15.03.2025 Aviation, Aviation Investment, Carbon-Neutral Flying, Fossil Free Flying, Impact Investment, SDG Cherry Picking, Sustainability, Values

Climate Friendly Mobility – Claims vs. Reality

Others are faster. But we have BIG PLANS. Ursula von der Leyen Meme

Volkswagen’s own Life Cycle Assessment claims the Golf Diesel is about the same “sustainable” as their fancy ID.3. Airbus (finally) admits that their first hydrogen airplanes won’t be there by 2035, demanding all new storage and logistics. An aircraft maker senior official just this month again disqualified electric flying as for years to come being constrained by 50 passengers for 200 miles or a trade-off between the two, but nothing for mass air transport. And Europe refocuses on a war and threats from the East and an erratic president in the West, shifting away from climate action or sustainability. Some more detail thoughts and a reality check on climate friendly mobility as Food for Thought.

Table of Content

The Electric Cars Lie
Climate Friendly Flying
Energiewende (Energy Transition) – A Limited View
Impact Investor = Greenwashing?
Why I Keep Fighting to Fund Kolibri

Yeah, it’s been a while. I had a lot on my plate, moving into a nice old town house, smartifying it, modernizing. At the same time looking for and managing jobs that keep me afloat, managing Airportinfo and still seeking potential investors for Kolibri.

And in the recent weeks had some more learning curves, about claims and the harsh reality check hitting my own life with brute force.

While Sustainable Mobility is something of importance to me, there’s two major areas that impact my life rather directly. Car Mobility. And Flying. Though keep in mind that “sustainability is about 17 SDGs, not just climate. But let’s focus on the famous “climate side” of it today.

So let me share two findings on each today. And yes, I do appreciate if you disagree, comment or call me to discuss. But so far, I get a lot of support from other “activists” focusing on sustainable mobility.

The Electric Cars Lie

While developing Kolibri, for our company ground mobility, we looked into (ground-based) e-Mobility. You may remember the Volkswagen own life-cycle assessment I shared before on their ID3 vs. the Volkswagen Golf:

When The Numbers Don’t Compute: Braunschweig

A Real-World Example…

Now it happens, that I live with my family in a satellite suburb of Braunschweig (English: Brunswick), location of Germany’s Research Airport. Close by Volkswagen-Hometown of Wolfsburg, Braunschweig is also a very Volkswagen dependent city. And yes, I drive a car with a combustion engine. Say what?

But yes, investing now into solar power for my own use, I just checked again, if I have the possibility to turn to an electric car. Have one of those fancy Wall Boxes…? But. Naaaaw. What’d you’re thinking?!

New supermarket parking lot 50+ spaces, 3 EV car loading stations. Reality Check.

In this suburb I live together with some 24 000 others, the entire area does not have “own parking”. Almost all (98%) of the buildings have no own car parking but the cars are parked (like in many cities) “on the street”. Between the house/garden and the parking area on the street is the walkway. Which you may not “block” by putting a cable from your house to the car to load it. Technically it’s neither easily possible, nor is it at all allowed, to add a parking space in the garden. Or the front yard. Naaaaw. What’d your’re thinking?!

City Claims Fact Check: Climate Neutral by 2030

So I reached out to the city’s “Sustainability Pros”. A city with a population of some 250 000 (so almost 10% in our satellite suburb). Asking what their plans are for their claim to become climate neutral by 2030. How they support me – aside no more investment help for roof photovoltaic (PV). But. Naaaaw. What’d you’re thinking?! Noooo, there are no plans on how I could ever use own PV to load my car. But hey, they are going to invest into a “massive” 500 loading stations across Braunschweig by 2028, right. No. To load … what?

Official statistics: On 1 000 people, there are 980 registered cars in Germany. So we talk about some 245 000 cars in Braunschweig. We talk about 80-90% not having their own loading infrastructure (even if they want to). So in the best case (I guess worse), 200 000 cars. We talk about what? 500 loading stations in Braunscheig? Roughly 400 cars sharing the same loading stations? You got to be kiddin’, right?

Aside the fact that the power cost is minimum double of what I’d pay if I could use my own PV-power through a wallbox. And see below on the issue of the loading cycle.

And don’t believe this is an isolated case, it’s the same all over Europe. Guess why the number of cars with combustion engines are still outnumbering electric drive. Only 2.1% of the cars registered in Germany are electric. And recently the numbers of combustion engine powered registrations is on the rise again.

Climate Neutral by 2030? Maybe 2050? Naaaaw. What’d you’re thinking?!

Reality Check: Forget about it.

Loading Cycle

Loading takes 30 minutes fast charging (high strain on the battery, shortened life-expectancy) to about four hours in average (German Automobile Club ADAC). Frequently a problem during summer vacation, long lines of EVs (electric vehicles) waiting for their turn at the charging station. Then sitting at the truck stop for three, four hours before they can continue. Good business for the truck stop.

Now residents want to park their car and charge over night. Not leave the parking lot after four hours (in the middle of the night) to allow the neighbor to load.

Reality Check: Forget about it.

Car Life-Cycle vs. e-Mobility

Today, an average car is used for 10-20 years in Europe, then exported to other countries where those “old cars” are still in great demand. So a car in average has a life-cycle of 20-30 years. But Germany, as an industry country with supposedly “better” infrastructure than most, still sells only a small fraction (2-3%) of the cars with electric engine, the other 97-98% are combustion powered. End of the Combustion Engine by 2035? Without serious, practicable plans for loading infrastructure capable of the mass demand? #greenwashing

And in the “less sophisticated countries”, how do you get the electricity “powered up” to supply the loading? That ain’t just about Africa, that’s true for rural areas even within the mighty EU! The image was published by New York Times just recently.

Reality Check: Forget about it.

Side Issue Braunschweig: The Green District Heating Lie

This is also quite in line with another self-deception here. “District Heating is green”. Just that in Braunschweig it’s (well hidden) 71.4% fossil (coal, “natural” gas, oil), remaining 28,6 wood waste… Green like in #greenwashing! Yes, they have big plans. Especially to extend their reach. And use “natural gas” and extend use of wood, resulting in more trucking. Or use surplus heat from steel mills in the region. Who cares, where that energy comes from…

Reality Check: Forget about it.

My other big topic on sustainable mobility is

Climate Friendly Flying

And inside Climate Friendly Flying, there were some rather frustrating news, mostly ignored by general media. Talking to them, I got the response as it not being noteworthy, as (aside me) who would believe in climate friendly flying to happen in the next 25 years anyway… Yes. That hurt. But it’s true and in line with my own experience. So let’s quickly look at that.

Electric Flying

The issue with electric flight remains very much as it was back in 2019, when Boeing pulled out of their venture with Zunum.aero. There was a statement this month by an aircraft maker’s senior manager (yes, I know who), relating to the 2019 statement by then Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg that they would be at best make it to fly 50 passengers and no freights for 200 miles (300 kilometers). Possibly able to trade capacity with range. Nevertheless, nowhere near a “mass market.

Even giving developments of new batteries with higher energy density, that senior official and other experts in the recent academic video conference call on battery development warned quite emphatically about the increasing risks relating to the high altitude flying and pressure changes straining those batteries. Their assumption was that flight certified batteries would not benefit in the near (or not so near) future from those density improvements. Using the examples of the Samsung Galaxy Note 7, proving also that the first events unfolded airborne, due to the additional strain changing altitude (air pressure) rather quickly. As well as the Boeing 787 door batteries that caught fire, attributed to “new batteries with higher energy density”. He questioned the ability to improve “quickly” on the range/load, as higher density batteries will pose additional risk to aircraft safety and such would demand a lot of additional testing for flight certification.

Reality Check: Forget about it. 50 passengers. 200 miles. Max.

