In a year when artificial intelligence (AI) dominated the global investment conversation and every fund manager worth their carried interest was racing to stake out positions in deeptech, Vietnam’s private equity market made its biggest sectoral bet on something considerably more prosaic: food, beverages, and everyday consumer goods.

According to the Vietnam Innovation and Private Capital Report by DO Ventures and Boston Consulting Group, consumer staples attracted US$1.2 billion in private equity investment in 2025, the highest single-sector allocation in a decade. In a year when total PE deployment hit a record of US$3.96 billion, consumer staples alone accounted for roughly 30 per cent of the entire market. This was not a rounding error or a one-off anomaly. It was a deliberate, large-scale conviction bet by some of the most sophisticated capital allocators operating in Southeast Asia.

Also Read: Vietnam’s AI funding just grew 13x in two years. Now comes the hard part

The question is why and what it reveals about how serious investors actually think about Vietnam’s growth story beneath the tech-forward surface narrative.

A 100M-person consumption engine

Vietnam’s population crossed 100 million in 2023, making it the third most populous country in Southeast Asia after Indonesia and the Philippines. But the more important numbers are not the headcount, but the demographic composition and the income trajectory behind it. Vietnam has one of the youngest median ages in the region, a rapidly expanding urban middle class, and a sustained multi-decade record of GDP growth that has consistently outpaced regional peers. Per capita income has more than doubled over the past decade and is projected to continue rising sharply through the end of the decade.

For consumer goods companies, this combination of large and growing population, rising incomes, accelerating urbanisation, and shifting consumption habits is precisely the macroeconomic environment that generates durable, compounding revenue growth. The thesis is not complicated: as Vietnamese households earn more, they spend more, trade up to branded products, shift from wet markets to modern retail, and increasingly purchase food and beverage products with margins capable of supporting institutional investment at scale.

This is a story that global consumer PE firms know well, having played it out in China, India, and Indonesia over the previous two decades. In each of those markets, the early movers who invested in consumer staples during the inflexion point of middle-class formation generated outsized returns. Vietnam is at or near that inflexion point now.

Why PE, and why now

Private equity is structurally well-suited to the Vietnamese consumer opportunity in ways that venture capital is not. VC is designed for high-risk, high-uncertainty bets on business models that may not have proven themselves commercially. Consumer staples companies, such as established brands, predictable revenue streams, and physical distribution networks, are precisely the kind of assets that PE investors can underwrite with conventional financial analysis, apply operational improvement playbooks to, and exit at a premium through strategic sales to multinationals or domestic conglomerates hungry for bolt-on acquisitions.

The timing of the 2025 surge also reflects a specific market dynamic. Vietnam’s consumer sector has been consolidating steadily, with stronger brands gaining share at the expense of fragmented, subscale competitors. PE investors are positioning to back consolidators, including companies with distribution reach, brand equity, and operational efficiency to absorb market share and, ultimately, serve as acquisition targets for global fast-moving consumer goods giants looking to establish or deepen their Vietnam footprint.

Also Read: 48 PE investors, US$3.96B deployed, and not a single IPO exit in five years. Something is broken.

The doubling of active PE investors to 48 in 2025 has also intensified competition for quality assets, which tends to concentrate capital into the most defensible sectors. Consumer staples, with their resilient cash flows and relatively transparent valuation frameworks, offer a degree of predictability that is scarce in the current environment.

The modern retail inflexion

One structural shift accelerating the consumer staples investment thesis is the rapid modernisation of Vietnam’s retail infrastructure. Traditional trade — wet markets, small independent shops, informal distribution — still accounts for the majority of consumer goods sales in Vietnam, but modern trade is growing fast. Supermarket chains, convenience store networks, and e-commerce platforms are expanding aggressively, and their growth is directly beneficial to branded consumer goods companies that have the product quality and marketing capability to compete on modern retail shelves.

E-commerce, in particular, is reshaping the distribution economics of the sector. Platforms including Shopee, Lazada, and TikTok Shop have given consumer brands direct access to a nationwide customer base without the capital expenditure required to build physical distribution.

For PE-backed consumer companies, this is a margin and velocity story: the ability to reach consumers more efficiently, gather data on purchasing behaviour, and iterate product offerings creates compounding competitive advantages that drive valuation uplift over a typical five-to-seven-year investment horizon.

