This article looks at Air Malta, in particular in respect of route network questions, as well as the continually resurfacing subject of a Gozo airstrip.
Air Malta could thankfully reduce its losses – at least from the actual operational aspect, even though we can indeed share the view of the minister who has been a bit more cautious about the longer-term performance. Still, the unrest in North Africa means that tourist traffic is finding other destinations, even though of quite different character, and Malta and thus Air Malta can stand to profit, as they have done during the last two years, while the negative one-off effect on the balance sheet accompanying the restructuring process that resulted in the enforced departure of several hundred people will then be gone.
Particularly noteworthy on the positive side is the new fuel purchase procedure, which helps the company cut costs without having an impact on local supplier jobs.
Regarding the network, as far as EU routes are concerned, the winter schedule has basically stayed the same, with ‘thin’ seasonal routes out, but I am very sure that we will see the likes of Norwich, etc., again next summer.
As regards the non-EU routes, it is very positive that Air Malta is not only retaining the Tel Aviv charters (which had been pointed out as a possibility for some years in this paper before being taken up and proved a success), but is also keeping a strengthened winter profile on the Moscow route. While this is certainly a route that can be counted on during the summer, during the winter it can sometimes be challenging, since the tourist market there looks at really sunny and warm destinations. In this way, Air Malta provides a solid year-round link for the destination. The code-share agreement with flag carrier Aeroflot has now been in place for quite a few years and with the now improved hub at Moscow-Sheremetyevo, we can hopefully also see some boost if the flights via Moscow are offered as a viable alternative for travel between Malta and, say, Japan and China, given Aeroflot’s competitive fares combined with a very modern fleet, plus connections to other Russian centres.
It is also positive that the eccentric Algiers route has been dropped – which still begs the question how it was ever allowed to start at all. Clearly, there is no commercial case for operating it with a 140-seater, as was clear right from the start (see piece by yours truly in TMIS 26 May), despite all the talk from the PR machine that even went as far as suggesting Algeria as a tourist destination for the Maltese. With Egyptair already appearing to have more than enough available seats on the far more important Cairo route, with good connectivity potential to the Arab and Asian area as well as South Africa and with a plane half the size, clearly there could have been better non-EU alternative routes of equal distance, such as Belgrade or, for slightly longer routes pushing more capacity on Geneva, a Star Alliance hub.
While it is true that sometimes route development projects do not work out as expected, here it was really an obvious case. Such doubtful experiments are being counter-financed by job cuts meaning people losing their jobs while, at the same time, in the international industry media, you can read about Air Malta sources (not its staff) grumbling at conferences about the company’s lack of potential/capability of its own human resources, e.g. at middle management level. Fostering antagonism is certainly not a step forward in a new or better corporate culture.
Asia
The idea of improved links to Asia has also been making the rounds. Indeed, it is more than clear that China, at least, is one Asian market that has to be reckoned with for incoming tourism. Further enhancing connections with Chinese state carriers via hubs should be a first step, and adding code-shares is always a very good step.
Direct flights, of course, could massively push up demand, and there is already more awareness regarding a destination plus making it more convenient. Certainly, the new generation of narrow-body Airbus and Boeing aircraft can open up the possibility of, say, an A321 (NEO) or a B737-MAX8 operating a direct service between Malta and China with a technical fuel stop midway. This would significantly reduce travelling time and maybe also the cost for tourists, as opposed to using a wide-body jet, which would be far too large and costly for a European operation. Cyprus Airways almost broke down due to its A330-200 wide-bodies, apart from the Greece traffic issue.
Clearly, if it is going to happen at all, a wide-body operation with, say, a B767-300 or A330-200 should be something only a Chinese state carrier would risk. Of course, these larger aircraft have enormously higher trip costs and marketing risks versus the narrow-body jets mentioned above. In any event, we need to have real cost-covering commitments from tour operators in the various source markets. And, in any event, a lot of traffic simply works via hubs.
Regarding other Asian markets, these are clearly far from sufficiently mature to be a really noteworthy source for Malta; look at the disaster of the Indian aviation industry and airport infrastructure there, plus the still far too small affluent market, let alone in much smaller and even further away countries even for sourcing transit passengers.
Operating an A319 service to Abu Dhabi as another key Gulf airport in partnership with Etihad could indeed be an option, aiming not just at point-to-point but also at Asian and Australian transit travel. Still, let us not forget that currently there is ample opportunity for tourists from Asia to reach Malta via transit points, not only in places such as Munich or Frankfurt and Italy, but already in a number of eastern places. I am positive that Emirates (Dubai), Turkish Airlines/Air Malta (Istanbul) and Egyptair (Cairo), as well as Aeroflot/Air Malta (Moscow), would already be more than delighted for any passenger from that area travelling with them. So far, Emirates cannot operate a non-stop service, but has to combine Malta with another destination for commercial reasons. It would surely happily operate a non-stop service with the offering of far more seats, were the market big enough, and it is surely not their fares that are to blame.
The Gozo airstrip – yet again in the headlines
Now, as we are preparing for the EU parliament elections, the Gozo airstrip saga resurfaces.
