or agreement, be it bilateral or multilateral. Rather we are eager to give away more frequencies and capacities and collect royalties otherwise known as “BASA funds”. It is no secret that our economy is heavily dependent on the government which is the biggest spender at all levels.
The Private Sector is still being tied by our socio-political structures that have given so much power primarily, to the government at center and secondarily to other tiers of government.
The strength of the public sector and financial benefits can be X-rayed by looking at legislative arm of government which is composed of Nigerians who have lived or benefitted from the best of education outside the country, but have hopped into the lucrative political business. Also, the executive arm is resplendent with core professionals in education, science and technology who have literally abandoned such developmental sectors for the juicy political lifeline.
Listening to the Senate President and the former Minister of State, Air Transport lately and their sympathy, hopefully not apathy, the industry needs a change in attitude and altitude for our carriers to fly. Quoting the Senate President at the unveiling of Embraer 190 aircraft, “On our part as legislators, I want to assure you that we will make sure that we put in place legislation that will ensure competition within the airline industry, very healthy competition and we will bring in as many legislation, as we can to make sure that whatever investment you make is also guaranteed; that you don’t go down in areas of making the profit that you deserve to make. It is all designed to make sure that we provide safety inclined conditions for Nigerians”, also the Honorable Minister of State (Air Transport) in his presentation to Senate Ad-hoc committee “that government was making efforts to empower local airlines to reduce the virtual monopoly of foreign airlines”, he reiterated further on his visit to Kano Airport “that three (3) UAE airlines will operating into Kano and the ministry was working towards creating an enabling environment for local airlines to compete and operate profitably”.
Good Talk!! The industry is used to it and needs action, which should include but not be limited to the review of, all commercial and some Bilateral Air Services Agreements (BASA) that grant extra frequencies, multiple entries in addition to a “Fly Nigeria Act” or an executive directive in the interim. The airlines have shown the zeal to compete, having moved from the era of old aircrafts to new aircrafts and are now providing personalized in-flight entertainment (IFE) on board which will definitely influence and change the way we fly. The operators need to be encouraged and supported policy wise.
Government policy tilts towards multiple entries for foreign airlines. one of the Middle Eastern airlines that benefited recently from the government largess and operates to Johannesburg in South Africa had to interline with five South African based airlines, a statement on the airline’s website says “the interline is offering passengers easy access to other South African destinations following arrival in Johannesburg. Would those SA carriers have benefited from that revenue stream if that airline had multiple entries into South Africa?
I was an IATA scholarship candidate for an Airline Management programme in Singapore some years ago and coincidentally NCAA sponsored two principal staff that is in the Department responsible for these agreements to that programme. In our case study, we managed a new airline (Air Mercury) situated off the coast of Africa with Bilateral Air Service Agreements with some countries. To our surprise, it was only Nigeria, I repeat only Nigeria in that case study, granted extra flights provided the airline pays $200 per passenger for the extra frequency which is sometimes called commercial agreements. We were teased by our colleagues from other countries who quickly prayed for Nigeria to grant them such facilities. This is no joke; the NCAA officials are living witnesses.
Let me state it categorically here, that the money realized from BASA over the years which was recently transferred to the custody of NCAA and is exciting some cash strapped agencies is nothing when compared to the monetary benefits and accompanying multiplier effects of empowering our airlines by giving them that prized “Government travel Market”. The foreign airlines will hurry to invest, discuss and partner our flag, local and struggling airlines.
The present agreements encourage foreign airlines’ hub-and-spoke policy, while a review will encourage a head to head competition. The difference you may ask. Nonstop flights increase head to head competition, whereas hub-and-spoke systems increase market power and the ability to price discriminate.
To our operators, who presently lack a fiery O’Leary of Ryan Air or a bold Branson in their midst, should endeavor to work together through consolidation. It is time to speak up as individuals and inform the government and the public of policy pains in the industry. The Airline Operators of Nigeria (AON) is not giving the desired aggression. Also, the airlines have to put in place some facilities that will encourage partnership such as e-ticketing, BSP Portal, IATA membership, navigable & friendly websites and an IOSA certification is an added advantage.
Finally, in the absence of a liquidated national carrier, the country has four flag carriers and the foreign carriers are willing to partner with them when we think “NIGERIA” first before others. The government should consider the amount ferried to foreign airlines when traveling with government funds considering the travels are in upper classes with stops sometimes associated to personal retreat, by officials in the three tiers of government for conferences, seminars, capacity/pocket building programmes.
Also the country’s participation in different sporting cultural programmes that have more officials and supporters than participants is another area we can keep with us, therefore the country should sincerely ruminate and support the industry with a “FLY NIGERIA ACT”.
The government owned service providers crave for bailout while the airlines crave for market. If these are provided, our industry will be unparalleled in Sub –Saharan Africa.
Having considered the inability of our carriers to command presence on the international routes, withdrawal of designated flag carriers on some viable but highly competitive international routes and stranglehold on some of these markets by foreign carriers with the accompanying capital flight vis a vis quality of service on the Nigerian route when compared to other routes, I strongly feel the time for a “Fly Nigeria Act” has come.
The act will protect and give market share to Nigerian airlines and most importantly public funds will not be filtered and ferried away by foreign airlines but ploughed back into the country by Nigerian airlines. This will generate more employment and revenue in the industry, access to capital, foreign investment, career projection for core professionals and most importantly ignite a dash for code share and alliance with Nigerian carriers.
Presently the USA has such an act – LAW 49 US code 4118 while some other countries have it as executive directive (real & subtle). The US act basically states that US carriers shall be used for all commercial foreign air travel of employees/property, dependants, consultants, contractors and grantees when air travel is being funded by the government.
General provisions of the Act require that US flag carriers be used regardless of added cost or travel time implications to the traveler. Interestingly, it should also be noted that, according to the US State Department (DOT) the Fly America Act applies equally to non-US nationals and non-US companies or their representatives both within the USA and ex-territorially, regardless of enforcement difficulties or possible infringements of international law and personal liberty that this could represent.
The Act provides balance against some of the existing, largely obsolescent and, in many cases, inequitable bilateral US/non-US Air Transport Agreements. The Act also accepts Code Sharing (Airline Alliances) of flights by US and non-US flag carriers utilizing the equipment of the non-US flag carrier. If a US flag air carrier has an arrangement to provide passenger service in international air transportation on the aircraft of a non-US air carrier under a “code-share” arrangement with a non-US air carrier, Federal regulations have been revised to indicate that the ticket (or document) must identify the US Flag air carrier’s two letter designator code and flight number. In a nutshell that ticket must be purchased from the US member airline in that alliance.
This act was introduced in the 70s and has regularly been updated in line with present Civil Aviation realities with some permissible exceptions being introduced recently. Some exceptions to the Act include if total travel time is 10 hours or more than would travel by non-US carrier; if the airport abroad is an interchange point, and use of a US Carrier would require the traveler to wait six (6) hours or more to make connection or would extend the total travel time six (6) hours or more than would travel by non-US carrier; if travel by non-US carrier would eliminate two (2) or more aircraft changes en route.
Also, for all short distance travel, regardless of origin and destination, use of a non-US carrier is permissible if the elapsed travel time on a scheduled flight from origin to destination airport by non-US carrier is three (3) hours or less and service by US carrier would double the travel time. Other exceptions are emergencies, budget constraint e.t.c.
In Nigeria there is nothing in place to protect our flag carriers either in policy or agreement, be it bilateral or multilateral. Rather we are eager to give away more frequencies and capacities and collect royalties otherwise known as “BASA funds”. It is no secret that our economy is heavily dependent on the government which is the biggest spender at all levels.
The Private Sector is still being tied by our socio-political structures that have given so much power primarily, to the government at center and secondarily to other tiers of government.
The strength of the public sector and financial benefits can be X-rayed by looking at legislative arm of government which is composed of Nigerians who have lived or benefitted from the best of education outside the country, but have hopped into the lucrative political business. Also, the executive arm is resplendent with core professionals in education, science and technology who have literally abandoned such developmental sectors for the juicy political lifeline.
Listening to the Senate President and the former Minister of State, Air Transport lately and their sympathy, hopefully not apathy, the industry needs a change in attitude and altitude for our carriers to fly. Quoting the Senate President at the unveiling of Embraer 190 aircraft, “On our part as legislators, I want to assure you that we will make sure that we put in place legislation that will ensure competition within the airline industry, very healthy competition and we will bring in as many legislation, as we can to make sure that whatever investment you make is also guaranteed; that you don’t go down in areas of making the profit that you deserve to make. It is all designed to make sure that we provide safety inclined conditions for Nigerians”, also the Honorable Minister of State (Air Transport) in his presentation to Senate Ad-hoc committee “that government was making efforts to empower local airlines to reduce the virtual monopoly of foreign airlines”, he reiterated further on his visit to Kano Airport “that three (3) UAE airlines will operating into Kano and the ministry was working towards creating an enabling environment for local airlines to compete and operate profitably”.
Good Talk!! The industry is used to it and needs action, which should include but not be limited to the review of, all commercial and some Bilateral Air Services Agreements (BASA) that grant extra frequencies, multiple entries in addition to a “Fly Nigeria Act” or an executive directive in the interim. The airlines have shown the zeal to compete, having moved from the era of old aircrafts to new aircrafts and are now providing personalized in-flight entertainment (IFE) on board which will definitely influence and change the way we fly. The operators need to be encouraged and supported policy wise.
Government policy tilts towards multiple entries for foreign airlines. one of the Middle Eastern airlines that benefited recently from the government largess and operates to Johannesburg in South Africa had to interline with five South African based airlines, a statement on the airline’s website says “the interline is offering passengers easy access to other South African destinations following arrival in Johannesburg. Would those SA carriers have benefited from that revenue stream if that airline had multiple entries into South Africa?
I was an IATA scholarship candidate for an Airline Management programme in Singapore some years ago and coincidentally NCAA sponsored two principal staff that is in the Department responsible for these agreements to that programme. In our case study, we managed a new airline (Air Mercury) situated off the coast of Africa with Bilateral Air Service Agreements with some countries. To our surprise, it was only Nigeria, I repeat only Nigeria in that case study, granted extra flights provided the airline pays $200 per passenger for the extra frequency which is sometimes called commercial agreements. We were teased by our colleagues from other countries who quickly prayed for Nigeria to grant them such facilities. This is no joke; the NCAA officials are living witnesses.
Let me state it categorically here, that the money realized from BASA over the years which was recently transferred to the custody of NCAA and is exciting some cash strapped agencies is nothing when compared to the monetary benefits and accompanying multiplier effects of empowering our airlines by giving them that prized “Government travel Market”. The foreign airlines will hurry to invest, discuss and partner our flag, local and struggling airlines.
The present agreements encourage foreign airlines’ hub-and-spoke policy, while a review will encourage a head to head competition. The difference you may ask. Nonstop flights increase head to head competition, whereas hub-and-spoke systems increase market power and the ability to price discriminate.
To our operators, who presently lack a fiery O’Leary of Ryan Air or a bold Branson in their midst, should endeavor to work together through consolidation. It is time to speak up as individuals and inform the government and the public of policy pains in the industry. The Airline Operators of Nigeria (AON) is not giving the desired aggression. Also, the airlines have to put in place some facilities that will encourage partnership such as e-ticketing, BSP Portal, IATA membership, navigable & friendly websites and an IOSA certification is an added advantage.
Finally, in the absence of a liquidated national carrier, the country has four flag carriers and the foreign carriers are willing to partner with them when we think “NIGERIA” first before others. The government should consider the amount ferried to foreign airlines when traveling with government funds considering the travels are in upper classes with stops sometimes associated to personal retreat, by officials in the three tiers of government for conferences, seminars, capacity/pocket building programmes.
Also the country’s participation in different sporting cultural programmes that have more officials and supporters than participants is another area we can keep with us, therefore the country should sincerely ruminate and support the industry with a “FLY NIGERIA ACT”.
The government owned service providers crave for bailout while the airlines crave for market. If these are provided, our industry will be unparalleled in Sub –Saharan Africa.
RVSM: NIGERIA JOINS THE REST OF THE WORLD
(article written September 2008)
Nigeria successfully joined the rest of the world on the 25th of September, 2008 in implementing RVSM, in achieving this feat, an implementing office was set up in NAMA five years ago headed by a National Manager who with other members of his team mid-wife the programme.The team had personnel from relevant aviation agencies such as NCAA, NIMET, NCAT and the Nigerian Air force.
During these period seminars and training were organized to sensitize airlines and the aviation family in general.NAMA the principal agency implementing the RVSM is responsible for our compliance. They were able to sign letters of agreement between Kano Flight Information Region (FIR) and some other countries FIRs, namely Njamena, Niamey, Brazzaville, Accra e.t.c. Also over 73 Air Traffic Controllers (ATC) and 48 Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) personnel were trained and certified by the management to operate the RVSM. The training was not a NAMA affair alone as NCAA inspectors, NIMET staff, operations personnel, engineers & pilots in civil and military aviation also benefited.
