By Gary Stoller, USA TODAY
Many meals served to passengers on major airlines are prepared in unsanitary and unsafe conditions that could lead to illness, government documents examined by USA TODAY show.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspectors have cited numerous catering facilities that prepare airline food for suspected health and sanitation violations following inspections of their kitchens this year and last, according to inspection reports obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.
REPORT: FDA inspectors found live roaches
The inspections were at U.S. facilities of two of the world's biggest airline caterers, LSG Sky Chefs and Gate Gourmet, and another large caterer, Flying Food Group.
The three caterers operate 91 kitchens that provide more than 100 million meals annually to U.S. and foreign airlines at U.S. airports. They provide meals for nearly all big airlines, including Delta, American, United, US Airways and Continental.
The FDA reports say many facilities store food at improper temperatures, use unclean equipment and employ workers who practice poor hygiene. At some, there were cockroaches, flies, mice and other signs of inadequate pest control.
"In spite of best efforts by the FDA and industry, the situation with in-flight catered foods is disturbing, getting worse and now poses a real risk of illness and injury to tens of thousands of airline passengers on a daily basis," says Roy Costa, a consultant and public health sanitarian.
Conditions open the door to food-poisoning outbreaks, says Costa, a former Florida state food inspector who volunteered to review the FDA reports obtained by USA TODAY.
All three caterers say they work hard to ensure food is safe. And airlines say they monitor the food that goes onto their planes.
LSG Sky Chefs has "comprehensive and multilayered quality-control standards in place to ensure our customers receive safe, healthy and high-quality food," says spokeswoman Beth Van Duyne.
Norbert van den Berg of Gate Gourmet says findings are taken "very seriously" and the company uses an independent auditor for quality assurance. Glenn Caulkins of Flying Food Group also says his company's facilities are independently audited for quality assurance
________________________________________
My comments:
That $6 meal with packaged snack food from other vendors is looking kinda good now. I remember when they tested the potable water (from tap) stored in airplane and found really bad bacteria. I will only drink bottled water inflight now. Now food is off the list too!? Remember, this is all catered food menaing anything not in another food distributor packaging; sandwiches in pay snack boxes and everything you get on an international flight... shall I also add, in all classes of service!
Pothos: Travel news, travel industry updates, corporate and business travel
Monday, June 28, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
Germany Plans Air Travel Tax to Help Plug Country's Deficit
Germany plans to impose a tax on air travel as part of a four-year plan to reduce the budget deficit, Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters in Berlin today.
The levy will yield 1 billion euros ($1.2 billion) a year in revenue for the federal government, the government said in an e-mailed statement. It will be paid by passengers departing from German airports, with the level depending on factors such as the flight’s noise level and fuel consumption, according to the statement.
Germany’s national levy will be replaced by a Europe-wide measure once aviation is subject to European Union carbon- emissions trading, the statement said.
The levy will yield 1 billion euros ($1.2 billion) a year in revenue for the federal government, the government said in an e-mailed statement. It will be paid by passengers departing from German airports, with the level depending on factors such as the flight’s noise level and fuel consumption, according to the statement.
Germany’s national levy will be replaced by a Europe-wide measure once aviation is subject to European Union carbon- emissions trading, the statement said.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Bumped fliers could see higher compensation
By Dan Reed, USA TODAY
UPDATE: DOT proposes airlines pay bumped passengers up to $1,300
The compensation for getting bumped from your airline seat could be going up soon.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood plans to announce today a proposed "inflation adjustment" for passengers who are bumped off flights, along with other proposals aimed at protecting airline consumers.
Currently, most bumped passengers who reach their destination less than two hours later than originally planned get $400 in cash. Those who are delayed longer get $800.
The Transportation Department wouldn't discuss details of LaHood's proposals pending his announcement. But over the years, some travel consumer advocates have suggested that the compensation limits be pushed to $800 and $1,200, respectively. After inflation, that's roughly equal to the $200 and $400 compensation levels set in 1978, when the government first began regulating the practice of "overbooking."
