Delta / Northwest is not only big with respect to the number and type of airplanes they have, they are also big for the number of hubs they are currently operating.  Conventional wisdom continues to bet that some of those hubs will be closed or rationalized just as it bets that the airline fleet will be reduced.

 

My guess is that there really won’t be a reduction in hubs of any real significance with the exception of two.  This new airline has two hubs in close proximity, Memphis and Covington/Cincinatti, and each serves similar markets.  However, rather than being combined into one, I suspect that Memphis will likely be de-emphasized into a “focus” city with more connecting traffic routed through Covington/Cincinatti.  The yields in each city are very good but Covington/Cincinatti is by far the city with the best yields.  Memphis is likely to remain as a focus city because it is a good gateway to the central midwest section of the US.

 

All other hubs in the US such as Atlanta, Minneapolis / St. Paul, Detroit, and Salt Lake City have the airline as a dominant carrier and there is no reason to combine any of them with respect to the routes they serve. 

 

Now, both airlines operate significant flights from gateway cities such as Los Angeles and New York and it is quite likely that the airline will work hard to combine some flights going to the same cities.   For instance, flights from the New York area going to the same destinations in Europe will be combined to raise the load factors on the equipment being used.  However, Europe presents an interesting problem because Northwest has been in a close relationship with KLM and has used Amsterdam as a “hub” to connect to other cities in Europe.  Delta, on the other hand, is used to flying direct flights to a variety of cities in Europe without a hub or close partner.  I suspect the relationship with KLM will be reduced so that Delta can raise the loads on its own flights to smaller European cities.

 

Northwest comes to the table with a hub in Tokyo, Japan and they have 5th Freedom Rights to pickup and carry traffic from Tokyo to other cities in Asia.   On the surface, that would appear to be a very valuable asset.  However, the value of that arrangement was far greater when the political climate in Asia was much different and the range of aircraft made it more convenient to fly to a central hub.   Today, it can be much more profitable to fly direct to a variety of Asian cities using newer, long range aircraft such as the Boeing 777 and the about to be introduced 787.  I have no doubt that the Tokyo hub will be retained in some form because the yields from traffic originating in Tokyo to other Asian cities is still well worth the effort but I suspect that there will be a renewed emphasis on point to point flying as things evolve in the new airline.

 

The thing most likely to change at Delta’s hubs will be the aircraft equipment.  With a wide variety of equipment to choose from, it would be unsurprising to see a shift of long haul aircraft between the hubs in order to improve yields, load factors and even to explore new routes.  That will be done slowly and carefully so that Delta doesn’t have to service too many different types of aircraft at each hub.  Once again, aircraft being used at various hubs to service various areas will probably be rationalized.  It would be unsurprising to see A330s shifted to longer South American and African routes with B767-400’s moved to trans-atlantic routes originating in MSP and DTW. 

 

Los Angeles will probably see a greater concentration of 747 aircraft being used on trans-Pacific flights.  New York and Atlanta will probably see 777 aircraft moved in for long range, point to point flying to destinations in India, South America and even Asia.  

 

At present, Delta has 4 different types of long range aircraft in the 747, 777, A330 and 767 with another on the the way (787).   Since Delta already operates GE powered 777-200ER/LR aircraft, they’ll likely place an order for some 777-300ER aircraft and use those to replace the aging 747 aircraft.  That will reduce flying by one type.  The A330 aircraft will be retained until a fleet of 787-9/10 aircraft can be purchased and then the A330 will likely be let go.   Delta’s 767-400 aircraft is fairly new but it will probably suffer the same fate as the A330 in being replaced by 787 aircraft in the future.  Suddenly, two basic types with 2 sub-types between them can service all the long haul routes and, at the same time, offer some harmony at each hub. 

 

I do wonder if Northwest’s 787 orders will be switched from Rolls Royce engines to GE GEnx engines.  That would permit Delta to operate two basic aircraft types that would use the same brand of engine and engines that share some basic design philosophy as well. 