Reduced Vertical Separation Minima or Minimum (RVSM) is an aviation term used to describe the reduction of the standard vertical separation required between aircraft flying at levels between FL290 (29,000 ft.) and FL410 (41,000 ft.) from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet. The North Atlantic System Groups that implemented RVSM first determined that they were only implementing a change to one minimum from 2,000ft to 1,000ft; therefore, that minimum being singular the correct terminology is minimum not minima.
RVSM increases number of aircraft that can safely fly in a particular volume of airspace. The goal of RVSM is to reduce the vertical separation above flight level (FL) 290 from the current 2000-ft minimum to 1000-ft minimum. This will allow aircraft to safely fly more optimum profiles, gain fuel savings with its attendant cost, reduce C02 emission, greater operational flexibility for controllers and increase airspace capacity by introducing six new flight levels.
In the past, standard vertical separation was 1,000 feet from the surface to FL290, 2,000 feet from FL290 to FL410 and 4,000 feet for FL420 and above. This was because the accuracy of the pressure altimeter used in aircraft to determine level decreases with height. However over time Air data computers (ADC) combined with altimeters have become more accurate and autopilots more adept at maintaining a set level, therefore it became apparent that for newer aircraft, the 2,000 foot separation was too cautious. It was therefore proposed by ICAO that this be reduced to 1,000 feet.
RVSM was implemented between 1997 and 2005 in all of Europe, Middle East, North Africa, Southeast Asia, North America, South America, and over North Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Pacific Oceans. The North Atlantic implemented initially in March 1997 at flight levels 330 through 370. The entire western hemisphere implemented RVSM FL290-FL410 on January 20, 2005.
Not surprisingly the North Africans implemented the RVSM in 2002 with the Europeans, leaving the Sub-Saharan and India Ocean states behind, which most probably necessitated the 25th September, 2008 deadline. In joining the rest of the world, flights going east wards in the country’s airspace and within RVSM envelop will be given odd number flight levels such as 290,310,330,350,370,390 and 410 while flights going west ward will be given even number flight levels as 280,300,320,340,360,380 and 400.
Aircrafts with the required Minimum Aircraft Systems Performance Specifications (MASPS) and approved by their respective States (in Nigeria NCAA) for RVSM operations will be permitted to fly in RVSM Airspace. Non compliant aircrafts, excluding State aircraft (i.e. aircraft belonging to the customs, police, military) will be required to operate at or below FL280. The Air force and other sky gymnast should remember that Formation Flight are not allowed within the RVSM envelop.
Non-RVSM-approved aircraft intending to operate above FL 410 will be required to have the capability to execute an uninterrupted climb or descent through the RVSM airspace. Such flights shall be given appropriate ATC clearances, which will be subject to traffic levels at the time clearance is requested.
The basic components of an RVSM-compliant aircraft system involves but not limited to the pitot/static system, which includes the pitot tube/static port, standby altimeter, VSI, airspeed/Mach and associated plumbing. The ADC is the brain of the system. it is generally required that the aircraft have two primary altitude measuring system, one auto altitude control and an altitude alerting devise before entering the RVSM envelop.
Also aircraft's flight performance must be checked or confirmed by a ground based Height Monitoring Unit (HMU) or by a portable GPS Monitoring Unit, with the latter, instruments installed aboard the subject aircraft.
Also aircraft over 15000 kg or having more than 30 seats must have a collision avoidance system called ACAS II, i.e. TCAS II Version 7 as the older version are not compatible with RVSM and are susceptible to false alarm. For aircrafts manufactured before April 9 1997 they need their actuators and mechanical flight controls upgraded to maintain a precise altitude. Older actuators may not be able to maintain the necessary tolerance at altitude.
The crew operating in the RVSM envelop should endeavour to notify ATC immediately in an event of turbulence, auto altitude control failure, loss of either the altimetry system, thrust necessitating descent or any other equipment failure that will affect the ability of the aircraft in maintaining a flight level.
Challenges: the RVSM has been dogged with mid-air crisis phobia, by reducing the space between aircrafts; RVSM may increase the number of mid-air collisions and conflicts. In the last eleven years since RVSM was first implemented not one collision has been attributed to RVSM, so NAMA should ensure it shall be the same over here, like we say in Nigeria, it shall be permanent.
The aircraft manufacturers have their own challenges too, some equipment on Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) for the RVSM operation such as the collision warning TCAS II Version 7 and Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT) which transmit automatically. These equipments were on Gol Airlines Flight 1907 operated by a seventeen-day old Boeing 737-800 aircraft with test, ferry and operational time of 200hrs only, on the 29th of September 2006 and carrying 154 passengers which tipped the wing of a Legacy business jet mid-air in the Brazilian air-space and headed for the Amazon jungle. It took precisely six days for the aircraft to be located. Then you wonder what happened to a brand new TCAS п and ELT, which failed woefully to notice the Lear jet and the latter refusing to transmit which is needed to speed up location and rescue.
NAMA should as a matter of urgency update their information & surveillance systems, total radar coverage programme and the automation of the flight planning system, though the management has promised to update them, we hopefully wait. They should endeavor to delicately balance and manage the different professional associations within the organization during these periods. Having successfully crossed the transition period and the critical hour which was the 24th to 25th September and the hour being 2300hrs -0100hrs, which was a big challenge with respect to aircrafts flying eastwards on flight level 310,350 and 390, they must now go further by ensuring industrial harmony, in order words the remunerations and agitations of the ATC & AIS personnel should be addressed.
ATC & AIS personnel in the industry are also challenged to effectively move seamlessly from the non-RVSM era to new RVSM era and ensure the skies remain safe, which will inadvertently aid their operational flexibility, but will advise that they strengthen NATCA by making it more professional and independent. That body should be giving a voice in the industry and reduce their over dependence on ATSSSAN.
Other challenges include refusal of some domestic pilots to go for briefing before departure, the stoic silence of NCAA on aircrafts and airlines that are not RVSM compliant, and non responsiveness of domestic operators to the “W” column when filing flight plan indicating RVSM compliance, suffice for Virgin and Arik.
RVSM is here and the envelop is only open to aircrafts and operators that are compliant with accompanying benefits, the ball is now in the court of Nigerian operators to either get into this envelop or stay in the fuel guzzling and time consuming envelop, luckily for pilots that have operated flights beyond the sub Saharan region they should endeavor to share the experience garnered in the RVSM envelop.
Nigeria successfully joined the rest of the world on the 25th of September, 2008 in implementing RVSM, in achieving this feat, an implementing office was set up in NAMA five years ago headed by a National Manager who with other members of his team mid-wife the programme.The team had personnel from relevant aviation agencies such as NCAA, NIMET, NCAT and the Nigerian Air force.
During these period seminars and training were organized to sensitize airlines and the aviation family in general.NAMA the principal agency implementing the RVSM is responsible for our compliance. They were able to sign letters of agreement between Kano Flight Information Region (FIR) and some other countries FIRs, namely Njamena, Niamey, Brazzaville, Accra e.t.c. Also over 73 Air Traffic Controllers (ATC) and 48 Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) personnel were trained and certified by the management to operate the RVSM. The training was not a NAMA affair alone as NCAA inspectors, NIMET staff, operations personnel, engineers & pilots in civil and military aviation also benefited.
Reduced Vertical Separation Minima or Minimum (RVSM) is an aviation term used to describe the reduction of the standard vertical separation required between aircraft flying at levels between FL290 (29,000 ft.) and FL410 (41,000 ft.) from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet. The North Atlantic System Groups that implemented RVSM first determined that they were only implementing a change to one minimum from 2,000ft to 1,000ft; therefore, that minimum being singular the correct terminology is minimum not minima.
RVSM increases number of aircraft that can safely fly in a particular volume of airspace. The goal of RVSM is to reduce the vertical separation above flight level (FL) 290 from the current 2000-ft minimum to 1000-ft minimum. This will allow aircraft to safely fly more optimum profiles, gain fuel savings with its attendant cost, reduce C02 emission, greater operational flexibility for controllers and increase airspace capacity by introducing six new flight levels.
In the past, standard vertical separation was 1,000 feet from the surface to FL290, 2,000 feet from FL290 to FL410 and 4,000 feet for FL420 and above. This was because the accuracy of the pressure altimeter used in aircraft to determine level decreases with height. However over time Air data computers (ADC) combined with altimeters have become more accurate and autopilots more adept at maintaining a set level, therefore it became apparent that for newer aircraft, the 2,000 foot separation was too cautious. It was therefore proposed by ICAO that this be reduced to 1,000 feet.
RVSM was implemented between 1997 and 2005 in all of Europe, Middle East, North Africa, Southeast Asia, North America, South America, and over North Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Pacific Oceans. The North Atlantic implemented initially in March 1997 at flight levels 330 through 370. The entire western hemisphere implemented RVSM FL290-FL410 on January 20, 2005.
Not surprisingly the North Africans implemented the RVSM in 2002 with the Europeans, leaving the Sub-Saharan and India Ocean states behind, which most probably necessitated the 25th September, 2008 deadline. In joining the rest of the world, flights going east wards in the country’s airspace and within RVSM envelop will be given odd number flight levels such as 290,310,330,350,370,390 and 410 while flights going west ward will be given even number flight levels as 280,300,320,340,360,380 and 400.
Aircrafts with the required Minimum Aircraft Systems Performance Specifications (MASPS) and approved by their respective States (in Nigeria NCAA) for RVSM operations will be permitted to fly in RVSM Airspace. Non compliant aircrafts, excluding State aircraft (i.e. aircraft belonging to the customs, police, military) will be required to operate at or below FL280. The Air force and other sky gymnast should remember that Formation Flight are not allowed within the RVSM envelop.
Non-RVSM-approved aircraft intending to operate above FL 410 will be required to have the capability to execute an uninterrupted climb or descent through the RVSM airspace. Such flights shall be given appropriate ATC clearances, which will be subject to traffic levels at the time clearance is requested.
The basic components of an RVSM-compliant aircraft system involves but not limited to the pitot/static system, which includes the pitot tube/static port, standby altimeter, VSI, airspeed/Mach and associated plumbing. The ADC is the brain of the system. it is generally required that the aircraft have two primary altitude measuring system, one auto altitude control and an altitude alerting devise before entering the RVSM envelop.
Also aircraft's flight performance must be checked or confirmed by a ground based Height Monitoring Unit (HMU) or by a portable GPS Monitoring Unit, with the latter, instruments installed aboard the subject aircraft.
Also aircraft over 15000 kg or having more than 30 seats must have a collision avoidance system called ACAS II, i.e. TCAS II Version 7 as the older version are not compatible with RVSM and are susceptible to false alarm. For aircrafts manufactured before April 9 1997 they need their actuators and mechanical flight controls upgraded to maintain a precise altitude. Older actuators may not be able to maintain the necessary tolerance at altitude.
The crew operating in the RVSM envelop should endeavour to notify ATC immediately in an event of turbulence, auto altitude control failure, loss of either the altimetry system, thrust necessitating descent or any other equipment failure that will affect the ability of the aircraft in maintaining a flight level.
Challenges: the RVSM has been dogged with mid-air crisis phobia, by reducing the space between aircrafts; RVSM may increase the number of mid-air collisions and conflicts. In the last eleven years since RVSM was first implemented not one collision has been attributed to RVSM, so NAMA should ensure it shall be the same over here, like we say in Nigeria, it shall be permanent.
The aircraft manufacturers have their own challenges too, some equipment on Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) for the RVSM operation such as the collision warning TCAS II Version 7 and Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT) which transmit automatically. These equipments were on Gol Airlines Flight 1907 operated by a seventeen-day old Boeing 737-800 aircraft with test, ferry and operational time of 200hrs only, on the 29th of September 2006 and carrying 154 passengers which tipped the wing of a Legacy business jet mid-air in the Brazilian air-space and headed for the Amazon jungle. It took precisely six days for the aircraft to be located. Then you wonder what happened to a brand new TCAS п and ELT, which failed woefully to notice the Lear jet and the latter refusing to transmit which is needed to speed up location and rescue.
NAMA should as a matter of urgency update their information & surveillance systems, total radar coverage programme and the automation of the flight planning system, though the management has promised to update them, we hopefully wait. They should endeavor to delicately balance and manage the different professional associations within the organization during these periods. Having successfully crossed the transition period and the critical hour which was the 24th to 25th September and the hour being 2300hrs -0100hrs, which was a big challenge with respect to aircrafts flying eastwards on flight level 310,350 and 390, they must now go further by ensuring industrial harmony, in order words the remunerations and agitations of the ATC & AIS personnel should be addressed.
ATC & AIS personnel in the industry are also challenged to effectively move seamlessly from the non-RVSM era to new RVSM era and ensure the skies remain safe, which will inadvertently aid their operational flexibility, but will advise that they strengthen NATCA by making it more professional and independent. That body should be giving a voice in the industry and reduce their over dependence on ATSSSAN.
