Security here in the United States, particularly after the events of September 11 2001, are a frequent topic in the media and often the target of criticism.  Recently, we’ve seen the introduction of new scanning image machines that can be used to “search” our bodies and invasively at that.  The TSA has ruled that if you decline to enter these machines, you’re now subject to a much more intrusive “pat down” search that seems designed to make entering the scanning image machine pleasant.

The reason people get upset with these security measures is because they are mere theater.  Ask anyone what it is and has been like traveling from Europe to the United States since the 1970’s and particularly since the 1990’s when it comes to security.  It has always been very serious business in Europe and I find it ironic that we dictate security terms to Europe since the truth is that much of what we engage in here wouldn’t meet muster in Europe.

Arguably, the security regimes are much the same now.  The difference is in the not-so-subtle details.  In Europe, those performing security checks are professionals behaving professionally while doing a very professional job.  Anyone who has passed through European security knows exactly what I’m talking about. 

Sadly, here in the United States, we rightly perceive much of our security being performed by people who strike us as the cheapest available for the job and who rarely strike us as being professionals doing a professional job. 

I found myself highly irritated when I was at DFW airport awaiting the arrival of a family member and watched TSA security people do what  could only be described as a bad job routinely.  Clearly someone had told these people that being “cheerful” and “friendly” would help.  First off, we don’t expect security people to be cheerful and friendly.  We really don’t and you won’t find them behaving that way in other places in the world.  We expect them to be professional. 

And not for nothing, “professional” isn’t defined as “macho cop” with a chip on his/her shoulder either.

In the time I spent watching these TSA team members, I noticed that the first woman performing ID checks was looking at the IDs but was NOT looking up at  the passengers faces.  If anything, she appeared intent on detecting a fraudulent ID.   Sadly, she misseed every opportunity to match that ID to a face and do a “gut check” on their intent. 

Next, there were two TSA team members attempting to marshal people’s goods into the x-ray machines and people through the metal detectors.  Well, actually, one of those two was doing that.  That person, a man, was doing a credible job of directing people on what to do to pass through security.  He was, however, again not looking at the faces of anyone he was addressing.  If anything, he appeared to be looking anywhere but at these people.  The other person, a man, spent most of his time flirting with the woman who was running the x-ray machine. 

Which brings us to the woman who was running the x-ray machine.  I have no idea of how you detect suspicious objects in luggage when you’re flirting with anyone.  It would seem to me that focus and attention would be the watchwords when it comes to this duty.   There were two lines and another person watching the other x-ray machine who was not flirting with anyone but who didn’t seem any more interested in focusing on the screen displaying people’s personal items either. 

Finally, there were three more post-metal detector TSA team members who were just talking *loud*.  When I say loud, I mean loud enough for me to clearly understand them from a good 40 to 50 feet away.  They were loud in barking at passengers, they were loud in discussing whether or not to eat at TGI Fridays and they were loud in their instructions to people they had to pat down.

Doesn’t sound very professional, does it?

Then I think about the time I was traveling from Belgium back to my home in the DFW area.  At the screening, the security people found a multi-tool in my briefcase.  A tool that had been in my briefcase since I left and which I had forgotten was in an interior pocket.  Suddenly I was “covered” on both sides by security personnel and escorted away (as I shouted to my wife to just get on the plane) to a secure area.  I was asked why I had the multi-tool and I explained it was literally a tool of my business at that time ( I was a general contractor) and had simply left it in the briefcase foolishly.  I was polite and direct with my response.  They continued to talk to me for another 2 minutes until satisfied I wasn’t a threat.  Then they escorted me back to the front of the airport to box and check in my tool for the flight.  Once done, I was escorted back to the security line where I once again went through all their security including a second pat down. 

Never once was it “macho cop” or “airy friendliness”.  It was entirely serious and professional.  And that, my friends, was in 1998.

That’s why we consider these procedures a joke here in the US.  They are theater rather than professional and even though we aren’t security professionals ourselves, we quickly detect that the people who are supposedly “guarding” us aren’t taking their own jobs seriously.  I am not a security professional and I cannot offer how the procedures could be better.  I can, however, argue that the front line people performing this job aren’tprofessional and its communicated day in and day out.

What’s more, when we hear of these same TSA personnel engaged in theft, intimidation and practical jokes while working, it doesn’t improve our sense that this duty and job are being taken seriously by anyone actually performing the role.  

It comes as no surprise to me that pilots (and other flight crew) are objecting to their treatment in lines.  It comes as no surprise to me that passengers are hostile to the procedures either.  I doubt seriously that anyone would object to these very same procedure *if* they were performed in a serious and professional manner.

But they really aren’t, are they.  Oh, occasionally we see it being done right.  The next time you do see that, notice that no one is arguing or complaining or groaning over the security they’re being asked to endure.  The people doing it are taking it seriously and the people going through it tend to take it seriously at that point too.

Filed under: Airports by ajax
1 Comment »

Let’s talk about taxes and fees a little bit.  I’m not going to spend too much time on baggage fees and such because it’s a subject that has been already flogged enough for now.

What I want to talk about is how we, as a nation, have decided to treat the aviation industry and even the travel industry.  Currently, we treat them like chain smokers wanting to go to a bar in New York City.  In other words, we don’t welcome or foster either the travel industry or aviation industry.  We really don’t. 

It’s become popular to view certain industries as pariahs that should bear an ever increasing burden because at the end of the day, those same industries can’t fight that treatment and remain in business.  In the airline business, lawmakers realize that airlines have very few alternatives available to them when it comes to flying to a destination.  Yes, on occasion, there are 2 or more airports to choose from but those are generally controlled by the same government agencies. 

So what am I talking about?  Landing fees.  Because airlines recognizeably can’t avoid paying these fees and because they are incremental to adding costs to an airline fare, it’s popular to fund projects by simply raising these fees.   Occasionally these become so high that airlines go looking elsewhere for their revenue but it’s really quite unlikely to happen in most major cities that trunk routes are based upon.   Example:  Look at just how expensive it is to fly into Toronto.  It’s agregious in price but airlines continue to fly those routes although the rather high air fares that result certainly must contstrict the markets for those routes.

Airlines use airports and airports really are public assets and, yes, they should pay a reasonable fee to use those assets.  However, often airports are built and upgraded with these fees without ever asking the airlines if they’re interested in paying those increased fees for what are often very marginal improvements they get to experience.  Occasionally a really large airline strong arms an airport into funding improvements and new construction and that results in increased landing fees that negatively impact smaller airlines serving the airport with less frequency and who get to experience really none of the benefits.

The thing is . . . airports are economic engines that cities both need and should really want.  Artificially constricting service or growth at these airports has a severe impact on cities and metroplex areas.  Who wants to locate a corporate headquarters in a city that raises airfares through vanity projects that are funded via fees and taxes?  That has a real impact on a company’s travel budget.

In addition, it has become popular to add visitor taxes to things like hotels and car rentals that are insanely over the top in price.  In some cities, we now see taxes and fees making up as much as 40% of the cost to rent a room or a car.   That is abusing the good will of visitors to a city who are already injecting economic value with their visit.  Just because they don’t live in that area and can’t vote against such things doesn’t mean that we should get away with it either.

Transportation, tourism and particularly aviation are strong economic pumps for regions.  It is wrong to overly tax these just because you can get away with it.  It is akin to continually raising taxes on cigarettes just because users are largely addicted and they’ll pay almost any incremental increase in price to meet that addiction.  It would be far better to look upon these areas as opportunities to invest for the local and regional economies rather than an opportunity to rape and pillage visitors in support of the local and regional economies.