As I have already pointed out in this newspaper (back in 2008), whatever the case, even with zero runway work, there should be nothing wrong with making use of the disused Gozo heliport as an auxiliary helicopter base with just basic infrastructure (thus no high investment cost: the technical base would remain in Malta) for the AFM. This would mean transferring quality government jobs to an economically disadvantaged part of the country – a practice found in many countries. For the AFM it would mean a faster response time and lower trip costs in the event of an emergency in Gozo. Malta should also obtain some EU regional development funding, as well as Frontex funds, for such a development, given that the AFM’s air wing assets are kept rather busy in that context.
Certainly, there is always the question of a revival of the Gozo helicopter shuttle that ran quite successfully with Malta Air Charter, an Air Malta subsidiary with local commercial partners, using leased Soviet-Russian-built MIL MI-8 helicopters connecting to Air Malta flights seamlessly and offered as part of Gozo packages by tour operators, albeit at a time when fuel prices were much lower and the ferry service nothing like as good. It was obvious before they started that the services of the “highly experienced international” Spanish Helisureste, with its high fares and lack of commercial connection to the airlines with a quite expensive to operate helicopter, let alone those of Eagle Associates with a mini helicopter with three passenger seats unable to carry any luggage, or the floatplane service requiring calm waters and passengers transferring via Grand Harbour, were bound to be unsatisfactory replacements.
By the way, British International Helicopters from Cornwall, which was the first company touted to operate the helicopter route before negotiations failed and the business then went to Helisureste, has meanwhile stopped its UK passenger operation between the mainland Penzance heliport and the Scilly Isles, which continues to be run by an equally costly Twin Otter fixed-wing operation that has anyway been operating in parallel, at equally high fares, but from a less convenient location. It seems to have made more financial sense to the facility owner to demolish the heliport and use it as the site for a supermarket.
While there are now more modern helicopters both from Russia (e.g. modernised versions of the MIL-Mi-8s, the Mi-171A, compatible according to JAR29 regulations), as well as European and American manufacturers, the higher cost in comparison to fixed-wing aircraft in terms of fuel, maintenance and capital investment, cannot be ignored. The big plus of the Russian helicopters of the 1990s and early 2000s was their low leasing/capital cost and easy maintenance. To some extent this is also true of the more modern ones, although they are, of course, not that cheap from the capital angle. Then again, there is a saving on infrastructure costs, looking at the system as a whole.
There are, indeed, a limited number of specialised single and twin-prop aircraft that might be suitable for a shuttle (single engine: Gippsland Airvan, Pacific 750 XL; twin engine: BN Islander, Sikorsky-PZL M28 Skytruck, Viking Twin Otter, Let 410/420). However, apart from the two single-engine cases, which require very little by way of runway (particularly the Pacific 750XL) and are very reliable but, in the end, are still single-engine planes with the risk of foreign object/bird strike damage, one should have no illusions as regards fares. For example, the Islander would be well beyond €100 per person return fare, based on fares in similar scenarios in Europe. The Let, which is more competitive and has a higher cabin standard, has longer runway requirements, even though all the aircraft mentioned can also operate from gravel strips. For such extremely short hopping, tough utility planes are necessary, and if they can also operate from grass/gravel strips or very short tarmac runways, this could reduce environmental impact, as is the case on some Scottish islands, for example.
Regardless of the aircraft, loads are oriented predominantly in one direction at certain times of the day (departure/arrival waves) and this must be counter-financed.
If the weather is so rough that the ferry cannot operate (very rare now, thanks to the present fleet, and harbour improvements have certainly helped as well) it is doubtful that a six-to-19-seat aircraft would be able to fly either.
For international flights, MIA is far better connected than any of the Sicilian or southern mainland Italian airports, so it makes no sense to expect people to fly to Gozo via Sicily for the sake of avoiding Malta. In addition, Air Malta is a home carrier with a very diversified network, added to which are many Ryanair flights and network carriers such as Emirates and Lufthansa.
Malta is also far too far away for the supposed number of tourists flying in with their own light aircraft. With all respect to the local light general aviation scene, residents – and the tourism industry as a whole – have to be taken into account as well. Let us appreciate what actually makes Gozo’s character as a destination. At the same time, indeed, the total footprint of such an airstrip would be much smaller than that of the equestrian racetrack, which is clearly of no infrastructural or tourist industry value. While of no use for domestic commuters working in Malta, an airstrip would have an infinitesimal environmental impact compared to the bridge or tunnel ideas. If, however, a tunnel or bridge is eventually provided (the viability of either for a 30,000-strong community is better unanswered), it becomes unnecessary.
An environmental and technical observation cannot remain isolated. The commercial viability of the actual air service also needs to be taken into account and there is also a requirement for careful planning regarding aircraft, frequency and fares and the demand that will support those fares compared with improved overland and sea links maybe not taking that much longer and, if organised properly, also meaning less hassle than now – let alone in the past. The practical aspect of getting on and off any type of transport – added to waiting times – could be a serious deterrent to visiting Gozo, but there could be very simple solutions to those problems if the will to find them is there.
Should the decision be for an airstrip, restricted to military and public transport use only, a joint investment involving both the military and Frontex border patrols, as well as EU funds, should be negotiated.