Air Taxi

I do hope you know my Whitepaper on Air Taxi. Three reasons, why Air Taxi IMHO is a ruse. Vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) is the most energy inefficient mode of air transport. Aside that there are helicopters covering that niche. Second, individual transport is the most energy inefficient mode transport. Third, air traffic control is already often on the brink of collapse, now add thousands of air taxis transporting potential travelers in and out of the restricted airport air space. Or collide midair over a populated area like Manhattan?

The recent insolvencies of Lillium and Volocopter haven’t come at a surprise to anyone having followed their expensive developments.

Reality Check: Forget about it.

“Funny” (telling): After their friends at Earlybird Capital just lost quite some money on Air Taxi, World Fund now celebrates their “green” investment into electric flight. Sorry that I am not elated. You know my (justified) take on Electric Flying and Air Taxi.

Hydrogen Powered Flights

As I wrote some years ago in my whitepaper about the Road to Environementally-Friendly Flying, there are quite many setbacks about hydrogen flying. Namely NO_x being a problem known in the academic research groups, but far bigger and quite logical, it’s an issue of (green) source, refining, logistics, storage and then use. As someone in a video conference on the topic asked. Talking about liquid, ultra-cold hydrogen, what happens if the tank leaks (very hard landing, crash)? Shock-frosted passengers?

Even since back in 2020, many in academic research questioned the ambitious time lines used in aviation, giving that a first prototype is most likely not available before 2035, first aircraft in best case making it to a fleet (in small numbers) by 2040, more likely 2045. Given the challenges in storage and logistics, hydrogen in best case becoming “mainstream” not before 2080, more likely in the next century!

Airbus just a month ago finally admitted to those facts by confirming a “delay” in hydrogen development, here a source by Reuters.

Reality Check: Forget about it.

Energiewende (Energy Transition)

A Limited View

As I mentioned in the Sustainability Energy Dilemma, the lobbyists intentionally work with incomplete energy demands, intentionally ignoring that in the end it all boils down to energy. Be it electric power, electric cars, but also trains, electric flying, … or the refining of fuel replacements, be they hydrogen or synfuels:

If you move a body from A to B, it requires one thing and one thing only: Energy. Basic Physics!

So for example. The German Research Institute for the Energy Industry (FfE) is a lobby body “supporting” the German government on the Energiewende. They work out the food the politicians then work with, to plan the energy transition towards green energies. But in their studies they intentionally ignored and ignores those needs. “The need for green fuels for Europe because of aviation such exceeds the defined [fuel] amounts defined […] those values were of secondary relevance, as we assumed an import of these fuels“. You. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Right?

What truly upsets me, is the likes of World Fund or European Investment Bank disqualifying Kolibri for our strategy based on green SynFuels, as their “study” disqualifies it. A study full of false lobby arguments, starting already in the naming using “electrofuels”. We use “synthetic”. No-one in his/her right mind would call hydrogen “electro”, just because you need energy to refine it! But their researchers call it “electrofuels”? And even their study says, that if you have a business case, their negative assumptions might require reconsideration…

Reality Check: Forget about it.

Impact Investor = Greenwashing?

One impact investor I “unlinked” last year, after argued that Kolibri wouldn’t work, as otherwise other investors would have already funded it… Look in the mirror my (ex’d-)friend, why didn’t you bother to take a serious look at our numbers. Then that investor argued about me questioning greenwashing on some cool stuff they’ve invested in. Though hey, those investments were into fashionable, but unsustainable projects, with a negative impact on the people working in that industry and on the energy demands projected. The focus was on maximizing the “green show-off” and the financial profit expectation. The very same investor telling me that they expect above market returns on their investment. Yeah, sorry. But at the cost of their sustainability claims.

Reality Check: Forget about it.

Green vs. Grid Energy

Did you know, why we want to start Kolibri in Southern Europe? I just plan to put solar panels on our family-owned house in Northern Germany. But the angle of sunlight is an stark contrast to Southern Europe. Whereas the cost for electric power is multiple times higher. But the lobbyists use that energy cost to disqualify SynFuels as “too expensive”. And they consider buying the power needed to generate it … from the grid.

Just like those impact and green-tech investments’ blind-eye, claiming they buy and use “green energy” … from the grid. Germany last year increased their creation of green energy, though at the same time increasing overall consumption, as well as their import of nuclear and fossil energy (31.9 TWh) [Source: German]. And there are unconfirmed but recurring and for me reasonable accusations that the energy companies sell by all practical means more green energy than is being produced.

Reality Check: Forget about it.

The CPP-Distraction

Though just as others, they keep denying to have any closer look at our hard numbers. Numbers qualifying a profitability of the venture within three, 100% fossil-flying within about seven to eight years – still in the 2035 range! And while they fancy themselves for focusing on a 200 MT CPP (megaton carbon-capture potential), we talk about one gigaton fossil-fuel replacement, so a 1 000 MT CPP. Not by 2035, but in 2035. Doubling within the following three years on our 10-year plans.

Yes, depending very much on the fact that we will need to convince more impact investors and the political stakeholders that we can do it and supporting the onward funding. But for that there are a lot of political investment projects seeking the developments, but requiring an already existing company. As others, “they don’t invest in ideas”. But in “Climate AI” and greentech, exponentially driving energy demands up.

Reality Check: Forget about it.

Sustainable, Climate-Friendly, Carbon-Zero vs. Fossil-Free

Some “correction” in wording – guilty as charged myself.

Sustainable: All 17 United Nations Sustainability Development Goals. Not just Climate. Or People. Or Water. Or Air. All. Else it’s #cherrypickingsdgs
Climate-Friendly: Focused on SDG #13 “Climate Action. We’ve busted the Paris-goal of 1.5°C global warming last year. And it goes very clearly in line with the growing energy consumption. So as I keep telling, SDG #7 (Energy) goes together with SDG #13. But rather normally is used for #cherrypickingsdgs

Carbon-Zero, just like “circular economy” is usually a diversion, a ruse. Carbon-Zero means we use no Carbon. Doesn’t work. We must use Climate-Neutral in the sense that we don’t add more carbon (and what about the other greenhouse gases) to the athmosphere than we take it. In Circular Economy, it should mean that in the end, we return everything to nature what we took from it. All resources and energy. That would mean (but rarely is interpreted as such) that in a circular process, we take out food (being energy for us) and products from the cycle, but in the end must return it to where they have been taken from.
Fossil-Free in my humble opinion is what we must focus at as a key priority! If we fly and drive fossil-free, that means electric cars are not driving on fossil-generated power any more. Airplanes don’t fly on fossil-based kerosene, nor fossil-based “sustainable aviation fuels.

brown blue gray green SynFuel — Also applies to “Green Energy”

Why I Keep Fighting to Fund Kolibri

Yes, it does require both bold ideas, bold strategy and bold investment to make those ideas happen. Overcoming the Sustainability Energy Dilemma. Flying 100 jet aircraft across Eurpope 100% fossil-free in seven years, 200 within 10 years. No cherry-picking of the SDGs but holistically sustainable. Like. No-one is left behind!

Hm. Yes, we have such ideas and a strategy that is based to secure profitability first to justify the further investment. So after one year of investment to set up company and start operations being able to pay back the investment with an ROI after another two years. Though a real impact investor wouldn’t just want to launch and cash-in. A real impact investor (listening to us) would understand and believe in the lighthouse impact we’d have even across other industries. A real impact investor would want to join us for the journey.

It’s the real thing. It requires an industry scale investment to start an airline with competitive cost per seat. No cheap-crap small, fancy-looky-looky investing. But you get what you pay for. Including the ROI. Though yes, I also had a nice discussion this week on a comment of mine asking: Define “Return”. Or “Shareholder Value”. As they are usually rather different and far less one-dimensional than usually implied. Mine always has been and is: Do the right thing.