Filed under: Airports by ajax
No Comments »

It’s been noted that fines levied against airlines by the FAA have risen sharply over the past 2 years and they show no signs of leveling off either.  USA Today in the Sky reports that Airtran was fined $20,000 for advertising $39 fares instead of the $44 they actually were.  Delta was fined for improperly displaying taxes and fees on some fares.  Other airlines are now getting fined for blatantly violating their own policies on lost luggage or for treating handicapped people inappropriately. 

Many see these fines as draconian and I see them as an example of what largely has been wrong w/ the Federal Aviation Administration for decades.  They are just way too close to the industry that they are supposed to regulate and govern.  That doesn’t mean that I advocate an adversarial position on the part of the FAA  towards airlines.  And it doesn’t mean that the FAA needs to make hay with the public by portraying itself as “tough” either. 

It means that the FAA lost its objectivity long ago and while I do applaud the reversal of that direction in many cases, I”m unhappy to suddenly seeing the FAA treat airlines like they are rats now.  The truth is, we, the people, created the monster (FAA) and we, the people, allowed the airline industry to grossly influence that agency for far too long.  Of course the airlines used all the influence they could to move the agency that governs their operations in the direction they preferred.  It’s an exercise in self preservation and no one should be surprised by it.

What we do need is a reorganization of that federal agency so that it can become less political and less influence by airlines.  While airlines *should* have some input on regulations that will govern them, they should not get to write the rules and hand them over to the FAA.  The FAA shouldn’t be bobbing and weaving to the political tunes written by Congress and/or the Executive either. 

It really should be operating much more independently like the Federal Reserve.  It needs to be a bit more above the fray and a independent enough to hold airlines to a tough standard when it comes to safety and fair play.  In fact, the FAA has been so unduly influenced and, at many times, unaccountable for its decisions and actions, we’ve exacerbate the problem by demanding more accountability via Congress and the Secretary of the Department of Transportation.  The FAA now simply reacts.

But the FAA needs to plan.  It needs to plan for the long term and it needs to be able to meet demands for qualified staff and it needs to govern airlines independently, fairly and appropriate to the times.  By operating independently, I also mean that its budget needs to come out from under Congressional whimsy (at least its administrative budget) and it needs to become stable and self-supporting for the long term. 

It needs to focus on providing better systems and great excellence when it comes to air traffic control.  We, as a country, are woefully behind the curve when it comes to these systems and we’re following, not leading.  This isn’t a corrupt government agency but it’s one that is pulled in too many directions all too often and it is far too frequently subject to conflicting influences and opinions.  It is an agency that needs to be a bit more above the fray and able to do the right thing.

Filed under: Air Traffic Control, Aircraft Development, Airline Service, Airports by ajax
No Comments »

Regulatory authorities are going to start seeing Southwest Airlines differently as a result of this merger.  SWA has done a great job of characterizing itself as the small underdog.  In truth, it’s a big airline and this merger is going to get authorities such as the Department of Transporation and Department of Justice to see it a bit differently.  SWA flexes more muscle against its own competitors than most realize and this move does eliminate a lot of problems that Airtran was giving it.  Airtran had lower costs and a nice service product and competed very, very well against SWA on major market routes.  SWA will forever be seen differently going forward now.

Southwest’s fleet strategy has always been a popular topic of conversation.  While it’s true that they’ve stayed close to their 737 roots, different aircraft types aren’t unheard of for them.  In the 1970’s and 1980’s, they briefly operated 727 aircraft.  In the 1980’s they bought Muse Air and operated their MD-80 aircraft for a while too.  The addition of the 737-500 was, in some senses, the addition of a different type for them as well. 

Adding the 717 isn’t quite the challenge for them that many think it is.  This purchase grows their fleet from approximately 550 aircraft to 602 737s and 86 717s or 686 aircraft total.  Let’s put that in perspective for a minute.  American Airlines has about 630 aircraft, Delta about 728 and the soon to be ContiUnited will have 700.  Southwest leaps past AA and plays in the SuperLegacy category on fleet numbers.  It will continue to lag behind on capacity measured as revenue passenger miles.  Nonetheless, SWA is a huge player on a global scale. 

There is already speculation about SWA “de-hubbing” Atlanta.  Well, I think the structure  of the routes into and out of Atlanta will change dramatically.  I think we’ll see a SWA-like operation in Atlanta after a period of time.  However, it will remain a “hub” in the sense that will be a major player in the SWA system just like other cities such as Phoenix, Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, Denver and Chicago.  Those cities are hubs too.  SWA just doesn’t operate flights into their “hubs” like a network carrier does. 

I wonder if SWA isn’t missing an opportunity to reinvent itself with this purchase.  Airtran did many things very, very well and they are a profitable and very competitive carrier.  They introduced Sirius/XM Satellite Radio on their flights.  They were one of the very first airlines to have an all Aircell GoGo Wifi fleet.  Their business class product is popular and upgrades to that business class product were also profitable. 

There are some elements here that SWA could stand to step back and examine.  They aren’t nearly as far from their own business model as they think.  SWA is working hard to attract the business passenger and that business class product might well be worth keeping and even introducing across the fleet.  Southwest is introducing Row44 Wifi (too slowly in most people’s opinion) and now they have an airline that knows how to do it quickly.  They have a unique opportunity to take a look inside the viability of Aircell’s GoGo product and see if they don’t want to reverse course. 

I don’t think onboard entertainment is necessary but I do think the Airtran satellite radio offering is a great value added item on their flights and, again, it’s worth taking a look at.  I don’t want SWA to be jetBlue but the satellite radio quite possibly “fits” within their quirky nature. 

I don’t think many airlines, if any at all, will object to this merger.  It eliminates a lower cost competitor for them and replaces them with someone who has rising costs that are moving closer to legacy airline costs these days.  In addition, the sheer size of SWA and the access it gains to major slot-controlled markets such as NYC and Washington D.C. mean that legacy airlines can now argue that there *is* enough competition in those areas.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Delta and US Airways wanted to revisit their proposed slot swap deal in the near future.

Finally, there is another airline out there that kind of fits neatly into this mix.  An airline that would be as unconventional as a purchase for SWA but which would really be a west coast mirror equivalent of Airtran purchase.  Alaska Airlines.   If SWA is willing to take on integrating an LCC carrier like Airtran, it could take on integrating a sub-legacy carrier such as Alaska Airlines.  Especially one with a fleet type that remains compatible with SWA but which offers even more potential since Alaska Airlines operates a broad range of the 737 family. Such a purchase gives SWA a strong presence in all of the regions in the United States and an opportunity to see how a regional airline (Horizon Airlines) works using a very cost effective type:  the The Dash 8 / Q400.

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline News, Airports by ajax
1 Comment »

Two days ago, I took exception to a post made by the very popular blogger, The Cranky Flier, over statements made about the 3 Hour Rule.  The dialogue taking place over there highlights the biggest problems with arguments being made for and against the 3 Hour Rule.  Too many judgements are being made on both sides on the basis of incomplete data and emotional arguments rather than facts.

The FAA argued that tarmac delays were dramatically down versus a slight increase in cancellations and, I agree, crowing about it just a bit too much.  Cranky argued that the “slight increase” was in fact a 20% increase and there was an emotional reaction to that.  The problem is, no definition or data is being given for really measuring the impact of the rule on cancellations or the impact of the rule on people. 

