甘泉(Oasis)突然宣佈結業，先不談事件對員工及乘客的影響(註: 筆者不是不關心)，筆者反而有興趣嘗試以經濟學人(當然是業餘水準)身份望入去。
市場經濟學默認「適者生存」一道理，而長治久安的企業大多數享有自身的競爭優勢(Competitive Advantage)。有人以產品/服務差異化(Product/Service Differentiation)去說服顧客付多一點價錢，另一方面，有人以平價吸引貪平的客戶，或者應說以減低成本(Cost Leadership)去達成「薄利多銷」。
航空業中，如果說國泰行走「Differentiation」路線，那麼兩年前成立的甘泉則打著「Long-Haul Budget Airlines」旗號實行「Cost Leadership」策略。巧妙地，兩者都有涉及倫敦和溫哥華兩航點。
有人指出高油價是幹掉甘泉的主要元凶。老實說，大家可以見到不少亞太區的「Budget Airlines」在高油價下仍然生存。另外，航空公司可以隨著油價上升而收取「燃油附加費」。因此，高油價不應該是致命原因。
筆者則認為問題出於「錯誤的市場定位」。「Budget Airlines」的生存之道是以減低非必要的成本(例如機上為顧客提供的餐飲服務)從而騰出空間降低機票價格。
以國泰為例，燃油成本(Fuel Cost)大約佔航空公司的30%至33%左右，理應變化不大，但航空公司還有很多「Operating Costs」，而其中不少是「Fixed Costs」。
問題核心似乎接近，而筆者認為以下機個因素是較有力的「致命傷」:
1) 營運四架航機和數條路線的甘泉，相對於營運159架航機的國泰來說，難以享有經濟規模(Economy of Scale)。無可否認，甘泉「硬食」不少「Central Costs」，除非航班規模能夠壯大起來。
2) 「Budget Airlines」通常減少不必要的機艙服務，以達至「Cost Leadership」一目標。但據筆者所知，由於乘客通常以國泰的食物等服務水準作出比較(叫大家塔長途機而沒有免費糧水，會有甚麼感受?)，同時間新成立的甘泉亦不敢怠慢和得失乘客，結果令甘泉的機艙服務成本不能比國泰有任何明顯優勢。
3) 由於新成立的關係，再加上欠奉「Track Record」，甘泉唯有以高於市場薪酬去吸引各大航空公司的空中服務員去「過檔」，其低成本目標又走遠一步。
4) 甘泉的機隊以二手飛機為骨幹，因此每年奉獻給「Haeco」的維修費不會低得去邊。
結果甘泉搞到「高不成，低不就」，弄致「結業」收場。不論「Short Haul」是否「Budget Airlines」唯一能行之道路，有一點可以肯定，國泰又少一個競爭對手。或者，有人說甘泉從來未挑戰過國泰，但筆者不排除國泰的管理層正在笑著說:「Long-Haul Budget Airlines 是行不通吧!」。
另一輸家可能是惠理基金(806)，又一次「誤上海盜船」......
11 則留言:
我覺得政府要檢查甘泉管理層有沒有欺詐的行為。如果明知以后的航班都會因為公司清盤而取消，甘泉仍然賣出機票，是不是欺詐？另外，高油價應該是甘泉清盤的主要原因，航空公司不能夠通過燃油費把所有增加的成本轉嫁給乘客，美國也有三個廉價航空公司破產。
我想部分輿論把這件事算在政府頭上，好像有點上綱上線。事件最大責任始終在甘泉自己身上。可以看看今天明報的一篇報導。
http://www.mingpaonews.com/20080410/mta.htm
Brian,
You're right to say that Oasis should bear the biggest responsibility, not only poor to the customers, but also to the staff.
Nevertheless, the government should adopt a better risk management, since they already knew the problem of Oasis few weeks ago. Banning its operation some days ago should be a more responsible way.
