Politicians love to tell airlines how to run their business. They can't help it. Air transport is too attractive This one sells well. It generates big headlines. Airlift brings the right votes to the polls at the right time.
For example, some politicians love to tell the private airlines where to locate your flight interconnection centre. Usually, and not surprisingly, it is the airport in the region they are coming from. It matters little if the company/victim's business only targets point-to-point flights.
More flexibility is needed in aviation legislation and to facilitate airport development.
They also love to tell them to which destinations they should fly. Voters already enjoy direct flights to hotels under the Mediterranean sun. People need new experiences. More glamorous destinations further afield, such as Bangkok, Punta Cana or Kuala Lumpur, sell like hot cakes.
Politicians do not seem to be aware that private airlines are quite capable of fending for themselves. without its help. Airlines do not need the political intrusiveness that messes up the business. Overseas flights will not be possible unless there is a market for them. Some markets need a critical mass of potential passengers to take off. No matter how long the runway or how big the terminal, planes will not fly without much-needed customers.
At the same time, politicians are generally reluctant to be publicly linked to an airport expansion project. Both the right and the left are well aware of the devastating power of a group of angry neighbours or of struggling environmentalists.
Politicians should convert their innovative aero-ideas into streamlining aviation legislation. Their work is facilitating airport development. The worst enemy of a region's economic development is not the inability of airlines to open new routes. Rather, it is the chronic indecision of politicians over airport modernisation plans.