Most of the original arguments made for a 3 Hour Rule were derived from exceptionally rare events.  Even when you considered those events in a seasonal context, they were vastly outside the norms.  Indeed, you might have been able to say that 3+ hour delays occurred infrequently enough to be considered statistically insignificant.  What we do know is that if your population of events is large enough, you’re going to have a few that occur far outside the norms. 

Further, we reacted emotionally to the conditions people sat through on many of those flights and really only to the subjective reactions on the part of people who spoke to the press.  We never heard from the person who just sat on the plane quietly for 7 hours and thanked his lucky stars he finally arrived home and got off.   That person doesn’t play well on CNN. 

I do think that there is an argument to be made for limits on the basis of health and welfare of individuals on flights.  I do not think it is wise to hold people on a MD-80 for 8 hours except in the case of major emergencies.

There are health issues to consider such as the close proximity and contact that occurs between a wide variety of people in that environment.  Air quality is another.  Sanitation is also a serious one.  Food and water is really a strong factor as well.  And let me point out that we will divert an entire aircraft to an unscheduled stop when someone is having a medical emergency.  There should be a discussion on how we value the health and welfare of people in these situations.  And just because 4 people want to go at all costs doesn’t mean that rises above the needs of 4 people who have serious health conditions that could well be impacted by a prolonged stay inside an aircraft. 

We should carefully evaluate anything we hear in the media about cancellations as well.  Should we be giving full weight to the person who had a flight cancelled and who suffered a 24 hour delay vs the other 10 people who had a flight cancelled and suffered a 5 hour delay?   Is a businessman’s need to get to the next meeting superior to the mother’s need to get her 2 young children off a plane because of health considerations?  The truth is, I don’t have black and white answers to questions like that but it would be good to see a debate on issues like that.  We, as consumers, should see a bit of argument on both sides and get a more complete picture before we start judging these moments purely on our needs at that particular moment.

As far as the data goes, we don’t know what the impact of this rule is.  We aren’t measuring the impact by the number of people per 100,000 travelers who are getting their flights cancelled specifically because of the 3 hour rule.  We know that cancellation rates go up and down.  Those cancellations can be caused by seasonal events, bad airline operations or, frankly, just a bad week of equipment failures at a particular airline (I believe it was AA who recently saw not one, not two but three 767s go INOP in a single day).  We do know that the overwhelming majority of flights never come close to spending 3 hours delay on the airfield.  Seriously, we do know that.  We know that the frequency of occurrence for delays going past 3 hours prior to the 3 Hour Rule was negligible by any standard. 

What I believe (which is different than objective fact) is that we also have a need for some kind of rule governing those instances that did fall outside all of the norms and which were not caused by major acts of god or major emergencies.  As Doug Parker said, the airlines did this to themselves in many respects.   There were enough instances that we, as a nation, found unacceptable given the particular circumstances around the event.  Airlines and airports didn’t deal with those situations considering what might be humane but instead were making objective decisions based on operational and financial data. 

Objective data and objective decisions are, generally speaking, good to have.  However, we live in a world with human beings who are very subjective creatures.  Yes, you really do have to give consideration to that. 

Statistically speaking, an increase in cancellations that sees a rise from 1.18 percent to 1.43 denotes an exceptionally slight increase from an objective point of view.  The FAA was right.  However, the FAA failed to consider the number of people who were potentially impacted by that slight increase and Cranky was right to point out that these incredibly slight increases do have an impact on a rather large number of people.  By Cranky’s math, that slight increase potentially affected 150,000 more people.  Are we satisfied with the idea that more people than the new Dallas Cowboys Stadium can hold were materially affected by a cancellation?  Well, we can’t even make that judgment because we don’t know all of the “why” behind each cancellation. 

But I think we can agree that it isn’t anything to brag about when 150,000 more people were affected by cancellations.  If nothing else, it is in appropriate to reduce people, human beings, to that kind of statement.

At some point we all should start acknowledging that our airline transportation system is imperfect and cannot delivery you to your destination 100% on time without any cancellations.  If you travel by air, you are going to be affected by a combination of factors virtually every time.  It’s time to be a bit more reasonable in our expectations.

On the other hand, it’s time for airlines to start acknowledging that as well.  One of the biggest causes of uproars over these kinds of situations is an airlines propensity to expect us to adhere to a byzantine set of rules governing our options when traveling while allowing themselves all manner of leeway for those same events.  Airlines want a $20 fee to check a bag but they don’t want to refund that money when they don’t perform.  However, when you miss flight due to a large traffic jam or weather event, you’re often expected to pay penalties and change fees for being affected by something outside your control. 

Not even Las Vegas has a better rigged game than the present US airline industry.  That is what is driving the perception that airlines are abusing people.  And I think it’s manifesting itself in reactions to the more outrageous although exceptionally infrequent events such as a long tarmac delay.  A little more balance between the airline and its customer is called for in my opinion.

Is it right for the government and/or the FAA to regulate some of this behaviour?  Absolutely.  Airlines are using public airways and other public infrastructure while serving the public.  They benefit from a great deal of government investment and expenditures.  The government is not created by the businesses for the businesses.  It’s here for the citizens.  The people who vote and who are ultimately and individually responsible for this nation.  That said, it doesn’t mean that the regulation and oversight needs to be hamhanded or political either.  However, just like no human being or airline is perfect, neither is government. 

Let’s be a bit more realistic about our expectations for all parties involved in this subject area.

Filed under: Airline News, Airline Service, Airports, Frequent Flier, security by ajax
No Comments »

A few days ago, I was asked to help someone put together a multi-stop itinerary from Portland, OR to Chicago to NYC to Portland.  A quick check of travel sites revealed a pretty good price of $525 all in from Delta.  The problem was multiple stops at Delta hubs in Minneapolis, Detroit and/or Atlanta.  Each segment had a stop and each stop was a not too short layover, too.

So I started looking for alternatives.  Now, this person wanted to fly into Newark’s airport for the NYC part for convenience and that makes alternatives a bit more difficult.  But they were traveling into NYC on a Saturday night or Sunday morning and that makes La Guardia go from “ugh” to possible.

After a few minutes, I found flights on Southwest Airlines for PDX to Chicago Midway (MDW) that were more than reasonable.  Then I found very reasonable flights from MDW to NYC (La Guardia) on Southwest too.  Finally, Continental offered a nice one-stop to Portland via Seattle for an extremely reasonable price.  All in, those tickets added up to about $530.  Best of all, only one connection was necessary and it was an easy one in Seattle. 

The traveler would also be able to take advantage of SWA’s no bag fee policy saving them about $50 as well.  In fact, by that accounting, suddenly the fare difference was $575 plus taxes for Delta and a bunch of bad flights on bad aircraft vs $530 on SWA and Continental on good flights with nice aircraft.  Their overall travel time was shortened by hours and their convenience and price went up.  It’s good to look for alternatives and it’s very wise to remember Southwest Airlines when you’re planning your trips.

One odd note:  I discovered that Delta really dominated flights from MDW to other destinations such as NYC-LGA and NYC-EWR but only as connections to their hub cities in Minneapolis, Detroit or Atlanta.  At least by price they did.  But the connections ranged from barely OK to “what the hell are they thinking”.  And suddenly it dawned on me why ContiUnited decided to give up those slots at EWR to Southwest. 