 

The tricky part of managing all of these hubs for Delta will be the domestic fleet which is comprised of Airbus A320 series, Boeing 737 series, DC-9 series and MD80/90 series aircraft.  Because it is more efficient to perform maintenance on a domestic fleet that keeps the aircraft close to a maintenance center, I do wonder which hubs will get which aircraft.   Both Airbus and Boeing offer good choices for domestic fleets in the A320 and 737 series.  The DC-9 fleet is old and will be retired over the next couple of years so it isn’t a factor.  The MD-80/90 aircraft isn’t exactly old but it does become somewhat of an orphan and they don’t offer the fuel effiency that the A320 and 737 offer.  It’s quite possible that Delta will retain both the A320 and 737 series and simply order more of both until they can choose a next generation domestic fleet type from Boeing or Airbus.   I do believe that the MD80/90 fleet will be selected for retirement in the next 2 years. 

 

The exciting part of this merger will be watching the decisions that Delta makes about its new future. 

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

American Airlines has just announced its intention to drop minimum mileage accruals for non-elite AAdvantage members.  Here is the emailed announcement:

Dear ,

Effective January 1, 2009, we are discontinuing the minimum mileage guarantee for non-elite status members for flights on American Airlines, American Eagle^®, AmericanConnection^®, oneworld^® member airlines, AAdvantage^® participating airlines as well as rail service and codeshare service booked under an AA flight number.

With this change, customers will earn AAdvantage miles equal to the actual distance flown or the applicable percentage* of the miles flown, and any associated bonuses will be calculated accordingly. Similarly, elite status qualifying miles and points earned for travel on eligible flights will also be based on the actual miles earned. AAdvantage Executive Platinum^®, AAdvantage Platinum^® and AAdvantage Gold^® members are exempt from this change.

The new policy will apply to non-elite status members traveling on or after January 1, 2009, regardless of when the ticket was booked or purchased. Flights flown on or before December 31, 2008, will continue to accrue AAdvantage miles under the current policy. For more information, visit AA.com/AAdvantage.

Thank you for your business. We look forward to seeing you onboard soon.

Sincerely,

Rob Friedman
President
AAdvantage Marketing Programs

  

What does it mean?  Not a whole lot for most people.  Most flights are more than 500 miles and therefore accrue actual mileage.  For Texas based fliers to regional cities, it means you accrue actual mileage instead of a minimum.  However, most people who might be annoyed by this are actually Elite AAdvantage members and therefore *will* accrue the minimum. 

 

All in all, it’s just another mild erosion of another frequent flier program.  Some airlines have already implemented this program (US Airways for instance) and some have done so in a modified form. 

Filed under: Airline News, Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

I would love to speak to a group of pilots from a legacy carrier.  Particularly from American Airlines.  I want to ask them just exactly what *their* vision is for their airline.  What aircraft would it fly, how would *all* the employees would be compensated and what work rules would they want if it was the pilots running the show.

 

 

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

Airlines have made many changes to their pricing models in the past year or two that have been annoyances or worse to passengers.   The Cranky Flier makes note of American Airlines moving to an a la carte pricing model such as what Air Canada uses in the near future and notes the benefit of choosing what you want up front and paying for it when you purchase a ticket instead of being nickel and dimed at each phase of traveling.

 

There has been a lot of discussion among many airline blogs and websites over these charges and quite frankly I’ve changed my mind in some respects.  I think the key is to identify what is an appropriate “extra” charge and what isn’t.   After some thought and reconsideration, I do not believe that food and soft drinks necessarily belong in the “must have” category.  To the contrary, it is difficult to find another mode of transportation where food and drink is complimentary.   So, go ahead and charge for it, I say.  As long as you have a convenient method for accepting payment, I’m sure it will work and, more importantly, be accepted in the long run.

 

Do pillows and blankets require an extra charge?  Frankly, I would do away with them on domestic trips all together.  Put them on international flights of 6 hours or more and, sure, go ahead and make them complimentary but get rid of those comforts on domestic trips.  If you haven’t dressed appropriately for traveling on an airplane, why should an airline provide you with a blanket?  For those of you traveling in halter tops or wearing sandals, let me suggest that that is a foolish way to dress for air travel anyway. 

 

Luggage is a tricky area.  I personally believe that at least one bag should be checked free.  At least for domestic travel.  Maybe 2 bags free for international travel.  I do think there is an implied agreement to tansport your baggage when you buy an airline ticket.  However, I do NOT think there is an implied agreement to transport your entire wardrobe.  Sorry but if you need to take a lot of things, then buy a full sized piece of luggage and pack it until it holds 49.99 lbs and then stop.  Or pay that fee. 

 

Since we’re talking about luggage, let’s talk about carry on pieces.  I typically travel with a briefcase and a medium sized roll-on piece of luggage.  I do not carry on the medium sized piece because it is slightly too large for the overhead bins so I do check it.   Frequently when I’ve arrived at an airport, I discover that I’m getting into a car/taxi/bus with people who carried their stuff aboard.  Why?  Because baggage does get delivered in a timely manner to most carousels and baggage rarely goes missing *if* you have packed and identified it appropriately.  Oh, be sure to tip that sky cap who checked your bag too. 

 

But you do not need to bring an overstuffed carry on into the airplane and then smack it into place with both hands as you crush my suit jacket that was laid carefully above.  Time for business travelers to get real.  Everyone *thinks* they are the world’s best packers and always insist that they “always” bring that on board.  I don’t think so.  If it didn’t fit into that MD-80 overhead today, it didn’t fit in there yesterday.   Who are you trying to kid?

 

So, if you are forced to gate check a bag that didn’t fit into the overhead compartment (again), then let the airlines charge you $25 for that one too.   After all, they have figured out how to run a credit card on board an airplane. 

 

What else?  Oh, yeah.  Seating.  Let’s have a variety of seat pitches and price those accordingly.  But instead of telling me about upon check in, pitch them to me on the travel websites as an upgrade.  Airlines should insist these travel websites should include upgrade pricing to an economy plus seating.  Why not charge $10 / hour / seat for 34″ or 36″ of seat pitch?  Would I pay such a fee?  Sure.  I’d probaby pay it if it was $15 / hour / seat.  Or I might pay it for the flight segment that I most wanted to relax in at the least. 

 

How about offering early or improved seat assignments for a fee?  Would I pay $10 to get a window or aisle seat 30 days in advance.  Without a doubt.  Would I pay $20 for such a chance?  In several instances, yes, I would. 

 

And, yes, let’s go ahead and get these charges taken care of before I arrive for check in.  Tally my choices online and present me with a total charge to pay when I pay for my ticket.  Let me pay, in advance, for a beverage or two on that flight from DFW to PDX and just note it on my boarding pass with a tear off area for the flight attendant to “collect” my fee.  Or just give them an advance manifest of customer names who have paid, in advance, their drink or food fees.

 

But don’t tell me that I have to pay $30 or $50 more to transport my suitcase.  That’s a joke.  A second one, sure.  Go ahead.  I’d probably pay it gladly anyway.  But not that first checked bag. 

 

 

Filed under: Airline Seating, Airline Service by ajax
2 Comments »

USA Today’s Today in the Sky blog has a story about Airtran now offering upgrades to business class (space available of course) after a passenger has boarded the aircraft.  This is smart for a few reasons.  One, it’s one more opportunity to get that revenue.  Two, passengers may well be much more motivated to buy that uprade if they see the seat.  Three, passengers may well be much, much more motivated to buy that upgrade upon discovering that economy is full.

Filed under: Airline News, Airline Seating, Airline Service by ajax
1 Comment »

These days there is much ado about various First Class and Business Class services on a variety of airlines.  The introduction of the A380 brought a new level of first class service from Emirates, Singapore and QANTAS.  Even their business class on those aircraft are more in line with First Class on any other. 

 

A week ago, I visited the Fort Worth air show at Alliance Airport.  While that show (and most others) tends to be oriented around military aircraft, I did get to tour the new Pink Ribbon American Airlines 777.  Like all 777’s tend to be, it was an impressive 3-class aircraft.  At least for First Class and Business Class.   Indeed, I actually thought that the Business Class arrangement on that aircraft was as good as First Class with respect to how I would value it on space and comfort.   AA’s First Class separates you more from fellow passengers but I don’t think its seat or entertainment is necessarily any better.

 

In any case, what I wonder about is Economy Class.  In this airline world, Economy Class remains largely what it was 30 years ago.  If anything, instead of rising in service or comfort, it has, perhaps, fallen just a bit.  Seat pitch is reduced.  The seating itself tends to be older and less comfortable on most airlines.  There is rarely entertainment and only on international flights.  

 

In my world, I put a premium first on seat pitch, then seat width and then on seat location (the opportunities to get either a window or aisle seat.)  In almost every case, entertainment means nothing to me.  While I acknowledge that it *does* excite some people, I would wager that if you gave a person a choice between a 34″ pitch seat with no entertainment and a 32″ pitch seat with entertainment, you would sell more of the former.  At least on most domestic flights. 

