|
Apr 7th 2018 OVER the past few decades, established airlines in Europe and America have been hit by one thing after another. First came low-cost carriers, chipping away at their short-haul routes. Lately, a new crop of super-connecting airlines in the Gulf, Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways, has lured away their long-haul passengers with superior service and lower fares. Now looms the biggest threat of all—the rise of several promising Chinese airlines. Unfortunately, the response of the incumbents risks depriving passengers of the benefits from this latest wave of competition. 在过去的几十年里，欧洲和美国的老牌航空公司都被一件接一件的事情所打击。首先是低成本的航空公司，削减了他们的短途航线。最近，海湾地区、阿联酋航空、阿提哈德航空公司和卡塔尔航空公司的新一批超级中转航空公司，以优质的服务和较低的票价吸引了长途旅客。现在，隐约出现了最大的威胁——几家有前途的中国航空公司的崛起。不幸的是，现存公司的反应可能会剥夺乘客在最近一波竞争的受益。 China’s airlines are rising up the world rankings at a breathtaking pace. In 2007 passengers in China made 184m journeys by air; last year around 550m did. The International Air Transport Association, a trade group, predicts that China will leapfrog America as the world’s biggest market in the coming five years. During the next two decades Airbus and Boeing, the world’s two big manufacturers of passenger aircraft, forecast that Chinese carriers will buy more jets than American ones. 中国的航空公司以惊人的速度在世界排名中上升。2007年，中国的乘客乘飞机旅行了18400万人次;去年大约有5500万人。国际航空运输协会，一个贸易组织，预测中国将在未来五年内超越美国成为世界上最大的市场。世界上最大的两家客机制造商——空中客车公司和波音公司预测，在接下来的20年里中国的航空公司将比美国航空公司购买更多的飞机。 Passengers who had a choice used to avoid Chinese airlines. Delays were common, accidents frequent and the food inedible. However, after a concerted effort to improve standards, they are winning flyers over. OAG, a data firm, reckons that in 2011-17 the proportion of passenger seats between China and America on Chinese airlines rose from 37% to 61%. 可以选择的乘客通常会避开中国的航空公司，因为延迟是常见的，事故频发，食物不难吃。然而，在共同努力提高标准之后，他们赢得了乘客。数据公司OAG估计，在2011-17年，中国和美国在中国航空公司的乘客座位比例从37%上升到61%。 Losing the battle to fly people in and out of China is one thing. But the menace to the world’s established carriers goes deeper. Just as the Gulf airlines expanded by offering connecting flights to international passengers through their Middle Eastern hubs so, too, are Chinese airlines turning themselves into connectors. The cheapest way to get from London to Australia, for instance, is no longer via Dubai or Abu Dhabi but through Guangzhou, Shanghai or Wuhan. The Chinese authorities have loosened visa requirements to encourage this kind of transfer traffic. 失去飞入飞出中国航空的战斗是一回事。但是，对世界老牌航空公司的威胁更加严重。就像海湾航空公司通过他们的中东枢纽向国际乘客提供转机一样，中国航空公司也将自己变成了中转站。例如，从伦敦到澳大利亚的最便宜的方式，不再是通过迪拜或阿布扎比，而是通过广州、上海或武汉。中国当局放宽了签证要求，以鼓励这种中转交通。 China’s arrival as an aviation superpower has prompted two responses from big Western carriers—both predictable, neither good. The Europeans are crying foul about government aid, just as they did when the Gulf airlines became a threat. The bosses of Air France-KLM and Lufthansa wail that they are the victims of “unfair trade”. They are lobbying for rules that would let the European Union place unilateral sanctions on subsidised foreign rivals, Chinese carriers among them, even before any investigation has been concluded. 中国作为航空超级大国的到来，促使西方大型航空公司做出了两种反应——两个都是可预测的，但不太好。欧洲人对政府援助感到不满，就像他们在海湾航空公司成为威胁时所做的那样。法荷航空和德国汉莎航空的老板们哀叹道，他们是“不公平贸易”的受害者。他们正在游说，要求欧盟对享受补贴的外国竞争对手，包括中国在内的航空公司，进行单方面制裁，甚至在任何调查尚未结束之前。 The fact that Chinese airlines benefit from support from the state is not in question. But the outrage of rivals is shamelessly confected. Around the world, the aviation industry has been built on government support. CE Delft, a research firm, reckons that French airlines get €1bn ($1.2bn) in energy subsidies alone each year. Unilateral sanctions might benefit incumbents, but would restrict choice and harm passengers. A tit-for-tat battle over flying rights would hit Europe harder than China, which is fast becoming a sizeable net exporter of tourists. 中国航空公司从政府的支持中获益的事实是毫无疑问的。但是，竞争对手的愤怒是无耻的。在全球范围内，航空工业是建立都在政府支持的基础上的。研究公司CE Delft估计，法国航空公司每年仅能获得10亿欧元（合12亿美元）的能源补贴。单边制裁可能有利于现任的航空公司，但会限制选择并伤害乘客。一场关于飞行权利的针锋相对的战斗将会对欧洲产生比中国更严重的打击，中国正迅速成为一个庞大的游客净出口国。 The big three American carriers have taken a different tack. They are also happy to play the protectionist card when it suits them. American, Delta and United have all been lobbying hard against the Gulf carriers, for instance. But with China they sniff an opportunity as well as a threat. They want an open-skies treaty, which would allow airlines to fly between any airport in the two countries. 美国三大航空公司采取了不同的策略。他们也乐于在适合的时候打出保护主义的牌。例如，美国航空、达美航空和美联航都在大力游说，抵制海湾航空公司。但对于中国，他们既嗅到了机遇，也嗅到了威胁。他们想要一个开放的航空条约，允许航空公司在两国的任何机场之间飞行。 Fare trade In theory, passengers have much to gain from a deal of this sort. In practice, open-skies deals open the door to joint ventures (JVs), which are granted immunity from antitrust rules and so can potentially lead to higher prices. In 2006-16 the share of long-haul passenger traffic controlled by such JVs leapt from 5% to 25%. Three JVs account for almost 80% of the transatlantic market. The established American airlines would love to team up with Chinese rivals in order to dominate the Pacific, too. 从理论上讲，乘客会从这类交易中获得很多好处。在实践中，开放航空交易为合资企业（JVs）打开了大门，合资企业获得了反垄断规则的豁免权，因此有可能导致更高的价格。在2006-16年，由此类合资企业控制的长途客运业务份额从5%跃升至25%。三家合资企业占据了大西洋两岸近80%的市场份额。老牌的美国航空公司也希望与中国的竞争对手合作，以便在太平洋地区占据主导地位。 Neither shutout nor carve-up is good for passengers. In an ideal world, Europe and America would seek open-skies deals with China but design them to nurture competition rather than mute it. Airline JVs would be barred from gaining antitrust immunity. Airport slots would be allocated more fairly, so that the best landing and take-off times were not hoarded. State handouts would be transparent. 对乘客来说，无论是关闭还是分拆都不是好事。在一个理想的世界里，欧洲和美国将寻求与中国的开放航空的协议，但设计它们来培育竞争，而不是削弱竞争。航空公司的合资公司将被禁止获得反垄断豁免权。航空起隆时段将会更公平地分配，这样最好的着陆和起飞时间就不会被藏起来。政府的救济将是透明的。 Alas, the chances of reaching such a sensible accommodation with China’s airlines are low. Rising trade tensions between America and China are only part of the explanation. The real problem is that big Western carriers would not much like such policies either. 唉，与中国的航空公司达成如此合理的和解的可能性很小。中美之间不断加剧的贸易紧张只是部分原因。真正的问题是，西方大型航空公司也不太喜欢这样的政策。 This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "Dragons fly" 英文原文选自《经济学人》 |
|
|