ContiUnited doesn’t fly from EWR to MDW non-stop.  In fact, I couldn’t find a connection on either airline to that airport.  They do, however, have a strong schedule to Chicago’s O’Hare airport.  By giving those slots up, they virtually assured that SWA would fly in competition with Delta to Chicago rather than ContiUnited and do it very competitively.  In other words, they got the attack dog to go after their biggest competitor in the NYC area. 

Is there some potential for competition on ContiUnited routes?  Sure but it is pretty limited since SWA flies to secondary airports where they (ContiUnited) are (mostly) strongest.  They’ve already seen that SWA has a limited effect on their pricing under those circumstances.  And, as I’ve already said in an earlier post, they already know how to compete with SWA in the circumstances where they might directly compete.  Best of all, they made the DoT very happy to offering a big chunk of slots to SWA instead of trying to pull a Delta and parcel them out to tiny players.

And that makes me wonder why Airtran never used its EWR slots to fly to Chicago where they already had a presence.  Their business class product would have fit nicely with the value oriented, entrepreneur flier between those two cities and offered great convenience between downtown Chicago and Manhattan.

Filed under: Airline Fees, Airline Service, Airports by ajax
No Comments »

There is a reason there is a lot of focus on the near mid-west and east coast when it comes to airlines.  That’s where people are.  The population density in our eastern half far exceeds that of our western half.  Even LCC carriers “get it” and if you think otherwise, look at the focus of jetBlue, Airtran and Southwest Airlines.

But I think the opportunity of the west and mid-west is getting ignored.  All one has to do is take a look at routes flown from the DFW, Houston, Kansas City, Salt Lake City and, yes, Las Vegas area and wonder at the possibilities.  Yes, the flights are a bit longer in length and time but they also fly in and out of airports that are far less congested and far less affected by weather. 

Southwest ignores routes from DFW while it waits to fly unrestricted from Love Field in 2014 and I think that is a mistake.  jetBlue has ignored the Dallas market despite the fact that it connects an amazing number of people to areas where it already has a strength:  the east coast and west coast.

Airtran has game in the east and even in the upper-Midwest now but it has ignored the west so far and that puzzles me.  It’s an airline that is clearly ready to go to the next level and be a real national player.  Frontier is playing some in the west via Denver but take a look at the fares it is charging on those western routes.  I think Frontier is more vulnerable than it thinks. 

More importantly, I don’t think there has been the same LCC stimulus in many western markets that we’ve seen elsewhere.  Many LCC’s operating routes in the west seem to have come to some tacit agreement with legacy airlines on competition.  With the exception of the west coast, we don’t see much LCC stimulus going on past 150 miles east of the west coast. 

There is opportunity there and the airline that figures out how to build a better network there is potentially set to earn a great deal of money.  Sure, Southwest is out there and they do have pretty good coverage but even they could stand a little competition these days.  At least outside of California and Arizona.

Filed under: Airline Service, Airports by ajax
3 Comments »

Often when I’m at an airport, I wonder who it is that is going into that expensive luggage shop or fashion store at an airport and buying something so expensive they can afford to stay in business.  I also wonder if that really is the best use of space in an airport.  I suppose if someone is willing to pay for the space, it must be on some level.

One of the most frustrating parts of being inside a terminal is the prices at newstands.  It’s the land of the $1.50 candy bar and the $10 magazine.   Want a bottle of water? No problem, please pay $3.00.   Food isn’t much better and while it is a tad more expensive, it’s often much worse than that you can access from the same restaurant outside the airport.

Well, things should be more expensive at an airport.  Space for shops and restaurants is much more expensive than most places and the logistics of stocking them is much more difficult at most airports.  I’m OK with a bit more expensive for the real estate.

But why don’t we have better solutions to hold prices down a bit?  Ever seen a vending kiosk like what they have in Japan?  The things you can get in a vending machine in Japan are stunning.  I wouldn’t be surprised to learn one day that you can buy a Smart Car in a Japanese vending machine.   Why aren’t airports looking at solutions like this?  Do we really care if a person rings up our magazine or candy bar or sewing kit or sinus medicine?  I don’t.  To the contrary, let me slide my credit card through a swipe and get what I want and be on my way. 

You can stock vending machines more densely than what most newstands stock merchandise and, hey, you don’t have to pay for nearly as many staff to keep them stocked.   You can also warehouse much of your stock off property and have a person or person(s) re-stocking the machines even several times a day.

Restaurants and food in general are a different thing.  The problem here is that large companies bid for a multi-year contract to provide food services under a variety of brands.  For instance, ARAMark is one such company.  They license the brand but staff and operate the restaurants on their own.  In many cases, the quality control that one sees exercised at that brand’s restaurants away from the airport is far superior to what one encounters at the airport.

Visit a Starbucks at the airport and you’ll see what I mean.  That isn’t a Starbuck’s employee and he/she isn’t trained to the same standard and isn’t even necessarily kept in that position day in and day out so they learn the business properly.  Often it’s someone with cursory training making bad coffee beverages that cost 30% more than what you find at a typical Starbucks.

This old and archaic system is, in my opinion, due for an overhaul.  These contracts net the companies huge profits (almost guaranteed even) and those companies, in turn, fork over large chunks of cash to the airport agencies as well.   Why aren’t we allowing a variety of companies to bid for individual space to operate their brands with the same level of quality found elsewhere?

I don’t think food and beverage prices would drop.  Not at all, really.  However, I do think choice and quality would go up considerably.  Why should we believe that Starbucks or McDonald’s or anyone else would be so afraid of airport operations?  These companies have already dealt with difficult logistics and proven themselves more than capable of earning a profit. 

And if they don’t, they’ll go out of business and someone else may try their hand at operating a different business.  Choice is up at many airports and the offerings often far outnumber what we used to see in the 80’s and 90’s but quality is down, at least in my experience, and regional offerings have been squeezed out of airports altogether.   Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to get good regional BBQ in Atlanta at the airport?  Or how about a great hot dog at JFK?   Or Chicago deep dish pizza in O’Hare? 

Airports seem to be falling farther and farther behind and I think that has mostly to do with food service contracts that often last as long as 10 years.  Let’s get some more competitive bidding in place and break up the consortiums while inviting some regional diversity at these airports.

Filed under: Airports by ajax
2 Comments »

American Airlines is in discussions with its transatlantic Oneworld partners, British Airways and Iberia, to consolidate in Terminal 8 at JFK airport.   This would be a good counter-move to Delta’s intention to renovate and expand at the same airport.

It’s about market share in New York and now we find the SuperLegacy airlines moving to own the most they can in that market.  AA (Oneworld) and Delta (SkyTeam) at JFK and ContiUnited at Newark.  It’s a fight that is sure to get bloody over the next few years.

If AA can move to bring its partners under the same banner and make things even more convenient for connections, it may have a grip on JFK that resembles British Airways’ at Heathrow Airport in London. 

It also makes me wonder what ContiUnited might do at Newark.  While Continental plainly dominates at Newark Airport, it also presently stands to have the least pleasant facilities and since it’s new to the Star Alliance, it may take quite some time to bring its Star Alliance partners under its umbrella at Newark. 

While a number of Star Alliance carriers to have flights to Newark, a number don’t.  And things aren’t well organized at Newark for Star Alliance.  Will they be?  I don’t see how ContiUnited can afford *not* to get their act together at Newark to compete. 

Newark is actually a bit more convenient to Manhattan and that is, after all, where the high dollar traveler is going to or coming from.  It makes sense for the Star Alliance to cooperate and consolidate and ensure good feed to those international flights but they’re going to have to get some airlines to move over, I think.  Airlines such as ANA.  

