The marriage between Kenya Airways and the Kenya Airports Authority must work.
Whether it is between two consenting adults madly in love with each other or the result of an arranged marriage by two cunning parents, it simply has got to work. Why do I say so? Just read what follows.
In 1978, when the East African Community arrangement went tumbling down like a house of cards out of a political hullabaloo among our leaders, Kenya took the lion’s share of the community’s aviation assets. It quickly went ahead to create KQ, flying high in the skies as “the proud of Africa,” and leaving Tanzania and Uganda with national airlines that were more of facing saving devices rather than worthy commercial operations.
Uganda Airlines quickly folded its wings and disappeared into oblivion, while Air Tanzania Corporation operated as “Air Total Confusion” for a few more years before little was heard from it. The Pride of Africa was then under sound management, with boards that, as they changed membership from one group to the other, remained reasonably steady in their attempts to keep the airline afloat as a going concern.
Around 1993, the United Arab Emirates flag carrier, Emirates, started on a journey of modernisation and expansion. She immediately poached engineers and some critical personnel from KQ, quickly coming out of the woods as a nondescript and fledgling junior player in the skies to something worth paying attention to as a worthy competitor. At that point in time, Emirates had only three planes; KQ had 27 white and red-striped planes ploughing the African, Asian and European skies with the pride of a champion. The difference between Emirates and KQ was that the former was fully patronised and owned by the UAE state together with the Dubai airport, which was its base. KQ,, on the other hand, was an independent entity from the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport which, for all intents and purposes, was its home base.
Wind the clock forward to 2018. Surprise, surprise! After just over two decades of steady growth, Emirates is now the king of the skies, flying to as many destinations as one can think of on the face of this mother earth! Dubai, a nondescript dusty desert port by 1990, is now the leading port and airport in the world, handling millions of passengers a year and playing host to traders from all over the world, as its fleet of close to 250 planes dominate the skies. KQ, on the other hand, after the misadventure by its managers in the ambitious expansion project called “Mawingu Project”, and saved from being completely devoured by the lords of plutocracy and impunity in the nick of time by a Senate Select Committee, which I chaired, is now slowly coming back to life under some sound management.
It is a herculean task: The debts are in billions; some of the assets are a mismatch to the airline’s core business, busy bodies from yesteryears of mismanagement and greed are busy misdirecting the attention of the current management to self-serving court cases. The skies are increasingly becoming more competitive by the entry of worthy competitors. Under such circumstances, while the new management must continue with the needed reforms and refocusing, success will not be guaranteed unless the full weight of the government is thrown behind the airline. Again, why do I say so? Without the weight of the UAE state behind it, the history of Emirates would be completely different.
Apart from Emirates, whose success is based on its fusion with the Dubai Airport, and the unequivocal support by the government, Ethiopian Airlines next door proves the same thing. That is, without full government support, an airline in these developing countries cannot simply succeed. The reasoning in quite simple. First, our airlines in these “emerging markets” do not have strong domestic markets from which to have a solid base to kick off from. Take British Airways, for example. It started originally as British Overseas Airways Corporation.
The British took the whole of her empire as her home market. But even after independence of many member states of the empire, the presence of the original BOAC still continued as BA within the former empire with the strong support and lobby by the British government. In Mexico, Aero Mexico and Mexicana d’Aviacion have very strong networks within the federal states of Mexico before venturing into the international market. KQ is yet to develop an impressive network in Kenya; and the absence of such a network is due no doubt to our underdevelopment. But if the government works consciously with KQ, making KAA to deliberately build airports in the counties so as to improve domestic air travel, KQ would then have a much stronger home base from which to then venture with more strength in the international skies.
Second, let us not forget that, as state entities, KQ and KAA owe substantial responsibility to the Kenyan taxpayer. At the moment, KAA would pride itself as a much more successful investment minus the Green field runway expansion debacle. Both Green field and Mawingu stick out as sore thumbs in the performance of both entities. But now, the proposal is for both to come together, at least at JKIA, and redeem themselves as one major enterprise supported by the government but managed professionally by hard-nosed business-oriented managers, who focus on nothing other than success. I have a sneaky feeling that Michael Joseph, the chairman of the KQ board, should take the bull by the horns and push this proposal to its logical conclusion, if we are to rise to the level of Dubai/Emirates and Bole/ET.
But thirdly, in order for that to happen, a divorce is necessary. The divorce I am referring to regards the marriage between KQ and KLM, which was consummated in 1996 and has since begotten very few children, if any. KLM can still enjoy an open marriage with KQ, or “a come we stay” on weekends only. Both parties would expect no permanent commitment one to the other; but they would not be bitter enemies either as a result of a marriage gone sour. It would be in their mutual interest not to have the kind of business arrangement that has been rather lopsided in favour of KLM since 1996.
Fourth, it is important to take into account the airlines now coming up as national flag carriers in Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania. Code sharing with these neighbours is going to be important, but so should be more access for KQ to domestic destinations in these respective countries. Kenya would likewise reciprocate. This will be very good for East African integration.
Further, in a rather round about way, we shall have come back to what was originally East African Airways with each member state contributing her own planes. As an elder brother, KQ should move quickly to provide some leadership in the aviation industry within the community. The three international airports, ie Kisumu, Nairobi and Mombasa, should truly be international and be open to communication by airlines from neighbouring states.
It still amazes me why KQ has not moved with speed to have flights from Kisumu to Entebbe, and vice versa. Ethiopian Airlines should fly from Addis to Kisumu and disembark passengers for the KQ flight to Entebbe and Mwanza. Going to new and more destinations should not exclude such destinations in East Africa.
In the long run, the increase in intra-East African airline communication will no doubt trigger more economic activities hence more development within the EAC member states.