Before September 11th I'd been about to make an admission, but subsequent events meant that other issues dominated. However, now it's time to reveal that I have, for the first time in more than a year, spent more than £100 (€127) in Marks & Spencer (M&S).

Not only that but I went back and bought more on a second visit. I know that it's a bit late to tell you this, since the shares closed last week at 314p (from a low of 163p), but clearly I'm not the only one who is beginning to shell out for their products.

As you know, I'm a bit of an M&S food junkie so I never count spending on innovative yet excruciatingly expensive meals for one as actual M&S expenditure. However, on the last couple of visits I've spent money on their clothes! Has the revolution begun? Well, it's probably a bit soon to say and M&S might be having the coyly named dead cat bounce, but they're certainly bouncing with better merchandise.

My spending wasn't just impulse purchasing. I was cutting through the Henry Street store on my way to the Jervis Centre when I saw some unusually stylish skirts that had been marked down in their sale. Closer inspection revealed that they only had very small sizes (eights, say no more.) and extra-large sizes on offer. The bog-standard 12-14s didn't feature. That was the first time in a long time I hadn't seen average sizes on the reduced rack.

And, while I was disappointed because I would've bought one, I thought it was an interesting development, since it meant that lots of average-sized women had already paid full price for them.

A couple of weeks later I was back again and this time the autumn range was beginning to appear. The colours were good and the cuts vastly improved. I bought a number of jumpers, kept going through the store, noticed their newly laid out cosmetics section, dropped a few quid on some creams and then meandered into the lingerie where I gave the credit card an additional workout.

According to its second-quarter trading statement, sales are up 2.8 per cent on the comparative period last year. Clothing and footwear is up 0.8 per cent, home by 6.6 per cent and general merchandise by 1.3 per cent. The company is encouraged, it says, by steady improvements in clothing performance throughout the quarter. They've also just introduced their Per Una range - masterminded by George Davies, who has a good track record - which definitely has a different look and feel to it.

When I went to its summer fashion show earlier this year, M&S was still talking about not alienating its traditional customer. Maybe it's finally realised that its traditional customer has moved with the times and doesn't want white blouses with bows and frills teamed with pleated grey skirts any more!

I don't know if it's enough to get the company back on the road to glory but it's certainly lifting them out of the gutter and that's saying something.

The increase in the share price has helped the otherwise sad state of my equity portfolio - it's somewhat ironic that the company that had dragged it into the morass last year has now suddenly become its star performer. I'm hoping that this is not entirely because of my profligate spending!

Nevertheless it is interesting to see the changes that have been taking place in the stores finally having an impact on the share price. And it does show that (however temporarily) radical restructuring and rethinking your entire modus operandi can make a difference to the bottom line.

Which is what the world's airlines are still having to think about right now, even though it's something they should have thought about long ago.

I have nothing but sympathy for the workforce in Aer Lingus who are having to face some truly harsh realities sooner than they would have liked. A couple of years ago when the idea of selling off the carrier was floated, most people in financial circles muttered that it might be one for fund managers but not for private investors. Now significant restructuring is necessary for the company to survive - and even that might not be enough.

Restructuring, as M&S discovered, means cutting costs, cutting jobs and changing the perception of your product.

In the US, the airlines have already laid off more than 100,000 staff and cut their schedules by more than 20 per cent.

There is, perhaps, a case to be made that if Delta and Continental have been given state aid by the US government, Aer Lingus faces unfair competition on the transatlantic route. But Delta and Continental have cut jobs too. It is impossible for Aer Lingus to survive without losing vast swathes of people - even if it is ultimately taken over by another carrier those jobs will go.

Will there be a viable airline at the end of the day? Who knows. What everyone does know is that national carriers were all struggling well before September and that events were a catalyst that forced them to face facts about their changing business.

Aer Lingus may have pandered to its traditional customer in the past but its traditional customer suddenly isn't travelling any more. And the market they've ignored - the people who'll hop on a plane if the price is right - has been successfully courted by the low-cost carriers. This was fine (well, you could make a case for it but that's about all) when a buoyant economy meant plenty of business-class customers. But it's pointless pitching a premium product at a market that's looking for good value. Premium products are lifestyle choices. Good value is sought after by everyone.

And that holds true whether you're a national airline or a national super-store.