Others, such as Lufthansa and SWISS and Singapore Airlines are all in Terminal B.  Continental has Terminals A and C.  What ContiUnited really needs is a revised Terminal C and/or a portion of B while giving up A to others. 

But will the other airlines cooperate?  Don’t bet on it.  Keeping Newark in disarray would be a good thing.

Filed under: Airline News, Airlines Alliances, Airports by ajax
No Comments »

When the Federal Aviation Administration downgraded Mexico’s aviation safety from Category 1 to Category 2, people took notice and, no doubt, so did Mexico’s airlines.  Does this reflect on Mexico’s airlines?  Yes, I think so. 

Mexico has joined the ranks of countries such as Haiti, Congo and Serbia & Montenegro.  In fact, the only nation listed as Category 2 that surprises me is Israel and I suspect that has to do more with execution and very specific circumstances than it does with technical quality.  Nonetheless, when you join those ranks, it speaks poorly of your country *and* your airlines.

Is a nation’s aviation infrastructure always indicative of the airlines?  No, of course not.  There are plenty of Category 1 nations who have had airlines that had unsafe operations over the years including the United States.  However, I can’t think of a particularly outstanding airline coming from a Category 2 nation except El Al.   You don’t really hear of the operational excellence of airlines from Honduras, Paraguay or the Phillipines, do you? 

This is bad for both Mexico and Mexico’s airlines.  And with Mexicana trying desperately to leap off a cliff and kill itself, it looks even worse. 

Suddenly, Mexican airlines can no longer codeshare with US airlines because of this.  That means participation in alliances is going to mean very little in terms of revenue. That is going to hurt.  And, let’s face it, Mexico doesn’t have a great reputation for fixing its problems quickly.  The Mexican Way is to bicker about it for as much as a decade before doing something.

It would be in the best interest of airlines in Mexico to start safety audits with IATA immediately and to put political pressure on the government to fix this asap.  Sadly, I think this is going to get much worse before it gets much better. 

I am a huge fan of Mexico.  I genuinely enjoy its people and much of its culture and I want them to succeed every day.  That said, success isn’t going to happen until its current government and, more importantly, its businesses and citizens come together to insist on excellence.  They have, quite literally, a major conflict going on in their drug war and a crumbling financial infrastructure and waning exports to countries like the US and Canada.  This development in aviation puts them at a further disadvantage with its partner trading countries and it needs to get fixed fast.

Mexico needs to ask for help from the US and other countries fast.  Or they can contact Swaziland or the Ukraine and ask for advice on how to dig one’s grave even deeper.

Filed under: Air Traffic Control, Airline News, Airlines Alliances, Airports, security by ajax
No Comments »

Over the past year and particularly over the past 6 months we have heard a great deal about NextGen Air Traffic Control Systems using GPS for guidance.  GPS will allow aircraft to fly more precise routes and permit distances between aircraft to be reduced which should allow more “capacity” into our system.

Increased precision should permit a “redesign” of approaches to airports that will allow aircraft to enter a “pattern” earlier and perform continuous descent approaches that will save fuel and even reduce the workload on pilots.

On flights over oceans, aircraft could use GPS to precisely locate  themselves and then automatically report back their position(s) to traffic control centers which could then “tighten up” routes across those oceans and allow more aircraft to follow an optimal route. 

There is no doubt that GPS is overdue in this game but it isn’t necessarily the “no downside” solution to our problems either. 

GPS signals are provided by satellites and things can happen to those satellites to either block or severely degrade the signals.  Sunspot activity can affect their signals,  for instance.  It’s also not unheard of to suddenly find satellites decommissioned because they were hit by space debris or such intense solar storms.   Suddenly loss of those signals could result in a very intense situation where we find tightly space aircraft without the ability to precisely locate themselves.  The chances for this are, admittedly, statistically very low.  It’s worth an acceptable risk provided aircraft retain guidance redundancy with other systems not dependent on satellites.

Indeed, not all GPS signals are actually emitted from satellites.  There are ground based augmentation systems that permit a finer degree of precision in certain areas.  In fact, one such use is in Instrument Landing Systems being designed for the future.

But there is a security problem with GPS.  First, it is possible to “spoof” GPS signals.  In fact, it’s relatively easy to “spoof” these signals and a reason why the military doesn’t rely completely on GPS signals for guiding munitions and why they’re developing other systems that are not satellite based but which do provide accurate relative navigation.  

Signals by which aircraft would navigate are encrypted but that encryption is somewhat out of date for this era.  While a terrorist wouldn’t necessarily be able to spoof the signal, a foreign country could conceivably do so.  And you can do such “spoofing” by sending a signal from the ground, air or space with equipment that isn’t very costly and not very hard to engineer. 

While aircraft aren’t necessarily going to experience their guidance being impacted by pranksters or terrorists, the risk for it being a target of a foreign nation who decides its at war with the United States or some other country does exist.   Any country capable of doing the math and engineering technology from the 1980’s can potentially engage in this.   That might include countries such as North Korea or Iran.

In addition and quite unfortunately, China has shown its willingness to strike at satellites with missiles.  Again, any country capable of building an intercontinental ballastic missile is now capable of striking at GPS satellites in space.  And don’t think that those won’t be targets in a conflict, they will be.

While we have some safeguards and the United States Air Force works very hard at securing and protecting the existing satellite system, we really need a global commercial navigation system that is secured by a larger, more redundant grid of satellites.  A system that is owned and maintained by responsible nations of the world and one that is designed for air and sea navigation.  A system that is encrypted with modern encryption and upgradeable for the future.   And a system that can be “turned off” selectively for certain regions or countries in times of conflict. 

I’m thrilled we seem to be moving forward with a new generation of navigation systems.  It’s long overdue but I do wish that we would consider the security risks inherent with these systems just a bit more.

Filed under: Air Traffic Control, Airports, security by ajax
1 Comment »

I found a column in the Philadelphia Inquirer today that discusses whether the airline should or should not be considered for heavier regulation.  You can read it in its entirety HERE. 

We regulate the airline industry on safety matters (but not without a lot of groaning from the industry at times) and we definitely have found that it is appropriate to regulate interstate commerce on some level.  However, a return to the days of pre-1978 deregulation would, in my opinion, be a mistake. 

People often long for those days in the perception that things were better all the way around and that really isn’t true.  Today, we really do have more choice in most cases when it comes to travel on a particular route.  In the so-called golden years, the CAB decided who got to fly what routes and at what price.  We often forget that those prices were regulated as well and an airlines profit was determined on their costs.  However, so was the price.  Airlines often made a justification for raising prices on routes based on their costs and an appropriate profit level.  Not unlike how many electrical utilities are still regulated today.

Airlines are, if anything, far more safe today than 30 years ago as well.  That’s despite the drum beating going on about airlines sacrificing safety for profit and it is a product of our regulation in that area and its influence on both manufacturers as well as airlines themselves.  I do also believe that safety remains a top concern with airlines today despite the competitive environment because of how much impact on profit there can be as a result of a crash or safety incident. 

But airlines do use a variety of public assets and as a result of that, they should, in my opinion, be subject to some regulation.  For instance, airports are a public asset and, yet, we allow airlines to dominate airports by leasing/purchasing terminal space and holding on to underutilized assets.  In a sense, we allow airlines to bully both airports and other airlines who would make use of those public assets.  I wouldn’t propose that we tightly regulate terminal space but I would propose that these assets should periodically be subject to some sort of competitive bid for them.  That shriek you just heard is the airlines.