Other challenges include refusal of some domestic pilots to go for briefing before departure, the stoic silence of NCAA on aircrafts and airlines that are not RVSM compliant, and non responsiveness of domestic operators to the “W” column when filing flight plan indicating RVSM compliance, suffice for Virgin and Arik.
RVSM is here and the envelop is only open to aircrafts and operators that are compliant with accompanying benefits, the ball is now in the court of Nigerian operators to either get into this envelop or stay in the fuel guzzling and time consuming envelop, luckily for pilots that have operated flights beyond the sub Saharan region they should endeavor to share the experience garnered in the RVSM envelop.
Virgin Nigeria (VNA) SAGA: BETWEEN THE LETTER AND MMU
(article written August 2008)
The Virgin group is worth over $ 30 billion with over 65 subsidiaries and ancillary companies’ world wide. Virgin Airline siblings are spread over eight countries, namely Nigeria’s Virgin Nigeria, Belgium’s SN Brussels (merger between Virgin Express & Brussels Airline),America’s Virgin America, Malaysia’s Air Asia X (20% interest),Australia’s Virgin Blue & V Australia, New Zealand’s Pacific Blue and Samoa’s Polynesian Blue. This article will look at the relocation order and other attributes of the virgin siblings in other countries.
VNA came into the country at a very trying period for the country’s civil aviation; the government had just liquidated Nigeria Airways and tried unsuccessfully to start another carrier despite the efforts and funds spent in creating, branding, repainting and even deceiving the Miss World organizers of a new national carrier called Air Nigeria or Nigeria Air International.
The gimmicks, plan and programme of government for the new airline fell flat, that the advisors to government on the best option, International Monetary Fund had to return the consulting fee before pulling out in disappointment. The government was faced with the option of propping up our local airlines or starting another national carrier. they chose the latter, and invited Virgin to start a flag carrier just like the Samoan government invited Virgin which led to the formation of Polynesian Blue in place of the failed national carrier; Polynesian airlines. Also the entry of VNA was the fill the vacuum created by the demise of Nigeria Airways which Virgin also did in Australia with Virgin Blue at the demise of a mega carrier Ansett Airline.
The government announced to the nation Virgin is the new core investor in the new wholly privatized national carrier despite the protestation of United States who alleged that Virgin was the blocking US airline’s access to Heathrow. Virgin was to replace South Africa Airways (SAA) who had won the bid as the core investor in a process initiated and cut-short by the same government, at that time SAA was facilitating the operation of Nigeria Airways flight to New-York via Dakar using the 7th freedom rights from Lagos with a South African registered B747 aircraft.
Virgin Group initially only wanted a share of British Airways big cake which necessitated the lobbying for sometime to partner with Nigeria Airways on the Lagos- London route (only) or the relinquishing some of WT juicy but under-utilized frequencies into Heathrow airport. When that failed, they were able to convince the government showing records of fares crashing at the name of “Virgin”, which was very convincing, that the government, started the push for dual designation on the LOS-LON route when the country was not willing and did not designate a second airline to reciprocate that agreement.
The reasons given by virgin for their interest was the unbridled profit, arbitrary fares and appalling customer service of British Airways who were the de-facto monopolist on the route, though on record today the cheapest fare on that route is not VNA or VAL but another local operator. Looking at the fares advertised recently you will be surprised the fare gimmick that was sold to the government years ago is a mirage because today BA has $1445 to London as against VS $1444 while BA one way fare is $1172, VS is $1460 (see skyworld travels).
On related issues such as Singapore Airlines pulling out of Virgin Airline group, which is being attributed to the losses in VNA. This is not a fair assessment of the move. SIA acquired 49% of Virgin Atlantic Airways in March 2000 for £600 million; SIA started mooting the idea of selling its stake after the Singaporean government signed a new agreement with the British government. The agreement removes all restrictions on flights operated by airlines of both countries which includes beyond and domestic rights in the UK. The deal was reached almost two decades after Singapore first proposed it. Now SIA has free access to the North Atlantic from UK, which was the reason for investing in Virgin initially. The benefits far outweigh the investment in Virgin Atlantic which is a perception that SIA has not denied.
VNA losses that is being made an issue now, is not a Nigerian factor as airlines all over the world are having a trying period, with as many as 25 airlines filling for bankruptcy, the latest being Zoom Airline. When an airline starts from the scratch like VNA rather than partner with an existing airline you can be sure it will be rough, to tag VNA as the only red paper in the group will be tantamount to twisting fact. Virgin Blue is presently being dogged by a doomsday prediction that has equally affected its share price in Australia while Virgin America made $35 million loss in the first quarter of its operation alone. Virgin Express had to merge with SN Brussels in Belgium just to halt the financial hemorrhage due to a shrinking market and the aerial raid from Ryan air and Easy jet.
The Virgin vs. FG headline that heralded the relocation order was a creation of the media, when in reality VNA was initially over pampered and treated like an “heir apparent” by the government. The parent and technical partner (Virgin group) has a history, right from formation to always speak out on issues relating to the industry and primarily to those that affect its interest. Here are some examples: London Air Traffic Distribution Rules: the rules were designed to achieve a "fairer" distribution of traffic between London Heathrow and London Gatwick, the UK's two main international gateway airports, while Virgin fought for its implementation BA barked against it because it will give Virgin and other UK airlines access to the London airports, Virgin won.
Virgin also appealed against a decision by the US Dept. of Transportation's Office of Airline Information denying its request for confidential treatment of its financial, traffic and origin&destination information while other airlines made their reports open. The appeal is pending the other airlines led by Republic airlines are very furious with DOT for treating Virgin America with kid gloves. The group is also, presently opposing the impending alliance between the BA, Iberia and AA which they termed Anti-competitive, by writing to authorities in the US and the presidential candidates in particular, not to approve it.
It is imperative to state here, that it is not only the Nigerian Government that has put his foot down on issues bordering on state security and the economy, the United State Government through the department of transportation (DOT) also issued some guideline before granting Virgin America an air operating certificate(AOC) and Virgin complied. DOT requested a change in its business structure by enacting several reforms. In order to achieve the necessary approval while Virgin America proposed a restructuring of the airline. Voting shares would be held by a DOT-approved trust and only two Virgin Group directors would be on the eight-person board.
In addition, Virgin America offered to remove Richard Branson from the board, and possibly even dropping the “Virgin” brand entirely. The airline was also prepared to remove CEO Fred Reid “should the DOT find that necessary”. Quoting Virgin America spokesman Gareth Edmonson-Jones “While we disagree with this tentative order, we respect the department's decision and intend to use the order as a roadmap to address the issues and to demonstrate ... that Virgin America will meet all ownership and control requirements," he said.
Also sometime in 1986, BAA the operators of London Airports where liable for delays and cancellations of flights by British operators. The operators were upset and were contemplating different actions which were championed by Ryan Air but Virgin’s position was, "We prefer to have a cozy chat with the government, about how any costs can be clawed back through any possible government financial help, but we do not intend to sue." Now you may ask what happened to compliance and cozy chat employed in other countries.
THE MMU & MR BRANSON LETTER: The 10 page memorandum of understanding between the Federal Government and Virgin Atlantic limited was signed on the 28th of sept 2004 which has the same date with the letter Mr. Branson addressed to the Honorable Minister of Aviation. The MMU designated VNA as flag carrier on London,New-York,Jeddah,Dubai and Johannesburg route with a seven year exclusivity and right of first refusal to operate all other routes covered by government bilateral/multilateral or subsequent air agreement (what happens to the open skies & dual designation agreement in place?). Also VNA is to benefit from tax and fiscal reliefs in respect of its operation (subtly subsidy)
In the MMU, clause 5b (iii) & (vi) states that VNA adheres strictly to laws and regulations prescribing a specific code of conduct that may be issued from time to time for and on behalf of the FG regulating the activities of airlines in the federal republic of Nigeria, while Clause 10 says Virgin shall procure that its shareholders shall offer to the FGN on behalf of Nigerian citizens ten percent (10%) of the equity share capital. (Will virgin still offer Nigerian the equity?)
Mr. Branson’s Letter was on a Virgin Atlantic letter head, written to the Honorable Minister of Aviation then Mallam Isa Yuguda. Part of the letter thereof states: that FG should grant special waiver for wet leased aircraft to be used for 18 months (NCAA law says 6 months)
Discount or waived airport- related charges in respect of new routes developed by the airline(subsidy).The fifth point which raised the recent controversy request that airport authority cooperates with VNA to allow for safest and best service. To this end the airline is allowed to use relevant international terminals in Lagos and Abuja.
The request was signed on behalf of the government by the minister and a Director in the Ministry of Aviation on a Virgin Atlantic letter heading and not in the MMU. The question now is the letter more binding than the MMU? That is for the court of appeal to interpret.
The federal government followed the due process, as there was and still no injunction restraining the government while we await the appeal court decision. I will strongly advise that FAAN in the future should consider the use of penalties or fines in future rather than the use “heavies” in enforcing decisions, that is the trend in civil aviation, more importantly it raises revenue.
Despite the stories VNA has good prospect and have contributed to the growth of air traffic and communication in the domestic air transport market. I urge them to continue touching the right spots safely and profitably. Also Nigerians should buy the shares whenever they are offered, in emphasizing this here is a quote from - Philip Tozer-Pennington, Managing Director - Aviation Industry Press “but consider for a moment what VNA could achieve if it were to become a true low-cost carrier covering West Africa, then linking the same with the rest of politically stable Africa through a hub at Nnamdi Azikiwe airfield in Abuja; this would capture much of the African transfer traffic. VNA can be the Southwest Airlines of Africa with a little vision and a great deal of financing -- the passenger traffic for a low-cost airline covering Africa is out there now and ready to fly!”
VNA should please take this advice seriously and get into low-cost (LCC) boat. a pique into their siblings show a clear distinction: Virgin Atlantic (long haul) Virgin Blue(LCC),Virgin America(LCC),V Australia (long haul),Pacific Blue (LCC),Polysien Blue (LCC)Air Asia X (long haul) and our Virgin Nigeria(long haul/LCC ?) . Presently, some of the above mentioned LCC are interlining with the mega carriers which are a big plus to their finances.
Finally in moving to local airport VNA have the option of MMA2 or the old terminal two managed by FAAN, with Arik presently operating from Zulu hall while Alpha hall is un-utilized, that is the hall close to 1st inland bank at local terminal which is in dire need of refurbishment and can be branded if VNA so wishes.
The Virgin group is worth over $ 30 billion with over 65 subsidiaries and ancillary companies’ world wide. Virgin Airline siblings are spread over eight countries, namely Nigeria’s Virgin Nigeria, Belgium’s SN Brussels (merger between Virgin Express & Brussels Airline),America’s Virgin America, Malaysia’s Air Asia X (20% interest),Australia’s Virgin Blue & V Australia, New Zealand’s Pacific Blue and Samoa’s Polynesian Blue. This article will look at the relocation order and other attributes of the virgin siblings in other countries.
VNA came into the country at a very trying period for the country’s civil aviation; the government had just liquidated Nigeria Airways and tried unsuccessfully to start another carrier despite the efforts and funds spent in creating, branding, repainting and even deceiving the Miss World organizers of a new national carrier called Air Nigeria or Nigeria Air International.
The gimmicks, plan and programme of government for the new airline fell flat, that the advisors to government on the best option, International Monetary Fund had to return the consulting fee before pulling out in disappointment. The government was faced with the option of propping up our local airlines or starting another national carrier. they chose the latter, and invited Virgin to start a flag carrier just like the Samoan government invited Virgin which led to the formation of Polynesian Blue in place of the failed national carrier; Polynesian airlines. Also the entry of VNA was the fill the vacuum created by the demise of Nigeria Airways which Virgin also did in Australia with Virgin Blue at the demise of a mega carrier Ansett Airline.
The government announced to the nation Virgin is the new core investor in the new wholly privatized national carrier despite the protestation of United States who alleged that Virgin was the blocking US airline’s access to Heathrow. Virgin was to replace South Africa Airways (SAA) who had won the bid as the core investor in a process initiated and cut-short by the same government, at that time SAA was facilitating the operation of Nigeria Airways flight to New-York via Dakar using the 7th freedom rights from Lagos with a South African registered B747 aircraft.
Virgin Group initially only wanted a share of British Airways big cake which necessitated the lobbying for sometime to partner with Nigeria Airways on the Lagos- London route (only) or the relinquishing some of WT juicy but under-utilized frequencies into Heathrow airport. When that failed, they were able to convince the government showing records of fares crashing at the name of “Virgin”, which was very convincing, that the government, started the push for dual designation on the LOS-LON route when the country was not willing and did not designate a second airline to reciprocate that agreement.
The reasons given by virgin for their interest was the unbridled profit, arbitrary fares and appalling customer service of British Airways who were the de-facto monopolist on the route, though on record today the cheapest fare on that route is not VNA or VAL but another local operator. Looking at the fares advertised recently you will be surprised the fare gimmick that was sold to the government years ago is a mirage because today BA has $1445 to London as against VS $1444 while BA one way fare is $1172, VS is $1460 (see skyworld travels).
