Global Airlines Say Stop Speculating: A Speculation Piece
- Sam
- Jun 7
- 4 min read
There’s a special place in our hearts for dreamers in aviation. Anyone who’s ever looked at a mothballed A380 and thought, “You. You shall be glamorous again” deserves a lot of credit.
But dreaming and doing are two different flight paths.
This week, Global Airlines, the aviation start-up with it's lone A380, released a sprawling 1,500 word statement, on LinkedIn nonetheless, doubling down on its legitimacy, calling out “speculation,” and promising a new “MythBusters” series. Yes, really.
Let’s unpack it, with the same reluctance of dealing with a suitcase when jetlagged.
“Yes, We Flew Passengers!” (Technically, Yes.)
“Global-owned A380 9H-GLOBL has flown fare-paying passengers transatlantic – this is a fact.”
Absolutely true.
But let’s clarify: the flights were operated by Hi Fly, not Global Airlines. Hi Fly is an established ACMI operator (that’s Aircraft, Crew, Maintenance, and Insurance, think Enterprise-rent-a-car, but for planes), so Hi Fly flew the plane, and provided the majority of the cabin crew. It’s interesting how they have now adapted their language in recent posts. They don't try to claim "Global Airlines" flew these passengers, but instead their aircraft 9H-GLOBL did, the reason being because Global doesn't have its own Air Operator Certificate (AOC), Global do say that this is their eventual goal, and to not operate with Hi Fly’s assistance indeterminately. They also didn't sell the flights themselves, having to use a third party travel agent, unable to sell one way fares, as Global does not have ATOL coverage needed to sell tickets in the UK. So, lets just say a work in progress.
“Don’t Believe Everything You Read!” (Except This Statement, Of Course)
“It’s a shame when people repeat speculation as fact…”
We agree, but if your company thrives on glossy press teasers, unconfirmed partnerships, and Instagram shenanigans, don’t be surprised when people start filling in the blanks.
If you're going to launch with bold claims about "luxury redefined" and the "return of the golden age of travel,” the avgeeks will pull receipts. But to then say "We didn’t do any marketing, but simply reached out to our community online", isn't this called, ahem, marketing?
All that being said, if they do indeed start putting out Mythbuster posts then this will go someway to combat the void, or feed it more, who knows!
“We Flew Half-Empty on Purpose”
“These flights were never planned to be full or even close to it.” Of course. Who doesn’t aim for economically unviable test flights on the world’s largest passenger aircraft?
Jokes aside, testing service is valuable. But calling lightly loaded flights “perfect” feels a bit revisionist. If your goal was to trial premium cabins quietly, just say that ahead of time. Don’t imply that low passenger counts are some visionary strategy. Writing on Instagram that "In the first 24 hours, our VIP pre-sale reservations list had thousands of registrations!", before slashing your fares in half in two weeks before your inaugural flight in an attempt to sell more seats, doesn't exactly scream satisfaction.
If this was your intention though, I'd have thought a friends and family day doing a round robin trip from Prestwick would have been much less hassle, knowing how much attention that first flight would be getting. They note that "It’s a shame that some of those who shouted loudest on the first flight did not join us on the second to witness the “1,000,000% improvement"; failure to prepare, prepare to fail.
That First Flight? “A Challenge”
“We apologise to any of our passengers who didn’t have the best time...”
By most accounts, the first flight was messy: faulty IFE, issues with the loos, disorganised crew, underwhelming catering. Props for acknowledging it, not every start-up would.
But transparency means more than apology. Tell us what you fixed. Tell us how you're improving. Otherwise, it’s just another brand saying, “We’re learning!” without opening the textbook. Even BP apologised for THAT oil spill, but clearly didn’t do nearly enough in the aftermath.
“The YouTubers Loved It!”
“Most of the YouTuber videos were very positive!”
That's nice. But while aviation vloggers are great for vibes and visuals, you don’t run an airline by vibe-check alone. And let's just say a few of the YouTuber's you had onboard are known not to necessarily provide truthful accounts...
Also, suggesting critics didn’t return for a second flight to see the “1,000,000% improvement” isn’t the flex you think it is. “We did better, but you missed it!” is like saying you've got a girlfriend, but she goes to the school in the next town along.
“We’re Holding Our Nerve”
“Whatever we say will be held against us later…”
True. Welcome to accountability. That’s part of the deal when you enter public service, especially in a heavily regulated industry like aviation.
We get it. You want to wait until things are locked down. But then maybe... don’t publish long statements full of sweeping generalisations and cryptic updates. Less riddle, more roadmap, please.
In an interview with Upgraded Points, CEO James Asquith offered something in the way of an update, with his usual clouded crystal ball. “I’m hoping that even in the next few weeks we might announce the next aircraft." My head hurts from all this spinning.
What next then for Global Airlines?
We want Global Airlines to succeed. The industry needs bold ideas, fresh perspectives, and yes, even some showmanship. But "hope" is not a business model, and sentiment doesn’t substitute for certification.
Watching Global start operations is like watching a baby bird leaving the nest, but falling out the tree in doing so.
But, until Global launches scheduled routes, and operates consistently without borrowed infrastructure, it’s hard to call this a fully-fledged airline.
Right now, it’s a vibes-based start-up leasing credibility from more established players.
And that’s fine. Just say that.
Sam
Comentarios