What FlySafair could have done when Airlink stole the show
JOHANNESBURG — Airlink’s viral Springboks flyover has opened an unexpected debate about how brands should respond when a competitor suddenly dominates attention around a major sponsorship, with communications strategists arguing that FlySafair may have had an opportunity to turn its rival’s moment to its own advantage.
The extraordinary formation flight by two Airlink Embraer aircraft over Cape Town’s DHL Stadium ahead of the Springboks and All Blacks Test on 29 August travelled far beyond the rugby audience, generating international coverage, millions of social media impressions and eventually scrutiny from the South African Civil Aviation Authority.
Airlink had legitimate commercial reasons to be there. The airline was appointed the official domestic airline for Rugby’s Greatest Rivalry 2026, the special South Africa and New Zealand rugby tour, and was responsible for transporting the competing teams and personnel between their South African fixtures. But the spectacle created an unusual situation for FlySafair.
FlySafair has maintained a longstanding relationship with the Springboks and continued describing itself this year as the team’s Trusted Domestic Carrier. Following the attention surrounding Airlink, FlySafair reminded followers that it had supported the Springboks for nine years, conducted stadium flyovers of its own and backed the team through two World Cup victories.
There was nothing factually wrong with that response. But Millionsworth Public Relations argues in a new analysis of the episode that the more interesting communications question is whether FlySafair could have gained more by publicly celebrating its competitor’s spectacular moment instead.
The agency suggested that FlySafair’s established Springbok credentials gave it sufficient standing to congratulate Airlink without surrendering its own position.
Rather than responding primarily by reminding audiences of its history, the airline could have acknowledged Airlink’s achievement as a South African aviation and rugby moment, while quietly signing off as a proud Springbok sponsor.
The distinction matters because Airlink already owned the spectacle. Attempting to compete retrospectively for that attention was unlikely to change who had generated it, while an unexpected public acknowledgement from a rival could potentially have created a second conversation around the event.
Millionsworth Public Relations argues that such a response could have projected confidence rather than competition and potentially encouraged further interaction between the airlines, supporters and other South African brands. The analysis comes amid some confusion over the airlines’ respective rugby relationships.
Airlink’s agreement applies specifically to Rugby’s Greatest Rivalry, which is structured as a joint venture between the South African Rugby Union and New Zealand Rugby Union. FlySafair, meanwhile, has continued publicly using its Trusted Domestic Carrier designation for the Springboks. The contracts explaining precisely how the commercial rights coexist are not publicly available.
That makes the communications challenge more complicated than simply two airlines fighting over the same sponsorship. The episode also demonstrates how quickly a successful marketing moment can become a reputation management issue.
Airlink’s Cape Town flypast was widely celebrated online, but the unusually low appearance of the aircraft also generated questions about safety. SACAA subsequently began compliance verification, obtained flight data recordings and requested further information from Airlink.
Airlink maintains that the flight was carefully planned, rehearsed and conducted within approved safety parameters. It said SACAA and Air Traffic Navigation Services had provided authorisation, guidance and support.
A third planned flyover at FNB Stadium was later cancelled, with Airlink citing an unfavourable weather forecast. The regulatory review of the Cape Town flight was continuing at the time. For communications professionals, Millionsworth PR argues that the episode demonstrates a broader distinction between social media activity and strategic communications.
A social media team can see a competitor trending and decide whether a brand should post. Strategic communications requires a different assessment: whether the attention represents a threat or opportunity, whether the client has legitimate standing to participate, what response could generate earned attention and what reputational risks might emerge if the story subsequently changes.
That judgement becomes particularly important with major sponsorships, where brands can invest for years in an association only for an unplanned event to suddenly reshape the public conversation around it.
The agency cautions against concluding that FlySafair’s response amounted to a communications failure. There was no single compulsory response, and reinforcing nine years of Springbok association was a defensible decision.
Its argument is instead that the most valuable communications opportunities are sometimes created unexpectedly by competitors.
Airlink had the aircraft and created the spectacle. FlySafair had the longstanding Springbok relationship. The public supplied enormous attention. The unanswered strategic question is whether bringing those three elements together through an unexpected acknowledgement of a competitor could have produced an even bigger communications moment.
Anyone with additional information can contact the press desk at press@townpress.co.za.