Thirty years ago, when most airline tickets were fully refundable, no-shows were a big problem for airlines. Today, however, a majority of tickets are deeply discounted and are non-refundable, so the problem of no-shows is greatly diminished.
Still, a small percentage of travelers — mostly business people whose higher-priced tickets are fully refundable — don't show up for their flights. As a result, most airlines continue to sell a few more tickets for a flight than there are seats on a plane.
Airlines use computer programs to predict how many no-shows there'll be for a given flight. And they've gotten good at it. Last year, there were only 13 passengers bumped out of every 10,000 domestic passenger boardings. Historically, that number had been more than 20 per 10,000.
"It's getting to be a smaller and smaller problem all the time, thanks to the more sophisticated revenue-management systems," says Bill Swelbar, research engineer at MIT's International Center for Air Transportation.
Still, 762,422 passengers were bumped from domestic flights in 2009. Of that number, 69,234 involuntarily gave up their seats, according to the Transportation Department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Statistically, those are very small numbers. But for passengers who are bumped involuntarily, the experience often means great disruption to personal or professional lives.
And it's getting harder to get seats on later flights. In response to the recession, high oil prices and $60 billion in losses since 2000, airlines have trimmed the seats they make available on domestic routes by about 10.5% from 2008
UPDATE: DOT proposes airlines pay bumped passengers up to $1,300
The compensation for getting bumped from your airline seat could be going up soon.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood plans to announce today a proposed "inflation adjustment" for passengers who are bumped off flights, along with other proposals aimed at protecting airline consumers.
Currently, most bumped passengers who reach their destination less than two hours later than originally planned get $400 in cash. Those who are delayed longer get $800.
The Transportation Department wouldn't discuss details of LaHood's proposals pending his announcement. But over the years, some travel consumer advocates have suggested that the compensation limits be pushed to $800 and $1,200, respectively. After inflation, that's roughly equal to the $200 and $400 compensation levels set in 1978, when the government first began regulating the practice of "overbooking."
Thirty years ago, when most airline tickets were fully refundable, no-shows were a big problem for airlines. Today, however, a majority of tickets are deeply discounted and are non-refundable, so the problem of no-shows is greatly diminished.
Still, a small percentage of travelers — mostly business people whose higher-priced tickets are fully refundable — don't show up for their flights. As a result, most airlines continue to sell a few more tickets for a flight than there are seats on a plane.
Airlines use computer programs to predict how many no-shows there'll be for a given flight. And they've gotten good at it. Last year, there were only 13 passengers bumped out of every 10,000 domestic passenger boardings. Historically, that number had been more than 20 per 10,000.
"It's getting to be a smaller and smaller problem all the time, thanks to the more sophisticated revenue-management systems," says Bill Swelbar, research engineer at MIT's International Center for Air Transportation.
Still, 762,422 passengers were bumped from domestic flights in 2009. Of that number, 69,234 involuntarily gave up their seats, according to the Transportation Department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Statistically, those are very small numbers. But for passengers who are bumped involuntarily, the experience often means great disruption to personal or professional lives.
And it's getting harder to get seats on later flights. In response to the recession, high oil prices and $60 billion in losses since 2000, airlines have trimmed the seats they make available on domestic routes by about 10.5% from 2008
Will Customers Be the Excess Baggage of Airline Consolidation?
May 28, 2010
Wharton School of Business article
Size matters -- or does it?
Airline carriers in the United States would seem to say yes. The industry has lost $60 billion in the last decade and took a big hit more recently due to a cloud of volcanic ash that grounded flights across Europe. Major airlines are looking to consolidate as a way to return to profitability amid continued struggles with high fuel prices, competition from low-cost carriers, and a limited customer pool that shriveled even more when the recession curbed travel for business and pleasure. Two years ago, Delta and Northwest merged, making Delta the nation's largest carrier. United and US Airways recently broke off merger talks, but many believe those discussions were simply a way for United to entice Continental to come to the bargaining table -- a strategy that has reportedly worked.