The airways are a public asset as well.  How much traffic a particular part of our airspace can withstand is determined by our infrastructure and our airports both of which are public assets as well.  There is, in my opinion, a duty on the part of the government(s) to see that these assets are used as efficiently as possible.  Where airports are slot controlled, those slots should also be subject to a periodic competitive bid for use.  When airlines find it “profitable” in a competitive sense to hold on to those slots by using them for high frequency and/or small regional jet routes, they are potentially being underutilized. 

That means that when there are 20+ frequencies between two cities among 2 or more airlines, there is some indication that those assets (i.e. slots) are being underutilized and with just a few less frequencies, slots could be opened up to provide new or improved service to other destinations and also improve competition on routes being “dominated” by a couple of airlines who are controlling prices via frequency.  If you think this doesn’t happen, just look into how major airlines respond to new competition by “small” competitors on these and non-slot routes.  They add capacity via larger aircraft and or additional flights to “buy” the business.

But does the consumer really benefit from that?  In short term spurts, yes they may benefit.  In the long term, no, they don’t.  If you control the route, you have some influence on the price and losing control of that route could quite possibly mean it turns unprofitable very quickly. 

In pre-deregulation days, it was thought that the nation’s infrastructure couldn’t withstand the loss of a trunk airline via bankruptcy and/or strikes.   So the government regulated price on their behalf and assured a stable system.  During that time, that made sense since those trunk airlines held much more regional segments of the United States.  For instance, in those days Delta might have been perceived as “essential” to the south east and its removal from the system might have meant a major economic loss to the area. 

We think there are fewer airlines and to some extent that is true.  However, our system is also vastly more flexibile today than it was 30 years ago.  A loss of a major legacy airline doesn’t mean the nation’s airline infrastructure becomes paralyzed.  We have enough airlines who are already serving those routes and who already have the flexibility to either serve them with more frequency or more capacity or both.  A correction via the remaining airlines would take days in some cases and mere weeks in others.  Not months and years.   Deregulation has provided that flexibility.

One argument many legacy airlines make for being allowed more dominance at hubs is that they serve the public good with flights to small, outlying areas in regions that no one else would serve if they were gone.  In a few cases, they’re telling the truth.  In most cases, they serve those areas with very high prices and very low frequency and they do little to stimulate commerce in those areas.  This is because those airlines serve those areas inefficiently with the wrong aircraft and schedules so that they may “feed” their hub systems.  Hub systems have to grow to remain profitable.  They are the animal that simply grows hungrier every year.

Should a place like Abilene, Texas have 3 or 4 direct flights to hubs like Dallas or Houston?  I’d argue that it isn’t really justified.  However, you could justify it as a whistle stop on a multi-city route being served by a turboprop as opposed to a regional jet.   Does service suffer as a result of that?  In most cases, no.  Airlines would earn more profit, service the same number of passengers or possibly more due to lower prices and the cities themselves wouldn’t suffer any economic impact.  

Abilene, Texas is served by no less than 7 flights a day to DFW all on ERJ-140 aircraft.  2 pair of those flights have departure times that separate them by less than an hour.   Does an isolated city in West Texas with a population of 120, 000 really justify that kind of frequency?  Probably not.  There are larger city pairs that don’t have that kind of frequency.  Could the 5:50am and 6:35am departures be combined into a single 6:00am flight?  Absolutely.   Would those passengers be impacted if the flight originated in Midland-Odessa at 5:50am and made a simple whistle stop in Abilene on its way to DFW?  No, not at all.  Would the Midland-Odessa passengers be impacted by a flight that was, at best, 20 minutes longer?  No, they wouldn’t.

We hurt the public by not regulating the industry for more competition and by the public, I mean the greater good for all, not just the 2 bankers in Abilene who get in a snit if they don’t have 4 morning flight choices.  Promoting competition by regulating access to our public assets isn’t a bad thing and there are decades of evidence to show that this is an area where the government can regulate very successfully and profitably. 

Do I think the airlines service levels should be regulated?  Let’s take a look at that tomorrow.

Filed under: Air Traffic Control, Airline Service, Airports by ajax
No Comments »

It’s the cheap and easy thing to do, right?  Instead of parking, you save money and since you cannot accompany someone into the gate areas, why bother hanging around?

Well, it might still be easy but now two airports in Europe are charging fees for dropping off a passenger.  Both Belfast and Edinburgh airports are instituting a fee to drop someone off.  Not park quickly and let them out.  The mere act of dropping someone off at a terminal will now cost £1 at both of these airports. 

You can read the BBC stories HERE and HERE. 

Both airports are justifying the fee as a “service” and offering that the fee helps them pay for improvements to attract more business. 

In other words:   We want you to pay us to invest in the infrastructure that your taxes are already supposed to pay for. 

Let me offer that this comes dangerously close to being as insulting as a fee based lavatory on an aircraft. 

The air travel industry is grossly overtaxed and overcharged with fees.  An airport is a public asset and benefits the public and is supported already by taxes paid by the public. 

To act as if it is a nuisance to have passengers actually drop off people is more than one step over the line.

Filed under: Airports by ajax
1 Comment »

After 4 months of furious construction, JFK airport in New York City hs re-opened its longest runway, 31L/13R, for business again. 

The asphalt surface was replaced with concrete projected to last 40 years.   Since its closing, JFK has operated under heavier than usual movement restrictions to keep congestion and delays down and with great success on most day.   This runway is important to the airport since most days the prevailing winds align with it and its parallel cousin on the other side of the airport.  In addition, its additional length (14,000+ feet long) provides an extra margin of safety for the heavy, widebody international flights that usually take-off from it.

Notably, the project was delivered on time and on budget and improves the airport infrastruture for the future.  A credit to airport management, the FAA, the airlines and, most notably, the air traffic controller’s working at the airport.

Filed under: Airports by ajax
No Comments »

Now that more than a week has passed, I want to revisit my first post about the Virgin Atlantic flight diversion to Bradley International Airport last week.  You can read my original post HERE.

First, I think both Congressional and administration officials have grossly overreacted to this event.  This was not a 6 or 7 hour event.  It was a 4 hour event.   And the primary cause of keeping people contained on the aircraft was weather and then no available customs and immigrations officers to process passengers.  You see, it might be called Bradley *International* Airport but it’s “international” aspect derives from relatively short flights to Canada.

Now we have Senators and Secretaries demanding that we impose a 3 Hour rule on international carriers and decrying the inhumanity of what those poor people experienced.   Indeed, the more these people pound desktops, the more they reveal their ignorance.

Folks, I’ve sat in an aircraft waiting 4 hours to take off a number of times.  It’s boring.  It’s tedious but it isn’t inhumane.  The same is true of a flight that likely took about 7 hours from London to the NYC area.  

The real issue here is what we allow when it comes to a diversion and the reason for that diversion.  I said it in my first post and I’ll say it again:  Virgin Atlantic’s chief mistake was in putting themselves into a position to have to use Bradley or choosing Bradley for its relatively low cost to land, refuel and take-off again.  There were plenty of better alternatives and VA didn’t choose one. 

If we presume a 200 nautical mile diversion capability, let’s look at what was in range from Newark (EWR).  Click THIS MAP to see what was available.

This flight could have made Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, any of the NYC airports, Washington Dulles and maybe even Pittsburg.  Short of a real fuel emergency, this flight should have made for one of those major airports that has full facilities for a widebody jet carry international passengers. 