Food for Thought
Comments welcome:

08.02.2024 Aviation, Disruption Management, Values

Aviation and the Learning of Lessons

One of two incidents in aviation questioning the proper application of the "safety first" principle

Since the beginning of flying, aviation learns (often too late) from mistakes. There are some questions rising from the recent debacles at Haneda Airport of an Airbus A350-900 crashing into a Coast Guard aircraft and the Boeing 737-Max9 loosing a dummy door in-flight, that I find noteworthy to share. I will not mention the airlines, considering them victims.

Neither will pour blame over Boeing only again, at Haneda it was an Airbus raising questions. In my humble opinion, think the entire industry has an issue relating to “safety first” recently. And I am afraid, the “commercial focus” on the cost of safety hasn’t ended with the Boeing 737Max debacle with an amok running flight system driving two fully loaded aircraft into the ground just before the Pandemic.

Haneda (Airbus)

An Airbus A350-900 aircraft crashed into a small Japan Coast Guard Dash-8 aircraft at Tokyo Haneda airport, killing all people aboard the Dash-8. No fatalities aboard the Airbus A350-900. Which in hindsight is a miracle to many experts I heard talking the last days.

Airbus Fire Sensors
“After the aircraft came to a stop the cockpit crew was not aware of any fire, however, flight attendants reported fire from the aircraft. The purser went to the cockpit and reported the fire and received instruction to evacuate. Evacuation thus began with the two front exits (left and right) closest to the cockpit. Of the other 6 emergency exits 5 were already in fire, only the left aft exit was still usable. The Intercom malfunctioned, communication from the aft aircraft with the cockpit was thus impossible. As result the aft flight attendants gave up receiving instructions from the cockpit and opened the emergency exit on their own initiative” (Source). Later information says there was a several minutes of delay because of missing or misinformation between cockpit and cabin. So why was the communication malfunctioning in that situation? Why were the pilots unaware? Even Haneda Tower should have informed them instantly of that danger! Why haven’t they? And … and why does the crew have to get approval from the flight deck to evacuate when the aircraft is burst into flames and mortal danger imminent?
Airbus Evac Procedures
Good thing first: The captain [reported only later] was the last one to leave the aircraft. 18 minutes after the aircraft came to a stop. (Source). Wait a minute … 18 Minutes??
Given he aircraft burned out and was on fire rather instantly after the collision, what the heck have those passengers been thinking or doing? I’ve seen my first flight attendant training back in 1989, the emergency training a major part of the training courses. The shouts, day and night in the training center echoing in my ears: “Move it, move it. Get out of my way!”. But 18 minutes? Especially with the issue of 5 out of 8 emergency exits blocked by fire when the purser went to the cockpit to get evac approval?! I believe both Boeing and the airline must have to review the procedures urgently.

Side note. I find it rather telling that there is a lot, a big lot of footage (images, video) of the A350-900, but virtually none of the smaller Dash-8 suffering all the fatalities. At least, I didn’t see or find any? A nice example of “biased news reporting”?

Portland (Boeing)

Above Portland, Oregon (USA), a Boeing 737-Max9 lost a “door plug” in-flight, by sheer luck, not causing any fatality. That this can end far more tragic is burned into my mind, remembering the Aloha Airlines 737 loosing its entire roof shortly after I’ve been there and flying Aloha. A flight attendant being ejected by the decompression. And given the picture, it makes one wonder on the miracle the entire aircraft didn’t break up. One of the many “near-misses” in my life to date. (Wikipedia)

Following the two fatal disasters of 2018+2019 forcing the lengthy grounding and near-bankruptcy of Boeing, the new accident now “naturally” raises the question about the quality of Boeing engineering. In my humble opinion, it does raise the question especially about their constant claim of “Safety First”! With subject matter experts claiming loose screws having caused the door to come apart. What was that about four-eye principle on aircraft construction and all major maintenance?

The door was later found in a teacher’s back yard in Portland Oregon. Just like a phone from the aircraft, the pieces “sailed down”, aerodynamically similar to a Frisbee and landed almost unharmed.

Added 08Feb24: According to preliminary media reporting, there were bolts not just not fastened but missing. Say what??

Is the 737 MAX safe?

Fact: I will neither voluntarily fly, nor allow my immediate family to fly a 737 Max anytime soon. In my humble opinion (IMHO), that aircraft has been misconstructed from the outset and should be shelved for good. It only flies and is approved IMHO for commercial reasons; if it’d be grounded for good, the losses for Boeing can very well proof fatal. To me, it seems the door plug again was a “quick and dirty” solution. On the other end, I won’t “actively” avoid the aircraft, flying was and remains the most secure transport in the world. Just that any incident instantly receives scrutinous media coverage. But yes, booking flights, I usually happen to look at details – and given the choice, avoiding the MAX will be a clear decision making factor for me.

The new incident brings up feedback that I got during the 2019 grounding media uproar. Questions why the “better” Boeing 757 was shelved. It didn’t have the low profile causing engineering complications as there wasn’t enough space under the 737’s wing. Which led to the fatal idea of MCAS, later being the cause for the two fatal crashes killing 346 people. And commercial reasons leading not only to base that on a single sensor (instead of the originally planned three), false readings causing the misinformation of MCAS causing the crashes. But also to the secret implementation not shared with the pilots to avoid potential demand for an “expensive” full type-rating as a new aircraft.

Conclusions

Flight Safety is back to “reactive”. But aircraft engineering must be proactively focused on flight safety! As must be processes, just like the evacuation of aircraft under grim circumstances! Ever since the beginning of flight safety with the Comet-disasters back in the 1950s, aviation “reacted” to disasters. A lesson we also learned with aircraft deicing.

I truly believe that flight safety ain’t a luxury. Just like “service” or “sustainability” being only identified as “cost factors” by finance-focused aviation managers. The recent “cases” are just more examples where things went awry and off track. There are enough cases, not just old, but rather recent, when airlines in distress started to save on the aircraft safety and maintenance. Usually reducing it to the rule-book, “encouraging” their maintenance staff to “look the other way” and to delay parts replacement in questionable situations. Or to have supervisors “sign off” as the additional pair of eyes but in fact reducing it to a single pair of eyes on the job! To safe cost.

Boeing engineers are well advised to return to spend a few more screws and bolts on securing a door plug and to demand four-eye-principle on their construction.
Airbus better finds out, what too so long to evacuate the aircraft.

All else is to be looked at when the incident reports come out. And media is well advised to not just jump the incident, but also report on the final findings. Not 1:1 copying the press release, but questioning them. I think that would be good for (shareholder-value-focused) “managers” to not stray from “Safety First”. As in the end, it’s a trust thing.

Food for Thought
Comments welcome…

14.11.2023 Aviation, Aviation Investment, Carbon-Neutral Flying, Impact Investment, Low Cost, Management, Values

Airline Start-Ups – an Unreasonable Risk?

Two (good) articles today about the riskiness of starting up an airline and the comments they got shared with, triggered some controversial thoughts with me.

The Articles + Comments

OAG summarized on the Evolution of airlines since 2019 (just before the Pandemic) to today. While their findings are very interesting, there is a tone in the summary and a resulting summarization by Tim (someone I generally value) that I happen to disagree with. OAG’s John Grant wrote:

“Airline start-ups are incredibly difficult, cash rapidly disappears and securing the necessary operating licences frequently takes longer than expected and that’s even before sourcing aircraft, securing slots, avoiding the competition, and building all the necessary reservations systems and back-office support functions.”

And Tim shared the full post with a comment: “OAG is a great data resource for large scale review and schedule activity. This data really doe strike a chord. Airlines are a very risky business. This is very illustrative.”