The risks that the headline number obscures

The US$1.2 billion figure is impressive, but it arrives with caveats. Consumer staples investments in Vietnam are not immune to macro headwinds that affect every asset class. Global commodity price volatility, particularly in agricultural inputs, packaging materials, and energy, can compress margins rapidly in food and beverage businesses. Vietnam’s export-oriented manufacturing sector, which underpins much of the consumer income growth story, is exposed to trade policy shifts and global demand cycles that are difficult to forecast.

There is also a valuation question. The intensity of PE competition for consumer assets in 2025 raises the possibility that entry multiples have stretched beyond what underlying fundamentals justify. If the exit environment remains constrained and the report’s own data on the absence of VC and PE-backed IPOs over the past five years suggests it does, then even well-performing consumer businesses may find it difficult to generate the exit returns that justify aggressive entry pricing.

None of this invalidates the underlying thesis. Vietnam’s consumer story is real, durable, and supported by demographic forces that do not reverse on a quarterly earnings cycle. But the smartest investors in the room are not just buying the macro narrative; they are underwriting specific companies with specific competitive positions, and the quality of those underwriting decisions will determine whether 2025’s record consumer staples allocation looks prescient or premature in five years.

Also Read: From frontier to emerging: How Vietnam’s stock market rewrote the ASEAN playbook in 2025

What is clear is that the most sophisticated private capital in Vietnam is not waiting for the country to become something it isn’t. It is betting heavily on what Vietnam already is: a massive, fast-growing domestic market with an appetite for better products. Sometimes the most contrarian trade is the most obvious one.

The post Vietnam’s biggest PE bet of 2025 was not on tech. It was on what 100M people eat every day appeared first on e27.

A lithium battery explosion in a Singapore residential garage is not the kind of event that typically sparks a deeptech startup. But for Muriel Demarcus, a seasoned infrastructure risk professional with three decades of managing billion-dollar projects across Europe and Asia Pacific, it was the moment everything clicked.

“My neighbour’s garage burned to the ground,” she recalls. “A lithium battery exploded. Nobody was hurt, but it was a close call, and it stopped me in my tracks. I had spent thirty years managing billion-dollar infrastructure risks. And here was a failure mode sitting in a residential garage that no system had caught, because no system was looking.”

Also Read: The AI upskilling wave is real but the gap it leaves behind is growing

That singular moment of frustration led Demarcus to upskill in AI in Singapore, revisit a question she had been asking in control rooms for decades, and eventually found Marsham Edge, a platform built around a deceptively simple but deeply difficult premise: in high-stakes environments, an alert you cannot explain is an alert you cannot act on.

Three agents, one mission

At the heart of Marsham Edge are three AI agents Argo, Ken, and Deb — each of which owns a distinct layer of the detection pipeline.

Argo manages data ingestion, validation, deduplication, and provenance tracking. It also monitors the platform’s own API endpoints for vulnerabilities — a design decision drawn from real-world AI system breaches.

Ken runs the detection engine, selecting and optimising a model stack that includes CNN-LSTM for deep pattern detection, Random Forest for classification, and a proprietary four-trigger hybrid engine covering statistical envelope, rate density, geometric spike, and physics-informed residual analysis.

Deb is the coordinating layer: routing tasks, assembling findings into structured briefings, and delivering them via dashboard, WhatsApp, or Signal.

“A single-model system gives you an answer,” Demarcus says. “Our agent team gives you a process: secure, detect, and brief. No black boxes. Every decision attributable.”

The multi-agent architecture is a deliberate departure from how most AI systems are designed. “Most AI systems are monolithic: one model does everything. That is brittle. When the model fails, it fails silently and completely.”

Explainability as architecture, not add-on

The word “explainability” gets thrown around liberally in AI marketing. Demarcus has built it into the foundation of how the system works.
When an alert fires, operators do not receive a generic “anomaly detected” flag. They see which of the four triggers fired, the exact numerical threshold crossed, the reasoning behind the decision, and the source data. In the battery thermal use case, an alert reads something like: Trigger D fired. Actual thermal rate: 4.2°C/min. Physics model predicted: 2.1°C/min. Residual: 3.2σ. Risk state: Watching brief (50 per cent). Recommended action: Reduce load in 45 seconds or critical state predicted.

This approach also addresses the hallucination problem that plagues large language model-based systems in safety-critical contexts. Marsham Edge does not rely on third-party LLM APIs for detection. The detection engine runs on customer infrastructure, using proprietary models grounded in statistical and physical laws that structurally eliminate generative ambiguity.