 

There appears to be no game changer for Economy Class.  There is no incentive to improve economy class service for almost any airline.  American’s 3-class 777 offers 2-5-2 seating (imagine sitting in one of those 3 middle seats) that is not one iota more comfortable in any way.  The one amenity, that I could observe, was a personal entertainment screen.  That was it.  I sat in the economy seat and it did not seem, to me, to be any different in pitch, width or general comfort than a AA MD-80 seat. 

 

There really isn’t any incentive for most airlines to improve this experience either.  By operating fortress hubs, the airline knows that most economy class passengers are a captive market.  There really isn’t much choice when choosing an airline for most destinations.  The only incentive for an airline to change seating comes from either being able to fit more seats onto an aircraft or to provide a seat that lasts longer.  

 

Delta is going to introduce such a seat using Thompson Cozy Suites.  You can see more about it HERE.  It is more comfortable and it does allow Delta to add some seats to their aircraft but they also have contract to use it exclusively (at least for a while).   jet Blue and United do offer some economy plus seating but they market it poorly.  Most passengers are unaware of it as an option to search for and only learn about it at check-in as an upgrade option. 

 

Wouldn’t it be nice to see a game changer for economy class for once?  A seat that offers some comfort and space even if it costs just a bit more to purchase.   Keep the free soda and coffee.  Keep the entertainment because I can carry a tiny MP3 player for music and I really prefer a book to a TV show anyway.   Keep the food and the pillows and the blanket because I can dress appropriately and probably sleep better with just a touch more room.  Find us a seat that we can sit comfortably in for 3 hours and I’ll buy your ticket every time.

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline Seating, Airline Service by ajax
2 Comments »

The Fort Worth Star Telegram has run a story about how airlines will be required to report ground delays more accurately and robustly for the public.  As you can imagine, many airlines welcome this development much like they welcome $200 / barrel oil. 

 

The truth is, if I were an airline CEO, I would welcome this development even if I knew I was about to look pretty bad.  It’s this kind of feedback and scrutiny that can drive a company to do some soul searching and really seek solutions to their problems.  It is unpleasant and solving those problems can be difficult but they are a key ingredient for success. 

 

I would even be tempted to use it in labor negotiations.  I would ask for performance pegged to improving those statistics and maintaining them as well.  In return, I would peg compensation (including substantial incentive pay) for labor to those same statistics. 

 

And, hey, by the way, here is a novel idea:  Let’s measure your management team by those very same statistics.  They may be imperfect statistics but they are relatively honest.  More important, why shouldn’t a management team be measured against the very same stats as the labor team?  That would seem to align their interests far more than anything else attempted. 

 

The statistics we see on airlines are imperfect and no airline is thrilled about making them available because they can also reveal competitive data to, well, the competitors.   However, a successful business worries more about improving itself and a lot less about what their competitors are doing.   First and foremost, the airline industry is a service industry and success in that industry does seem to be closely tied to service performance.  Doing what you say you are going to do seems to be the basic metric by which most customers judge you.

 

Those who deliver what they promise in a consistent and fair manner tend to be the most profitable airlines.  They also tend to be the airlines who have improved their morale, empowered their employees and, yes, compensated those same employees fairly. 

 

I hope the airlines embrace the sunshine and enjoy the disinfectant. 

Filed under: Airline News, Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

I just discovered a new blog called Dispatcher’s Diaries.  An airline dispatcher is the unseen force in making an airline run well and ontime.  It’s brand new but I recommend reading its first posts.  It already gives a rare glimpse into another side of the airline world. 

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

The Dallas Morning News Aviation Blog is reporting that Southwest Airlines just announced that they will begin flights out of Minneapolis / St. Paul next March.  The first flight will be to Chicago Midway which is no surprise. 

 

For some time, pundits have claimed that Southwest couldn’t enter this fortress hub and now they are.   To me, this is exciting news because I think that Milwaukee might not be very far behind as a station.  There is a lot of originating traffic between Milwaukee, Minneapolis / St. Paul, Chicago, St. Louis, Denver, Detroit and Kansas City.  If you look at the type of flying one would do between those city pairs, it looks exactly like a Southwest Airlines strategy.   What’s more, Southwest is already very strong in all of those cities except MSP and MKE.  The cost to start those routes and market them are relatively low since the airline only has to introduce itself in two of those cities. 