But experts are skeptical about the "bigger is better" strategy. They acknowledge that, if the deal is done right, merging two carriers into one will cut down on competition, reduce capacity in a saturated industry that already has too many planes in the air, and allow the newly consolidated company to trim its employee ranks and merge costly operations for services like reservations and gate maintenance. If profits return, the carriers could invest them into improving customer service and possibly waiving fees for baggage and in-flight meals that have raised the ire of travelers. But the key words are "if done right." Many observers say the carriers have proved downright flighty at following through on changes that improve operations and put the customer first.
"[Consolidation] doesn't mean you can't have fewer players in the market that are still competing like crazy," says W. Bruce Allen, a Wharton professor of business and public policy. "If you learn to play the game correctly, fewer carriers should equal higher ticket prices and higher profits. But the airlines have never learned to play the game correctly."
The path to prosperity for the airlines lies in reducing flight capacity -- taking planes out of the air or using smaller aircraft for the majority of domestic routes, Allen says. He argues that much of the cost of operating a flight is fixed, while there are only so many travelers who will fly more often due to plunging ticket prices. Thus, it makes more sense for airlines to save money by shrinking the number, or size, of flights, than to battle it out for the limited profit that can be made from bargain-hunters. "We love price wars as consumers," Allen notes. "But they are bad for the airlines."
The average price of a domestic airline ticket in the third quarter of 2009 was $306 -- the lowest level for a summer season since 2005 and more than 14% less than what it was during the same time in 2008, according to the most recent data compiled by the federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Raising prices has become more difficult for carriers for several reasons, notes airline industry consultant Jay Sorensen. Low-cost carriers such as Southwest, AirTran and JetBlue have expanded rapidly in recent years -- they controlled 15% of the market in 2000 but accounted for 25% last year, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. And long gone are the days when airlines could price tickets with a degree of obscurity. Any traveler logging onto Orbitz or Priceline can immediately see how one carrier's fare stacks up against the others.
"America has enjoyed a fantastic deal [due to falling ticket prices] for many years. It can't keep going on because the industry simply needs profits and more investment," Sorensen says. "The American airline industry is pretty darn threadbare. If you look at the condition of the airplanes or ... the gates, they're not shiny and new like they should be. It's an industry that is suffering from a lack of fresh capital."
With the exception of JetBlue, all of the major U.S. carriers have cut their capacity over the last two years. United's decreased by nearly 10% between the second quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2010, while Continental's went down by 9%, American by 8.5%, Delta by 7.3% and US Airways by 5.1%, according to the Air Transport Association, an industry trade group.
"No airline is really expanding," says Basili Alukos, an airline analyst with Morningstar. "If you go back to the recession after [the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks], Southwest expanded aggressively, JetBlue and AirTran became public, and regional flying took off. Even the best of airlines -- Southwest -- has [now] cut capacity. They've entered new markets, but on an absolute basis, their market is down.... The industry has reached its saturation point.... It hasn't been profitable because you have too many costs chasing a limited amount of revenue."
Is Consolidation a Cure?
Despite cuts to capacity, the airlines continue to struggle. As the carriers reported their quarterly earnings last week, only Alaska Airlines and Southwest were in the black. United's parent company lost $82 million for the quarter that ended March 31, although the loss was less than analysts expected. Meanwhile, Continental lost $146 million in the first quarter. Although passenger revenue increased, the Houston-based company was hurt by higher fuel costs. The cost of running aircraft has been a constant challenge for the airlines in recent years; in 2008, passenger and all-cargo carriers spent $16 billion more on fuel than in 2007 and $42 billion more than in 2003, according to the Air Transport Association.