草示儿:
Yes, the discount airlines are poor in transferring the cost to passengers, given their inflexible air ticket revenue and many heavy fixed costs.
Besides, Poorly-run airlines are weak in building hedging position against crude oil price, unlike experienced players such as CX & SIA.
斬成本一定要狠, 要好似southwest那樣, 整個文化就係"斬成本同呼吸一樣皆出自本能".
惠理今次又一次令人失望...
攪乜鬼在阜豐中完招之後又失手？
苗禮士早前拍晒心口話無問題，結果一樣要清盤。D公司高層講的野都係唔好信咁多，信一成都死，同當年百富勤一模一樣。
甘泉: 李卓民夫婦 + 苗禮士
百富勤: 梁伯鞱 + 杜輝廉
又多一個學習《競爭策略》的實例....
我只係覺得成件事"好兒戲"...成立一間Airline company...都唔係小事.....Contingency planning既準備可以"勁"到清盤。
my thoughts sharing....personally i think that long haul flight is the main but not the underlying factor for its death. The underlying factor should be more inclined to its strategy. Why people always saying short haul should win?? Not a must and there should have no direct relationship between failure and flight distance, but of cos indirect causes do exist. But i think that airline biz is more like "country/territory/ authority" business, each country always has its domestic "strong" airline, to make it strong to compete. So, it is always a reciprical agreement for two airlines fr. diff countries to land on other's territory in same flight amount. HK has CX, SG has SQ, Aus has QF, Taiwan has CA etc. Bigger countries would have a few more players but mostly domestic lines. International line is (normally, except big countries) always limited to one major player. An independent new player is not easy to get a share as they have no support from each territory's government. So, they can only rely on their real strength...the best way for their survival would be a short haul flight with plenty clients support (biz or leisure) that even the already big player can't eat the full pie and let the water flows across its field. once such small airline secure its own small territory (e.g. 1 or 2 short haul lines), they can expand further. Ryan air in Europe is a good example. In Asia, Tiger (with ryan as its shareholders for expertise) also starting well in some short haul leisure places like Thailand (phuket etc) and survive then expand. Value air is a bit like oasis and lost its direction becos they can't even secure its small piece of "land" before they can expand....oasis is so crazy to expand even to long haul in such a short period of time....many budget airlines start from leasing flight to operate 1 to max 2 short haul flight to secure profitable ground before they expand and that talks about 3-5 yrs. When the time comes like oil prices shooting up....(like subprime to trigger credit crunch)...., things will burn. They expand too fast in such a game that airline is a territory biz that each country/ city can only support one big player. New player should/forced to start in a humble way to feed on the "left over food" to grow strong before real fighting. KA started with small airbus and crew on selected lines for so many years to secure a ground to stand. Eva with the support of evergreen, also started with cargo flight to grow stronger to domestic, then international....but they are all still "二奶" in their own territory. Oasis 憑什麼? wrong strategy in such "territory bias" survival biz.
I agree with Harris's analysis. Oasis is too ambitious to expand its market to YVR. It was said that there was profit from its UK route and if Oasis holds on to its UK operation for a while before expanding it may be another story.
各位之見有道理!
如果只做London航線，可能Cash Flow還可以頂得住。過份Aggressive既Expansion Plan應該係另一死因。
甘泉曾揚言5年內將機隊由4架大幅增至25架。看一看Wikipedia (計劃中航線)，甘泉曾計劃大幅增加航線，由亞洲、美加至歐洲，計劃新辦差不多還要多過國泰。
做生意忌眼高手低，應要一步一步摸石過河，或者乾脆打造一條大橋。
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%98%E6%B3%89%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E8%88%AA%E7%A9%BA
Albert : 「做生意忌眼高手低，應要一步一步摸石過河」-- 好! 正切中要害!
歐洲廉航公司具外在環境優勢 (主要係地理上)，自身經營策略得宜，可以收好多surcharge (唔係淨係收燃油附加費)，所以能站穩腳並逐步擴張。
發佈留言