On related issues such as Singapore Airlines pulling out of Virgin Airline group, which is being attributed to the losses in VNA. This is not a fair assessment of the move. SIA acquired 49% of Virgin Atlantic Airways in March 2000 for £600 million; SIA started mooting the idea of selling its stake after the Singaporean government signed a new agreement with the British government. The agreement removes all restrictions on flights operated by airlines of both countries which includes beyond and domestic rights in the UK. The deal was reached almost two decades after Singapore first proposed it. Now SIA has free access to the North Atlantic from UK, which was the reason for investing in Virgin initially. The benefits far outweigh the investment in Virgin Atlantic which is a perception that SIA has not denied.
VNA losses that is being made an issue now, is not a Nigerian factor as airlines all over the world are having a trying period, with as many as 25 airlines filling for bankruptcy, the latest being Zoom Airline. When an airline starts from the scratch like VNA rather than partner with an existing airline you can be sure it will be rough, to tag VNA as the only red paper in the group will be tantamount to twisting fact. Virgin Blue is presently being dogged by a doomsday prediction that has equally affected its share price in Australia while Virgin America made $35 million loss in the first quarter of its operation alone. Virgin Express had to merge with SN Brussels in Belgium just to halt the financial hemorrhage due to a shrinking market and the aerial raid from Ryan air and Easy jet.
The Virgin vs. FG headline that heralded the relocation order was a creation of the media, when in reality VNA was initially over pampered and treated like an “heir apparent” by the government. The parent and technical partner (Virgin group) has a history, right from formation to always speak out on issues relating to the industry and primarily to those that affect its interest. Here are some examples: London Air Traffic Distribution Rules: the rules were designed to achieve a "fairer" distribution of traffic between London Heathrow and London Gatwick, the UK's two main international gateway airports, while Virgin fought for its implementation BA barked against it because it will give Virgin and other UK airlines access to the London airports, Virgin won.
Virgin also appealed against a decision by the US Dept. of Transportation's Office of Airline Information denying its request for confidential treatment of its financial, traffic and origin&destination information while other airlines made their reports open. The appeal is pending the other airlines led by Republic airlines are very furious with DOT for treating Virgin America with kid gloves. The group is also, presently opposing the impending alliance between the BA, Iberia and AA which they termed Anti-competitive, by writing to authorities in the US and the presidential candidates in particular, not to approve it.
It is imperative to state here, that it is not only the Nigerian Government that has put his foot down on issues bordering on state security and the economy, the United State Government through the department of transportation (DOT) also issued some guideline before granting Virgin America an air operating certificate(AOC) and Virgin complied. DOT requested a change in its business structure by enacting several reforms. In order to achieve the necessary approval while Virgin America proposed a restructuring of the airline. Voting shares would be held by a DOT-approved trust and only two Virgin Group directors would be on the eight-person board.
In addition, Virgin America offered to remove Richard Branson from the board, and possibly even dropping the “Virgin” brand entirely. The airline was also prepared to remove CEO Fred Reid “should the DOT find that necessary”. Quoting Virgin America spokesman Gareth Edmonson-Jones “While we disagree with this tentative order, we respect the department's decision and intend to use the order as a roadmap to address the issues and to demonstrate ... that Virgin America will meet all ownership and control requirements," he said.
Also sometime in 1986, BAA the operators of London Airports where liable for delays and cancellations of flights by British operators. The operators were upset and were contemplating different actions which were championed by Ryan Air but Virgin’s position was, "We prefer to have a cozy chat with the government, about how any costs can be clawed back through any possible government financial help, but we do not intend to sue." Now you may ask what happened to compliance and cozy chat employed in other countries.
THE MMU & MR BRANSON LETTER: The 10 page memorandum of understanding between the Federal Government and Virgin Atlantic limited was signed on the 28th of sept 2004 which has the same date with the letter Mr. Branson addressed to the Honorable Minister of Aviation. The MMU designated VNA as flag carrier on London,New-York,Jeddah,Dubai and Johannesburg route with a seven year exclusivity and right of first refusal to operate all other routes covered by government bilateral/multilateral or subsequent air agreement (what happens to the open skies & dual designation agreement in place?). Also VNA is to benefit from tax and fiscal reliefs in respect of its operation (subtly subsidy)
In the MMU, clause 5b (iii) & (vi) states that VNA adheres strictly to laws and regulations prescribing a specific code of conduct that may be issued from time to time for and on behalf of the FG regulating the activities of airlines in the federal republic of Nigeria, while Clause 10 says Virgin shall procure that its shareholders shall offer to the FGN on behalf of Nigerian citizens ten percent (10%) of the equity share capital. (Will virgin still offer Nigerian the equity?)
Mr. Branson’s Letter was on a Virgin Atlantic letter head, written to the Honorable Minister of Aviation then Mallam Isa Yuguda. Part of the letter thereof states: that FG should grant special waiver for wet leased aircraft to be used for 18 months (NCAA law says 6 months)
Discount or waived airport- related charges in respect of new routes developed by the airline(subsidy).The fifth point which raised the recent controversy request that airport authority cooperates with VNA to allow for safest and best service. To this end the airline is allowed to use relevant international terminals in Lagos and Abuja.
The request was signed on behalf of the government by the minister and a Director in the Ministry of Aviation on a Virgin Atlantic letter heading and not in the MMU. The question now is the letter more binding than the MMU? That is for the court of appeal to interpret.
The federal government followed the due process, as there was and still no injunction restraining the government while we await the appeal court decision. I will strongly advise that FAAN in the future should consider the use of penalties or fines in future rather than the use “heavies” in enforcing decisions, that is the trend in civil aviation, more importantly it raises revenue.
Despite the stories VNA has good prospect and have contributed to the growth of air traffic and communication in the domestic air transport market. I urge them to continue touching the right spots safely and profitably. Also Nigerians should buy the shares whenever they are offered, in emphasizing this here is a quote from - Philip Tozer-Pennington, Managing Director - Aviation Industry Press “but consider for a moment what VNA could achieve if it were to become a true low-cost carrier covering West Africa, then linking the same with the rest of politically stable Africa through a hub at Nnamdi Azikiwe airfield in Abuja; this would capture much of the African transfer traffic. VNA can be the Southwest Airlines of Africa with a little vision and a great deal of financing -- the passenger traffic for a low-cost airline covering Africa is out there now and ready to fly!”
VNA should please take this advice seriously and get into low-cost (LCC) boat. a pique into their siblings show a clear distinction: Virgin Atlantic (long haul) Virgin Blue(LCC),Virgin America(LCC),V Australia (long haul),Pacific Blue (LCC),Polysien Blue (LCC)Air Asia X (long haul) and our Virgin Nigeria(long haul/LCC ?) . Presently, some of the above mentioned LCC are interlining with the mega carriers which are a big plus to their finances.
Finally in moving to local airport VNA have the option of MMA2 or the old terminal two managed by FAAN, with Arik presently operating from Zulu hall while Alpha hall is un-utilized, that is the hall close to 1st inland bank at local terminal which is in dire need of refurbishment and can be branded if VNA so wishes.
AIRPORT CONCESSION: WHY THE CHERRY PICKING?
(article written June 2008)
In Nigeria, the word concession has always been accompanied with deep suspicion, resistance or applause depending on which side of the divide you take during the process. The recent concession involving airport terminal building and the airside of the airport has introduced a new vista into the process.
Before now, the industry was used to the non-aeronautical concession at our airports such as retailing, restaurants, property development, car parks etc. The “build operate and transfer” (BOT) option of MMA2 and the concessioning of the terminal building of the Nnamdi Azikiwe Airport, Abuja to Bi-Courtney and Aeroport Gateway Company (AGC) respectively by the last administration has generated so much controversy. To add to the controversy was a recent decision of the Federal Government to concession Lagos, Port-Harcourt, Kano and Abuja International Airports. The question is what happens to other government owned but under-utilized airports. This is the crux of the matter.
What are other countries doing to improve their airport system?
Australia: State-owned airports are managed by Australia Pacific Airports Corporation, which is 15% owned by the British Airport Authority (BAA). The major international gateways such as Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne have been privatized while those owned by states are also going through the same process. The Queensland government is privatizing three airports, a process which is expected to generate $800million. The funds will be used to pay for three new hospitals in that state.
United Kingdom: It has been over 30 years now that the British government privatized BAA, the custodian of British airports. BAA has gone ahead to invest in other airports round the world. They are bidders in South Africa, already manage US airports, Indianapolis and Harrisburg and have taken control of Naples Airport in Italy and have a stake in Melbourne. In July 2006, a Spanish company Ferrovial-led consortium Airport Development and Investment (ADI) acquired BAA for $16 billion. ADI owns and operates seven UK airports and has management or equity stakes in 10 airports outside the UK. Unbelievably, the three major airports in London are in their stable namely Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, which might be responsible for a recent report of UK Competition Commission denouncing services and charges at these airports, which are not competitive.
China: The Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) is to release investment guidelines later this year to enable foreign companies to take up to a 49% stake in the country's airports. The move follows a worldwide drive towards airport privatization. China's official Xinhua News Agency reports that foreign investors will be offered opportunities in ground services, airport concessions, hotels and aircraft maintenance in return for taking a share in the construction and operation of major new airport projects.
South Africa: Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) is an equivalent of our FAAN. ACSA owns and manages 11 of South Africa's airports. In February, a consortium compromising GVK and ACSA was granted a 74% stake in Mumbai airports by the Indian government. Also, Italy's Aerporti di Roma (ADR) currently in the run-up to the final phase of privatization is near to completing its deal to take a stake in ACSA. ADR will pay R100 million ($20 million) for a 20% stake in ACSA. They also have an option to acquire another 10% from the South African government when the airport company moves to a full listing on the Johannesburg stock market in the next couple of years. Also 10% will go to a black empowerment group and 9% to airport staff at some point.
Bolivia: Bolivia will break all records for airport privatization this year. Following the sale of the Bolivian airport system to US-based Airport Group International (AGI), Lima aims to have 'wrapped up' the sale of its airports by the end of the year.
Argentina: The government of Argentina sometime in 1998 started by awarding a 30-year, $5 billion concession for all 33 of the country's airports to a group led by Milan airport operator, Societa Esercizi Aeroportuali (SEA). The final bid for the Argentinean airport concession offered the government $171 million in annual fees. For Argentina, it is way too early to tell whether it will be a successful model. At that time the government needed $800 million over the next five years to prevent Argentina's airports from becoming inoperable and to secure this the Argentinean government tied a £2 billion capital investment spend to the sale. Duty free, ground handling and warehousing was not included in the concession until the contracts, already awarded before privatization, expires in 2010. Also, only eight of the thirty three airports sold in Argentina are profitable and they will have to subsidize the rest. Therefore it is suspected that international airlines will pay for more than they use.
India: The government invited foreign investors to develop their airports on public and private participation basis (PPP). They started by dividing the airports into Greenfield (new airport built from scratch) and Brownfield (modified or upgraded from existing facilities) Airports. Government retained 26% shareholding in these airports (either through the Airport Authority of India or through the State Government). This crucial 26% shareholding ensures that the Government is able to veto certain "fundamental resolutions". The backbone of the project is the large chunk of land given for commercial development, which are to develop along with the airport for any commercial purpose it may please (subject to local laws). Here it may set up not only hotels or malls - it can even go for Special Economic Zones, manufacturing factories, country clubs, golf courses, power plants etc for free. To protect the public, airlines and other airport users, the government set up an independent regulatory body to monitor and regulate the public and private airports. This was done to ensure compliance, benchmark service level and generally resist any form of monopolistic tendency, and set up a scheme called “Viability Gap Funding”. To protect, attract and support investors for the Non-Viable airports, the government provides funds which can only be accessed by interested investors through a bidding process. Also, the government ensured states where these airports are located are not left out by providing an additional state support agreement to boost the confidence of investors, while also wielding a stick called “Liquidated Damages,” which are charged for defaults
Nigeria: Every airport in the country, with the exception of Osubi, Eket, Escravos and NAF Port Harcourt is managed by the government represented by the Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria (FAAN). FAAN was saddled with the responsibility of concessioning most non aeronautical activities at the airports in the past, but of recent the Ministry of Aviation and Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) participated in the concession of MM2 (Local Airport) and the Abuja International Airport.
The present government has stopped further negotiations/discussions with Aero port Gateway Company (AGC), the Abuja Airport concessionaires. Bi-Courtney was smart enough to hurriedly rush completion and operations before the departure of the last regime in spite of glaring lapses that are already rearing their ugly heads. Though Bi-Courtney figures are shrouded in mystery, AGC indicated after the cancellation that the concession period is 25 years at $110 million net with over $400 million accruing to government over the course of the concession. The company has deposited $10million with the Federal Government while Bi-Courtney has not come out with any figure (actual or projected), but have been able to amend the agreement period from 12 years to 36 years and build a safety cocoon that inhibits the development of or maintenance of any other domestic terminal in Lagos during the period.
