10 Leaders The EconomistAugust 1st 2020
2 The anti-Lukashenko surge has been triggered by his mishan-
dling of covid-19, which he dismissed as a “psychosis” that could
be treated with a few shots of vodka and a bit of tractor-driving.
The underlying causes run far deeper. After nearly a decade of
economic stagnation and no glimmer of change, Mr Lukash-
enko’s version of stability no longer sells. The regime’s oppo-
nents have rallied behind Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, a former
teacher. She is not a career politician, but registered as a presi-
dential candidate when her husband could not. He is a popular
vlogger who was arrested by Mr Lukashenko’s goons to stop him
running. She is joined by two other women, who represent the
other disbarred candidates. Her only policy is to hold fresh and
free elections within six months if she wins. Across Belarus, her
rallies have gathered vast crowds and resembled rock concerts,
people singing along to a song about tearing down prison walls.
It is hard to imagine Mr Lukashenko losing power. His riot po-
lice are conspicuously drilling on the streets of Minsk. His rigged
election ten years ago resulted in cracked skulls, arrests, Western
sanctions—and congratulations from Russia. This time, though,
the discontent is much broader, and the room for manoeuvrenarrower—so narrow that he could yet call the election off. Mr
Lukashenko has long and skilfully played on the rivalry between
Russia and the West. He extracted concessions from Russia for
displaying nominal loyalty and touted Russia’s threat to keep the
West off his back. But this balancing act has become more pre-
carious. The Kremlin last year put great pressure on Mr Luka-
shenko to integrate the two countries politically so that Mr Putin
could be president of both. Mr Lukashenko said no.
The Kremlin is now in an awkward spot. Mr Putin is facing his
own protests in Russia’s far east. He hates the idea of a “colour
revolution” in Belarus; but if he were to send troops to stop one,
it would trigger more Western sanctions on top of those imposed
on him for Russia’s bloody assault on Ukraine in 2014. Better for
him, perhaps, to let the Belarusian leader launch his own crack-
down, making him a pariah and thus ultimately a supplicant.
That would be a dreadful outcome. The West must use what-
ever carrots and sticks it can muster to restrain Mr Lukashenko
from using force against his own people, while also warning
Russia against any subversive action. If change is indeed coming
to Belarus, let it be peaceful. 7T
o see the damage from covid-19 to aviation, look up. Where
once a criss-cross of vapour trails told of holidaymakers
heading for the sun or executives keeping businesses on track,
the wide yonder is now a brilliant blue. This year nearly 5bn pas-
sengers might have been expected to take to the skies, but the ac-
tual number is likely to be only half as big. A fragile recovery is
susceptible to new waves of infection. Britain’s imposition this
week of a quarantine on passengers returning from Spain is the
latest setback. Traffic may not return to 2019 levels until 2024.
When it does rebound, the twin priorities should be to put the
industry on a sounder financial footing, and to make flying less
polluting. For both objectives the way forward is the same: to
loosen incumbents’ grip on the skies.
Start with carbon emissions. The dramatic
declines this year are a distraction because as
people resume flying, emissions will start to
rise again. Neither should the industry’s sorry
financial state today relieve it of recent pressure
to decarbonise in the future. For many years avi-
ation mostly had a free pass when it came to reg-
ulations of the type that forced carmakers to
clean themselves up. Before the pandemic that had been chang-
ing. Some airlines had begun to worry about their reputations as
“flight shame” raised awareness of how travelling by air acceler-
ated global warming. Aircraft-makers were starting to plan the
next generation of cleaner planes.
The question is how an industry whose finances are in tatters
can make the vast investments and the huge technological leap
required for net-zero-emissions flying. Bail-outs are the wrong
answer. Only 30 airlines were profitable before the crisis and res-
cues will keep failing carriers alive. Some green strings are at-
tached to rescue deals—a recognition of the changing mood—
but they may not outweigh the zombifying effects of lavish res-cue packages. Lufthansa’s €9bn ($9.8bn) bail-out allows it to buy
80 new fuel-efficient planes, but it took more money than it
needed to preserve its position as a global airline. France’s aero-
space bail-out includes €1.5bn to develop zero-emission planes
and obliges airlines not to fly shorter routes between French cit-
ies that are served by trains. The exception? Feeder airports for
Air France’s Paris hub. America’s airlines, showered with federal
subsidies for decades, have trousered $25bn.
These efforts to keep incumbent airlines flying threaten to
prevent bolder carriers from expanding. Waivers on airport-slot
rules will further hamper new entrants. Regulators around the
world suspended use-it-or-lose-it rules for the summer to help
stricken carriers. Incumbents want an exten-
sion to cover the winter, too. But if slots cannot
be reallocated, rivals will be constrained. In Eu-
rope agile, low-cost carriers like Wizz Air are
rightly calling for slot-blocking to end.
If the industry is in the deep-freeze, it will
slow the development of clean aeroplanes. Air-
bus has a goal of developing such an aircraft by
2035, whether using renewable fuels, electricity
or hydrogen power, but the aerospace giants need to be sure that
they will have a thriving market if they are to invest in them.
Long industry lead times mean that Airbus will have to make
firm plans in the next couple of years and Boeing will have to de-
cide whether to respond soon after (see Business section).
Just as easyJet and Ryanair, now both huge airlines, took ad-
vantage of a glut of cheap aeroplanes after 9/11 and the deregula-
tion of European airspace to expand rapidly, so a dynamic airline
industry searching for new ways to grow would require new air-
craft, encouraging Airbus and Boeing to make air travel greener.
As well as setting back the industry, cosseting the old guard will
do more damage to the planet. 7Don’t carry flag-carriers
The industry can rebound leaner and greener—so long as governments stop favouring incumbentsAirlinesWorldwide passenger flights
2020, m
4
3
2
1
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun