hypotheses

Qantas Ground Crew

IDEA ANALYSIS BLOG 4: RISK MANAGEMENT AND PASSENGER SAFETY

Earlier this week, I read about a Cypriot low-cost airline that coincidentally went by the name of Helios Airways. The airline ceased operations in 2006 due to a tragic accident caused by an inadequately prepared flight crew – an event that ultimately led to the manslaughter convictions of five senior officials for their oversight in risk management and compliance. The story of this airline was a sobering reminder of just how risky this industry is. After reading the article “Startups Rarely Do Anything Well” by Eric Paley, I feel that my “boundless ambition” as an entrepreneur in the last few weeks has led me to overlook the one aspect that is ultimately paramount to success in this industry: customer safety. Unlike most other service-based firms, airlines have responsibility over their customers’ lives. This is a major part of the competitive landscape: airlines with the best customer safety procedures will thrive, and a single event caused by even the smallest oversight can serve to tarnish an airline’s reputation and send it into bankruptcy overnight.

Qantas Airlines has built one of the industry’s strongest brands around its accident-free record, by implementing one of the most complex and rigorous safety compliance systems in the world. From checking every bolt on every aircraft, to training flight crews in crisis management, Qantas has invested millions of dollars in ensuring that its passengers are safe. Here is the airline’s risk management model:

Qantas Airlines: Risk Management Model

Qantas Airlines: Risk Management Model

What this says to me is: at the end of the day, you can invest in the highest capacity, most fuel-efficient aircraft out there, but neglecting to invest in passenger safety and crew training is a recipe for failure. Managing the increasingly complex external risk environment is key to market dominance. Aviation entrepreneurs tend to avoid the subject of accidents – after all, no one ever wants to even imagine it happening to their airline. But this is something that needs to be discussed. I did a small analysis of the accident rates between helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, using US data from the National Transportation Safety Board.

Type of Aircraft Accidents per 100,000 flight hours
Helicopter (rotorcraft) 9.47
Fixed-Wing (single or multi-engine) 8.38

Although the accident rates are very similar between aircraft type, the worldwide perception is that helicopters are far more dangerous than fixed-wing aircraft. A simple Google search will yield one of the largest passenger concerns: whether a “helicopter will drop like a rock if the engine dies,” although there is a significant body of evidence against this. Clearly, it would take a lot more than several compliance procedures to convince individuals that Helios Air will get them to their destination safely.

To be honest, I am fairly certain at this point that my idea for Helios Air will not come to fruition. Given the serious pricing issue I raised last week, along with other factors such as the immense amount of capital and operational risk involved, it is hard to think that a successful business plan could be crafted to offer profitability and market penetration within a reasonable industry framework. However, I am glad that I rationally considered the factors that ultimately falsified my various hypotheses. This meant that I didn’t remain “overly fascinated or over-committed to a product idea,” one of the key entrepreneurial pitfalls discussed in Chapter 8 of New Venture Creation.

In preparing for the ‘Venture-palooza’ on March 17, I intend to conduct some research on a specific substitute product for Helios Air: high-speed rail (HSR). This is a fast-growing mode of transportation in various regions such as Germany and Japan, and is currently being proposed in India. The StartupBoeing team doesn’t view HSR as a threat to commercial aviation, since the network of global aviation routes is approximately 4000% larger than that of trains. However, for short-haul routes where regular rail services already operate (such as Pune-Mumbai), HSR could be the service that beats even the fixed-wing airlines in this incredibly competitive travel market. More to come soon.

Advertisements
The Sikorsky S-76C++

Idea Analysis Blog 2: Industry Trends and Substitute Products

In the last few days, I have focused on making my idea network more diverse. I established contact with StartupBoeing, a division of Boeing that exists to help aviation entrepreneurs navigate and adapt to the various challenges in the industry. By talking to members of their team, I hope to develop a credible database of information about the competitive landscape surrounding my idea.

This week, I focused on getting an overview of industry trends and substitute products. I confirmed my initial suspicion about this venture: it is really difficult to start an airline in the current market. Although the global aviation industry is picking up, with passenger growth expected to average 5%/year for the next 20 years, airlines have begun devoting their entire efforts towards capacity utilization. In order to cope with a variety of dismal macroeconomic factors, especially unprecedented triple-digit oil prices, today’s airlines require incredibly efficient, low-cost planes in order to maintain and boost profits. Companies like Boeing and Airbus have met this demand by creating new fuel-efficient fixed-wing aircraft; however, this presents a problem in my business idea.

Up until now, I had assumed that there would be a low-cost, high-capacity helicopter that would be more efficient to operate than the closest substitute product (a fixed-wing aircraft). I now had to test my hypothesis – and I quickly found many articles online claiming helicopters to be far less fuel-efficient than fixed-wing planes. Most of these claims were unsubstantiated, so I did my own analysis, comparing several high-capacity helicopters to the substitute fixed-wing aircraft that are popular on short-haul routes:

MODEL Aircraft or Helicopter? Passenger Capacity (1-class configuration) Flight Range (nautical miles) Fuel Cost ($ per nautical mile) Average Aircraft List Price ($ millions)
Boeing 737-800 Aircraft 189 3,115 6.38 90.5
Airbus A320 Aircraft 180 3,300 7.66 91.5
Sikorsky S-76C++ Helicopter 12 345 4.89 7.9
Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey Helicopter 24 879 13.75 68.0
Boeing 234 Chinook Helicopter 34 540 22.22 38.55
Kazan MI-38 Helicopter 30 477 13.64 13.0

It is obvious that helicopters have less passenger capacity than their fixed-wing substitutes, and I expected lower flight range as well. However, there are several helicopters that have lower fuel costs per nautical mile than regular aircraft, such as the Sikorsky S-76C++. I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation and found the fuel cost per passenger to be similar between the 737 and the S-76C++. This posed a major question: given these numbers, how can I expect to compete on a cost basis with fixed-wing airlines?

The answer is simple, but presents yet another assumption in my idea. Traditional low-cost airlines don’t pass on 100% of fuel costs to passengers in the form of fare increases; instead, they find alternative revenue streams to make up this burden (e.g. charging for on-board services). I will need to hunt for these additional revenue streams if this idea is to be somewhat viable. Looking for niche cost savings is also a good idea – for instance, landing fees at helipads are much lower than those charged to regular airlines at major airports. There is a lot more research to be done, with several new hypotheses to be tested and calculations to be made.