There are other concessions or partnership programme with FAAN that are commendable one of such is the Unisys/Maevis, which was almost truncated early this year. The company will be providing facilities that will aid facilitation in line with IATA simplifying passenger travel (SPT) concept.
The former HMA announced plans to privatize the MM1, Port-Harcourt, Abuja and Kano International Airports respectively. The question is what happens to the remaining airports in an environment of decaying infrastructure, diminishing government resources and a continuous process of appointing a Chief Executive, Board and accompanying GMs & Directors whenever a new minister is appointed and states are coaxed to part with resources meant for basic amenities to support government owned airport in their domain.
Selecting a few airports or taking the airports in totality?
.
Airports are the gateways that will open major cities in Africa for the development of tourism and investments. In Europe, there are other alternate modes of transportation, but here we have no option than to develop the airports as the alternate modes are extremely time consuming, stressful and risky for serious investors or tourists. Globally, national and local governments worldwide are abandoning responsibility for costly airport development, while filling the treasury coffers, by either concessioning or privatizing to bring in outside operational expertise, and this is practically obligatory in all cases.
Expertise is required in airport management and in generating non-aviation income. One of the main reasons why BAA is seen as a model is its success in bringing the contribution of non-aviation income to some 70% of total turnover which presently is 15% in FAAN. Airports world over are seeking to increase non-aviation income. The UK experience of privatizing worked well in a very mature and regulated environment.
In less developed countries like ours, governments should be tilting towards building and enhancing the transport system rather than just offloading the assets. This is to avoid a situation whereby we move from ugly state-owned airports to even uglier privately owned airports. It is noteworthy that most reputable private sector investors would not consider buying an airport with fewer than one million passengers. This is why airports have often been sold as a package - good and bad, small and large, domestic and international.
By setting up the Infrastructure & Regulatory Commission, the government has made it clear that it is taking a concessionary posture through PPP is about the only option open to government, considering FAAN has never made profit, publish an audited account nor invested financially or managerially beyond Nigerian shores when compared to their counterparts in South-Africa, Ethiopia, e.t.c.
I sincerely, recommend that the government should consider a mix of the Argentine and Indian government models. The government of Argentina negotiated the whole 30 airports as one package ensuring profits are ploughed into other non-viable airports. The main complainants are foreign airlines that usually cart away their earnings and snip for increased frequency and destinations. The government of India divided the airports into green and brown field airports. The brown fields were further sub-divided into viable and non-viable airports while the airport India an equivalent of FAAN was converted to a regulatory body. The common factor in these agreements are capital being injected, development & expansion of airports, returns to the government annually, protection and interest of the public and other operators are also made paramount, using penalties for default or delay. Also the agreements were clearly stated and open to the public right from the bidding stage, can we replicate in Nigeria.
Looking critically at what other countries have done, it can be exemplified here though, with a spice of our socio-economic background. We can easily get out of the woods and move to the desired level of having viable and efficiently managed airports with a little investment from government. It will however not be by sacrificing qualified FAAN staff and accompanying experience, but by sacrificing its ineptitude and gross interference. It is annoying that Port-Harcourt Airport that was closed for over one year with N2 billion loans from the state government could not provide basic medical amenities to passengers during a recent incident, that a Shell Clinic, in the city had to be called to provide this amenity for bleeding passengers.
In achieving the objective, the government should as a first step invite reputable international airport management companies, who will often achieve what governments can no longer take care of - improvements in capacity, efficiency and safety. These private investors and internationally recognized airport operators with track records who can be sourced and verified by a click on the mouse, should bid for and act as advisors or management consultants to government within a limited time frame. I am not referring here to the usual masquerades that form a ‘quickie’ consortium and rush to Corporate Affairs Commission for registration.
One thing is certain, airlines, regulators, agencies and other airport users need to get used to the idea that airports are shifting away from the traditional concept of public entity and moving into private ownership in whatever form this might be. Presently, there are over 20 airports in the stock exchange world over and the number is increasing.
I am also of the view that government should not forget in a hurry some knotty agreements in the past such as the hasty open-skies with the US, the genuflecting with Virgin Atlantic, figure and date juggling with Bi-Courtney, but should rather leave it to the public to succinctly assess it like their counterparts in India and Argentina did. The Distinguish Senators from states whose airport are non-viable and those who do not have at all should use all legislative means to fight for their constituency just like their counterparts in the US do, with issues bordering on air transportation. The Honorable Minister should consider taking the airports in totality which is a better option to the cherry-picking option of his predecessor, because it will be a win-win for all.
In Nigeria, the word concession has always been accompanied with deep suspicion, resistance or applause depending on which side of the divide you take during the process. The recent concession involving airport terminal building and the airside of the airport has introduced a new vista into the process.
Before now, the industry was used to the non-aeronautical concession at our airports such as retailing, restaurants, property development, car parks etc. The “build operate and transfer” (BOT) option of MMA2 and the concessioning of the terminal building of the Nnamdi Azikiwe Airport, Abuja to Bi-Courtney and Aeroport Gateway Company (AGC) respectively by the last administration has generated so much controversy. To add to the controversy was a recent decision of the Federal Government to concession Lagos, Port-Harcourt, Kano and Abuja International Airports. The question is what happens to other government owned but under-utilized airports. This is the crux of the matter.
What are other countries doing to improve their airport system?
Australia: State-owned airports are managed by Australia Pacific Airports Corporation, which is 15% owned by the British Airport Authority (BAA). The major international gateways such as Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne have been privatized while those owned by states are also going through the same process. The Queensland government is privatizing three airports, a process which is expected to generate $800million. The funds will be used to pay for three new hospitals in that state.
United Kingdom: It has been over 30 years now that the British government privatized BAA, the custodian of British airports. BAA has gone ahead to invest in other airports round the world. They are bidders in South Africa, already manage US airports, Indianapolis and Harrisburg and have taken control of Naples Airport in Italy and have a stake in Melbourne. In July 2006, a Spanish company Ferrovial-led consortium Airport Development and Investment (ADI) acquired BAA for $16 billion. ADI owns and operates seven UK airports and has management or equity stakes in 10 airports outside the UK. Unbelievably, the three major airports in London are in their stable namely Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, which might be responsible for a recent report of UK Competition Commission denouncing services and charges at these airports, which are not competitive.
China: The Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) is to release investment guidelines later this year to enable foreign companies to take up to a 49% stake in the country's airports. The move follows a worldwide drive towards airport privatization. China's official Xinhua News Agency reports that foreign investors will be offered opportunities in ground services, airport concessions, hotels and aircraft maintenance in return for taking a share in the construction and operation of major new airport projects.
South Africa: Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) is an equivalent of our FAAN. ACSA owns and manages 11 of South Africa's airports. In February, a consortium compromising GVK and ACSA was granted a 74% stake in Mumbai airports by the Indian government. Also, Italy's Aerporti di Roma (ADR) currently in the run-up to the final phase of privatization is near to completing its deal to take a stake in ACSA. ADR will pay R100 million ($20 million) for a 20% stake in ACSA. They also have an option to acquire another 10% from the South African government when the airport company moves to a full listing on the Johannesburg stock market in the next couple of years. Also 10% will go to a black empowerment group and 9% to airport staff at some point.
Bolivia: Bolivia will break all records for airport privatization this year. Following the sale of the Bolivian airport system to US-based Airport Group International (AGI), Lima aims to have 'wrapped up' the sale of its airports by the end of the year.
Argentina: The government of Argentina sometime in 1998 started by awarding a 30-year, $5 billion concession for all 33 of the country's airports to a group led by Milan airport operator, Societa Esercizi Aeroportuali (SEA). The final bid for the Argentinean airport concession offered the government $171 million in annual fees. For Argentina, it is way too early to tell whether it will be a successful model. At that time the government needed $800 million over the next five years to prevent Argentina's airports from becoming inoperable and to secure this the Argentinean government tied a £2 billion capital investment spend to the sale. Duty free, ground handling and warehousing was not included in the concession until the contracts, already awarded before privatization, expires in 2010. Also, only eight of the thirty three airports sold in Argentina are profitable and they will have to subsidize the rest. Therefore it is suspected that international airlines will pay for more than they use.
India: The government invited foreign investors to develop their airports on public and private participation basis (PPP). They started by dividing the airports into Greenfield (new airport built from scratch) and Brownfield (modified or upgraded from existing facilities) Airports. Government retained 26% shareholding in these airports (either through the Airport Authority of India or through the State Government). This crucial 26% shareholding ensures that the Government is able to veto certain "fundamental resolutions". The backbone of the project is the large chunk of land given for commercial development, which are to develop along with the airport for any commercial purpose it may please (subject to local laws). Here it may set up not only hotels or malls - it can even go for Special Economic Zones, manufacturing factories, country clubs, golf courses, power plants etc for free. To protect the public, airlines and other airport users, the government set up an independent regulatory body to monitor and regulate the public and private airports. This was done to ensure compliance, benchmark service level and generally resist any form of monopolistic tendency, and set up a scheme called “Viability Gap Funding”. To protect, attract and support investors for the Non-Viable airports, the government provides funds which can only be accessed by interested investors through a bidding process. Also, the government ensured states where these airports are located are not left out by providing an additional state support agreement to boost the confidence of investors, while also wielding a stick called “Liquidated Damages,” which are charged for defaults
Nigeria: Every airport in the country, with the exception of Osubi, Eket, Escravos and NAF Port Harcourt is managed by the government represented by the Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria (FAAN). FAAN was saddled with the responsibility of concessioning most non aeronautical activities at the airports in the past, but of recent the Ministry of Aviation and Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) participated in the concession of MM2 (Local Airport) and the Abuja International Airport.
The present government has stopped further negotiations/discussions with Aero port Gateway Company (AGC), the Abuja Airport concessionaires. Bi-Courtney was smart enough to hurriedly rush completion and operations before the departure of the last regime in spite of glaring lapses that are already rearing their ugly heads. Though Bi-Courtney figures are shrouded in mystery, AGC indicated after the cancellation that the concession period is 25 years at $110 million net with over $400 million accruing to government over the course of the concession. The company has deposited $10million with the Federal Government while Bi-Courtney has not come out with any figure (actual or projected), but have been able to amend the agreement period from 12 years to 36 years and build a safety cocoon that inhibits the development of or maintenance of any other domestic terminal in Lagos during the period.
There are other concessions or partnership programme with FAAN that are commendable one of such is the Unisys/Maevis, which was almost truncated early this year. The company will be providing facilities that will aid facilitation in line with IATA simplifying passenger travel (SPT) concept.
The former HMA announced plans to privatize the MM1, Port-Harcourt, Abuja and Kano International Airports respectively. The question is what happens to the remaining airports in an environment of decaying infrastructure, diminishing government resources and a continuous process of appointing a Chief Executive, Board and accompanying GMs & Directors whenever a new minister is appointed and states are coaxed to part with resources meant for basic amenities to support government owned airport in their domain.
Selecting a few airports or taking the airports in totality?
.
Airports are the gateways that will open major cities in Africa for the development of tourism and investments. In Europe, there are other alternate modes of transportation, but here we have no option than to develop the airports as the alternate modes are extremely time consuming, stressful and risky for serious investors or tourists. Globally, national and local governments worldwide are abandoning responsibility for costly airport development, while filling the treasury coffers, by either concessioning or privatizing to bring in outside operational expertise, and this is practically obligatory in all cases.
Expertise is required in airport management and in generating non-aviation income. One of the main reasons why BAA is seen as a model is its success in bringing the contribution of non-aviation income to some 70% of total turnover which presently is 15% in FAAN. Airports world over are seeking to increase non-aviation income. The UK experience of privatizing worked well in a very mature and regulated environment.
In less developed countries like ours, governments should be tilting towards building and enhancing the transport system rather than just offloading the assets. This is to avoid a situation whereby we move from ugly state-owned airports to even uglier privately owned airports. It is noteworthy that most reputable private sector investors would not consider buying an airport with fewer than one million passengers. This is why airports have often been sold as a package - good and bad, small and large, domestic and international.
By setting up the Infrastructure & Regulatory Commission, the government has made it clear that it is taking a concessionary posture through PPP is about the only option open to government, considering FAAN has never made profit, publish an audited account nor invested financially or managerially beyond Nigerian shores when compared to their counterparts in South-Africa, Ethiopia, e.t.c.
I sincerely, recommend that the government should consider a mix of the Argentine and Indian government models. The government of Argentina negotiated the whole 30 airports as one package ensuring profits are ploughed into other non-viable airports. The main complainants are foreign airlines that usually cart away their earnings and snip for increased frequency and destinations. The government of India divided the airports into green and brown field airports. The brown fields were further sub-divided into viable and non-viable airports while the airport India an equivalent of FAAN was converted to a regulatory body. The common factor in these agreements are capital being injected, development & expansion of airports, returns to the government annually, protection and interest of the public and other operators are also made paramount, using penalties for default or delay. Also the agreements were clearly stated and open to the public right from the bidding stage, can we replicate in Nigeria.