The other one was an analysis by McKinsey, checking on the aviation value chain’s recovery shared by Patrick, which he introduced with these words: “McKinsey & Company has done an interesting analysis of the aviation value chain. For each subsector, they’ve calculated the “economic profit”, meaning (return on invested capital – weighted average cost of capital) x invested capital. In other words, are firms in that sector creating or destroying value? Their conclusion: only fuel suppliers and freight forwarders created value last year, and airports and airlines lost a lot!”

The Economist’s (My) Response

As an economist by original education and having experience with Startups and Business Angels, I do happen to believe in a sound “business case”. As an airliner, I learned with American to focus on the business case. Like to reconsider twice before approving any waiver on fare rules or trying to upsell to the more expensive (i.e. more flexible) air fare. But I also learned the value of a renowned brand (AA) and service. Or to treat your colleagues as your most valuable customers – they help you sell each and every day. And can ruin a customer relation as quickly.

In “global fares training”, I learned the cost of a flight transfer, something that I never forgot; thanks Ruth King (our fares trainer), I will never forget you.

At Northwest Airlines, I learned that airlines and their managers just sold “cheap”. With full flights in summer season, the airline generated losses on the transatlantic flights. A lesson I’ve seen later over and again. Most sales staff had neither information, nor idea about the “yield” they had to generate to fly profitable. Northwest focused on a minimum yield (revenue per seat-mile) half of that of American. Then sold at that yield as the standard “special fare” and making group offers or “reseller-rebates” below that rate aplenty. As I summarized 2019 on my article about why airlines keep failing, “know your cost”.

Yes, talking about Why Do Airlines Keep Failing. It’s the same response I have on the above two mentioned articles. And many like them. At ASRA 2008, I emphasized brand faces. But I also told those brand faces – the airline sales managers – that they are not there to sell the cheapest price. Anyone can do that, the Internet lives of that. A real sales manager understands that they have to sell the high-end tickets.

Live story, also happened today. Qatar Airways passengers (mother and three kindergarden-aged kids) arrived with >18 hour delay in Düsseldorf. German Rail (clerk) sold tickets to the customer to pick up the passengers that are neither change- nor refundable. So they had to buy completely new (expensive) tickets. A good clerk of this company renowned for it’s unpunctual trains (<60%) would have mentioned the possibility of a flight delay and sold the slightly more expensive tickets that allow for a change. Or at least the optional insurance.

So thinking back to my experiences with Northwest and other such airlines, it’s my questioning about KPIs as well. If my KPI is load and not revenue, I must expect to loose money. It remains beyond me, why airlines offer connecting flight at what a rough calculation on Ryanair or easyJet CASK/CASM (cost per available seat km/mile) proves as below cost, even without the “stop en-route” (landing fees, complexity, etc.). Those are managers who had a nap, when their tutors talked about sound economical calculation? And I keep questioning, why airlines publish loads without revenue per seat. To date, we have hundreds, if not thousands of flights every day, that fly full but loose money. All this is confirmed by the above mentioned and many other such articles.

The Fairy-Tale of Loss Making Airlines

To claim “aviation” is a loss making business is true and can’t be further from the truth.

Yes, many airlines are loss making. And it fits the common reasons I elaborated before. And yes, you can make airlines very profitable, if you have a management that thinks just a bit outside the box and applies economic rules to their modus operandi (mode of operation). But this also goes in line with route development and other areas. If you don’t have your numbers under control and focus on the ones that are “good to sell to shareholders”, you’ll fail.

Like with any company, with any startup, in and outside the aviation sphere, we must constantly have an understanding of our cost. And of the competition. What is it our customer wants? There is a psychological price. If you missed that in your economics studies, make your Internet-search for it now. If you have sales teams, train them to upsell the seats. Sell the higher yield fares. Not at a discount, but at a value!

This is one reason, I do not believe we can make Kolibri ever happen by taking over an already failing or failed airline. Wrong structures, wrong thinking in place. I learned this lesson with Air Berlin. The force of inertia was simply too strong. There are some airline that make revenue, but even their managers I find often blindly “follow the worms” (a Pink Floyd referral, yes, the picture is lemmings).

(That’s) The Way Airlines Operate

But unfortunately, all investors we talk to, always think inside their boxes. Can’t tell how many talks I had to radically change our approach and take A320 and do like everyone else does. Ain’t that contrary to the concept of Unique Selling Propositions?

And has ever a “disruptive investment” (another investor buzz word) been developed out of the box using the same thinking? The same values (I’m the cheapest)?

The others are usually starting to tell you that you have to start with smaller amount of money. Sure way to burn your money is a cheap business plan. As OAG writes “getting to size is so important”. You can’t produce a low cost in small numbers. For us, the ideal mix is seven aircraft, where the “administrative overhead cost” becomes manageable. i.e. You have the same cost if you maintain one – or seven aircraft. The same reservations office (just less staff and calls), only little less marketing. You must outsource your operations (at cost) to share the necessary organization with other small airlines. Etc., etc.

To date, I am still working with consulting companies reviewing airline business plans. Aside the usual failure issues, size is a recurring issue. Another being the lack of fallback in case of flight disruptions, may they be caused by technical issues, weather or other events. Their focus on cheap “human resources” and missing team building results in friction and internal competition that further weakens their product offering.

But even taking that into account, we believe the business and financial plans we developed are sound. And profitable from the outset. With a focus on services and a military-style responsibility “for ours” (no “HR” in that company), a “service-focused concept”. Everyone to pull on the same side of the rope. Yes, not starting with a dead corpse, trying to revive, adds some bureaucratic hurdles. But it allows you to think outside the box and instead of following the worms (or other airlines), to do things “right”.

So ever since I entered into the business, I learned at American Airlines under Bob Crandall how to do things right. And learned over and again that the same mistakes are made by short-sighted, narrow-minded managers. And I know all the reasoning used to distract and divert off the incompetence to operate an economically sound business. Usually, I account this as “no faith in your brand”. That then goes along with topics I mentioned before, like brand dissolution (airlines are often academic example), missing USPs, etc. – Cobalt CEO told me about their USP shortly before their demise “We are Cypriotic”. Seriously? When I started, Lufthansa was the brand. Lufthanseat was the employee. All employees of American Airlines knew “Proud to be AAmerican”. Then came the button counters. And mighty AAmerican was taken over by their once-small rival U.S. Airways. Another box of memories.

So yes, airlines are often a loss making business. With bureaucrats leading them into disaster. Sometimes fast, often times a veeeery long death. Air Berlin and Alitalia are very good examples. “Too big to fail”? Simply “prestigious”? And there are “the others”. Airlines that have an idea about what they are doing. That know their niche(s). That know their cost and marketing. That value their brand. That build a reputation. Until button counters (aka. bureaucrats) take over.

I hope that someone of my hundreds if not thousands of readers (hard to believe, that’s what my server stats claim I’d have) knows some investor with the guts to understand that profitable aviation and sustainable aviation can be the same thing. That the stories those consultancies and their statistics and reports tell have two sides to the coin. And that we get a chance to proof, that climate neutral flying is no heresy, but the future of flight.

Food for Thought – Jürgen

06.02.2023 Impact Investment, Management, Sustainability, Values

Too Many Chiefs …

… and the Question about System Relevant Jobs

Today I had a very emotional discussion about the need for new IT, new processes and all that other stuff the consulting industry keeps telling us, we got to have. Consultants, that have a standing relation inside the aviation company, with constant projects to “improve” and streamline the work.

At what cost?