The fact that we don’t distinguish what is and isn’t a legal diversion in a non-emergency event is a bigger part of the problem for international flights.  We make any airport that has the ability to land the aircraft a legal airport for diversion and I’m not so sure we should.  Perhaps a better rule would be to insist on the ability to divert (for non-emergency reasons and weather ain’t an emergency in most cases) to a *capable* airport designated as such for an international flight. 

Regardless, one of the reasons given for the delays was lack of customs officials.  The airport would not dis-embark the passengers until they had staff.  I may be wrong but I believe they could have allowed them off the aircraft *if* they were kept in a sterile area until customs officials arrived.  Whether or not they had a sterile area large enough is another question but also reinforces the need for diverting to airports that are properly equipped for these events. 

Who is at fault?  Virgin!  Bradley!  The FAA!  The passengers! No one!

The better question is how do we fix this so that passengers can reasonable expect reasonable treatment in a reasonable time period in non-emergency diversions.  And reasonable really is probably some amount of time between 3 and 4 hours.  

Look, no reasonable passenger is going to be outraged by many hours of delay when the aircraft engine shuts down and the flight has to divert to the first and best available airport during a real emergency.   Sure, there is always the chance of a crank or arrogant passenger being outraged no matter what but in those events, they just don’t count and virtually all passengers understand the nature of a real emergency.

The real failures are in events like these where the pilots gambled (on circling and hoping they could land too long), the airline and pilots choosing a poor airport, the FAA not distinguishing what is and isn’t an appropriate diversion airport in an event like this (and the FAA has no right to be “outraged” at VA since they themselves make an airport like Bradley legal for this kind of diversion) and where airlines continue to be ill prepared to respond to passenger needs during such events.  Might I point out that I would find it extremely hard to believe that someone couldn’t deliver a little food or attach ground air conditioning (if that airport has it) or a ground power unit (which I’m sure they have) to help provide power for air conditioning?

Filed under: Air Traffic Control, Airline News, Airline Service, Airports, security by ajax
No Comments »

Continental Airlines has announced the second 787 route that it will initiate with the arrival of the Boeing 787.  The first was from Houston to Auckland, NZ.  This time, it’s Houston to Lagos, Nigeria and I’m seeing a trend here. 

Continental is clearly intending to make Houston much more of a international gateway city and that makes some sense to me.  Houston Intercontinental Airport isn’t overcrowded, has excellent feed to it domestically and the new 787 makes a lot of long, thin routes not only possible but profitable. 

It doesn’t hurt that there is a fair bit of oil business in Nigeria too. 

This flight will be subject to a fair bit of regulatory approval and planning on the part of ContiUnited but it is both sensible and doable.  It’s clear that the 787 will be used to expand opportunities rather than simply replace existing aircraft, at least by ContiUnited anyways. 

It’s also further proof that very large aircraft flying hub to hub (hello A380 and B747) as a model for international travel is going to be reduced as these new, next generation widebody aircraft come online.

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline News, Airports by ajax
No Comments »

It’s being reported that EasyJet will be testing a new volcanic ash detector that will be mounted in the tail wings of its aircraft.  Reported similar to weather radar, this uses infrared cameras to detect ash.  It’s being called the “silver bullet” to Europe’s volcanic ash problem and reportedly is supported by the CAA.

And I think this is a big mistake.  I would be very surprised that this could be invented and then installed for test on aircraft in this short of a period and be effective enough to be a “silver bullet” for anything.  It’s this kind of reaction to the kind of problem ash has caused in Europe that leads to false confidence.

And that false confidence can lead to crashes and fatalities.  There has been too much effort on the part of Europe’s airlines to diminish the risk and denigrate the aviation authorities.  We are, after all, talking about something that has been known to shut down multiple engines on large aircraft although, so far, we haven’t lost a modern airframe to it. 

Nonetheless, something that takes out 4 modern jet engines almost simultaneously is nothing to be trifled with.  I agree that the  wholesale shutdowns in Europe were likely overdone.  However, acting as if ash can be detected (when it never really has been before and world authorities were really unable to do so as recently as 2 months ago) and avoided with a simple system conceived of and installed on test aircraft in just 2 months is silly. 

I really do fear consequences from this hubris.

Filed under: Air Traffic Control, Airline News, Airports by ajax
2 Comments »

I was asked today why so often one has to connect flights between two gates so far apart at most airports.  To me, the answer seemed simple until I realized that, to the average passenger, it probably seems intentionally capricious. 

It isn’t.  Our airports are old and even if they’ve been renovated over time, most were renovated and/or re-planned prior to September 11, 2001.  Almost all of our major airports were designed and built in an era when there was little perceived risk of danger, attacks or other mayhem.  They were also designed predominantly in an era when hub flying was, quite literally, non-existent.   Even the most recent modern airport built, DIA or Denver, was designed at the cusp of hub to hub flying and built as hub to hub flying developed.  It was designed a little bit to accomodate this but not a lot.

 Being built or renovated prior to September 11th 2001 means that little consideration was given to the need for accomodating large groups of people for security.  Overnight we went from short and timely waits through security to egregiously long waits in security.  Yes, over time, we have improved those waits considerably but the bottlenecks still exist and they will continue to exist until we rebuild to accomodate their flow. 

 That means that when you are connecting at many major airports, you have to exit one terminal and re-enter through security to get into another terminal.   It exacerbates the time to connect between gates and seems almost malicious in its design.   Some airports have lessened the impact of this by building connectors between terminals, some haven’t.  Some have the funds for re-designing flow between terminals, most don’t. 

 The real problem is the hub to hub flying.  For the majority of flyers, we know that they will now connect through at least one airport to get to their destination.  It will be rare that the flight they’re on will merely stop and continue on to their destination.  At least on legacy airlines.  Most airports were planned, designed and built in an era where such flying just didn’t exist.  Almost every one of our major airports in this country was built in the pre-deregulation era and have since experienced so much growth and encroachment, they lack the room to reconfigure in many cases (Think JFK or Chicago O’Hare airports.) 

It was rare in the pre-deregulation era to ever “connect” through a city.  Connections were “line” connections or you were interlining between two airlines.  There were far fewer flights (frequency) between destinations as well.  It didn’t seem reasonable to accomodate connections when they were only possible in many cities once or twice a day. 

Then came hub flying pioneered by TWA and built upon by Braniff, American Airlines, Eastern and Delta.  These airlines built fortress strength in cities such as St. Louis, Kansas City, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami and Chicago.  Consider this:  the most modern airport in that group is Dallas and it dates back to the early 1970’s.  It predates hub flying altogether. 

 DFW airport is a prime example of an airport built perfectly . . . for point to point flying.  Conceived as an airport capable of hosting as many as 6 massive terminals with as many as 20+ gates each, this airport was built for an airline to dominate a terminal each.  That lasted for just a few years, too.  Braniff had 2W, American had 2E, Delta had 4E and other airlines “shared” 3E.   If any of those airlines “shared” their terminals, it was with one or two minor international partners.  For instance, Braniff accomodated Mexicana in those days but we are literally talking about 1 flight a day.

A people moving system was built (and it never did its job properly and only very recently in the last few years got replaced) for the occasional “connecting” people but it wasn’t presumed to be something that was built to accomodate high numbers of passengers connecting between gates, airlines or terminals. 