Looking critically at what other countries have done, it can be exemplified here though, with a spice of our socio-economic background. We can easily get out of the woods and move to the desired level of having viable and efficiently managed airports with a little investment from government. It will however not be by sacrificing qualified FAAN staff and accompanying experience, but by sacrificing its ineptitude and gross interference. It is annoying that Port-Harcourt Airport that was closed for over one year with N2 billion loans from the state government could not provide basic medical amenities to passengers during a recent incident, that a Shell Clinic, in the city had to be called to provide this amenity for bleeding passengers.
In achieving the objective, the government should as a first step invite reputable international airport management companies, who will often achieve what governments can no longer take care of - improvements in capacity, efficiency and safety. These private investors and internationally recognized airport operators with track records who can be sourced and verified by a click on the mouse, should bid for and act as advisors or management consultants to government within a limited time frame. I am not referring here to the usual masquerades that form a ‘quickie’ consortium and rush to Corporate Affairs Commission for registration.
One thing is certain, airlines, regulators, agencies and other airport users need to get used to the idea that airports are shifting away from the traditional concept of public entity and moving into private ownership in whatever form this might be. Presently, there are over 20 airports in the stock exchange world over and the number is increasing.
I am also of the view that government should not forget in a hurry some knotty agreements in the past such as the hasty open-skies with the US, the genuflecting with Virgin Atlantic, figure and date juggling with Bi-Courtney, but should rather leave it to the public to succinctly assess it like their counterparts in India and Argentina did. The Distinguish Senators from states whose airport are non-viable and those who do not have at all should use all legislative means to fight for their constituency just like their counterparts in the US do, with issues bordering on air transportation. The Honorable Minister should consider taking the airports in totality which is a better option to the cherry-picking option of his predecessor, because it will be a win-win for all.
Regional Aircraft Orders and Nigerian Operators
(article written May 2008)
Recently the aviation industry was awash with new aircraft orders, which was spearheaded by Arik then Virgin Nigeria. These orders have gladdens the heart of the traveling public and participants in the industry. It is coming twenty three years after the liquidated national carrier (WT) celebrated the arrival of four brand new A 310 jet aircrafts.
This article will deal principally with weighing the differences, similarities and advantages of the jet and turboprops regional aircrafts with reference to those ordered by Nigerian operators.
Regional Aircraft Manufacturers; Avions de Transport Regional (ATR): is a Franco-Italian and the only surviving Europe based regional aircraft manufacturer. The company produces ATR 42 & 72 series turbo-prop aircrafts and recently unveiled the new -600 series of ATR 42 & 72.The -600 will come with new engines with the ability to rotate the aircraft at a lower speed, which contributes to short take-off distance, also coming with the aircraft is a new avionics suite, an additional takeoff weight and improved cabin comfort with LED technology. It will be an improvement to its -500 series which is in the market at the moment. Overland Airways have an ATR on the Ibadan – Abuja route.
Bombardier: this Canadian regional aircraft manufacturer is the only aircraft manufacturer in the world with foot in turbo-prop and jet engine production. It is advantageous, has they have been able to cope with the capacity swing in aircraft demand, though with a perpetual brick bat with Embraer over subsidy. The Q series also known as Dash 8 (-100 to -500) are turboprops, of late the Q400 production increased over the last two years in contrast to the bombardier’s regional jets. The Q400 boasts of greater fuel efficiency on shorter range compared to the jets. Arik and Aero are operators of the Q series family with Arik ordering three brand new Q400 aircrafts.
Also Bombardier produces jet aircraft with the acronym CRJ’s and also have a proud business jet line made up of Lear jets and Challengers .the CRJ’s are from the first generation -100 to the present -900 with a capacity ranging between 30 to 90 seats. Arik air is an operator of the CRJ 200, though leased from EDC.
For the future Bombardier is working on a stretched Q400 dubbed Q400X which should carry 90 passengers compared to the present 74-78 derivative. The company will also offer CRJ 1000 which will accommodate between 100 and 120 seats. They are gradually creeping into the mid-size family of B717 and A319.
Embraer: is a Brazilian company that presently manufactures jet aircrafts only. These jets are referred to as the E-jets. The family is made up of the E145, E170, E175, E190 and E195.Embraer started as a turbo prop manufacturer with aircrafts such EMB 110 and the very popular EMB 120 the bride of African turbo-prop operators. EMB 120 is being operated by three airlines in Nigeria, namely Capital, Associated and Wings Airline, while IRS airline operates the E145 jet. Embraer also produces business jets one of which is the Phenom 100, for the commercial jets, emphasis is on range and payload which necessitated the production of variants as E 170LR(long range), E175AR (advance range). Virgin Nigeria has made the largest order by Nigerian standard for two variant of the E jet family (E170, E190), the total order being 24 jets.
Sukhoi Super Jet (SSJ): this is a Russian made regional jet with partnership with the some western countries. It is a clear departure from the past where the civil aviation in Russia was weaved in a security cocoon, when you compare this aircraft with other Russian aircraft made during that era, such as the Antonovs and Topolevs. The variants of the new SSJ will seat between 75 to 95 passengers.
The aircraft will be ready by the end of the year and service entry is early 2009, considering the multinational partnership in the programme, domestic operators can have a look and see what the marketing department is offering. I can boldly say it will not be another “Ajaokuta Steel” as spares and maintenance facilities will be readily available at the touch of a button.
ARJ 21and MA 60: these are Chinese made regional aircrafts awaiting certification. the MA60 &70 manufactured by Xian Aircraft, as the name suggest are 60 and 70 seater turboprop aircrafts respectively that will be available for commercial service before the end of 2008, while ARJ21-700 and -900 should seat 90 and 105 passengers respectively. The aircraft is manufactured in China by ARNIC, test flight will start sometime later this year while entry into service is sometime in 2009.the Chinese are participants in rail and road transportation in Nigeria, I will not be surprised if they appear in the air transport industry using their familiar low price and soft loans, which will be possible after it must have been certified by the regulatory authorities before entry into service, here I mean JAA, FAA, if the aircraft must come to Nigeria then, the NCAA.
Mitsubishi Regional Jet (MRJ): these are Japanese made regional aircrafts manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) and strongly backed by the Japanese government. The recently launched aircraft with commercial service slated for the last quarter of 2009, will have engines supplied by Pratt &Whitney, with composite parts from Boeing. They are to seat between 70- 96 passengers.
Has expected ANA a strong player in the Japanese air transport industry has made a major order. Will Nigerian operators follow suit? That I can’t answer for now but it is widely known here that Japanese products can be trusted but their price is another story entirely.
For the records there are other regional aircrafts manufacturers that have stopped production but have made their products available in the used (Tokunbo) market. We have the Saabs, Dorniers, Avros, Jetstreams, Fokkers and Beechcrafts. As at today only the Beechcraft 1900 is being flown by Nigerian operators, namely overland and wings aviation. Sadly wings aviation recently lost its Beechcraft 1900 en-route Obudu airstrip.
Turboprops: The revival in fortunes of the turboprop industry that began in 2005 shows no sign of losing altitude. Turboprop services grew by 8% in 2005, driven largely by soaring fuel prices that are rendering regional jets of comparative size increasingly uneconomical. Since 2005, turboprops have enjoyed resurgence; Turboprop production increased by over 50% in 2007 and broke the 100 aircraft threshold for the first time since 2000 (when there were five suppliers), accounting for more than a third of total regional airliner shipments. ATR and Bombardier are the only surviving turboprop manufacturers and are enjoying the renaissance of their propeller-driven airliners as demand for small jets collapses. ATR is Europe’s sole remaining turboprop airliner manufacturer, while china as enunciated earlier is developing a 60 seater turboprop with the acronym MA60.
The persistent increase in fuel prices have finally brought the 10-year reign of the small regional jet to a sudden halt, while 30 to 70-seat jets built by Bombardier and Embraer slumped. Both manufacturers have virtually ceased 50-seat jet production, leaving the 30- to 70-seat band to the turboprops. As demand shifts from small jets. Bombardier has benefited from its strategy of keeping a foot in both camps with orders for Q Series turboprops providing an effective counterbalance to the raft of CRJ200 cancellations.
The strongest signs yet of a revival of the turboprop and an affirmation of its preference over the jets in the 30-70 seat capacity in the USA, was recently at the Regional Airline Association’s (RAA) annual conference in Dallas, Texas, when it emerged that Continental Airlines has issued a request for proposals (RFP) for 24 new 70-seat turboprops. According to industry sources, the airline’s RFP specifies that 12 turboprops will operate from Continental’s Newark hub and an equal number from the carrier’s Houston hub. Both airports will lose capacity under a new feeder deal with its regional associate Express-Jet, which will take 69 Embraer ERJ-145 out of its current 274-strong regional jet fleet. Continental was among the pioneers in the USA to move to an all-jet regional fleet, phasing out its ATR and Embraer turboprops in favour of ERJ-145s. However, more recently the airline has begun to re-introduce some turboprop feeder services through contracts with Colgan Air, Gulfstream International and Regions Air.
Jets: The regional jet net order tally has dramatically reduced for the 50 seat below jets. The large-scale order cancellations for Bombardier’s 50-seat CRJ200 and Embraer’s 37 to 50 seat ERJ 135,145 families also suffered, with its order book declining, so it is no surprise that production of the CRJ200 has been suspended while output of the ERJ has been significantly curtailed. The fall of smaller jets to props is simply due to better fuel performance on the short sectors considering the time difference between them on such sectors isn’t too significant. It is a different story with the larger regional jets which continue to receive orders and modifications from manufacturers with improved payload, cabin comfort and range. They are being stretched to a regional limit. Examples of such are the CRJ 900, 1000 and ERJ 195 ER that take over a 100 passengers
Challenges: Regional aircrafts have challenges to contend with, such as acceptability by corporate and business class passengers especially in the middle East where demand is restricted to oil servicing companies, Jordanian national carrier (Royal Jordanian) had to return the turboprops in their fleet to Bombadier quoting a spokesperson of the airline, "We were satisfied with the operational performance of the [Q400] but passenger acceptance for a turboprop remains difficult in the Middle East, so we did not renew the two-year lease agreement we had with Bombardier," he said, noting that passengers in the region are increasingly used to Gulf carriers who deploy large jets, even wide-bodied, on short sectors.
It’s the same down here except on routes such as Lagos-Benin; Akure-Abuja, it is a marketing nightmare to put props on Lagos-Abuja or Lagos Port-Harcourt (excluding the period PH international airports was closed) as passengers easily opt for jets. Other challenges are the recent landing gear problems associated with Q400 of late, which led to its momentary grounding by airlines and aviation authorities around the world,(here again NCAA was silent or was it a case of diplomatic regulations).
Another challenge is the recent order by the management of JFK airport to ban the operations of turboprops and jets that carry less than 60 passengers, which is to reduce congestions and delays. Similar subtle bans are common at busy international gateways such as Heathrow, CDG, Hartfield e.t.c, where slot allocation during peak period is very difficult for operators with aircrafts that seat below a 100 passengers.
Also, recent accidents and incidents in the industry worldwide have called to question the safety level of regional aircraft operators. Safety inspectors and regulators are accused of placing much emphasis on legacy or mega carriers to the detriment of regionals, also pilots at the regional are accused of not complying with safety regulations. The Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) is presently investigating reports on regional operators and pilot compliance to safety regulations.
We are lucky not be bogged down with the ‘Scope Clause’ challenges, like they have in the USA. The “scope clause” limits the capacity and range the aircrafts can operate based on agreements with the pilot unions.
Conclusively: Nearly half of the total African airline fleet is regional aircraft but only 10 percent, or 64 aircraft, are regional jets. However, this figure has increased from only three percent of the fleet total twelve months ago. This also applies to developing routes, often found in Africa, where additional frequencies are required to stimulate traffic and consequently economic growth. Airlines should know that using the right aircraft reduces the incidence of delay and flight cancellations. It most importantly improves traffic and increases frequency, operators should look at the options and offers from these manufacturers in taking fleet renewal decisions.
Recently the aviation industry was awash with new aircraft orders, which was spearheaded by Arik then Virgin Nigeria. These orders have gladdens the heart of the traveling public and participants in the industry. It is coming twenty three years after the liquidated national carrier (WT) celebrated the arrival of four brand new A 310 jet aircrafts.
This article will deal principally with weighing the differences, similarities and advantages of the jet and turboprops regional aircrafts with reference to those ordered by Nigerian operators.
Regional Aircraft Manufacturers; Avions de Transport Regional (ATR): is a Franco-Italian and the only surviving Europe based regional aircraft manufacturer. The company produces ATR 42 & 72 series turbo-prop aircrafts and recently unveiled the new -600 series of ATR 42 & 72.The -600 will come with new engines with the ability to rotate the aircraft at a lower speed, which contributes to short take-off distance, also coming with the aircraft is a new avionics suite, an additional takeoff weight and improved cabin comfort with LED technology. It will be an improvement to its -500 series which is in the market at the moment. Overland Airways have an ATR on the Ibadan – Abuja route.