But will consolidation help the ailing industry? Experts agree that a partnership between Continental and Chicago-based United makes more sense than a deal between United and US Airways. A combined Continental and United would leapfrog Delta for the title of world's largest airline, and the two companies have limited overlap in their current routes, meaning less scrutiny from antitrust regulators. A merger between the two could lead to more consolidation, Allen says. "If something happens here, American has got to be in play. American is not just going to sit by itself."
The U.S. airline industry was regulated by the government until the late 1970s, and that oversight kept capacity issues in check. For the airlines to lower capacity on their own is easier said than done, notes Wharton management professor Peter Cappelli. Airlines have to pay to maintain grounded aircraft, and eliminating one route could throw others into turmoil if they feed passengers to each other. "It's not like manufacturing where you can just cut back a shift." A merger, however, naturally leads to flight reduction. "Studies have shown pretty convincingly that fares were a lot higher at airports where there was a dominant carrier. If you take a carrier out of the system, there are more of those [kinds of] airports," he says.
But there are plenty of examples in the industry of partnerships that fell apart, or created additional challenges for the newly combined company. Merger talks in 2008 between Continental and United broke down due to the former's concern over the latter's financial health. It has been five years since US Airways merged with America West, but the Arizona-based company is still mired in labor conflicts involving how to merge two pilot seniority lists. Seniority determines pilots' pay, schedules and the types of planes they fly. "Every airline that merges has to [consolidate its seniority lists]," Cappelli says. "The politics of actually working that out are pretty unpleasant because of problems between the union and the airline and, for example, the pilots at Continental versus the pilots at United."
When two large companies consolidate, advance planning and strategizing is key because "if you don't worry about redundancy and union problems or some of the other things that pop up to threaten a merger like this, you're going to have some trouble," says Wharton management professor Lawrence G. Hrebiniak. "One of the hurdles they have to get over is that, when it comes to consolidation or mergers and acquisitions, [airlines] worry so much about plans and executives and the complexity of the labor dimensions that they forget the customer. Sometimes the customer becomes the victim of this process, even if the airlines don't intend it that way."
Bag Fees and Volcanoes
The airlines aren't responsible for the cloud of volcanic ash from Iceland that grounded millions of passengers in Europe. But they are responsible for other customer woes -- such as the announcement by Florida-based Spirit Airlines that it plans to start charging passengers up to $45 for carry-on bags. The ash cloud, which closed European air space for days, is expected to cost the global airline industry more than $1.7 billion in lost revenue, according to the International Air Transport Association, a trade group. But the actual loss over time could be even greater, says Wharton marketing professor David J. Reibstein. The ash cloud reminded customers "how vulnerable air travel is to some of the climactic conditions. Suddenly it makes every flight look a little riskier.... Millions of people have been affected and are going to have second thoughts when they have a choice about flying," Reibstein points out.
Spirit's announcement about carry-on fees followed the 2008 introduction of charges for checked bags. Most airlines now charge $15 to $25 for a customer's first checked bag, with additional fees for more luggage. Some have also started charging fees for in-flight meals and snacks. The airlines collected $740 million in baggage fees in the third quarter of 2009, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
"It would be nice, for a change, to have a somewhat profitable carrier that is not simply thinking about survival, [but about] 'How do I get ahead now that I'm not dying anymore?' and 'What can I do to attract more customers?'" notes Wharton operations and information management professor Serguei Netessine. That means better customer service. The airlines are "starting to charge for carry-on luggage and starting to charge for everything because they're trying to make money anyway they can. Carriers in bankruptcy or close to bankruptcy are just trying to cut corners.... Ultimately, consumers end up suffering," he says.