Having addressed Consulting, Outsourcing, Cloud? COTS or tailormade back in August 2020, we meanwhile discussed over and again the issue of “System Relevant Jobs”. Back in my economics studies, 40 years ago, the general manager of my intern company questioned the increasing “management jobs” by academics, reminding, emphasizing that in the end, it is all about products. Even in whole sale (it was a central logistics warehouse) it’d be a question about benefit for seller and buyer, where the warehouse we worked in distributed the goods to the own satellite stores. He warned, that every intermediary becomes a leech and products becoming more expensive, not cheaper, by adding more and more intermediaries into the pool. His assumption was that 50% management surplus would be viable. And I should mention that he warned about dependencies from “rogue countries”, like China. Cheap but at what cost?

Being very pro globalization in general, he did call it hypocrisy to buy cheap in China, knowing that this is simply based on abuse of work force and stealing of patents and other ideas from other countries – back in the days, China did not much invent themselves, they were known copycats. In Germany meanwhile called “precarious jobs”, that don’t provide decent living, the living standards of workers in China at the time were at best questionable.

System Relevant Jobs

Is your job “system relevant”? If you work in home office, I can tell you the answer is No. If you work in consulting, I can very likely tell you the answer being No. Working in aviation and transport, the answer very likely is No. And if your salary is above average, the answer also very likely is No.

It’s all about leeches. Draining the money out of the really system relevant people, who normally are overworked, but underpaid. Not on the picture are farmers, friends of the family farming, living since I grew up on the brink of bankruptcies over and again. With more and more demands and pay for their products (milk, meat, grain, etc.) being often below the cost of production. Then they get generously state aid, to keep them working on subsistence levels.

The NHS personnel is on strike, the medical situation there in the U.K., also in Germany, being devastating. 24 hour shifts, 3 days “on call” duty?

Logistics drivers, the one delivering all those fancy goods we all buy, paid at minimum wage or just very little above for good feeling? Uber being a gigacorn? Delivery “Heroes”? But the managers in their offices having a “decent salary”? Who’s doing the work and what do we pay them?

U.N. Sustainable Development Goals

There are 17 SDGs. But all statistics show that all of them are actually still deteriorating. And if companies call themselves “sustainable”, they usually focus on the easy SDGs, most times at the cost of the others. Yes, we invest into climate, we buy CO2-certificates. And buy our growing hunger for power from the grid. Sure we buy “green power”… We upgrade our HR Director to “Chief HR Officer” and call it a board position, but only on paper to look good. We invest in R&D to find solutions how we can become sustainable in the future, while we fight the unions and deny salary increases for our workers. We add the (female) position of Chief Sustainability Officer to express our commitment to the SDGs. Oops, we forgot to give her a budget or empower her responsibilities? Examples aplenty…

We need companies to do the right thing. To embrace sustainability and evolve. It’d give them a competitive edge, a USP. When I was a child, it was common that people worked for “Daimler” (Mercedes-Benz) or “Bosch” all their live. You looked after your stuff from post-school training to retirement – often even beyond. Then they became “Human Resources” to managers who turned “shareholder value” from “what’s good for the company” and “long-term thinking” into “what’s good for my bonus” and “who cares about the time after I’m gone”.

A Question of Respect

My “intern” boss (again) taught me respect for everyone. The guy on the fork-lift, the cleaners, truck drivers and “secretaries” (yeah, we still had those). He taught us to set up the coffee when it was empty and not bother the secretaries. To clean up ourselves to make the cleaners’ jobs easier. To think beyond our petty box as “office workers” and value the hard work of the real workers. Also to question, but then also embrace the value of our work. IF we added value.

And in the pandemic, we should have (but obviously didn’t) learn the other lesson. That it’s not enough to sit at the windows “applauding” the system relevant workers that went above and beyond any perceivable “line of duty”, but to pay them decently. To look after them and keep in mind that they also have families to sustain, vacation wishes that go beyond the balcony on an old residential block they only can afford with added state aid.

Beyond White- and Greenwashing

I recently attended a multi-week project by United Nations Climate Action on Circular Economy. And the need for lifecycle-assessment. But it was also mostly #talkthetalk and academic ideas. And I had several objectives that then led to my image about the panacea distraction.

Aside me wondering, of that lady in the image might be an unpaid intern? Another reflection of the value HR managers and their bosses have about the value of training and labor. Any employer not paying their interns should be put in the pillory. For labor abuse!

Oh yes, and that goes in line with midwifes that quit their jobs as governments don’t reduce but add to the legal strains in the job. Or riders asked to bring their own bikes – and repair, all at minimum wage and abusive “time management”. Or airlines outsourcing their pilots forcing them into bogus self-employment without vacation or sick-leave cover, paid wages below their own pilots. Back in my intern-days, there were “personnel agencies” too. But to hire someone for short-term was always about 50% higher cost than employing someone directly. What went wrong there?

Yes I could go on.

Food for Thought
Comments welcome!

Yes. Comments welcome: Do you agree, disagree, partially, am I right, wrong, do I oversee anything? Have your own examples? What would, could and should we do?

17.06.2022 Aviation Investment, Carbon-Neutral Flying, Corona, Europe, Impact Investment

Is it all Greenwashing and Talk-the-Talk?

“Our Heads Are Round so our Thoughts Can Change Direction” [Francis Picabia]

Looking at the past two years struggling to find investors for Kolibri, to change aviation and develop the proof-of-concept for carbon-neutral aviation, meeting with impact investors, family office principals, venture capitalists and others, European, Arabic, North American and even Asia resulted in quite some disillusioning.

Two lessons learned.

Lesson 1: It’s All About Energy

If. If we really want to stop global warming, it boils down to reduce our energy demand. On a global level. But the reality is quite opposite.

While the current clash with Russia should be another wake-up call, it just proves that and how far we are from saving energy. From removing our energy footprint. Instead our leaders travel the world buying fracking-gas, crude oil and “natural” gas (from crude) to feed the ongoing hunger. We can’t expand “sustainable energy” fast enough, to reduce, less to replace all the oil, coal and gas we consume for our energy hunger. And building windparks, water-power-plants, solar parks also comes with a toll. One we have no idea yet on how to avoid the negative repercussions to our world. Which I i.e. addressed last year in my question about Wind Parks and the Butterfly Effect and the fixed page on The Sustainability-Energy Dilemma…

If we use more energy to solve any of the famous United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, it’ll be a barrel burst! If we go for electric cars, is that more than putting a band aid on a purulent wound? Are the developments about electric flight or hydrogen aircraft anything more than delaying tactics by our industry to justify their lousy 2%-blending goal? Look at my whitepaper about #greenwashing if you want to find more examples.

Lesson 2: The Reality Behind Impact Investing

Now my litmus test to distinguish real sustainable investing from #greenwashing is simple: What is the Net Energy Impact? And yes. I’m kind’a sorry… But that includes many, if not most of those fancy “green tech solutions”. They are nothing but another distraction keeping us from the real challenge. And an excuse from governments and investors alike to avoid the real, industrial scale change we truly need!

Also known as #talkthetalk …

Call for Action

Part I: To investors: We are slowly running out of money on our plans for Kolibri. We have succeeded due diligences. We have a holistic approach covering the U.N. SDGs. And we plan to reach break-even within one, be profitable in three years. And to benefit from the “new normal” enforced by Corona and the Invasion of the Ukraine. But to do this we need a sizeable launch-funding and our ideas to establish the technology to fly Carbon-neutral is even more expensive. It ain’t cheap to turn an airline carbon-neutral, but it is possible! So there are three steps. Step 1: Launch a profitable new regional airline with competitive cost-levels to stand out in the shark-pond. Step 2. Expand to lower the cost and generate the revenue to fund Step 3: Establish the infrastructure to turn carbon-neutral … and our ideas for a truly sustainable airline – beyond climate.

If it’s not you, we need commitment to help us secure the funding. Less #talkthetalk

Part II: To All: And for you personally? We as a family reduced our energy consumption by 10% last year. Despite all that modern household-tech, home-office and other energy consumers. What’s your saving?