Bombardier: this Canadian regional aircraft manufacturer is the only aircraft manufacturer in the world with foot in turbo-prop and jet engine production. It is advantageous, has they have been able to cope with the capacity swing in aircraft demand, though with a perpetual brick bat with Embraer over subsidy. The Q series also known as Dash 8 (-100 to -500) are turboprops, of late the Q400 production increased over the last two years in contrast to the bombardier’s regional jets. The Q400 boasts of greater fuel efficiency on shorter range compared to the jets. Arik and Aero are operators of the Q series family with Arik ordering three brand new Q400 aircrafts.
Also Bombardier produces jet aircraft with the acronym CRJ’s and also have a proud business jet line made up of Lear jets and Challengers .the CRJ’s are from the first generation -100 to the present -900 with a capacity ranging between 30 to 90 seats. Arik air is an operator of the CRJ 200, though leased from EDC.
For the future Bombardier is working on a stretched Q400 dubbed Q400X which should carry 90 passengers compared to the present 74-78 derivative. The company will also offer CRJ 1000 which will accommodate between 100 and 120 seats. They are gradually creeping into the mid-size family of B717 and A319.
Embraer: is a Brazilian company that presently manufactures jet aircrafts only. These jets are referred to as the E-jets. The family is made up of the E145, E170, E175, E190 and E195.Embraer started as a turbo prop manufacturer with aircrafts such EMB 110 and the very popular EMB 120 the bride of African turbo-prop operators. EMB 120 is being operated by three airlines in Nigeria, namely Capital, Associated and Wings Airline, while IRS airline operates the E145 jet. Embraer also produces business jets one of which is the Phenom 100, for the commercial jets, emphasis is on range and payload which necessitated the production of variants as E 170LR(long range), E175AR (advance range). Virgin Nigeria has made the largest order by Nigerian standard for two variant of the E jet family (E170, E190), the total order being 24 jets.
Sukhoi Super Jet (SSJ): this is a Russian made regional jet with partnership with the some western countries. It is a clear departure from the past where the civil aviation in Russia was weaved in a security cocoon, when you compare this aircraft with other Russian aircraft made during that era, such as the Antonovs and Topolevs. The variants of the new SSJ will seat between 75 to 95 passengers.
The aircraft will be ready by the end of the year and service entry is early 2009, considering the multinational partnership in the programme, domestic operators can have a look and see what the marketing department is offering. I can boldly say it will not be another “Ajaokuta Steel” as spares and maintenance facilities will be readily available at the touch of a button.
ARJ 21and MA 60: these are Chinese made regional aircrafts awaiting certification. the MA60 &70 manufactured by Xian Aircraft, as the name suggest are 60 and 70 seater turboprop aircrafts respectively that will be available for commercial service before the end of 2008, while ARJ21-700 and -900 should seat 90 and 105 passengers respectively. The aircraft is manufactured in China by ARNIC, test flight will start sometime later this year while entry into service is sometime in 2009.the Chinese are participants in rail and road transportation in Nigeria, I will not be surprised if they appear in the air transport industry using their familiar low price and soft loans, which will be possible after it must have been certified by the regulatory authorities before entry into service, here I mean JAA, FAA, if the aircraft must come to Nigeria then, the NCAA.
Mitsubishi Regional Jet (MRJ): these are Japanese made regional aircrafts manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) and strongly backed by the Japanese government. The recently launched aircraft with commercial service slated for the last quarter of 2009, will have engines supplied by Pratt &Whitney, with composite parts from Boeing. They are to seat between 70- 96 passengers.
Has expected ANA a strong player in the Japanese air transport industry has made a major order. Will Nigerian operators follow suit? That I can’t answer for now but it is widely known here that Japanese products can be trusted but their price is another story entirely.
For the records there are other regional aircrafts manufacturers that have stopped production but have made their products available in the used (Tokunbo) market. We have the Saabs, Dorniers, Avros, Jetstreams, Fokkers and Beechcrafts. As at today only the Beechcraft 1900 is being flown by Nigerian operators, namely overland and wings aviation. Sadly wings aviation recently lost its Beechcraft 1900 en-route Obudu airstrip.
Turboprops: The revival in fortunes of the turboprop industry that began in 2005 shows no sign of losing altitude. Turboprop services grew by 8% in 2005, driven largely by soaring fuel prices that are rendering regional jets of comparative size increasingly uneconomical. Since 2005, turboprops have enjoyed resurgence; Turboprop production increased by over 50% in 2007 and broke the 100 aircraft threshold for the first time since 2000 (when there were five suppliers), accounting for more than a third of total regional airliner shipments. ATR and Bombardier are the only surviving turboprop manufacturers and are enjoying the renaissance of their propeller-driven airliners as demand for small jets collapses. ATR is Europe’s sole remaining turboprop airliner manufacturer, while china as enunciated earlier is developing a 60 seater turboprop with the acronym MA60.
The persistent increase in fuel prices have finally brought the 10-year reign of the small regional jet to a sudden halt, while 30 to 70-seat jets built by Bombardier and Embraer slumped. Both manufacturers have virtually ceased 50-seat jet production, leaving the 30- to 70-seat band to the turboprops. As demand shifts from small jets. Bombardier has benefited from its strategy of keeping a foot in both camps with orders for Q Series turboprops providing an effective counterbalance to the raft of CRJ200 cancellations.
The strongest signs yet of a revival of the turboprop and an affirmation of its preference over the jets in the 30-70 seat capacity in the USA, was recently at the Regional Airline Association’s (RAA) annual conference in Dallas, Texas, when it emerged that Continental Airlines has issued a request for proposals (RFP) for 24 new 70-seat turboprops. According to industry sources, the airline’s RFP specifies that 12 turboprops will operate from Continental’s Newark hub and an equal number from the carrier’s Houston hub. Both airports will lose capacity under a new feeder deal with its regional associate Express-Jet, which will take 69 Embraer ERJ-145 out of its current 274-strong regional jet fleet. Continental was among the pioneers in the USA to move to an all-jet regional fleet, phasing out its ATR and Embraer turboprops in favour of ERJ-145s. However, more recently the airline has begun to re-introduce some turboprop feeder services through contracts with Colgan Air, Gulfstream International and Regions Air.
Jets: The regional jet net order tally has dramatically reduced for the 50 seat below jets. The large-scale order cancellations for Bombardier’s 50-seat CRJ200 and Embraer’s 37 to 50 seat ERJ 135,145 families also suffered, with its order book declining, so it is no surprise that production of the CRJ200 has been suspended while output of the ERJ has been significantly curtailed. The fall of smaller jets to props is simply due to better fuel performance on the short sectors considering the time difference between them on such sectors isn’t too significant. It is a different story with the larger regional jets which continue to receive orders and modifications from manufacturers with improved payload, cabin comfort and range. They are being stretched to a regional limit. Examples of such are the CRJ 900, 1000 and ERJ 195 ER that take over a 100 passengers
Challenges: Regional aircrafts have challenges to contend with, such as acceptability by corporate and business class passengers especially in the middle East where demand is restricted to oil servicing companies, Jordanian national carrier (Royal Jordanian) had to return the turboprops in their fleet to Bombadier quoting a spokesperson of the airline, "We were satisfied with the operational performance of the [Q400] but passenger acceptance for a turboprop remains difficult in the Middle East, so we did not renew the two-year lease agreement we had with Bombardier," he said, noting that passengers in the region are increasingly used to Gulf carriers who deploy large jets, even wide-bodied, on short sectors.
It’s the same down here except on routes such as Lagos-Benin; Akure-Abuja, it is a marketing nightmare to put props on Lagos-Abuja or Lagos Port-Harcourt (excluding the period PH international airports was closed) as passengers easily opt for jets. Other challenges are the recent landing gear problems associated with Q400 of late, which led to its momentary grounding by airlines and aviation authorities around the world,(here again NCAA was silent or was it a case of diplomatic regulations).
Another challenge is the recent order by the management of JFK airport to ban the operations of turboprops and jets that carry less than 60 passengers, which is to reduce congestions and delays. Similar subtle bans are common at busy international gateways such as Heathrow, CDG, Hartfield e.t.c, where slot allocation during peak period is very difficult for operators with aircrafts that seat below a 100 passengers.
Also, recent accidents and incidents in the industry worldwide have called to question the safety level of regional aircraft operators. Safety inspectors and regulators are accused of placing much emphasis on legacy or mega carriers to the detriment of regionals, also pilots at the regional are accused of not complying with safety regulations. The Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) is presently investigating reports on regional operators and pilot compliance to safety regulations.
We are lucky not be bogged down with the ‘Scope Clause’ challenges, like they have in the USA. The “scope clause” limits the capacity and range the aircrafts can operate based on agreements with the pilot unions.
Conclusively: Nearly half of the total African airline fleet is regional aircraft but only 10 percent, or 64 aircraft, are regional jets. However, this figure has increased from only three percent of the fleet total twelve months ago. This also applies to developing routes, often found in Africa, where additional frequencies are required to stimulate traffic and consequently economic growth. Airlines should know that using the right aircraft reduces the incidence of delay and flight cancellations. It most importantly improves traffic and increases frequency, operators should look at the options and offers from these manufacturers in taking fleet renewal decisions.
CABIN CREW LICENSING: NO MR DG!!!
Article written february 2008
Some time last month some national dallies, credited The Director General of the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA), Dr Harold Demuren as saying that NCAA has stopped licensing cabin crew in Nigeria. This was at a programme organized by ramp officers at the Murtala Muhammed International Airport, Lagos. The DG was quoted as saying “complaints had trailed the issue of cabin crew licensing that the authority would not mess around with safety certificates, since the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recommended standards did not require the civil aviation authorities to issue licenses to cabin crew” (I agree, sir).He went further to cite a case of a crew member whose leg was frozen during turbulence asking her to be calm, take control and stand up to operating procedure and control, stating if this had happened in Port-Harcourt, we would have saved lives.
Having waited for a rebuttal from the DG or NCAA spokesperson which has not come, I strongly feel it is time as an industry participant to speak up on this issue.
Let me state it categorically here that as at today;
Cabin crew is still being licensed with requisite fees paid to NCAA.
The operating procedure and control of Port-Harcourt crash had nothing to do with Cabin but the Cockpit Crew.
Some other civil aviation authorities world over NCAA inclusive have gone beyond the ICAO minimum standard to license cabin crew
That complaints regarding cabin crew licensing are from airlines CEOs, who wish to return to pre-cabin crew licensing era in order to control the training & licensing of cabin crew and the cost expended on licensing fees and training approvals.
I remember vividly when NACCA executives had a meeting with the DG NCAA who was then MD of Afrijet, he was not favorably disposed to the idea of cabin crew licensing.
Cabin Crew licensing: In the mid 90s, some cabin crew of the defunct Nigeria Airways Limited led the struggle for the licensing of cabin crew in Nigeria. In order to give the struggle more bite, they formed and registered a professional body, the National Cabin Crew Association of Nigeria (NACCA). NACCA with the support of International Transport Federation (ITF) and Air Transport Services Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (ATSSSAN) started lobbying bodies and organizations within the industry on the need to license cabin crew. They started with the Licensing Unit, which was then under Federal Civil Aviation Authority (FCAA). It metamorphosed to the Directorate of Safety, Regulation &Monitoring (DSRAM) which is today in the Directorate of Licensing of NCAA.
Nigerian cabin crew started writing exams for their license with relevant agencies seven years ago before the creation of NCAA and is still doing it at the moment.
Is there cabin crew licensing in some other ICAO member countries?
I boldly say yes:
Egypt: ECRA Egyptian Civil Aviation Regulations
SUBPART A General 63.5 :No person may act as cabin crew of a civil aircraft of Egyptian registry unless they have in their possession a current cabin crew license issued under this Part and a current Class 2 medical assessment issued under Part 67.
Romania: Cabin staff operating in Romania must hold a license issued by the Romanian CAA in accordance with the provisions of RACR-LPN5. The application forms must be submitted to the Romanian CAA, with at least 5 working days before the examination.
The applicant must fill in only part A of the application forms. Part B of the theoretical exam application form contains the appropriate disciplines for each type of exams, i.e. first issue, revalidation, renewal or ratings.
NAMIBIA: Directorate of Civil Aviation - Legislation Part 61, Pilot Licensing. Part 63, Flight Engineer Licensing. Part 64, Cabin Crew Licensing and Part 65, Air Traffic Service Personnel Licensing.
Brazil: Cabin crew is licensed, after going through initial training with the military and then goes through company and type training with the airline that hires them. Thereafter they are issued their license.
Australia: FAA Australia recent report and recommendation to the government and joint committee of public accounts & audit: titled ‘review of aviation security in Australia’:
• Government explicitly recognize the critical safety & security based on the nature of cabin crew role and the evolving higher level of safety & security responsibility of cabin crew members.