Also Read: Forget the cloud: Why AI is becoming the new heavy industry (and what investors must know)

A two-trigger gate further reduces false alarms: no single noisy sensor can trigger an alert. Two independent triggers must fire simultaneously before the system issues even a Watching Brief.

The battery problem nobody has solved

One of Marsham Edge’s most compelling use cases is early warning of lithium-ion battery thermal runaway, and Demarcus speaks about it with the urgency of someone who has witnessed it firsthand.

Thermal runaway is notoriously difficult to detect because the failure mode is exponential. By the time a conventional sensor hits its threshold, the reaction is frequently irreversible. Most industry tools monitor temperature thresholds and voltage drops, triggers that fire too late.

Marsham Edge’s approach fits a physics-informed energy-balance model (Newton’s Law of Cooling) to each battery’s individual thermal signature, then continuously compares the measured rate of temperature change against what physics predicts. Validated against datasets from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Sandia National Laboratories, and NASA, the platform demonstrated early-warning windows of 220 to 359 seconds ahead of standard hardware-level 80°C threshold alarms. “That is the difference between a controlled intervention and a fire,” Demarcus says flatly.

Deployed, validated, and winning hackathons

Although the startup is less than a year old, Marsham Edge already has live deployments. In May 2026, the full agent team completed an integration test against a synthetic OSINT dataset: Argo quarantined all four malformed records; Ken detected 18 of 18 campaign posts with zero false positives (F1 = 1.00); Deb delivered a structured analyst briefing in three minutes and seven seconds.

Shortly after, the platform was deployed on a live client dataset of 174 silica exposure measurements from an underground mining operation in New South Wales, Australia. Ken identified 31 exceedances — 17.8 per cent of the dataset — with a peak reading of 0.273 mg/m³, or 5.5 times the legal limit of 0.05 mg/m³. Argo flagged the client’s documented use of banned compressed air as a factor that elevated their prosecution risk from Category 2 to Category 1.

It is against this backdrop that Demarcus won the Epic Hackathon Singapore, competing against teams she describes as “half my age.”

“Younger founders often build fast and ask questions later. That is valuable. But in safety-critical environments, speed without accountability is dangerous,” she says. “The hackathon confirmed what I already believed: experience matters. It teaches you which signals are important and which are noise. The agents handle the noise. I handle the accountability.”

Building for the regulatory future

Demarcus is not merely solving today’s operational problems. She is positioning Marsham Edge at the convergence of three trends she sees as inevitable: mandated explainability under frameworks like the EU AI Act and Singapore’s AI Verify programme; the shift to edge and on-premise deployment in regulated industries unwilling to route sensitive data through third-party clouds; and the broader move from monolithic models to specialised agentic architectures.

“We are building for the regulatory future, not the regulatory present,” she says.

Also Read: How Asia’s factories are leading the way in industrial AI

The next stop is VivaTech Paris, where she intends to pursue sovereign cloud partners, defence AI integrators, and investors who grasp that explainability is fast becoming a compliance requirement rather than a product differentiator.

“What the global tech community should understand is this: Singapore is not just a financial hub. It is a defence and critical infrastructure nexus. We are building a platform that solves a universal problem, black-box AI in high-stakes environments, from a country that values security, sovereignty, and trust.”

One year in, with live deployments and independent validation already in hand, Marsham Edge is making a credible case that the next frontier in AI is not raw capability; it is accountability.

The post She watched her neighbour’s garage burn down. Now she’s building AI that explains itself before disaster strikes appeared first on e27.

Wall Street delivered a distinctly split performance on Tuesday, 16 June 2026, as investors aggressively rotated capital out of technology giants and into cyclical sectors. This massive shift sent the Dow Jones Industrial Average to its two consecutive record closes, pushing the index just a fraction away from the 52,000 milestone. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Composite both finished in the red. These major indices paused their momentum after a massive rally on Monday. That previous surge stemmed directly from a breakthrough peace framework between the United States and Iran.

Geopolitical relief and a subsequent collapse in oil prices drove much of this market dislocation. Optimism surrounding a tentative deal to end the conflict between the United States and Iran pushed energy prices below US$80 a barrel. This marks the 1st time crude traded at those levels since March. Lower oil and transport costs immediately eased broader corporate inflation worries across the global economy and energy producers.