Food for Thought
Help welcome!

29.08.2021 Carbon-Neutral Flying, Impact Investment

Compulsive Narrative Syndrome – SciFi or Reality?

Reading another, new SciFi (my way to relax my brain) triggered with an idea (not scientifically proven) of the Compulsive Narrative Syndrome. Intriguing. And yes, quite in line with my own “experience”. So is it really “Science Fiction”?

Ain’t that how it works? An assumption, then the scientific proof (or disqualification)? And how much that started in SciFi do we see in action today?

If you like SciFi, maybe you find Joel Shepherd an interesting addition to your books collection. If you read German, the first part of the series is currently on sale (i.e. buecher.de). And no, no profit from such recommendation.

The Concept

Here’s the way the concept is described in the novel:

The human brain is trained to look for and identify patterns, but in abstract concepts, fixed and unarguable facts are hard to find. So the brain looks for narratives instead, stories that can tie together various ideas and facts in a way that seems to make sense, to make a pattern. And the human brain, always seeking a pattern as a basic cognitive function, will latch onto a narrative pattern compulsively, and use that pattern as a framework within which to store new information, like a tradesman honing his skill, or someone learning a new language.

That’s why religions tell such great stories, the story makes a pattern within which everything makes sense. A synchronicity of apparent facts. Political ideologies, too. Humans are suckers for a great story because we can’t resist the logical pattern it contains.

When you’re learning a new skill, discarding irrelevant information and organizing the relevant stuff within that framework is good. But in ideologies, it means any information that doesn’t fit the ideological narrative is literally discarded, and won’t be remembered . . . which is why you can argue facts with ideologues and they’ll just ignore you. They’re not just being stubborn, their brains are literally structurally incapable of processing what they perceive as pattern-anomalous data.

That’s why some ideologues get so upset when you offer facts that don’t match their pattern, it’s like you’re assaulting them.

From SciFi to Reality

Most my “novel” ideas ain’t mine. I just try to find practical applications.

1971 (yes, 40 years ago and as a kid) I became a fan of Roger Leloup, spending my pocket money on comics. And when Hyperloop became a buzz, I couldn’t help it to remember Leloup’s Vinean transport system.

We all know the Star Trek communicator. Ain’t that surprising similar to our today’s smart phones? With Google Translate, we can even talk to it, translating on the fly – and as far as I can tell, even German or English to Albanian works rather well. Not (yet) on previously unknown languages, but I believe we will get there.

And the buzz-topic A.I.? Aside the fact that all A.I. I learn of still is just I.A. – more or mostly less sophisticated Intelligent Algorithms. Back in 2008 I used that image of global nodes next to human brain synapses to question if we’re sure there’s no real A.I. yet. And if we’d recognize if there would be? By now, we talk about highly complex processors behind all of those nodes, the sheer computing power making it more likely by the day that our mighty Internet “wakes up”. Then we talk about i.e. Heinlein and Malcolm Croft or Athena?

And now comes a new, quite intriguing concept of the Compulsive Narrative Syndrome. Just SciFi? Or quite realistic in fact?

And Kolibri?

I just recently discussed our ideas for sustainable aviation. They are not new either. And more like a logical development from my first ideas about a hydrogen-powered WIG in 2008 as a n example to senior airline managers to think about sustainability. Then making use of current developments and understanding the merits of SynFuel. And thanks to discussions with Sustainable Aero Lab (thanks Mario!) leading to my understanding of the Sustainability-Energy Dilemma. But it’s in line with Ndrec and my believe in “social responsibility” and “sustainability” … beyond climate!

But while yes, our ideas could be “copied”, it took us more than a year and a joined effort incorporating the help of global subject matter experts, to make this a viable business plan. Yes, it can be copied, but with a steep and expensive learning curve. And we found “classic aviation managers” to be mostly blind on real “sustainability”. Having no idea about their Road to Environment-Friendly Flying, not even bothering about Social Responsibility or Sustainability. It’s a reason we plan with a team of open minded subject matter experts and not some famous names, except as advisors. And why we don’t plan taken over an existing airline with their expensive and inflexible and traditional process and thinking heritage.

Industry Scale Impact Investing

To make a real change, you need a team of entrepreneurs thinking outside the box. Way outside the box. But with an experience on pioneering work, overcoming the Bumps on the Road to Sustainability, making things happen. Because to change an industry, to change aviation, we also need investors with the might and the interest to support us doing the change.

It’s a sorry fact that mostly we hear lip-services and excuses, those investors sticking to their modus operandi, just adding ESGs for their own little greenwashing projects and playing things “safe” (known), else still focusing on quick financial returns. Invest in a bit *tech, add to the energy-dilemma, but ignore any industrial-scale change? Ain’t that what the Compulsive Narrative Syndrome addresses?

While Impact Investment is about making an impact first, while also making money, we talk about turning industries climate-friendly and socially responsible. While our plans sure secure the (risk-adjusted) ROI, the plans are long-term, bold and the startup investment is to start the journey (launch the airline) but we plan on a realistic decade for our goal of carbon-neutral (climate-friendly) flying. With sustainable and social responsible milestones and investments from the outset.

Cognitive Dissonance and the Compulsive Narrative Syndrome

So is the Compulsive Narrative Syndrome a source for Cognitive Dissonance? In my opinion it’s tightly linked. The Compulsive Narrative Syndrome the source for Cognitive Dissonance?

Food for Thought!
comments welcome…—

03.05.2021 Aviation Investment, Corona, Impact Investment

So What Is YOUR Impact?

Discussing about the individual impact we make, the topic gains interest. What is your own, personal net-impact to our planet? So I decided to summarize some of the posts and comments I had on the topic on LinkedIn.

In line with previous posts about #lipservices, #cognitivedissonance and #wishfulthinking. And a #realitycheck for others, claiming “sustainability” that they do not deliver upon.

Self-Esteem over Sustainability

A clear article on it was today’s post by SEDO-founder Tim Schumacher Search: “People should only be classed as billionaires when they remove a billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere.” referring to the CNBC article questioning the sustainability investments of Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Elon Musk (Tesla, SpaceX) and Bill Gates (Microsoft founder).

In my comment, I emphasized that we need no ESG, but #sustainabilityaccounting. And much of what I see from these and other investors is showing their response to their conscience, focusing their activities on things they understand, but also things that have an impact to their self-esteem. And there was also this Open Letter to Bill Gates, reflecting on his #cognitivedissonance or #lipservices. I believe it’s simply cognitive dissonance. Keep in mind, these people also live in their social (media) bubble.

Role Models

Yesterday, there was a report about industry leader/face James Hogan, former CEO of Etihad, caught in the act, trying to circumvent the Corona rules in place. It underlined my post two weeks ago, that we have airlines skipping pre-flight corona-testing regime. A disservice to an industry trying very hard to make flying safe! I’m sure he regrets that idea now, not having considered the repercussions of being caught.

#cognitivedissonance : While flying itself may be safe, passengers aren’t! Anyone claiming flying to be “safe” shall better keep in mind that the virus spreads and new variants keep spreading by travelers. Also and a lot pre-tested passengers are infected but not yet positive, they then spread the virus in their destination.

#weareallinthistogether and the only safety I see in the vaccinations. And this ain’t the new measles I compared to early in the pandemic (May ’20), but more like the flu. A vaccination not available to everyone (yet). About which U.N. Secretary General António Guterres warns of #vaccinationalism. Also claiming the climate emergency. A caller in the dark?

The European Sustainability Bank

Then, let me talk about the decision makers at European Investment Bank (EIB). Claiming to be the European Sustainability Bank. In a conference by Geneva Macro Labs, I asked their head of climate office Elina Kamenitzer on her claim that they do green investments: Are there any success stories that proof the impact, the “impact” targets achieved ever since? Well, no. They “have to look into that now.” It’s about time.

