What are the trends and challenges facing the airline industry in 2024, particularly for business travellers?
Paul Chiambaretto - Macroeconomic trends, and the economic and financial figures for IATA confirm itare rather optimistic about the air traffic demand at global level. This will enable us to exceed 2019 levels. There is, however, a major downside that all the airlines are highlighting: the return of leisure customers is much less marked on the professional segment. This can be explained both by the alternative offered by the videobut also by the greatest environmental sensitivity among companies. This is true of large groups, but VSEs and SMEs are less sensitive to this issue. They are less concerned about financial and, above all, non-financial reporting. Unlike large groups with subsidiaries, for whom a lot of travel has been replaced by videoconferencing, small organisations are more focused on prospecting, and need to convince external contacts, which means travelling.
The Pegasus Chair had tried to project itself into 2021 on the basis of a sustainable transfer of air travel to videoconferencing...
Paul Chiambaretto - It was a complicated exercise. Today, it is estimated that between 25 and 30% of professional demand is not being met. So I'd say we weren't too far off the mark! The big question is: will it be sustainable? I remain convinced that the current projects were initiated before the health crisis, and that to really launch new projects, large-scale projects, or go out and find new customers, you have to go and see them face to face, whether by train or by plane. There's another point that has an impact on business customers: the loyalty programmes have not changed one iota. In fact, they are tending to get tougher. We find ourselves in a paradoxical situation: business customers, who have been enormously loyal to the carriers in recent years, and who are going through a difficult period because their company no longer allows them to travel as much, are being punished. Perhaps the airlines need to work on reducing the number of flights required for some of their loyalty programmes, quite simply because the volumes required are no longer feasible. For example, someone who only flies with Transavia on domestic routes and who wants to become Platinum must make 150 flights a year. That's 3 domestic flights a week, with no holidays... And you can't make that calculation while talking about measured consumption.
How is the FAS case progressing?
Paul Chiambaretto - A major innovation in 2023 was the introduction of European regulations ReFuelEU Aviationand the increasing incorporation of SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel). Private individuals are not yet prepared to pay more for these fuels on a voluntary basis, but this may be the case for certain companies that want to reduce their CO2 emissions while maintaining a certain number of journeys. I think this is the big issue of 2024 and beyond The airlines will use corporate customers as a priority to develop their SAF offer, beyond what is required by ReFuelEU Aviation.
Should we therefore expect a major acceleration in the FAS dossier over the coming months?
Paul Chiambaretto - There's a major challenge that we're starting to point out about SAF: we have the technology, the know-how, but our problem is that of the "right technology". production and scaling up. The problem with green aviation is not R&D: it's a production problem. We have the know-how and the technology to make a hydrogen-powered aircraft, but can we produce 1,000 planes a year? The challenge for Airbus and Boeing at the moment is that they are producing fewer aircraft than they were capable of producing in 2017 or 2018 in terms of deliveries. If we were to replace the current world fleet with the latest generation of aircraft using existing technology, we would cut CO2 emissions by 25%. This is also what is happening on the SAF. We know how to do it, but we don't know how to scale it up.
The advent of flying taxisIs the same issue at stake here?
Paul Chiambaretto - I'm fairly confident about flying taxis. The technology is there, the plane is flying. Above all, it's a question of certification. But I think that the market will be equivalent to that for helicopters between Nice and Monaco, for example, or for motorbike taxis, with people prepared to pay 100 or 200 euros to travel from Paris to Roissy in less than 30 minutes.
Have there been any lasting changes in the air travel habits of business customers?
Paul Chiambaretto - This means longer journeys and no more round trips over the course of a day. This also explains theshutdown of the shuttle model on Orly. There has been a drop of 60% for day trips [between 2019 and 2023, editor's note]. And when employees travel abroad, they will now try to combine several trips or stay longer. Paradoxically, the losers are the airlines, and the winners are the hoteliers. And again: as some business travellers travel less frequently, they may be tempted to switch from economy to premium or from premium economy to business, even if not all companies have adopted this approach yet.
How do you see the shift from air to rail, particularly for domestic flights?
Paul Chiambaretto - Switching from air to rail is a fairly natural consequence of good quality rail services. The problem today is that therail services are weaker than in 2018, in terms of number of seats and number of trains. The SNCF doesn't have enough trains to meet demand, so revenue management models will go into overdrive, with crazy prices. But even so, people will buy. Once again, there isn't enough supply because manufacturers have been waiting for years. So we're back to the production problem.
Isn't this also a problem for rail services to airports?
Paul Chiambaretto - I agree. But the routes used for airports are not the same. We also have to bear in mind that long-haul flights are only profitable because they are fed by domestic or connecting flights. So the question is: do we transport passengers by train? This may be an option for some passengers, but the rail offer is not attractive enough to reach the airlines' connecting waves. So to imagine that we're going to do away with domestic flights altogether, I think, is a bit "illusory". I think we'll keep the connecting flights and the plane will continue to make sense on domestic routes, mainly on cross-border flights between two regional cities, because rail doesn't make sense. We always get the impression that rail is a green mode of transport. It's true for a train, but there's the construction of the track, whose carbon footprint would mean carrying millions of passengers to make it profitable... So high-speed lines only make sense from an environmental point of view on certain routes.
What role should the State or Europe play on the road to responsible aviation?
Paul Chiambaretto - What's complicated is that in Europe we've lost the notion of policy in the industrial sense of the term: we no longer have a sectoral policy, and unfortunately policy is often content to be purely fiscal. We no longer have a sectoral policy, and unfortunately policy is often confined to purely fiscal matters. We are convinced that it is by introducing taxes that we will push the players in one direction or another. Unfortunately, I don't think that taxation provides enough of an incentive. Take the example of the eco-contribution: a passenger flying on an old Boeing 747 will pay the same tax as on an A350. That's no incentive at all. What's more, this eco-tax is paid in the same way for a passenger who travels once a year or less, or fifty times a year. Shouldn't there be a differential taxation ? Even if this implies operational constraints, in particular for "tracing" passengers. This would make it possible to limit the over-consumption of aircraft by a few passengers, without excluding from air transport passengers who fly less than once a year. In my view, this lacks industrial vision.
Are business travellers themselves more responsible in their relationship with mobility?
Paul Chiambaretto - The crisis has made us realise that some of the trips we used to make were probably unnecessary. On the other hand, I think we've currently fallen into the opposite trap, telling ourselves that we can do everything by videoconferencing. Because no: you can't do everything with video. People working in the same building communicate by video! Companies will realise that new projects can only be launched by seeing people in person. And that's without taking into account the environmental footprint of videoconferencing. There has to be a return to the human touch.