Netessine had personal experience with airline customer service dilemmas when he was stranded in Paris due to the ash cloud. He says the airlines did not have enough personnel working at customer service centers to handle the call volume; the carriers' websites were not able to handle the sharp upturn in traffic, and employees who could be reached said they were too busy to talk, or had no information to offer. It's these kinds of operations that airlines could make more efficient while in the process of consolidation, Netessine suggests. He and other experts pointed out that Dallas-based Southwest, the largest U.S. carrier in terms of number of passengers, has been able to consistently remain profitable through efficient turnaround of planes, travelers and baggage. Southwest has also been able to play the role of "good guy" in the airline fee fights, with an advertising campaign built around the fact that the carrier does not charge for travelers' first two checked bags.
"A culture transformation is integral to this kind of turnaround," Netessine says. "You definitely need strong leadership that declares: 'Look, this cannot stand anymore.... We are going to invest in reengineering the entire way that we operate; we're going to go back to the mode where we actually cared about customers.' But to do all that, you need some money. It's an investment that pays back, but if you are near bankruptcy and if you keep losing money, that's just not a good place to start."
Wharton School of Business article
Size matters -- or does it?
Airline carriers in the United States would seem to say yes. The industry has lost $60 billion in the last decade and took a big hit more recently due to a cloud of volcanic ash that grounded flights across Europe. Major airlines are looking to consolidate as a way to return to profitability amid continued struggles with high fuel prices, competition from low-cost carriers, and a limited customer pool that shriveled even more when the recession curbed travel for business and pleasure. Two years ago, Delta and Northwest merged, making Delta the nation's largest carrier. United and US Airways recently broke off merger talks, but many believe those discussions were simply a way for United to entice Continental to come to the bargaining table -- a strategy that has reportedly worked.
But experts are skeptical about the "bigger is better" strategy. They acknowledge that, if the deal is done right, merging two carriers into one will cut down on competition, reduce capacity in a saturated industry that already has too many planes in the air, and allow the newly consolidated company to trim its employee ranks and merge costly operations for services like reservations and gate maintenance. If profits return, the carriers could invest them into improving customer service and possibly waiving fees for baggage and in-flight meals that have raised the ire of travelers. But the key words are "if done right." Many observers say the carriers have proved downright flighty at following through on changes that improve operations and put the customer first.
"[Consolidation] doesn't mean you can't have fewer players in the market that are still competing like crazy," says W. Bruce Allen, a Wharton professor of business and public policy. "If you learn to play the game correctly, fewer carriers should equal higher ticket prices and higher profits. But the airlines have never learned to play the game correctly."
The path to prosperity for the airlines lies in reducing flight capacity -- taking planes out of the air or using smaller aircraft for the majority of domestic routes, Allen says. He argues that much of the cost of operating a flight is fixed, while there are only so many travelers who will fly more often due to plunging ticket prices. Thus, it makes more sense for airlines to save money by shrinking the number, or size, of flights, than to battle it out for the limited profit that can be made from bargain-hunters. "We love price wars as consumers," Allen notes. "But they are bad for the airlines."
The average price of a domestic airline ticket in the third quarter of 2009 was $306 -- the lowest level for a summer season since 2005 and more than 14% less than what it was during the same time in 2008, according to the most recent data compiled by the federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Raising prices has become more difficult for carriers for several reasons, notes airline industry consultant Jay Sorensen. Low-cost carriers such as Southwest, AirTran and JetBlue have expanded rapidly in recent years -- they controlled 15% of the market in 2000 but accounted for 25% last year, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. And long gone are the days when airlines could price tickets with a degree of obscurity. Any traveler logging onto Orbitz or Priceline can immediately see how one carrier's fare stacks up against the others.
"America has enjoyed a fantastic deal [due to falling ticket prices] for many years. It can't keep going on because the industry simply needs profits and more investment," Sorensen says. "The American airline industry is pretty darn threadbare. If you look at the condition of the airplanes or ... the gates, they're not shiny and new like they should be. It's an industry that is suffering from a lack of fresh capital."