I also reached out to my now ex-point of contact in EIB, about a co-investment into our impact plans. With (a cheap) reference to their Roadmap and the decision there to not finance conventionally fueled aircraft (page 102), he disqualified any investments into aviation. In utter ignorance of what I believe he understood (I did remind him), that we have plans that are not aircraft-funding related. But i.e. development into a synfuel-ecosphere. Our plans cover all of the 17 SDGs, mostly with quantifiable targets that we sure plan to exceed on. If you’re convinced to do the right thing, that comes as a natural.

But that ain’t what the bureaucrats at EIB look at, is it?

So back to the article topic:

What is Your Impact?

There is a petition against greenwashing on Change.org I urge you to sign! Discussing on that one, we had several discussions on how to define greenwashing. Whereas family office principals told me ESG would be the role model for greenwashing. A good idea, meanwhile abused. There may be some investors who understand the meaning of it. But not many.

It is the same about claims to be “sustainable”. Another family office principal told me, that out of the 2020 impact investments, only 4% were having clear impact to improve on SDGs. 96% were disqualified as they just claimed without goals and targets but simple claims misreading the causes. Nice if you plan SDG5 Gender Equality on your hiring process, but without clear targets on how to improve. Or if you abuse SDG9 Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure for your “innovative IT project”.

Only Net Impact is Real Impact

We came to the conclusion that real impact is about net impact. And that “impact” is about reduction of the strain we put on the planet. To reduce power consumption by 10% but planning to increase the total power needs by 30% is intentional abuse of the sustainability claim.

There are many good examples out there, beyond what we plan at Kolibri. But we speak a lot with investors that want to cash-in on us before we launched. And investors, investing little money into small projects, more like a philanthropy, but an impact investment. Paying for a clean conscience, paying for their other daily sins. I just told one of the family office principals. We are looking not for those classic investors. We are targeting the family office space, as there are more investors than elsewhere wo take sustainability to heart. Who focus on it. Who are understanding that an impact investment might not be as profitable as i.e. Bitcoin. But it’s the right thing to do. And

Impact Investment ain’t philanthropy. Do good and make money!

So this time, not just Food for Thought, but a clear question:

What is Your Impact?

Feedback welcome…

08.12.2020 Aviation Investment, Impact Investment

“We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.” [John F. Kennedy, 1962]
“We choose to fly Carbon-Neutral in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too. For there is no Plan[et] B.” [Jürgen Barthel, 2020]

18.08.2020 Aviation, Aviation Investment, Corona, Europe

The Force of Inertia and Wagging The Dog

Change Resistance (shutterstock_210479080 licensed)

Today I had a conference call and a major topic was Spain and how our (German) governments banned travel again. And publicly justifies under gross neglect of their own rules. Those “development” showing persistence to deny change. And the “Wag the Dog” syndrome, pointing the fingers at others to distract from own mistakes.

The second topic was about the way, aviation “recovers”, the managements’ strategies.

Political Lock-Down on Travel

Spahn Travel Warning not a Ban — “A travel warning is not a travel ban – Health Minister Spahn not discouraging Spain holidays in Tagesthemen.”

This week, our (German) government issued an official “travel warning” for Spain. It is legal requirement that German travel industry must enable free unplanned returns from regions a travel warning is issued for, which in turn also results in tour operators shelving all offers for regions such warnings are issued for. In line with that legal impact, TUI instantly cancelled all flights and packages to Spain.
In clear ignorance of those facts, the German Health Minister Jens Spahn claims that it is still possible to do vacation in Spain, travelers just needing to be careful… Say what?

Wag the Dog (film) — Wag the Dog (1997 film)

Either this is cognitive dissonance, or – and I am afraid it’s that – Spahn and German government tries to distract from own mistakes by “pointing finger” at Spain. It’s the old “wag the dog”. Make up a crisis elsewhere.

Spain is said to be extreme in its adherence to the Corona rules. It is not “Spains” fault if German tourists party and ignore those rules intentionally. And then return with infections. So this is a cloud screen by Minister Spahn and his political cronies.

A German proverb: “Who sits in the glass house shouldn’t throw with stones.” Taken residence for the pandemicfor the pandemic with the family in Germany again, I can assure you, we have our own problems with Corona here and the politicos still fail to follow a clear strategy. Exceptions to their own rules being the rule, not the exception…

The Myth of Aviation Recovery

The past weeks, I had ongoing disagreements with my friends at OAG, ch-aviation, RDG, Routes, ANNA.aero, etc., etc. Disagreement on the media-focus on recovery of flight services as a sign of recovery of our industry. As I mentioned in my recent blog on Corona Cognitive Dissonance and Whitewashing Statistics, to bring all those aircraft back to the air while the load factors plummeted from ~85% to ~35% (April) in line with evaporating ticket prices, dropping by 20-30%, depending on the statistics source.

Now in May the load factors recovered to ~43%, though from a business travel management company I heard that those loads were “bought”, by lowering the ticket prices even further. And there was a slight decline in available seat kilometers in that month.

For years, I complain about the state of airline statistics availability. Nowhere “real time”, IATA statistics come three months after, the commercial sources report on flights and seats but have no clue about the load factors or ticket revenue. Real time? Really?

In today’s discussion, it was emphasized that airline managers try to survive using the “classic” approaches. First of all: Be cheap. Second: Push flights to the air. By doing that, they have obviously lost all track of their cost of operations. And the conference call group agreed that we will see quite some groundings in Europe ongoing for the next year. As the airlines keep piling up Corona Debt. Even Lufthansa is said to have already started on demanding further bail-out in spring, when they burned up the € 9 billion they recently got.

Time for New Thinking

Is it really “new thinking”? Last December, pre-Corona, I outlined Why Airlines Keep Failing. The reasons are still the same, just multiplied by Corona.

Any little startup understands the need for USPs, unique selling propositions. What makes them different? In the eyes of the customers, in the eyes of the investors. They understand the need for profitability. They know their cost. If you have a big war chest (or get it funded by a government bailout), you can temporarily “invest” in competitive routes. Often enough the likes of Lufthansa pre-crisis abused their market power forcing competitors, even so-called “partners” into insolvency. My own experience includes the first German Wings (the remainders then acquired by Lufthansa), Cirrus Airlines, Contact Air (Lufthansa regional partners) or more recently Air Berlin.

And when I wrote about Air Berlin three years ago, I asked “Lessons Learned?” … Hmm. Obviously not. And when I wrote about Why Airlines Keep Failing, it wasn’t any “new rules” either.

And while Jens Spahn emphasized the solidarity inside the company and that Lufthanseaten (what Lufthansa employees call themselves) stand together in crises… What a cognitive dissonance. His “shareholder value” focus is legendary – I don’t believe he ever learned what “loyalty” meant. Given “short work” in Germany, there would not be real need to fire employees. But he and his manager-cronies, the moment they got the € 9 billion warned of 22,000 layoffs being “necessary”. Hypocrite!

Doing Things Right…

If you need some help to map out a strategy to survive this crisis, I could need some paid consulting. The unpaid kind keeps me busy but not the family paid. Which is the same for so many others “made redundant”.

And if you are or know an investor interesting to do things right, we are seeking funding for an Airline 2.0 – focused on USPs and profits. But also on real aviation sustainability (not the typical whitewashing we see in aviation to date). And on real corporate social responsibility. Which starts with your own. Either contact me or come 8-9 December to the Prestel & Partner Family Offices Forum in Zürich at The Dolder Grand.

Food for Thought
Comments welcome!