Brent Crude plunged 5.06 per cent to settle at US$78.96 per barrel. West Texas Intermediate slipped 5.82 per cent to close at US$76.05 per barrel as traders executed a rapid unwind of risk premiums. This energy deflation directly impacted government bonds. The United States 10-Year Treasury Yield held tight near monthly lows at 4.426 per cent. Softer oil numbers effectively blunted core inflation expectations and gave fixed-income markets a brief respite from the relentless pressure of rising consumer prices.

Also Read: Bitcoin’s major resistance sits in the US$67,000 to US$69,000 zone: What’s the next move?

This monetary uncertainty triggered a violent sector rotation across the equity markets. Money flowed swiftly away from semiconductor and artificial intelligence leaders commanding high valuations in the technology sector. Capital rerouted toward cyclical heavyweights, banking institutions, and manufacturing equities. The corporate winners and losers on Tuesday perfectly illustrate this dramatic pivot. SpaceX climbed 4.83 per cent to close at US$201.80. The stock briefly hit an intraday high of US$225.64. This surge following the initial public offering pushed the total market value of the aerospace company past Amazon.

Conversely, major artificial intelligence hardware players pulled back sharply. Advanced Micro Devices plummeted over seven per cent. Micron Technology dropped six per cent. Broadcom shed four per cent, and Nvidia gave up two per cent. The market routinely overvalues the current artificial intelligence hype cycle while ignoring the foundational infrastructure of true decentralisation. This mispricing creates incredible opportunities for those who understand the long-term trajectory of technological convergence and human-centric design.

The cryptocurrency market stabilised and turned green, shaking off weeks of aggressive capital outflows. Much like traditional equities, the broader digital asset ecosystem experienced a sharp relief bounce directly following the news of a preliminary United States and Iran ceasefire agreement. Market short liquidations reached US$373 million as traders forcefully closed their losing short positions. The Crypto Fear and Greed Index recovered significantly to 23, which indicates Fear. This represents a massive climb out of the extreme fear lows in the one-digit numbers from exactly one week prior.

I have always maintained that digital assets offer a superior form of speculative engagement compared to traditional stocks. The resilience of the crypto market during macroeconomic stress proves that decentralised networks possess intrinsic value beyond mere fiat speculation. Investors finally recognise the structural superiority of permissionless financial rails that operate independently of centralised banking hours.

Also Read: Why Bitcoin just surged past US$65,000 while oil crashed 4%

Bitcoin led this digital asset recovery, trading at US$66,449.38 with a gain of 0.9 per cent. The premier cryptocurrency experienced a brief intraday spike above US$67,000 following the Middle East peace framework announcement. Institutional investors maintain incredibly strong conviction despite the broader market volatility. MicroStrategy acquired another 1,587 BTC for US$100 million. This aggressive accumulation strategy by corporate treasuries signals a profound lack of faith in the traditional fiat banking system and corporate balance sheets.

I see this corporate behaviour as a validation of the core thesis behind decentralised digital scarcity from my position as a web3 founder. Traditional financial institutions and corporations quietly hedge against the very centralised monetary policies they publicly support. This hypocrisy underscores the fundamental flaw in the current global financial architecture and accelerates the migration toward decentralised alternatives. Smart investors now recognise that digital assets provide the ultimate hedge against systemic fiat failure and endless currency debasement.

The macroeconomic backdrop shifted further as the Warsh Federal Reserve meeting began. The Federal Open Market Committee kicked off its two-day policy meeting on Tuesday. Investors focus intently on the 1st press conference of incoming Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh taking place tomorrow. Market participants desperately search for signals on the future global monetary direction and monetary policy.

I watch these centralised monetary rituals with deep scepticism. What about you? 

—

The post Why tech giants are crashing while Bitcoin surges to US$67,000 appeared first on e27.

Singapore enterprises are deploying AI agents at the highest rate in Asia-Pacific, yet are also among the most likely to pull them back after going live, according to new research by communications tech company Sinch.

The report, titled The AI Production Paradox, found that 82 per cent of Singapore enterprises have rolled back or shut down a deployed AI agent, a rate eight percentage points above the global average. The finding is particularly striking given that Singapore simultaneously recorded the highest AI agent deployment rate in APAC at 72 per cent.

The study, based on an independent survey of 2,527 senior decision-makers across 10 countries and six industries, suggests that for many enterprises the central challenge around AI agents has shifted — from getting them into production to keeping them there.

“The real risk across APAC isn’t moving slowly, it’s scaling on infrastructure that can’t keep up,” said Wendy Johnstone, Executive Vice President, APAC at Sinch.