With the exception of JetBlue, all of the major U.S. carriers have cut their capacity over the last two years. United's decreased by nearly 10% between the second quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2010, while Continental's went down by 9%, American by 8.5%, Delta by 7.3% and US Airways by 5.1%, according to the Air Transport Association, an industry trade group.
"No airline is really expanding," says Basili Alukos, an airline analyst with Morningstar. "If you go back to the recession after [the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks], Southwest expanded aggressively, JetBlue and AirTran became public, and regional flying took off. Even the best of airlines -- Southwest -- has [now] cut capacity. They've entered new markets, but on an absolute basis, their market is down.... The industry has reached its saturation point.... It hasn't been profitable because you have too many costs chasing a limited amount of revenue."
Is Consolidation a Cure?
Despite cuts to capacity, the airlines continue to struggle. As the carriers reported their quarterly earnings last week, only Alaska Airlines and Southwest were in the black. United's parent company lost $82 million for the quarter that ended March 31, although the loss was less than analysts expected. Meanwhile, Continental lost $146 million in the first quarter. Although passenger revenue increased, the Houston-based company was hurt by higher fuel costs. The cost of running aircraft has been a constant challenge for the airlines in recent years; in 2008, passenger and all-cargo carriers spent $16 billion more on fuel than in 2007 and $42 billion more than in 2003, according to the Air Transport Association.
But will consolidation help the ailing industry? Experts agree that a partnership between Continental and Chicago-based United makes more sense than a deal between United and US Airways. A combined Continental and United would leapfrog Delta for the title of world's largest airline, and the two companies have limited overlap in their current routes, meaning less scrutiny from antitrust regulators. A merger between the two could lead to more consolidation, Allen says. "If something happens here, American has got to be in play. American is not just going to sit by itself."
The U.S. airline industry was regulated by the government until the late 1970s, and that oversight kept capacity issues in check. For the airlines to lower capacity on their own is easier said than done, notes Wharton management professor Peter Cappelli. Airlines have to pay to maintain grounded aircraft, and eliminating one route could throw others into turmoil if they feed passengers to each other. "It's not like manufacturing where you can just cut back a shift." A merger, however, naturally leads to flight reduction. "Studies have shown pretty convincingly that fares were a lot higher at airports where there was a dominant carrier. If you take a carrier out of the system, there are more of those [kinds of] airports," he says.
But there are plenty of examples in the industry of partnerships that fell apart, or created additional challenges for the newly combined company. Merger talks in 2008 between Continental and United broke down due to the former's concern over the latter's financial health. It has been five years since US Airways merged with America West, but the Arizona-based company is still mired in labor conflicts involving how to merge two pilot seniority lists. Seniority determines pilots' pay, schedules and the types of planes they fly. "Every airline that merges has to [consolidate its seniority lists]," Cappelli says. "The politics of actually working that out are pretty unpleasant because of problems between the union and the airline and, for example, the pilots at Continental versus the pilots at United."
When two large companies consolidate, advance planning and strategizing is key because "if you don't worry about redundancy and union problems or some of the other things that pop up to threaten a merger like this, you're going to have some trouble," says Wharton management professor Lawrence G. Hrebiniak. "One of the hurdles they have to get over is that, when it comes to consolidation or mergers and acquisitions, [airlines] worry so much about plans and executives and the complexity of the labor dimensions that they forget the customer. Sometimes the customer becomes the victim of this process, even if the airlines don't intend it that way."
Bag Fees and Volcanoes
The airlines aren't responsible for the cloud of volcanic ash from Iceland that grounded millions of passengers in Europe. But they are responsible for other customer woes -- such as the announcement by Florida-based Spirit Airlines that it plans to start charging passengers up to $45 for carry-on bags. The ash cloud, which closed European air space for days, is expected to cost the global airline industry more than $1.7 billion in lost revenue, according to the International Air Transport Association, a trade group. But the actual loss over time could be even greater, says Wharton marketing professor David J. Reibstein. The ash cloud reminded customers "how vulnerable air travel is to some of the climactic conditions. Suddenly it makes every flight look a little riskier.... Millions of people have been affected and are going to have second thoughts when they have a choice about flying," Reibstein points out.