09.08.2020 Aviation, Aviation Investment, Corona, Europe

Corona Cognitive Dissonance

Recent developments and posts really bug me. Don’t the writers of those posts recognize the cognitive dissonance? Yes, we must think positive. But there is a clear distinction between thinking positive and whitewashing or daydreaming. We have a crisis at hand and the “positive signals” aren’t as “positive” as those posts try to make them look like. They look at the marketing messages on the surface but fail to look the slightest bit deeper.

We need positive thinking, but we must also stay realistic!

Whitewashing Statistics

Yes, the latest statistics are not there (yet), but we have enough experience to understand that the classic statistics, that I questioned as incomplete and intentionally misleading before the crisis, now in the crisis not only proof insufficient, but even dangerous for all of us, trying to grasp the repercussions to our industry!

Many of our media friends take up the old focus on unrealistic data packages. Yeah, hurray, the airlines add flights, bring the aircraft back in the air. Are. You. Kidding me???

The reason behind is mostly that the aircraft can only be parked for up to three months without the recovery into operational readiness getting substantially more expensive: >100 manhours, replacement and thorough components checks, etc., etc.
So the “losses” from flying empty might well be a cost-saving long-term. Depending on how long the aircraft must be stowed, when the passengers “come back”. But this adds to the “Corona Debt”, that must be funded and some day payed back.

The current IATA Regional Briefing, Europe, June 2020 reports on the beginning of the crisis. Available seats for April plummeted by 95%, the load factors of the remaining flights to 32%! At the same time Gridpoint Consulting analysed the London-Heathrow figures with similar devastating results, an average load factor (2Q20) of 35.5%! And ForwardKeys published some nice figures on air fares, plummeting 20-30% in average.
Now the airlines are reported to bring flights back to the air aggressively. Whereas the German Airport Association (ADV) published in their latest (June) traffic statistics: “Privater Reiseverkehr findet nicht statt”: Private travel does not take place. So those added flights mostly cannibalize the existing, low passenger numbers. Which we will likely see reflected in the next statistics. But keeping the aircraft grounded comes with it’s own bill. Adding to the “Corona Debt”.

So aviation media, please do not simply publish those statistics on how many seats are added to the market, but also check the demand = load factors and the revenue = average ticket prices. It would be worthwhile to look behind those numbers and check the reasoning for those flights. Looking only at the first statistics (increase of available seats) is negative, if the revenue and loads drops further. We need the full statistical picture I was demanding for many years: ASK (available seat kilometers), load factor (how many seats sold) and the average revenue (ticket price). In combination with the CASK, the cost per available seat kilometer) it would allow to understand the real development. And commercial viability, success … or failure! And I do look forward to real “success stories”, a.k.a. “profitable routes”. Routes not piling up more “Corona Debt”.

The Fairy Tale of the Corona Super Vaccine

Yes, as you can see in the archive of my Corona Papers, I also believed what those lying politicos and virologists told us. Though having brought up in a medical household, I looked early behind that cloud-screen. My (published) assumptions were based on a recovery following the common availability of the vaccine – and the treatment. We’ve learned a lot on the treatment meanwhile. And now, like with the face masks they initially called “unnecessary” for pure hidden motives to cover their unavailability, they slowly let the fact surface that:

We must not expect a “super vaccine”!

Corona will turn out more to be like the flu. Okay, not so much like the Measles I referred to earlier. The first infected people in Germany have ceased to have antibodies in their blood a mere three months after their infection. Now they, along with the WHO start slowly telling us the “new truth” (like with the masks), that we will have a long journey ahead, getting used to Corona. And as I kept emphasizing for months already, the time to stop the virus is long over, all we can do – and must do – is to #flattenthecurve. Keep the infections at rates our medical systems can manage. Until the first vaccines are there – to further limit the spread of the disease. Just like we get (or according to statistics mostly don’t) get our yearly flu-vaccination. By which time we will also hopefully by able to “manage” the severe cases with standardized treatment.

But hold it, ain’t that telling, all that lock-down was for nothing???

No! The lock-downs were a vital necessity and still can be! Because the reasons to flatten the curve are still undeniably valid! As I just wrote in the previous paragraph. But we must return to a life that embraces the Corona-virus (and it’s future variants) as what they are. A new “flu”. Maybe more hostile, sure different. But here to stay. And once we will have learned to manage the recurring “waves”, just like the annual flu, we will live on. Without masks if you ask me. Without “social distancing”. And without lock-down. And with air travel and real-world conferences.

Bailing-Out the Dinosaurs

I know, being a German and having taken residence with the family in Germany for the pandemic, I am somewhat biased on what happens here and especially Lufthansa. And that makes me puke. No, I can’t say that nicely.

Lufthansa, with a pre-crisis value of four billion (Source: Fortune) and burning five billion in the first three months of the crisis receives a bailout from the German government of € 9 billion. For a 25% silent stake, not allowing them to influence Lufthansa, i.e. relating to job securities (prime CSR), sustainable developments or a less hostile behavior towards smaller airlines they kept and keep walking over, their latest “victim” Air Berlin. No, lesson not learned. The next they announce is to make 22,000 (twenty-two thousand!) jobs redundant. Quite recently, they had to admit that 25% of the refunds for unflown tickets due to Corona have still not been paid back, the media claiming a 1-billion backlog!

I was kind of shocked this week, when German Tagesthemen, one of the main news channel mentioned already that this may not be the end, but just the beginning of an expensive further bail-out series for the airline and it’s many subsidiaries. But if they burned 5 billion in three months, how long can they sustain the drought before they burned up the added nine billion?

Don’t get me wrong! I belief that aviation will recover, but that will go slow and take time. What I see now is activism and lots of wishful thinking, piling up more debt and risking the airlines’ long-term survival.

But I keep my emphasis, that bailing out the dinosaurs is not good for anyone, except the dinosaurs. At KOLIBRI.aero, we have a concept in the drawer to invest € 1.6 billion into an airline with 200 aircraft. Okay, establishing the airline in Germany would be a bit more expensive. But no more than € 2.5 billion. Give another € 3-4 billion as a reasonable amount to add a global network, we could develop a “Lufthansa 2.0” based on sustainable aviation (not the Lufthansa greenwashing), true corporate social responsibility (way beyond Lufthansa whitewashing), looking after our own, but also after the regions we serve and the overall responsibility of a major player. There are others like us out there. I’m sure, given € 9 billion, given only € 5 billion, they could make a change. No Corona debt, but a clear profitable business, paying back the debt within 10 years with (above-market) interest. € 9 billion without any strings attached? € 11 billion for Air France/KLM? And meanwhile Austrian – a 100% Lufthansa-owned subsidiary also received a bailout by Austrian government, though “only” € 600 million and with environmental demands attached. But with another € 150 million to go into equity in Austrian parent Lufthansa (Source: CAPA). Swiss received a 1.25 billion loan guarantee for its poor mother Lufthansa (Source: Reuters).

And at the same time, one airline after the other is being grounded, Level’ed. No bailouts for Air Berlin pre-, flyBE early into the crisis. None for Level (IAG), Germanwings (LH Group), Laudamotion (Ryanair). And expecting no real “recovery” of the passenger numbers this year, I foresee a large number of the small airlines with one, two, maybe even five or ten airplanes to fail this year. And I get a lot of feedback that this is the time for KOLIBRI.aero. But we struggle not for billions, to launch we struggle to get funding of a mere € 30 million.

But given feedback from “experts” out there, to start it small as a virtual airline, or “aviation investors” not seeing beyond aircraft leasing? I now have hopes that our invitation to attend Prestel & Partner later this year at their real-world conference in Zurich will open the doors of more visionary family office owners, understanding the opportunity such a crisis provides to a business concept like KOLIBRI.aero. As those bailouts must be paid back one day. If the airlines don’t go bankrupt, once KOLIBRI.aero is kicking their butts.

Food for Thought
Comments welcome!