 

I feel certain that Southwest will grow MSP and then turn its attention to Milwaukee either in late 2009 or early 2010.   Sooner if they can so that they can compete against Airtran there.   This is good news for Minneapolis / St. Paul and probably bad news for Sun Country Airlines, an airline that has been faltering in the MSP market for a few years now.   I would be tempted to mark Sun Country Airlines as a possible purchase by Southwest because their facilities  and base in MSP has some value for Southwest.  Even their fleet, Boeing 737-800s, comes close to matching Southwest’s (B737-300/500/700) but I suspect they know that all they have to do is wait and much of it will be theirs anyway.

Filed under: Airline News, Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

USA Today’s Today in the Sky blog brought attention to Porter Airlines announcement that they’ll be entering the Chicago (MDW) to Toronto (City Centre) market.  Porter Airlines flies sub-500nm routes using Bombardier’s Q400 aircraft, a turbo-prop commuter airplane.

 

The Q400 offers 4 abreast seating (no middle seats), near jet speeds and a 34″ pitch economy seat for up to 70 passengers while using as much as 40% less fuel (per seat) than mainline or regional jet aircraft.  Makes you wonder why more airlines don’t use this aircraft, doesn’t it?  Me too.

 

Porter Airlines is flying this aircraft on exactly the right routes.  They experience similar block times as mainline jets (the time used from departing the gate and arriving at the next gate) with a better than average on time record in part because this aircraft can use shorter, less crowded runways and also because it flies in less congested airspace (from 15,000 to 25,000 ft). 

 

I would love to see an airline like this operate in the Midwest area or Texas as I firmly believe it is a winning model.  Porter Airlines will have to prove this out in Canada and perhaps one day someone in the US will take notice. 

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

I’ve never met or talked to a person who advocated people being able to use a cellular phone on an airplane.  When the subject comes up, you always read or hear how awful it would be to have someone conducting a call next to you in a seat and how intolerable that would be.

 

Personally, I think most people would use them and most would even accept them on airplanes.  Just as they already do with people at Starbucks, restaurants and buses.  The relatively non-controversial acceptance of them onboard in Europe is simply some confirmation of my suspicions. 

 

I don’t want them on the airplane myself.  But, then, I’m also somebody who can refrain from using one at a restaurant table too.  It seems to me that the best reason to continue to ban them from US airliners is simply to reduce opportunities for conflict onboard flights.  I invite your comments.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
5 Comments »

The Fort Worth Star Telegram Sky Talk blog reports today that American Airlines has, in fact, won a reprieve from starting their Chicago-Beijing flights until 2010.  While this approval wasn’t unexpected, it is disappointing.  I wrote about this in a previous entry  and detailed my own objections to granting these delays.  Citing economic conditions for a delay is not, in my opinion, a satisfactory justification.  These airlines made rosy promises and commitments to serve these routes and to simply throw up your hands and ask for the status quo to be maintained is both unjustified and unfair to other airlines.

 

There are plenty of airlines who wanted these authorities and, quite frankly, got shoved aside in favor of airlines already serving China.  I could certainly understand and approve of a short delay if planned equipment remained unavailable due to delivery problems from an aircraft manufacturer but that isn’t the case here. 

 

US Air has also asked for delays on their Philadelphia – China route (and cited economic conditions as well but I suspect that the fact that they have been unable to source aircraft for that route also plays a part in things.  The aircraft that makes the most sense for them, an A340, is an expensive and fuel inefficient aircraft (when compared to A330 and B777 aircraft.  They don’t want to add yet another aircraft type to their fleet and they don’t want to lose the route so they have approached the current economic climate in the airline industry as a blessing on this route.

 

When the Department of Transportation grants these requests for the stated reasons, they maintain the status quo and that means that airlines are not forced to either re-tune their operations and they are not required to truly compete with each other.  Neither consumers nor the nation have anything to lose by forcing the airlines to adopt business models that are realistic for themselves.  If they cannot serve the routes, someone else who is willing to try should be given a chance.

 

Filed under: Airline News, Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

Today in the Sky, a USA Today Blog, has posted THIS story about United Airlines doubling their 2nd checked bag fee from $25 to $50.   Citing volatile oil prices and the fact that oil remains almost double what it was a year ago, United Airlines is raising this fee for a 2nd checked bag with the usual disclaimers (elite frequent flier members, business class passengers, etc don’t pay the fee.)