A regional pattern of high deployment, high failure

Singapore’s experience reflects a broader trend across Asia-Pacific. The region recorded the highest AI agent deployment rate globally, with 67 per cent of enterprises already operating AI agents in production — five percentage points above the global average. Yet 83 per cent of APAC enterprises have experienced an AI agent failure, the highest failure rate of any region surveyed and nine points above the global average.

Also Read: She watched her neighbour’s garage burn down. Now she’s building AI that explains itself before disaster strikes

Among the most immediate operational consequences, 45 per cent of APAC enterprises cited support team overload as the primary outcome when an AI agent fails. In Singapore, 44 per cent of enterprises reported the same. Given that one in three APAC enterprises sends more than 100 million messages per month, even a contained AI agent failure carries the potential to escalate quickly into broader disruption affecting customer satisfaction and brand trust.

Governance gap persists despite compliance focus

Despite 75 per cent of Singapore enterprises prioritising investment in trust, security and compliance, the research identified a significant governance shortfall. Only 27 per cent of Singapore enterprises report fully mature guardrails — the lowest figure in APAC and well below the global average of 35 per cent.

Across the region, the link between governance and AI advancement was found to be 48 per cent stronger than the global average, with enterprises that established proper governance before deployment recording better outcomes.

The research points to communications infrastructure as a critical but underserved factor in AI agent success. While 82 per cent of Singapore organisations rated high-performance infrastructure as essential or very important, just seven per cent said their current provider was fully meeting their needs — one of the lowest satisfaction figures among all markets surveyed.

As a result, 91 per cent of Singapore enterprises are currently evaluating new communications providers, five percentage points above the global average. On average, Singapore enterprises are planning AI agent deployment across 3.1 channels, with WhatsApp and web-based chatbots among the most common integration points.

Also Read: Vietnam’s biggest PE bet of 2025 was not on tech. It was on what 100M people eat every day

Notwithstanding the challenges, AI agents remain a clear priority. Some 40 per cent of Singapore enterprises plan to increase AI investment by more than 25 per cent compared to the prior year, with businesses focusing on selective, sustainable expansion rather than rapid scaling.

The post Singapore leads APAC in AI agent deployment but also in rollbacks, research finds appeared first on e27.

The table above is conservative. In markets where local payment methods are the primary way people transact: GoPay and OVO in Indonesia, Mada and STC Pay in Saudi Arabia, PromptPay in Thailand, an airline that accepts only international cards is structurally invisible to a large portion of its addressable market. That is not a payment problem. That is a market access problem.

The complexity airlines were not built to handle

To understand why airline payments fail so often, you need to understand the unique complexity stack airlines operate within. No other vertical faces quite this combination.

Airlines sell globally but settle locally. A single booking may involve a passenger in Singapore, an origin airport in Australia, a destination in Japan, a codeshare partner in the Middle East, and interline settlement through IATA’s BSP. The payment that funds all of this needs to work flawlessly across multiple currencies, regulatory regimes, and financial relationships — in real time.

Also Read: The US$0.20 payment that could rewire Asia’s financial rails

At the same time, the distribution landscape has fragmented. Airlines now sell through their own direct channels, through OTAs, through NDC-connected travel management companies, and through GDS. Each channel has different payment capabilities, different fraud profiles, and different customer expectations. A payment infrastructure designed for one channel will fail on the others.

What smart retry alone can recover

Here is something that surprises most airline finance and revenue leaders when they first see it: 20-40 per cent of declined transactions are recoverable. The customer was willing to pay. The card was valid. The money was there. The system just failed to capture it.

Smart retry logic, the ability to automatically reattempt a failed transaction through a different acquirer, with modified parameters, within seconds, is table stakes in e-commerce. It is standard practice at any sophisticated online retailer. In aviation, it remains uncommon.

The reason is integration complexity. Routing a transaction to a different acquirer requires relationships with multiple PSPs, a real-time decision engine that can assess why a transaction failed and select the optimal retry path, and integration with the PSS in a way that does not disrupt the booking flow. Building all of that in-house is a multi-year engineering project. Most airlines do not have the team for it.

This is precisely where orchestration changes the equation. A payment orchestration layer sits between the airline’s booking system and the payment ecosystem, providing a single integration point that unlocks access to multiple acquirers, retry intelligence, and local payment methods simultaneously. The airline gets years of infrastructure in weeks of integration.