 Today, DFW is hub to one airline who is spread across 4 terminals.  American Airlines holds the gates in three entire terminals and in part of the newest international terminal.  They do attempt to rationalize some of their services by having the “commuter” flights from DFW to cities such as Chicago, LA and New York depart and arrive regularly in the same place.  However, it is impossible for them to design a system that allows connecting passengers some assurance of being able to only have to walk or transports themselves to a nearby gate.  The design of the airport doesn’t allow it and it really can’t even be reconfigured or redesigned to do it. 

The next best solution is an “airside” people moving system.  It’s called SkyLink and it connects people on the “secure” side of terminals.  It now takes just 9 minutes to go between the two farthest points (a trip that on the old Airtran system took as long as 30 minutes) and its trains run every 2 minutes.  It’s a sensible solution.  The problem is, most people remain completely unaware of the system.  In the last 2 or 3 times I’ve been there, I’ve been asked at least once where the old Airtrans train went (the old stations are gutted and most you cannot enter anymore.)  Airports could do a great deal more communicating how to get from point A to point B at their airports.

Detroit is a great example of that.  In 2007, at the NW terminal, I never could really figure out how their people movers worked.  Actually, let’s say it seemed like more work to figure it out than it was to just walk.   So I walked.  Communicating how to travel within an airport is the problem in many cases and airports are pretty stingy with providing human resources or maps or interactive guides on how to accomplish it. 

We do need better and newer airports in the future.  We need better terminal designs and we need better traffic flows between terminals.  Unfortunately, I honestly don’t think this will take place in most cities for another 40 or 50 years.  Maybe more.  I’m serious.   Most airports are encroached upon on all sides by urban development.  They don’t have room to build a new terminal system and that means building a new airport at a new location.   Consider that that hasn’t been successfully done since Denver was “transitioned” 15 years ago and there are no real plans for such a thing to happen in another city at the present.  Airports can take decades to plan, design and build. 

It will happen but it probably won’t happen until I’m literally a very elderly man.

Filed under: Airports by ajax
No Comments »

The 3 hour rule officially starts on April 29th, this Thursday.  The media is starting to bubble with lots of quotes from spokespeople at various Airlines and many of those quotes are about cancelled flights.  There appear to be about 3 levels of fury in these quotes.  Level 1 isn’t really fury more than it is resigned acceptance and is represented mostly by Southwest and American Airlines (which kind of surprises me). 

Level 2 is what I’ve started thinking of as the “Happy Threat”.   These airlines are announcing in cheery PR tones that they’ll “try hard” but it is likely that lots of flights might get cancelled.  Then there is Level 3 which really isn’t from the PR department so much as the CEO (Can you say Jeff Smisek) who are basically attempting to make it out to be the FAA evil plan to wreak havoc on the airline system.

Here is what I think you’ll see happen on Thursday and Friday.  The sounds of crickets chirping.  This rule is only going to affect a small portion of flights over the course of a year and is likely to only affect a small-ish portion of flights on a day of catastrophic weather.  It is notable that despite a pretty bad winter in the Northeast, the airlines dealt with it much better with proactive measures that, yes, included some cancellations but also included things like encouraging people to rebook and leave earlier and later or postponing their trips.  The airlines did a great job of handling the weather delays this winter and let’s give them a small round of applause. 

Should you be worried?  Nope.  Not right now.  There is no sense in worrying about something that, statistically, is less likely to happen to you than a traffic accident.  Worry when you’re approaching your travel date.  Look at the weather expected from about 3 days out.  If it looks a bit catastrophic in its potential, start looking into your options such as leaving a bit earlier (your airline may be happy to waive change fees to do so), leaving a bit later (why not book on a flight the day after the weather and be the first to have re-scheduled instead of the last?) and monitor the situation a couple of times a day until departure. 

Even if you have no options, don’t panic.  Just because the 3 hour rule is in effect doesn’t mean your flight is getting cancelled.  It DOES NOT MEAN THIS.   The overwhelming chances are that your flight will leave.  This isn’t a rule that governs when you must board and take off.  This rule governs the time it might be taking to transit from the gate to the runway and then takeoff.  3 hours is a *long* time to make that transit. 

In addition, just because you are out there and about to take off but approaching the 3 hour limit doesn’t mean your flight is getting cancelled.  If it is unsafe to return to the gate and disembark people, pilots can continue on.  If air traffic control determines that it is unsafe for your aircraft to leave the line or that it will impact other aircraft too much, they can give a waiver for the 3 hour rule too.  There are plenty of outs. 

Seriously, this isn’t anything to get worked up about as a traveler for 99.5% of the time.  It simply isn’t.  And even if you are in the that 0.5% period, you still have a very small chance of seeing your flight outright cancelled.  If you’re traveling on critical business and you really do need to get out, then watch the weather, check your options and, frankly, I’d suggest consider using the Cranky Concierge as a lifeline in the event you do get a cancellation.

Should you be worried with respect to the NYC area?  Well, JFK does have that runway under construction and just about everyone thought the plans for mitigating against delays were a bit optimistic.  Essentially, the two big players (American and jetBlue) agreed to retain a winter schedule until mid-summer.   A better plan would have been to cut everyone’s slots by some percentage and then tell the airlines to plan a schedule around that.   Adding a bit of safety margin into that by extending it to the end of July or first of August would be smarter still. 

Are there going to be some extra delays and/or cancellations here?  Yes, I think so.  However, I don’t think the primary “cause” of those is going to be the 3 Hour rule.  The primary cause will be an overscheduled airport missing a critical runway and airlines without a plan to realistically deal with that.  The secondary cause may be the 3 hour rule. 

Bottom line:  Avoid departing JFK if you can.  If you can’t, try scheduling for non-peak time departures (such as the morning instead of the afternoon or evening.  Monitor the weather, have a backup plan, set up an account with the Cranky Concierge.  Personally, I find it difficult to believe that the NYC traveler *must* go through JFK to go somewhere.  I suppose there are a few limited circumstances requiring it but I’d look strongly at traveling via La Guardia or Newark instead of JFK when making plans.  

This is *not* a time to be married to the idea of traveling on an airline because you like accruing their miles.   Seriously, are miles that are worth probably no more than $20 for a trip of 1000 miles so important that it takes precedence over everything else?  Is it not better to avoid incurring the expenses that a delay brings such as food, lodging, potentially lost baggage, etc?

Filed under: Air Traffic Control, Airline News, Airports by ajax
No Comments »

According to USA Today / AP in this story HERE, a resident of Brooklyn, NY recently photographed a TSA agent sleeping on the job at New York City’s La Guardia Airport and posted it online.   You can see the photo at this LINK.

A spokesperson for the TSA said the guard was put on desk duty while the TSA investigated and speculated that she might have been on “break”.    And judging from the photo, that chance exists . . . barely.

This is what I mean about the TSA having no appearance at all of being professional.  It doesn’t matter if that woman sleeping was innocent or not, it does not come off as professional conduct.  Furthermore, if she really is that sleepy, how good is she doing her job being on the alert for suspicious items and people?  Probably not good. 

It takes a long time to repair an image in the public’s eye.   With this latest story as well as the antics I wrote about HERE as well as the poorly organized reaction to events on Christmas and afterwards, this leads to no confidence on the part of passengers.  A lack of confidence makes the passengers rebellious and less willing to cooperate with security needs. 

You know who is professional?  The National Park Service.  The FBI is professional.

The TSA is no more impressive than a knock knock joke.

Filed under: Airports by ajax
No Comments »