Oasis’s promise of a Hong Kong-based budget airline turned out to be a mirage after all.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008 – The Standard
Oasis’s promise of a Hong Kong-based budget airline turned out to be a mirage after all. But capitalism proceeds from its failures as well as from its successes, and in spite of the considerable (and perhaps unavoidable) inconvenience and loss to people holding now worthless tickets, entrepreneurial derring-do and the risk that accompanies it is one of the foundations of Hong Kong’s prosperity.
Oasis’s demise may, in the end, be no bad thing, for while cheap flights have permitted many more people to take many more holidays, the consequent increase in air travel results in worsening carbon emissions and a variety of problems related to airport development: noise, pollution and congestion.
The unfortunate truth is that budget airlines like Oasis encourage people to fly, which would be fine if airplanes didn’t belch out carbon and pollutants in rather large amounts. But they do.
I don’t wish to wax overly moral about this, for I will take advantage of low-cost flights myself when available, but any solution to reduce carbon emissions from air travel will result in higher prices, so maybe we shouldn’t mourn too much for the passing of the HK$1,000 Hong Kong-London ticket.
Indeed, high oil prices have much the same effect as a carbon tax and may be the best (and perhaps only practical) way to reduce carbon emissions from air travel.
Admittedly, the revenues from this “tax” go to oil companies and some not-always-entirely-in-favor regimes around the world, rather than the supposedly more benign national tax authorities of the consuming countries, but they are no less effective for that.
Further, the woes of Heathrow’s Terminal 5 have once more raised arguments against concentrating all aviation growth in a single location: regardless of projected demand, there are considerable reservations about the wisdom of continued expansion there.
London has several airports in addition to Heathrow, including Gatwick, London City Airport, Stansted and Luton. Budget airlines tend to fly from the latter two: their business models are based on the lower costs at these secondary airports. New York also makes use of at least three airports, and Washington two.
Hong Kong’s equivalents would be Macau and Shenzhen. If there are to be budget carriers, perhaps it’s just as well that they fly out of our secondary airports – something which has already begun to happen – reducing the pressure to expand Chek Lap Kok.
Airports are capital-intensive and the return on investment often problematical. Anyway, what Hong Kong wants are the passengers: plane take-offs and landings are just a means to an end.
If Macau and Shenzhen get the congestion, noise and pollution, and we get the passengers, then so much the better. It is true that both Macau and Shenzhen are more inconvenient than Chek Lap Kok, but perhaps not much more so than Stansted, or the Girona and Reus airports used by budget airlines flying to Barcelona. If you are someone for whom money is more valuable than time, you’ll put up with an extra 30-60 minutes on the bus or ferry.
There is not, of course, immigration control between London and Stansted, but Geneva airport, for example, manages to accommodate passengers to and from both France and Switzerland, by having each country maintain its own immigration and customs, while British immigration for travelers on the Eurostar from Paris is at departure in the Gare du Nord.
The larger issue is that we can’t look at our relations with our regional neighbors exclusively as a zero-sum game where every visitor to, or via, Macau, for example, is one lost to Hong Kong. Neither Macau nor Shenzhen is a competitor for those visitors who want what Hong Kong has to offer.
Budget flights to these two places are likely to increase rather than decrease visitors here, or at least would if transit to Hong Kong could be streamlined.
Whether or not this will actually happen remains to be seen, but Oasis’s demise is a reminder that not all business activities which might benefit Hong Kong should necessarily be based here and that moving certain activities outside the confines of Hong Kong might allow us to concentrate on the higher value-added ends of the business.