 

While the checked bag fees may be working for some airlines, it still strikes me as dishonest.  What United is saying essentially is that it costs them $50 to carry that second bag in addition to all the other fees you are now charged for flying their airline.  Not really true.  What they want is more revenue to fly profitably and I’ve no objection to them asking for that.  But to couch this as necessary for checking bags is just silly and fosters resentment from passengers. 

 

This fee affects a relatively small portion of travelers and will likely have the effect of simply reducing the number of 2nd bags checked.  Travelers will instead stuff more into a carry on and 1st bag. 

 

Please note that Southwest Airlines continues to charge no fees until the 3rd bag is checked.  All of these additional fees just leave a foul taste in one’s mouth over legacy airlines in general.  How long before they suggest tipping flight attendants in order to reduce their salaries?

 

 

Filed under: Airline News, Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

Given the semi-success of the all business class airlines that formed around flying from NYC to London, I’ve wondered if there wouldn’t be a demand for such service between Los Angeles and NYC.  Frankly, I wonder if an all First Class service between those two cities wouldn’t be in demand. 

 

I could see an airline such as American Airlines or Delta Airlines or United Airlines fitting out a 737-800 or A320 with their international business class or first class product and offer a customized service from the curb to the airplane as well.  If one flew from LAX to EWR, it would be as convenient as convenient gets and serve industries such as the entertainment business with near private jet service. 

 

The airlines would simply need 2 or 3 dedicated aircraft refitted and could draw upon senior staff for such flights.  With lie flat seating, the airline could offer both morning and evening departures from each city and by flying into EWR, put their customers close to Manhattan.  They likely could charge a small premium (10 to 20%) over their existing product just to allow people to avoid flying with the masses and the associated delays that come with more people on one airplane. 

 

That is the one city pair that could support such service.  I do believe it could have potential for profitability but I also believe it would raise the profile of the airline as well.  

 

 

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
1 Comment »

As an experiment today, I decided to go through the process of booking a flight and estimating the cost of the ticket and fees that might be associated with that trip.  To be fair and give a reasonable representation, I’m going to assume that I’ll enjoy a couple of beverages (but not liquor or beer since I don’t drink on flights as a general rule) and that I’ll be hungry.  To make it interesting, I chose to fly from DFW (where I live) to EWR (Newark Liberty International Airport and where my brother lives) and I’m going to choose 2 airlines for comparison.

 

To start, I visited American Airlines’ website because AA is, after all, the dominant carrier in my home town and most likely to offer a variety of flights that are non-stop.  A reasonable person seeks out non-stop first, right?

 

I found a flight leaving on a Friday morning and a flight returning on a Monday morning so that I could visit for the weekend.  After entering my preferred criteria, AA shows me a set of flights that, to my surprise, are labeled as being $164.00.  I’m feeling good suddenly.  I chose the outbound flight and it then asks me to select a return flight.  Hmm, there is that same fare so I choose an early morning return for the same price.  It felt like my roundtrip fare was $164 the way it was presented even though I actually know better from my own extensive experience.  The presentation gets one’s hopes up I suspect.

 

It wasn’t.  It was $164 each way for total of $328 and that, my friends, was as super saver fare.  The standard Economy saver fare (still not the full economy fare and therefore still subject to some restrictions) was $876 each way for a total of $1752. 

 

Now, my super saver economy fare was to also be taxed $21.00 for fees levied by various governments.  Now I’m up to $349.00.  Mind you, that’s what it has cost to simply book the flight and let me note that if I want a paper ticket (which would be unreasonable today but wasn’t just 8 years ago), I would pay an additional $25 and I would only have that option *if* I lived in a country where paper ticketing was required such as a Latin American nation.  Yes, they’ll let you pay $25 to receive a ticket if you live in a country where e-ticketing isn’t permitted. 

 

Now, since I’m flying to visit my brother, I plan to bring him a few things and since we tend to go out and enjoy ourselves, I’ll be taking my larger suitcase and need to check that bag.  The first checked bag fee is $15.  In some respects people have been seeing that as almost reasonable.  How reasonable does it look when you realize that you pay that fee EACH WAY?  Yup.  $30 for roundtrip baggage check of my bag.  If I were traveling with two bags to be checked (unreasonable), it would cost a total of $80 each way to transport two bags (and they still have to be under 50lbs each.)

