Originally Posted by
hyderago
An argument I often hear on this board, by some more than others, is that AI had the right strategy/horse/car/etc but just had the wrong management/jockey/driver/etc. I'm not sure this is right. Here's my reasoning:
AI seems to be an airline in which the management is inactive. They have not done anything new or remotely risky (perhaps because their managers don't have a real incentive to make AI profitable). The only thing they did introduce was IX, and I bet this was because of some kind of political pressure from Keralites. Of course an airline (or any company for that matter) that does not take any risks will be just as it is. This is what AI did.
So you agree... The idea behind AI is fine, but the management isn't doing so well...
Originally Posted by
hyderago
Other airlines took their chances and failed. The other airlines took their chances because they had too: after 9/11 and the rise in oil prices in 2006-08, they had to do something innovative or they would go out of business. AI did not have to take these chances since they were backed by the government.
Agree. AI had an inherent advantage, and they've made a hash out of it. However, I'd be hesitant to call what 9W and IT did in terms of IT Red/ 9Wk innovative. It created a branding mess and the airlines weren't quite sustainable because their costs were too high to be an LCC.
On the other hand, I would call what 9W did with S2 innovative. Keeping a completely separate airline under the same corporate umbrella, which can keep its own costs down but still enhance connectivity is an excellent idea. However, they made a bit of a hash of that idea as well - S2's costs are too high compared to 6E's or SG's... But the idea was a good one.
Originally Posted by
hyderago
Supporters of AI look at the result of the game and conclude that the losers were dumb. However, that's not the right way to judge intelligence (or competence or rationality or whatever you want to call it). That is not right because outcomes can be influenced by [both good and bad] luck, which is what I think happened here (as in no one predicted the great recession). To truly judge intelligence, you should look at the strategies they employed at the start of the game, given the information available at that time.
I agree. Vision is always 20/20 in hindsight. It's easy to go and say now that those were dumb moves back then, but back then it wasn't as clear. That doesn't change the reality, however...
I never said that AI was "more intelligent" than 9W/IT. The idea behind AI is more intelligent than the idea behind IT. And on that token, I wouldn't disagree with the statement "JRD Tata was more intelligent than Vijay Mallya"
Originally Posted by
hyderago
Once you apply the framework I described, it's not clear to me that AI has the right strategy and IT/9W don't. Thoughts, comments, feedback appreciated.
Looking back today, it's clear that AI's strategy was better than IT/9W. 9W's management has clearly been better, but the strategy they have employed is worse. However, I do think that while it's clear now, it wasn't clear back then.