Spirit's announcement about carry-on fees followed the 2008 introduction of charges for checked bags. Most airlines now charge $15 to $25 for a customer's first checked bag, with additional fees for more luggage. Some have also started charging fees for in-flight meals and snacks. The airlines collected $740 million in baggage fees in the third quarter of 2009, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
"It would be nice, for a change, to have a somewhat profitable carrier that is not simply thinking about survival, [but about] 'How do I get ahead now that I'm not dying anymore?' and 'What can I do to attract more customers?'" notes Wharton operations and information management professor Serguei Netessine. That means better customer service. The airlines are "starting to charge for carry-on luggage and starting to charge for everything because they're trying to make money anyway they can. Carriers in bankruptcy or close to bankruptcy are just trying to cut corners.... Ultimately, consumers end up suffering," he says.
Netessine had personal experience with airline customer service dilemmas when he was stranded in Paris due to the ash cloud. He says the airlines did not have enough personnel working at customer service centers to handle the call volume; the carriers' websites were not able to handle the sharp upturn in traffic, and employees who could be reached said they were too busy to talk, or had no information to offer. It's these kinds of operations that airlines could make more efficient while in the process of consolidation, Netessine suggests. He and other experts pointed out that Dallas-based Southwest, the largest U.S. carrier in terms of number of passengers, has been able to consistently remain profitable through efficient turnaround of planes, travelers and baggage. Southwest has also been able to play the role of "good guy" in the airline fee fights, with an advertising campaign built around the fact that the carrier does not charge for travelers' first two checked bags.
"A culture transformation is integral to this kind of turnaround," Netessine says. "You definitely need strong leadership that declares: 'Look, this cannot stand anymore.... We are going to invest in reengineering the entire way that we operate; we're going to go back to the mode where we actually cared about customers.' But to do all that, you need some money. It's an investment that pays back, but if you are near bankruptcy and if you keep losing money, that's just not a good place to start."
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Israel attack's Turkish Aid flotilla
Israel's assault on an aid convoy sailing to Gaza has pushed already strained relations with Turkey to breaking point, with trade, tourism and defence ties all likely to suffer, analysts said Monday.
Israeli trade unions might renew their explicit boycott of Turkey as a destination for their members, in view of Ankara's role in organizing the aid flotilla to the Gaza Strip.
"The repurcussions will be at a scale that will not be possible to repair in a short time ... Turkish-Israeli ties are at a breaking point," Sinan Ogan from the TURKSAM think-tank wrote in an online article.
Turkey, once Israel's main regional ally, recalled its envoy from Tel Aviv, scrapped joint military drills and called an emergency meeting at the UN Security Council after the deadly assault on the flotilla of six ships, including three from Turkey.
Ties between NATO's sole mainly Muslim member and the Jewish state had already been damaged amid vehement Turkish criticism of Israel's devastating war on Gaza last year and Ankara's improving ties with Iran.
Some Turkish analysts interpreted the assault as a deliberate warning from the Israeli government towards Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamist-rooted administration.
Sedat Laciner, head of the USAK think-tank, also argued the Israeli raid on the flotilla, including its lead ship, the Turkish Mavi Marmara, was "a deliberate act of revenge against Turkey over its attitude on Gaza and Iran."
Many of the dead were Turks, according to activists involved in the campaign to break the blockade of Gaza and deliver supplies to its impoverished people.
"Israel has a professional army. It could have intervened without causing casualties if it wanted. It preferred to act in this way," Ogan said.
Foreign policy analyst Sedat Ergin said Erdogan's government had prompted "a questioning of Israel's security paradigm" with its vocal criticism of the war on Gaza and improving ties with Iran and Syria.
"Israel has come to perceive Turkey as a threat I don't see how relations can be put back on track," he said on NTV television.
