The Sunday News
IN Zimbabwe, flying is still one of those areas which many people consider a domain of the rich and privileged.
Because of the economy, which has remained generally subdued over the years, the majority of people do not even dream of boarding a stationary aeroplane in their lifetime.
That is why the dream of some of our people is not about flying but to at least see the big birds of the sky stationary. At some schools parents fork out huge amounts of money for their children to undertake trips to the few airports around the country for the kids to catch a glimpse of a plane. In some rural areas, a plane flying thousands of metres above the ground can be a village attraction.
However, over the years, there has been some improvement in how Zimbabweans appreciate flying, thanks to the coming in of low cost airlines. Low cost airline or rather budget airlines are those that offer lower fares and fewer comforts.
To make up for the revenue, the companies hope for increased passengers and also charge extra in food, priority boarding, seat allocation and baggage, among others. The first low budget airline in Zimbabwe in recent years was Fly Kumba which was launched in March 2010. The company operated a leased Boeing 737-500 from Air Namibia which serviced the Bulawayo to Johannesburg route.
At its launch, the airline was offering fares which were almost half of what Air Zimbabwe was charging and almost four times less than what South African Airlink, another airliner which plied the same route charged.
However, in January 2011, barely a year after the new company was in the Zimbabwean skies it announced that it was ceasing operations citing operational challenges. That was the end of Fly Kumba.
In November last year, another new kid in the sky offering budget fares Fly Africa was launched in Zimbabwe.
At its launch, the company was offering fares as low as $89 from Johannesburg to Harare. In the coming months, the company announced more routes and more fare cuts in Zimbabwe. It also launched the Bulawayo-Johannesburg and Johannesburg-Victoria Falls routes while plans had been announced to service domestic routes. At one time as part of celebrating its first birthday after launch, the company offered its passengers tickets for a dollar for most of its routes.
Yes, a dollar that you pay for the local commuter omnibus per day could fly you even to South Africa.
It all looked glossy until last week when the company announced that it was suspending its flights into Zimbabwe and has surrendered its operating licence to the Civil Aviation of Zimbabwe due to shareholding disputes and failure to meet statutory requirements. Some of the statutory requirements included failure to pay airport fees to CAAZ.
There are also reports that the airline was failing to pay its workers’ salaries on time despite the glowing reputation it was portraying. Some passengers had also started questioning the fares of the airline which were in some cases far different from those that it advertised.
Although the company has indicated that it was sorting out the mess and would be back in the sky soon, the bottom line is that it seems another budget airline is about to go under in Zimbabwe.
This has raised serious questions on whether it is feasible to run a budget airline in Zimbabwe and probably in Africa as a whole.
Internationally, most low cost airlines that have survived have adopted aggressive measures to try to keep costs at minimum level. Some of the aggressive methods they have used include charging for on-board services, having quick turnaround times for their aircrafts, cutting out sales commissions, and striking hard bargains with airports and other suppliers.
Some of these companies actually target those airports which are not busy and negotiate out bargains on charges. Since these airports will be seeking to increase traffic they sometimes agree to these low charges.
Through these cost cutting measures, the airline also creates some sort of monopoly where they become synonymous with low fares.
They then push more volumes and in fact some major international companies have run both services low cost and normal flights to hedge against shocks that may crop from both ends of the business.
While this might sound true for Zimbabwe where most of our airports are still generally under-utilised, there are not many budget airlines to even guarantee some sort of special treatment when it comes to airport fees.
In addition to that the flying population has generally remained thin. Instead of attracting new customers these budget airlines simply come in and try to compete for the few who were already flying using the normal carriers.
At the same time, these low cost carriers still needed to meet fixed costs charged to other companies.
They still needed to compete for the few passengers, grapple with rising fuel costs, reduce passenger load factors against the slow paced regional economic growth, lack of ability to create a distinctive competitive image, bankruptcy and reduced profit margins.
They also still needed to cater for a full crew and other supplies on board, and ground staff committed to booking, ticketing, boarding, and baggage handling for the flights. Unfortunately these costs are not dependant on the load factor. Even if the plane is flying one passenger it still has to pay landing fees whether it is budget or otherwise. That is why budget airlines might find it difficult to break even in Zimbabwe or Africa in general.
The flying population has also remained generally a domain seen in many people’s eyes as very secluded.
That is why today while it might be cheap to fly between Harare and Bulawayo for some people, they will still prefer to drive by road. It takes just 45 minutes to fly to Harare from Bulawayo at a cost of less than $200 return.
This means that someone can fly into the capital, do business and come back the same day at a cost of $200.
To drive it takes an average of 10 hours to and from and fuel only gobbles close to $150. Since it is almost impossible to drive to Harare and come back, you will need to sleep over at a cost of around $100.
Considering time and related costs, it shows that it is actually cheap to fly especially on short term visits.
That is why there is a need to aggressively sell the idea of flying to the people and demystify this as some sort of special service.
After all some have described flying as “a glorified bus service”. That is why low cost airlines must first work with Government and try to sell their idea before they just plunge into a reserved and economically struggling community. If they can start by trying to get into companies, sell their ideas and convince management why they need to fly then that could be a starting point.
After all most company executives at one time or another need to travel and if that can be serviced by planes then why not convince them to fly especially the budget airlines which are cost effective. But there is no doubt that what is happening in the aviation sector has once again raised the question on whether budget airlines can really survive in our market.
