評論
打印
State-controlled airlines
國營航空公司
Flags of inconvenience
“不舒適”的代名詞
Why governments are so keen to keep their loss-making airlines aloft
為什么各國政府都十分熱衷于保有不斷虧損的航空公司呢？
MALAYSIA AIRLINES deserves sympathy. This year Flight MH370 disappeared over the Indian Ocean and MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine. But these tragedies merely hastened the struggling airline on its route back into full government ownership. On August 8th the country's sovereign-wealth fund offered to buy the 30% of shares in private hands in order to restructure the airline. The root cause of Malaysia's troubles should elicit far less pity. Like many national carriers, it was losing money as a matter of course.
近期馬來西亞航空的遭遇值得同情。今年，馬航相繼發生了兩起災難：航班MH370在印度洋上空失蹤，以及航班MH17在烏克蘭東部遭到擊落。但這些悲劇事件僅僅是加快了深陷泥潭的馬航回歸到全面國有控制的步伐而已。8月8日，國家主權財富基金提出以從私人持股者手中購入30%的馬航公司股份，進而對該航空公司實施重建計劃。然而，導致馬航深陷經營危機的原因或許根本不值得憐憫。就像諸多國營航空公司一樣，馬航也理所當然地處于虧損狀態。
Malaysia's is not the only government that persists in keeping rickety airlines in flight. Italy raided the state's coffers again last year to keep Alitalia going. Then, on the day of the Malaysia bail-out, Etihad, the flag carrier of the United Arab Emirates, agreed to inject a further 560m (750m) into Alitalia in return for a 49% stake. A restructuring plan agreed at the end of July will keep Poland's LOT in business—in return for 200m of taxpayers' cash.
在堅持保有這些搖搖欲墜的航空公司方面，馬來西亞政府并不“孤單”。意大利政府在去年再次搜刮國庫資金，以維持意大利航空的運作。緊接在馬航被收歸國有的那天，阿聯酋的旗艦航空公司阿提哈德航空（Etihad）同意向意大利航空進一步注入5億6千萬歐元，以換取后者49%的股份。一份7月末達成的重建計劃將令波蘭的LOT航空持續經營，而其代價則是納稅人手中的2億美元。
The drain on public funds has a long tradition. Airlines used to be regarded as a vital part of transport infrastructure, like roads or bridges. So, until the mid-1980s, governments owned most of the airlines, set fares and routes, and protected flag-carriers by restricting new entrants. But privatisation made air travel more competitive and liberalisation brought competition from low-cost carriers. Most airlines in state control have failed to adapt.
政府對公共資金的耗費儼然已有很長的歷史。就像是公路和橋梁一樣，航空公司從前就被認為是交通基礎建設當中的一個重要部分。因此，直到上世紀80年代為止，大部分航空公司都是政府所有的。政府不僅設置機票價格，還設定飛行路線，同時還通過阻止新競爭者進入市場的方式來保護旗艦航空公司。然而，航空業的私營化卻使得航空旅行的較量更加激烈，航空業的開放也將低成本航空公司引入了市場競爭當中。而這也令許多國營航空無所適從。
The exceptions are few. The thriving airlines of Singapore and Ethiopia, and the Gulf carriers, Etihad, Emirates and Qatar Airways, all benefited from government money but have been allowed to operate as commercial enterprises with minimal interference. Such entrepreneurial thrust is rare. Elsewhere, inexperienced cronies often dominate management. State employees frequently travel free. Many carriers are obliged to maintain loss-making domestic routes to please politicians. Olympic Airlines was forced to deliver newspapers for a pittance to keep the country's press barons happy. The Greek national carrier went to the wall in 2009.
獨樹一幟的國營航空是很罕見的。有一批蓬勃發展的國營競爭者，如新加坡航空和埃塞俄比亞航空，以及海灣地區的阿提哈德航空、阿聯酋航空和卡塔爾航空，上述“例外”均為國家資本支持，但在經營上都有著如同商業企業般的權限，有著極低的政府干預。如此開創性的航空業推動很稀有。而在其他非“例外”的國營航空當中，缺乏行業經驗的“裙帶貨”常常身處管理層的高位；國企員工經常性地能夠享受免費航空旅程；為了取悅政客的歡心，許多航空公司還一直運作部分持續虧損的國內航線。為了令國家媒體大亨開心，奧林匹克航空公司不得不以微薄的酬勞來為其配送報刊。這家希臘國營的航空公司最終于2009年宣布倒閉。
Poor management, overstaffing and strong unions have left airlines struggling in a changing business and with little hope of cost-cutting or streamlining. Small state-owned carriers have little clout when buying planes and are far down the pecking order in global airline alliances. So why do governments keep their flag carriers?
在一個不斷變化的經營環境里，管理不善、人浮于事以及盤根錯節的“小聯盟”都使得國營航空公司苦苦掙扎，削減成本和部門改革等等的手段對他們來說只是奢望。在購置飛機的時候，小型國營航空話語權極低，而在全球航空聯盟等級當中也是地位低下的弱者。那么，為什么各大政府都愿意保有他們的旗艦航空公司呢？
Partly because there are few options beyond an endless cycle of failed restructurings. Privatisation plans are plentiful but rarely succeed because heavy losses, debts and legacy costs frighten investors away. It is cheaper to start an airline from scratch. Saviours such as Etihad are as rare as an on-time departure from Beijing airport.
其部分原因是，除了深陷于一個不停失敗的重建循環之外，航空公司并沒有多少更好的選擇。私營化的案例很多，但成功的私營化案例卻很少，而這是出于沉重的虧損、債務以及歷史遺留成本，這些不利因素都令投資者驚慌而逃。與接手一家航空公司相比，白手起家似乎更實惠些。就算是阿提哈德航空這樣的國營航空里的“救世主”，也無法準時在北京機場起飛。
The political cost of turfing out thousands of state employees makes liquidation unpalatable. So do fears that vital connections to the world will be lost forever. These, in fact, are largely unfounded. Switzerland and Belgium have done without a flag carrier for years. Indeed, opening up to competition is likely to result in more flights and lower fares. But even in death, protectionist urges are strong. Zambian Airways was liquidated in 2009 but the government refuses to let foreign airlines use Lusaka as a hub, in the unlikely event that the airline will one day fly again.
要令成千上萬國企員工失去飯碗才能達成的重組計劃，其政治代價過于高昂，這也意味著實施清盤難上加難。與此同時，政府還十分害怕一旦實行了航空業改革，一個聯系世界的重要通道就此被隔絕。但事實上，這些擔憂大多都是沒有必要的。就像是瑞士和比利時政府，他們早已在多年前放棄了國營旗艦航空。航空業的改革開放確實會令競爭加劇，從而令更多的航班和更低的票價能夠參與到市場競爭來。然而，就算這些國營航空徘徊于生死線當中，貿易保護主義者的姿態依然強硬。贊比亞航空在2009年遭到了清盤，而即便是國外航空公司有能力讓其重新運營，政府還是拒絕讓國外的航空公司插手其中，其原因是政府不想讓盧薩卡成為一個航空樞紐。
