From Mr M. A. Merzhäuser

I read with interest Philip Fenech’s contribution regarding my 13th January article in which I had suggested a year-round basic Easyjet service from Geneva and Nice. I also spoke about the possibility of a Berne link, encouraged links from across Austria, as well as the improvement/development potential in Zurich through a code-share, while indeed pointing out where subsidized parallel flights would make some market participants more equal than others.

Whether one likes it or not, the quoted passages from subsidy programmes speak for themselves. As with every contract all criteria have to be met. Whether this was possible in practice for Air Malta and Britishjet for said criteria requires no further comment.

In no way all seems fine as regards the EU and the subsidies, just read The Malta Business Weekly of 15 November 2007.

My opinion is that aid should only apply for genuinely new routes and be accessible on a real level playing field. It possibly slipped Mr Fenech’s attention that I spoke positively about Ryanair’s Valencia and Treviso routes. But is London, for example, a “new area”?’

What would Mr Fenech say if there is a shop A, and then a shop B comes along wanting to sell the same product directly next to A, thus creating a parallel market? B shouts it is low-cost but needs direct or indirect subsidies because taxes are too high or is incapable to compete, and after a hullabaloo indeed gets subsidies, while A in practice has no access to these.

What other methodology than a geographic evaluation does he suggest to determine the proximity of two airports? This is what consumers do.

Are “comparable” airports really comparable, as regards terminal quality, runway system standard (in MIA’s case two runways, one even with A380 standard)? What about the not insubstantial part that the military (the taxpayer) has in covering costs of many “cheap” airports? How do real estate prices in the vicinity of airports compare?

Peter Bolech has already explained that landing fees for a fully loaded B737 are EUR220; just split this up per passenger. Handling fees are indeed not the lowest, but these are variable costs. Low fix costs help start-ups. Instead of quoting relative figures it might be fairer to quote the absolute figures so that one sees how “high” the sum of money allegedly scaring off passengers and carriers really is. Do 10 or so euros more or less on the same ticket really decide for or against a holiday or destination?

What’s wrong with MIA being partly Austrian owned (or enterprises abroad being partly Maltese owned)? Instead of post-colonial-ideologist-style talk one should accept that this happens in the EU, even when membership was denied to Malta and the Maltese both at home and abroad, “thanks” to the poll consequences of the 1990s anti-VAT campaign spearheaded by a certain non-political organisation well-known to Mr Fenech; to those who do not remember the campaign I suggest they read Saviour Balzan’s “Katyusha Politics” (MT, 9 December 2007); the VAT and cash register issue was crucial (see also Giglio, Albert: Malta Analysis and Consequences of Elections).

With delayed EU membership Malta lost substantial funds for upgrading work that could since long have benefited the tourism product.

Better an immovable “private monopoly” (airport; and as regards fees airlines have a say in it) than depending on a highly mobile “foreign-owned private monopoly” carrier threatening to pull out if it does not get what it wants; for Malta just recall the Bologna fuss.

As regards the cause for any progress, why ignore MTA’s sterling advertising and product development efforts, State upgrading works, or hotel online marketing, although indeed a central online marketing platform move was delayed far too long. It can also only be hoped that the many excellent suggestions by MLP and AD regarding tourism are taken up whatever the electoral outcome.

Why do quarters around a certain low-cost airline always try to imply that Malta has nothing left to differentiate itself than a handful of euros but then only as regards airport-handling fee? I would rather say 10 or 20 euros more or less would make zero difference when deciding if and where one will travel, however short the vacation.

Optimised advertising, improved product quality, better urban and natural environment, and genuinely new routes combined together should be a good mix. Regarding the last point, I have meanwhile suggested many and some indeed took off (Bologna, Benghazi, Leipzig), while still hoping for Shannon, Belfast, Aberdeen, Tel Aviv, Thessaloniki, or Katowice.

But let me also say well done to GRTU’s euro changeover job. While we might not agree on subsidising Ryanair to the financial detriment of Air Malta (jobs), I share Austin Gatt’s point of view (AMITEX 2006 speech). I can only encourage GRTU to continue with its many small but effective initiatives.

Such practical improvements can prove worth much more to the tourist than a few euros more or less at the airport.

Matthias A. Merzhäuser

GERMANY