• Government explicitly recognize the status of cabin crew as primary aviation participants and necessary consultation partners in development of aviation security provision, legislation and regulation
• Government recognizes the impact of commercial factors on the ability of the cabin crew to effectively perform their mandated safety & security responsibilities and provide legislative and regulatory support for the conduct of these critical duties.
• Government support the evaluation by ICAO of internationally agreed minimum standards of cabin safety and security compliance through the development of a cabin crew licensing regime. (Can NCAA do same for Nigerian cabin crew?)
Other countries that license their cabin crew are France, South Africa, Argentina, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Mauritius, Norway, Spain, Thailand, Oman, Mexico, Peru, Ecuador e.t.c. While the USA, UK, Australia, Germany, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Switzerland require them to hold a Certificate of Proficiency.
The benefits of cabin crew licensing include, but are not limited to improved cabin safety & training, cabin crew type rating on specified aircrafts, increase in cabin crew professionalism, which is evident in the standard of the average take home which has risen from N15, 000 ten years ago to N120, 000 in 2007. Also it generates revenue for NCAA (which has received over N23million from crew licensing fees) and provides employment for experienced cabin staff as cabin inspectors in NCAA and Lead Crew in private airlines.
The only existing credible check on cabin safety in Nigeria is the cabin crew license, the unsmiling but very professional Director of Licensing in NCAA, who goes by the book and ensures everything, goes according to standard and recommended practices have been able to provide a safe cabin in our aircrafts. Incidence of fire, dangerous goods spillage, unruly passengers, evacuation etc has been excellent and this is due solely to the stringent procedures that must be met prior to being licensed as cabin crew.
If we stop licensing, the industry should be prepared for misfits getting into the cabin, airlines cutting corners, enriching some half baked instructors in private airlines and painfully shredding an important part from the safety network.
The safety network here comprises of aviation inspectors, air traffic controllers, training institutions, pilots, maintenance personnel and the aircraft itself are all certified. Why remove the cabin crew? It becomes a weak link in the safety oversight chain. It is not a coincidence that cabin crew is an area where women’s employment is strong. Work that women do is often undervalued – and in this case, the safety professional role is undervalued, because employers tend to put so much emphasis on the so-called “female” service components of the job.
The reality today is that new aircrafts are designed with, the cockpit being manned by two pilots unlike in the past and the cockpit doors being reinforced and locked with little or no contact with the passengers on board, due to the advent of terrorism. For cabin crew, aircraft cabins are getting bigger and more sophisticated, such as the A380, B777, E190, CRJ 900 and the futuristic B787, A350 and B747X, so more cabin crew are needed on board these aircrafts.
It is pertinent to state here that the “Shoe Bomber” Richard Reid, on American Airlines, Flight 63 on December 22, 2001, en route from Paris to Miami, Florida, began acting strangely. He was assigned to an aisle seat near the middle of the aircraft, but he moved to an empty window seat after takeoff - where a bomb could have caused greater damage. When he tried to set light to his shoe, a member of the cabin crew told him to put out the light. Reid resisted, was subdued by the cabin crew and other passengers, who was then sedated by a doctor on board the plane. The crew later discovered the explosive inside Reid's shoes – subsequently, found to be TATP or triacetone tripe oxide. The device was taken to the back of the plane and wrapped in blankets and pillows to help absorb a potential explosion. (The profession goes beyond tea and coffee please!)
Survivability in airline accidents is rising, and in these situations, it is cabin crew who implement safety procedures. Access to the flight deck is now blocked to anyone in the cabin, so if there is an incident on board, cabin crew deal with it. Cabin crew themselves agree they feel recognized as safety professionals where licensing is in place – and this can affect the authority they have in doing this safety critical job. The more this is recognized by national and international authorities, employers and passengers, the better they will be at fulfilling this role – whether dealing with a security problem, an accident scenario or a case of air rage.
The DG NCAA should please not drag the country and profession backwards and make us all regret the autonomy recently granted to NCAA, but should place emphasis rather on recruiting & training cabin inspectors who should be stationed at our major airports for spontaneous checks, improved cabin training standards and the provision of hi-tech training facilities such as CPR Manikkens, multimedia projectors etc.
NACCA the umbrella professional body of the cabin crew in Nigeria should wake up from her slumber and be proactive. They should emulate their counterparts such as BBTK SETCA of Belgium, Suomen Lentoemäntä- JA Stuerttiyhdistys Ry of Finland, AFA of America and SNPNC of France who have taken their cases beyond the industry to highest level of government.
It is also an irritating norm in Nigeria, to see foreign airlines cabin crew being guarded and driven by gun-wielding and siren blowing policemen and licensed Nigerian cabin crew are at the mercy of airport taxis, commercial cyclist (okada) and the ubiquitous airport touts after operating flights.
Cabin crew licensing is here for improved cabin safety and professionalism, so let it be!!
article written February 2008
Some time last month some national dallies, credited The Director General of the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA), Dr Harold Demuren as saying that NCAA has stopped licensing cabin crew in Nigeria. This was at a programme organized by ramp officers at the Murtala Muhammed International Airport, Lagos. The DG was quoted as saying “complaints had trailed the issue of cabin crew licensing that the authority would not mess around with safety certificates, since the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recommended standards did not require the civil aviation authorities to issue licenses to cabin crew” (I agree, sir).He went further to cite a case of a crew member whose leg was frozen during turbulence asking her to be calm, take control and stand up to operating procedure and control, stating if this had happened in Port-Harcourt, we would have saved lives.
Having waited for a rebuttal from the DG or NCAA spokesperson which has not come, I strongly feel it is time as an industry participant to speak up on this issue.
Let me state it categorically here that as at today;
Cabin crew is still being licensed with requisite fees paid to NCAA.
The operating procedure and control of Port-Harcourt crash had nothing to do with Cabin but the Cockpit Crew.
Some other civil aviation authorities world over NCAA inclusive have gone beyond the ICAO minimum standard to license cabin crew
That complaints regarding cabin crew licensing are from airlines CEOs, who wish to return to pre-cabin crew licensing era in order to control the training & licensing of cabin crew and the cost expended on licensing fees and training approvals.
I remember vividly when NACCA executives had a meeting with the DG NCAA who was then MD of Afrijet, he was not favorably disposed to the idea of cabin crew licensing.
Cabin Crew licensing: In the mid 90s, some cabin crew of the defunct Nigeria Airways Limited led the struggle for the licensing of cabin crew in Nigeria. In order to give the struggle more bite, they formed and registered a professional body, the National Cabin Crew Association of Nigeria (NACCA). NACCA with the support of International Transport Federation (ITF) and Air Transport Services Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (ATSSSAN) started lobbying bodies and organizations within the industry on the need to license cabin crew. They started with the Licensing Unit, which was then under Federal Civil Aviation Authority (FCAA). It metamorphosed to the Directorate of Safety, Regulation &Monitoring (DSRAM) which is today in the Directorate of Licensing of NCAA.
Nigerian cabin crew started writing exams for their license with relevant agencies seven years ago before the creation of NCAA and is still doing it at the moment.
Is there cabin crew licensing in some other ICAO member countries?
I boldly say yes:
Egypt: ECRA Egyptian Civil Aviation Regulations
SUBPART A General 63.5 :No person may act as cabin crew of a civil aircraft of Egyptian registry unless they have in their possession a current cabin crew license issued under this Part and a current Class 2 medical assessment issued under Part 67.
Romania: Cabin staff operating in Romania must hold a license issued by the Romanian CAA in accordance with the provisions of RACR-LPN5. The application forms must be submitted to the Romanian CAA, with at least 5 working days before the examination.
The applicant must fill in only part A of the application forms. Part B of the theoretical exam application form contains the appropriate disciplines for each type of exams, i.e. first issue, revalidation, renewal or ratings.
NAMIBIA: Directorate of Civil Aviation - Legislation Part 61, Pilot Licensing. Part 63, Flight Engineer Licensing. Part 64, Cabin Crew Licensing and Part 65, Air Traffic Service Personnel Licensing.
Brazil: Cabin crew is licensed, after going through initial training with the military and then goes through company and type training with the airline that hires them. Thereafter they are issued their license.
Australia: FAA Australia recent report and recommendation to the government and joint committee of public accounts & audit: titled ‘review of aviation security in Australia’:
• Government explicitly recognize the critical safety & security based on the nature of cabin crew role and the evolving higher level of safety & security responsibility of cabin crew members.
• Government explicitly recognize the status of cabin crew as primary aviation participants and necessary consultation partners in development of aviation security provision, legislation and regulation
• Government recognizes the impact of commercial factors on the ability of the cabin crew to effectively perform their mandated safety & security responsibilities and provide legislative and regulatory support for the conduct of these critical duties.
• Government support the evaluation by ICAO of internationally agreed minimum standards of cabin safety and security compliance through the development of a cabin crew licensing regime. (Can NCAA do same for Nigerian cabin crew?)
Other countries that license their cabin crew are France, South Africa, Argentina, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Mauritius, Norway, Spain, Thailand, Oman, Mexico, Peru, Ecuador e.t.c. While the USA, UK, Australia, Germany, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Switzerland require them to hold a Certificate of Proficiency.
The benefits of cabin crew licensing include, but are not limited to improved cabin safety & training, cabin crew type rating on specified aircrafts, increase in cabin crew professionalism, which is evident in the standard of the average take home which has risen from N15, 000 ten years ago to N120, 000 in 2007. Also it generates revenue for NCAA (which has received over N23million from crew licensing fees) and provides employment for experienced cabin staff as cabin inspectors in NCAA and Lead Crew in private airlines.
The only existing credible check on cabin safety in Nigeria is the cabin crew license, the unsmiling but very professional Director of Licensing in NCAA, who goes by the book and ensures everything, goes according to standard and recommended practices have been able to provide a safe cabin in our aircrafts. Incidence of fire, dangerous goods spillage, unruly passengers, evacuation etc has been excellent and this is due solely to the stringent procedures that must be met prior to being licensed as cabin crew.
If we stop licensing, the industry should be prepared for misfits getting into the cabin, airlines cutting corners, enriching some half baked instructors in private airlines and painfully shredding an important part from the safety network.
The safety network here comprises of aviation inspectors, air traffic controllers, training institutions, pilots, maintenance personnel and the aircraft itself are all certified. Why remove the cabin crew? It becomes a weak link in the safety oversight chain. It is not a coincidence that cabin crew is an area where women’s employment is strong. Work that women do is often undervalued – and in this case, the safety professional role is undervalued, because employers tend to put so much emphasis on the so-called “female” service components of the job.
The reality today is that new aircrafts are designed with, the cockpit being manned by two pilots unlike in the past and the cockpit doors being reinforced and locked with little or no contact with the passengers on board, due to the advent of terrorism. For cabin crew, aircraft cabins are getting bigger and more sophisticated, such as the A380, B777, E190, CRJ 900 and the futuristic B787, A350 and B747X, so more cabin crew are needed on board these aircrafts.
It is pertinent to state here that the “Shoe Bomber” Richard Reid, on American Airlines, Flight 63 on December 22, 2001, en route from Paris to Miami, Florida, began acting strangely. He was assigned to an aisle seat near the middle of the aircraft, but he moved to an empty window seat after takeoff - where a bomb could have caused greater damage. When he tried to set light to his shoe, a member of the cabin crew told him to put out the light. Reid resisted, was subdued by the cabin crew and other passengers, who was then sedated by a doctor on board the plane. The crew later discovered the explosive inside Reid's shoes – subsequently, found to be TATP or triacetone tripe oxide. The device was taken to the back of the plane and wrapped in blankets and pillows to help absorb a potential explosion. (The profession goes beyond tea and coffee please!)
Survivability in airline accidents is rising, and in these situations, it is cabin crew who implement safety procedures. Access to the flight deck is now blocked to anyone in the cabin, so if there is an incident on board, cabin crew deal with it. Cabin crew themselves agree they feel recognized as safety professionals where licensing is in place – and this can affect the authority they have in doing this safety critical job. The more this is recognized by national and international authorities, employers and passengers, the better they will be at fulfilling this role – whether dealing with a security problem, an accident scenario or a case of air rage.
The DG NCAA should please not drag the country and profession backwards and make us all regret the autonomy recently granted to NCAA, but should place emphasis rather on recruiting & training cabin inspectors who should be stationed at our major airports for spontaneous checks, improved cabin training standards and the provision of hi-tech training facilities such as CPR Manikkens, multimedia projectors etc.
NACCA the umbrella professional body of the cabin crew in Nigeria should wake up from her slumber and be proactive. They should emulate their counterparts such as BBTK SETCA of Belgium, Suomen Lentoemäntä- JA Stuerttiyhdistys Ry of Finland, AFA of America and SNPNC of France who have taken their cases beyond the industry to highest level of government.
It is also an irritating norm in Nigeria, to see foreign airlines cabin crew being guarded and driven by gun-wielding and siren blowing policemen and licensed Nigerian cabin crew are at the mercy of airport taxis, commercial cyclist (okada) and the ubiquitous airport touts after operating flights.
Cabin crew licensing is here for improved cabin safety and professionalism, so let it be!!
article written February 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)