Open skies is not the answer

Manila Standard Today: Opinion
September 15,2010

President Benigno Aquino III should not limit himself to Tourism Secretary Alberto Lim for advise on whether to speed up the adoption of an open skies policy in case the operations of  Philippine Airlines is paralyzed by its union of flight attendants and stewards.

The filing by the 1,600-strong Flight Attendants’ and Stewards’ Association of the Philippines of a strike notice with the Labor Department has prompted the President to renew his threat that his administration would speed up the adoption of an open skies policy if the labor unrest disrupts the services of the airline.

Lim, of course, is a long-time advocate of open skies and he would certainly recommend that the Aquino administration adopt open skies immediately. A strike in PAL would be a convenient excuse to push this policy which the United States has been espousing.

But it would be good for Mr. Aquino to also ask his other advisers, especially those who are not committed to open skies like the Tourism secretary, what the implications of the adoption of open skies would be in both the short term and in the long term.

The most basic question that the President should ask is whether open skies would fill the vacuum created in case PAL services are disrupted.

As far as international flights are concerned, there might be no need for open skies. There are many other airlines already serving the routes serviced by PAL. These airlines could well service the needs of passengers affected by a PAL strike.

A temporary solution could be to authorize airlines already serving PAL routes to increase their frequencies. That’s in the meantime.

The domestic routes would be the problem. But it is clear that open skies will not be able to address the probable problems created by the disruption of PAL service in domestic routes.

Even if open skies is implemented and foreign airlines are allowed cabotage where foreign airlines will be allowed to carry passengers between domestic destinations, they’d probably serve only the most lucrative routes. In fact, the foreign airlines would probably only fly the Manila-Cebu route and ignore other domestic routes especially the so-called missionary routes.

The slack to be created in case there is a disruption of PAL domestic service would have to be filled by the other domestic airlines including Cebu Pacific, Zest Air and even PAL’s sister airline Air Philippines.

Open skies will be no help even if cabotage, which is entirely denied or severely restricted in all other countries in the world, is allowed.

Open skies is an issue that the government should consider separate and distinct from the PAL strike issue. Some people, especially those holding key positions in the Aquino administration, and who have been advocates of open skies, would like to take advantage of a possible strike threat in PAL to push this agenda.

President Aquino should not allow himself to be stampeded into making a decision on open skies by these people.

The granting of air rights is an instrument of national policy and the President should always keep this in mind.

When we grant air rights to other countries, we should make sure that the Philippines and its flag carriers get something in return. We will surrender our right to get something in return if we adopt open skies.

Since it seems that advocates of open skies are proposing a unilateral declaration of the Philippines of open skies, then our own carriers like Philippine Airlines and Cebu Pacific will still be subject to restrictions imposed by other countries even those whose airlines take advantage of our open skies.
The adoption of an open skies policy by the Aquino administration could be a death blow for Philippine Airlines which is already reeling from the global industry downturn —a situation that has been aggravated by the blow to the tourism industry brought about by the bloody Luneta hostage-taking incident.

FASAP as well as other unions of PAL should make sure that they would be used to justify a decision of government to adopt open skies.

Obviously some Aquino officials are just waiting for the opportunity to justify their recommendations to the President to adopt open skies.

The flight attendants and stewards might succeed in paralyzing PAL should they push through with their strike, but such a victory could by Pyrrhic if this causes the demise of the airline.

***

If there’s a contest for the most ridiculous ad of the year we would like to recommend that detergent ad which must have recruited the least discerning people for their comparison survey.
The television commercial features a comparison of two white polo shirts one is brand new and the other was deliberately stained with what looks like blue ink. According to the ad’s endorser, the shirt was then washed ten times in order to remove the stain.

The message of the ad, which features a popular television host/ talent manager as endorser, is that eight out of 10 people they picked thought that the stained shirt washed 10 times was the “new shirt”.
This claim is incredible. The agency that prepared this ad must have such a low regard for the intelligence of the general public who they thought would accept such a ridiculous claim hook line and sinker.

It would have been more credible if the claim was half of the people who participated said the washed shirt was the new shirt. That would have been enough to send out the message that the detergent is so good that people could not tell the difference between a new shirt and a shirt washed with the detergent being advertised.

However, to claim that 80 percent of the respondents said the washed shirt is the “new shirt” is preposterous.

It’s surprising that this absurd advertisement was passed by the Advertising Board of the Philippines (AdBoard). The AdBoard has been consistent in fulfilling its principle role of promoting consumer protection through self-regulation.

This particular ad, with its implausible claim, is an exception. We find it insulting. It makes us angry every time we see it on television because it reminds us how little the advertiser respects the public.