民航业的真正威胁在于品牌形象蹩脚

    眼下，让民航企业高管们辗转反侧、寝食难安的事情众所周知，它们包括：劳动力成本高昂，燃油价格波动剧烈，法律法规束手束脚，而且航空服务同质化严重，很难打动消费者。各民航巨头的管理层或多或少都尝试过收购与兼并，希望获得规模效益，从而解决问题。过去十年中，全美航空（US Airways）与美西航空（America West），达美航空（Delta）与西北航空（Northwest），西南航空（Southwest）与穿越航空（AirTran），法国航空（Air France）与荷兰皇家航空（KLM）都已经完成合并，最近的例子则是大陆航空（Continental）与美联航（United）。【有报道称，全美和达美也正在考虑对陷入破产保护境地的美国航空（American Airlines）下手。】

    可他们或许忽视了更重要的问题：品牌形象。品牌咨询师和民航专家指出，民航巨头们只顾经营上的得失，无心关注品牌形象的塑造。没错，运营民航公司是个非常复杂的任务，要想成功很不容易，可他们指出，强势品牌仍然有助于促进机票销售。品牌咨询公司Landor and Associates常务董事艾伦•亚当姆森说：“如果三家民航公司都开通了纽约与芝加哥间的航线，那消费者选择其中某一家，而不是另外两家的唯一原因就是价格更低。”他指出，一个本就困难重重的企业可不能陷入这样的尴尬境地。

    规模较小的民航公司通常更善于发挥品牌的作用，以此区别于竞争对手并支持企业发展。“过去，民航业内的成功不是品牌驱动型的，”亚当姆森称。“只有维珍（Virgin）、西南（Southwest）和捷蓝(JetBlue)这几家例外。”事实证明，这几家公司深受消费者青睐。根据市场资讯公司JD Power and Associates发布的《2011年北美航空满意度调查》（2011 North American Airline Satisfaction Study），小型民航的平均得分普遍高于大型企业，而捷蓝和西南这样的航空公司是得分最高的公司。

    当然，这些航空公司的规模比美国航空、美联航或达美航空小得多，后三家的正式雇员数均达到8万左右，而西南航空的员工数略超过4万，捷蓝更是只有1.2万正式员工。西南、捷蓝和维珍还采取了措施，从一开始就用各自独特的企业文化来熏陶雇员。维珍大西洋航空公司北美分部高级副总裁克里斯•罗西认为，维珍领先一步，因为该公司隶属于维珍集团——一家主要以娱乐为主业的公司。“我们的策略是优先考虑消费者体验，如何才能让航空旅行成为令人向往的体验？”

    多数民航巨头的基因却与此迥然不同。南加州大学高效组织中心（the Center for Effective Organizations at the University of Southern California）负责人爱德华•劳勒指出，大型民航公司的高管中很多人都来自军界。他说：“他们的管理模式非常传统，强调自上而下的指令，而不一定会给员工以灵活处理的空间，也不了解他们的需求。”但他指出，问题在于高效的客户服务得靠员工来实现。他补充说：“其他航空公司从来没有过这种意识。”相反，许多大型民航与其员工的关系颇为复杂。他说，由于航空业的工会相当强大，调动员工都可能很困难。亚当姆森进一步指出，更严重的是，刚刚重新洗过牌的民航巨头里的许多员工都经历过最惨烈的动荡——疾风骤雨般的裁员。

    The litany of woes plaguing airline executives is well-known: high labor costs, volatile fuel prices, thorny legislation, not to mention trying to sell a highly commoditized product to customers that love to hate them. Management has more or less tried to solve the problem by merging to achieve economies of scale. In the last ten years, US Airways (LCC) and America West, Delta (DAL) and Northwest, Southwest (LUV) and AirTran, Air France and KLM, and, now, Continental and United (UAL) have hooked up. (US Airways and Delta are reportedly eyeing a bankrupt American Airlines, as well.)

    Here's what they may be missing: their brands. Branding consultants and aviation experts say the big airlines have lost focus on their brands as a result of their drive to make operational gains. Yes, successfully running an airline is bafflingly complex, but a strong identity, they argue, still sells tickets. "If three airlines are flying between New York and Chicago, the only reason to pick one over the other is because it's cheaper," a position no already-strained business wants to find itself in, says Allen Adamson, managing director at brand consultant firm Landor and Associates.

    Smaller airlines have generally been more skilled at wielding their brands to differentiate and sustain their businesses. "Success in the airline business has not, in the past, been brand-driven," Adamson says, "-- with the exception of Virgin, Southwest, JetBlue (JBLU)." Consumers happen to really like those firms. According to a JD Power and Associates 2011 North American Airline Satisfaction Study, smaller carriers tended to score higher on average than larger firms. Top scores went to the likes of JetBlue and Southwest.

    Of course, such airlines are much smaller than American, United or Delta, which each permanently employ about 80,000 people. Southwest, for example, has slightly over half that number of employees; JetBlue employs some 12,000 permanent workers. Southwest, JetBlue and Virgin have also made an effort to steep employees in their respective corporate cultures from the outset. Virgin has a leg up, argues Chris Rossi, senior vice president in North America for Virgin Atlantic Airways, because the airline came from Virgin Group, which is fundamentally an entertainment company. "Our approach was to prioritize the customer experience -- how do we make it something that they look forward to?"

    That isn't the typical DNA at most large airlines. There, a lot of the management came out of the military, says Edward Lawler, the director of the Center for Effective Organizations at the University of Southern California. "Their model was a very traditional, top-down kind of approach that doesn't necessarily give flexibility to employees or listen to what they need." Trouble is, he argues, effective customer service begins with personnel. "That was never built into the other airlines," he adds. Instead, many larger airlines have a complicated relationship with their employees. Shifting around heavily unionized labor forces can be difficult, he adds. What's more, many employees at newly re-shuffled major airlines are the ones who have weathered the worst including seismic layoffs, says Adamson.