Hundreds of years ago, the powers of the world fought over Africa and carved its landmass into many pieces which they proceeded to profit from for long stretches of time. Today, a similar fight is on the cards, only this time the would be conquerors are airlines fighting for the skies.
Needless to say the existence of many routes operating in and out of Africa are steeped in historical ties – Air France for instance is very strong in West Africa. However, such historical ties are only a small factor in the broader picture. The formation of global airline alliances, armed conflicts, the discovery of natural resources and a host of other factors make the picture far more complex.
If we compare the footprints of the alliances side-by-side we can see that the Star Alliance has the broadest reach. Notice in particular how the major centers that dot the coast of the continent are well served.
Star Alliance Footprint
Not far behind the Star Alliance is SkyTeam. Air France and KLM’s long history in Africa coupled with Kenya Airways’ growth and success are the major factors behind this second place.
SkyTeam Footprint
This leaves OneWorld in third but not by much.
OneWorld Footprint
Let’s not ignore non-alliance players. The collective presence Emirates, Qatar Airways and Etihad put forward is no longer negligible. You might argue that the gulf trio only affords three non-stop destinations outside Africa – Dubai, Doha and Abu Dhabi – but I would argue that one-stops at the right price are just as good or better than direct services.
With Ethiopian set to join the Star Alliance shortly, the list of African carriers ready to be rolled into major alliances drops to zero – either for lack of quality or lack of size. A lack of carriers however does not mean a lack a opportunities. The difference now is that anyone who wants a piece of the action will have to really put some skin in the game, not simply agree to a codeshare. Brussels Airlines is already doing this by setting up an operation in Lubumbashi (to be called Korongo) but they will not be the last. Numerous European and Middle Eastern carriers have half an eye on such joint ventures as do the new darlings of African politicians - the Chinese and the Indians.
An infographic summary of the three global alliances
While staff turnover, fleet size, and destinations are constantly in flux at all major airlines (and the alliances they belong to) I think the infographic above paints an interesting portrait of the three global alliances. This picture is set to look quite different by this time next year as no less than 10 carriers are in the final stages of negotiation or joining one of these three.
While these carriers play an important role in global aviation one can not discount the titans of the middle east (EK, EY, QR) or the many LCCs around the world. These additional carriers merit an infographic of their own. Coming soon…
Before heading out to Vancouver to catch the Olympics I sat down to contemplate Air Canada’s decision to splash out significant cash to be in the Olympic advertising picture. If reports are to be believed, Air Canada paid anywhere between 15 and 30 million dollars (US) for the privilege of being an “Official Supporter” of the Vancouver 2010 Olympics.
My question is why? Let’s be honest, the Air Canada balance sheet does not exactly show a lot of wiggle room for costly ego projects. Is it just a case of private enterprise trying to capitalize on patriotic fervor? Future arrangements would suggest that this might be the case; British Airways has locked up similar rights to London 2012 and Aeroflot has locked up Sochi 2014. However, lessons – as the old adage goes – are best learned from the past, not the future. Let’s not forget that Ansett Australia, Canadian and Pan Am all held similar designations for Olympic Games past (Sydney, Calgary and Sarajevo respectively) and none of them are still alive and kicking to talk about the value of those investments.
I’m not saying that the money AC sunk into the games was not worthwhile I’m saying they (and others in the future) should augment their approach – they should attain these designations at the alliance level, not the airline level. I doubt the Vancouver Olympic Committee would have had too much issue with making the Star Alliance (rather than Air Canada) an official supporter. After all they would still get their money, likely even more than AC ultimately forked over. Were such an arrangement made, I’m sure the stakeholders within the Star Alliance would have been able to come to an agreement determining how much each member carrier should contribute – even allowing uninterested members to opt out.
Consider the medal count against the countries of origin of Star Alliance carriers:
|
|
Country |
Gold |
Silver |
Bronze |
Total |
Star Carriers |
| 1 |
 |
USA |
9 |
15 |
13 |
37 |
US Airways, Continental, United |
| 2 |
 |
Germany |
10 |
13 |
7 |
30 |
Lufthansa |
| 3 |
 |
Canada |
14 |
7 |
5 |
26 |
Air Canada |
| 4 |
 |
Norway |
9 |
8 |
6 |
23 |
SAS |
| 5 |
 |
Austria |
4 |
6 |
7 |
17 |
Austrian |
| 7 |
 |
Korea |
6 |
6 |
4 |
16 |
Asiana |
| 8 |
 |
China |
5 |
2 |
4 |
11 |
Shanghai Airlines |
| 8 |
 |
Sweden |
5 |
2 |
6 |
13 |
SAS |
| 11 |
 |
Switzerland |
6 |
0 |
3 |
9 |
Swiss |
To me the above table screams lost opportunity. Air Canada would still have received enough coverage at home to keep WestJet at bay and it would have further benefited from revenue sharing arrangements with a number of its partners – all of whom would also have been able to exploit patriotism in their back yards.
I understand how complex it would have been to facilitate an arrangement such as the one I have described, but I really do feel it would have been a worthwhile exercise. Besides, the top dog at AC is a former lawyer and an expert in such matters and might have been able to handle the legalese himself, saving a few more bucks.