Erdogan has defended Iran's nuclear programme and on May 17, together with Brazil's president, brokered a nuclear swap deal with Tehran to avert fresh UN sanctions on the Islamic republic.
In a memorable outburst, Erdogan stormed out of a debate at the World Economic Forum last year, accusing Israel of "barbarian" acts in Gaza and telling President Shimon Peres, sitting next to him, that "you know well how to kill people."
Sentiment in Ankara was further inflamed in January when the Turkish ambassador was given a public dressing down by Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon who made him sit on a low couch in a meeting called to protest a television series deemed to be offensive to the Jewish state.
The Israeli commentator Amos Harel, writing in the Tel Aviv-based Haaretz daily, said the envoy's humiliation "now looks like small change".
"Even before then, relations with Turkey had deteriorated over Israel's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza and the generally anti-Israeli stance taken by Turkey's moderately Islamist government. The new crisis is likely to lead to a total break in ties," he wrote in the liberal daily.
Tens of thousands gathered to protest in Istanbul in the aftermath of the assault, with the crowds chanting "Damn Israel!" and "A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye, revenge, revenge!".
Israeli trade unions might renew their explicit boycott of Turkey as a destination for their members, in view of Ankara's role in organizing the aid flotilla to the Gaza Strip.
"The repurcussions will be at a scale that will not be possible to repair in a short time ... Turkish-Israeli ties are at a breaking point," Sinan Ogan from the TURKSAM think-tank wrote in an online article.
Turkey, once Israel's main regional ally, recalled its envoy from Tel Aviv, scrapped joint military drills and called an emergency meeting at the UN Security Council after the deadly assault on the flotilla of six ships, including three from Turkey.
Ties between NATO's sole mainly Muslim member and the Jewish state had already been damaged amid vehement Turkish criticism of Israel's devastating war on Gaza last year and Ankara's improving ties with Iran.
Some Turkish analysts interpreted the assault as a deliberate warning from the Israeli government towards Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamist-rooted administration.
Sedat Laciner, head of the USAK think-tank, also argued the Israeli raid on the flotilla, including its lead ship, the Turkish Mavi Marmara, was "a deliberate act of revenge against Turkey over its attitude on Gaza and Iran."
Many of the dead were Turks, according to activists involved in the campaign to break the blockade of Gaza and deliver supplies to its impoverished people.
"Israel has a professional army. It could have intervened without causing casualties if it wanted. It preferred to act in this way," Ogan said.
Foreign policy analyst Sedat Ergin said Erdogan's government had prompted "a questioning of Israel's security paradigm" with its vocal criticism of the war on Gaza and improving ties with Iran and Syria.
"Israel has come to perceive Turkey as a threat I don't see how relations can be put back on track," he said on NTV television.
Erdogan has defended Iran's nuclear programme and on May 17, together with Brazil's president, brokered a nuclear swap deal with Tehran to avert fresh UN sanctions on the Islamic republic.
In a memorable outburst, Erdogan stormed out of a debate at the World Economic Forum last year, accusing Israel of "barbarian" acts in Gaza and telling President Shimon Peres, sitting next to him, that "you know well how to kill people."
Sentiment in Ankara was further inflamed in January when the Turkish ambassador was given a public dressing down by Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon who made him sit on a low couch in a meeting called to protest a television series deemed to be offensive to the Jewish state.
The Israeli commentator Amos Harel, writing in the Tel Aviv-based Haaretz daily, said the envoy's humiliation "now looks like small change".
"Even before then, relations with Turkey had deteriorated over Israel's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza and the generally anti-Israeli stance taken by Turkey's moderately Islamist government. The new crisis is likely to lead to a total break in ties," he wrote in the liberal daily.
Tens of thousands gathered to protest in Istanbul in the aftermath of the assault, with the crowds chanting "Damn Israel!" and "A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye, revenge, revenge!".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)