The local payment method gap is a market access problem

In 2024, approximately 48 per cent of e-commerce transactions in Southeast Asia were completed using local payment methods: wallets, bank transfers, and local card schemes, rather than international cards. In Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the share of local payment instruments has grown substantially as domestic schemes like Mada have matured.

An airline that operates routes into these markets but does not support local payment methods is not just leaving money on the table. It is effectively pricing itself out of the market for a growing segment of travellers who prefer or exclusively use local payment instruments.

The integration challenge is real. Adding GoPay requires a different technical integration than adding Mada. Each has its own API, its own settlement model, its own compliance requirements. For an airline managing a single PSS integration, adding ten local payment methods across five markets represents a significant engineering investment – and ongoing maintenance overhead.

The orchestration model solves this with a hub-and-spoke architecture: the airline integrates once with the orchestration layer, which maintains and manages all individual payment method integrations. When regulations change or a new wallet gains market share, the orchestration layer updates. The airline does not need to re-engineer its checkout.

Also Read: The next phase of payments in Southeast Asia is about more than moving money

3DS: The necessary friction that became unnecessary friction

Strong Customer Authentication (SCA) and 3DS2 are necessary tools. They reduce fraud and protect airlines from chargebacks. But calibrated incorrectly, they become conversion killers.

The core tension is this: 3DS challenges add friction to the checkout flow. Every additional step: a redirect, an OTP, an app-based authentication, creates an opportunity for abandonment. Studies across e-commerce consistently show that conversion drops 10–20 per cent when a 3DS challenge is presented versus when it is not.

The solution is not to remove the 3DS. It is to apply it intelligently. Modern 3DS2 supports frictionless flows – where the issuer authenticates the transaction in the background without user interaction – for low-risk transactions. The trigger for a frictionless flow is rich data: device fingerprinting, transaction history, and behavioural signals. An airline that passes comprehensive contextual data through the 3DS process can dramatically increase its frictionless rate without increasing fraud exposure.

Most airline payment systems do not pass this data. They send the minimum required fields and accept whatever authentication outcome comes back. The result is unnecessary challenges to legitimate transactions, unnecessary abandonment, and unnecessary revenue loss.

The orchestration answer

Payment orchestration is not a new concept in e-commerce. The world’s leading online businesses – including several of the largest travel OTAs – have been running orchestration layers for years. For airlines, it is still early. But the early movers are seeing results.

What a mature orchestration layer delivers for an airline:

• Multi-acquirer routing with automatic failover – no single point of payment failure
• Intelligent retry that recovers 20-40 per cent of initially declined transactions
• Local payment method coverage across all key markets via a single integration
• Market-specific 3DS logic that maximises frictionless authentication
• Real-time analytics on payment performance by route, market, and payment method
• Compliance management across different regulatory regimes

The shift from a single-acquirer model to an orchestrated payment infrastructure is not just a technology upgrade. It is a revenue recovery exercise. For a mid-sized airline processing US$2 billion in annual ticket revenue, a three per cent improvement in payment conversion rate is US$60 million. A one per cent reduction in the decline rate on cross-border transactions is US$20 million. These are not speculative numbers – they are the figures airlines are actually realising when they make the switch.

Also Read: Asia’s student boom is exposing a hidden weakness in global payments

What airlines should do now

The path forward is not complicated, but it requires leadership alignment between finance, technology, and commercial teams – groups that do not always sit at the same table when payment infrastructure decisions are made.

First: audit your current payment performance. What is your decline rate by market? By payment method? By booking channel? Most airlines cannot answer these questions with granularity because their PSS reporting was not built to surface payment intelligence. If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it.

Second: map your addressable market against your payment method coverage. If you fly routes into Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, or Thailand, and you do not support the dominant local payment methods in those markets, you have a quantifiable market access gap. That gap has a dollar value. Make it visible to your commercial leadership.

Third: evaluate orchestration as a strategic capability, not a vendor conversation. The question is not which payment gateway to work with. The question is whether your payment infrastructure is architected for resilience, intelligence, and flexibility – or whether you are one acquirer outage away from a catastrophic revenue event.

The airlines that win the next decade will not just be the ones with the best routes or the most frequent flyer programmes. They will be the ones who can sell to anyone, anywhere, in any payment method, without losing the transaction. That capability is available today. The question is whether you will build it before your competitor does.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of e27.

Join us on WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, X, and LinkedIn to stay connected.

The post Why airlines lose more revenue to payment failures than to empty seats appeared first on e27.