 

So, just to plan, I’ll need to find out what my food and beverage costs will be for this trip.  I’ll be wanting a couple of soft drinks or cups of juice each way and it turns out that on AA, this will be complimentary for me.  GREAT! 

 

Both of my flights will be morning departures and it would be nice to eat a meal enroute so that I don’t empty my brother’s cupboard or force him to stop at a Nathan’s as soon as I get there.  It doesn’t have to be a big meal or a hot meal, just a good sandwich or something similar for a breakfast item.  Checking AA, I find that I have these options for my morning flights:

Snacks for $3.00

• 4oz of mixed nuts
• A 4oz MegaCookie (i’ll be choosing this.)

 

Snacks for $4.00

• Cheese and crackers (not for breakfast!)

 

Breakfast Sandwiches for $6.00 each.

• Breakfast Bagel Sandwich
  Enjoy a plain bagel topped with slices of roasted turkey breast and mild muenster cheese. This sandwich is served with a side of Hellman’s® mayonnaise and dijonnaise mustard.
• Club Croissant Sandwich
  Savor a freshly baked croissant topped with thinly sliced roasted turkey breast and aged cheddar cheese, garnished with crisp green leaf lettuce. Hellman’s® mayonnaise served on the side.

 

Neither of those sandwiches are very appealing but let’s assume I’m hungry enough to get one.  My meal costs each way will be $9.00 for a total of $18.00 roundtrip.  But, hey, I get a free Coca Cola right?

 

So, to take this trip on American Airlines, it will cost me $397 and that doesn’t seem too bad all in all.  However, let’s say my brother and I have just too good of a time and I want to return a day later.   That would cost me a whopping $150 change fee *and* the difference in fares.  Since it would be a morning flight, it’s safe to assume that I’ll be paying full economy fare and that would mean a one day change would cost me $1137. 

 

Now, let’s take a look at taking a different airline.  Since I have done this trip once before on Airtran, I’ve chosen them as my economy option.  It will require me to connect through Atlanta but my departure and arrival times are actually quite close to the non-stop AA flights so I’m happy enough with that.

 

First, I discover that my travel fare options include a super saver fare for $164 each way or a total of $370 roundtrip with taxes.  The taxes and fees for this choice were a stunning $43.00 higher.  Not a good start.  There is some good news though.  Airtran will let me check that first bag for free so I save $30 and find myself at this point with a total cost savings of $9.00 over AA right now.

 

But I will be hungry so let’s check out the options on Airtran.   Hmmm, no food except a complimentary snack of pretzels (which I only know from experience as it is not shown on their website.).  I’ll have to buy some food at an airport and I think that if we assume that I’ll purchase something resembling breakfast at McDonald’s, I’ll probably pay about $4.50 for a couple of sausage biscuits or breakfast burritos (and I’ll enjoy them more too just from my own experience.)  Let’s call my food charges an additional $10 just to be safe. 

 

My all in price on Airtran will be $380 vs AA’s price of $397 for a savings of $17.00 overall.  Now, which would I actually choose?  That’s tough to say.  Airtran offers XM satellite radio which I like a lot but I do own a MP3 player and I would very likely bring it along anyway so that doesn’t compel me towards Airtran.  I do prefer Airtran’s seating, particularly on their 737’s which use a Recaro seat that is a great deal more comfortable than AA’s economy seat.  That *might* compel me to choose Airtran. 

 

However, Airtran also offes a business class upgrade at the gate for pretty cheap prices per segment.  Assuming I could get it for 2 of the 4 segments, it would only cost me $69 each segment or a total of $138.  That is compelling.  In my experience, you need only arrive about 1.25 hours before your departure time and you can usually get these seats.  Flying Business Class gets me a nice seat and that is it though.  For a man like me at 6’1″ with long legs and weighing 275lbs, it’s nice to be a bit more comfortable and I would probably take that upgrade for two flight segments.  So, I would pay $518 total to fly travel an extra hour but be comfortable.  You might choose otherwise. 

 

My point here is that cheap economy fares are pretty much the same no matter what the airline.  At least on trunk routes.  It might be possible to save a dollar here and there but more often it isn’t.  Airtran’s approach strikes me as more honest in that while I do pay the same base fare, I don’t pay for the first bag checked (reasonable) and I do have some upgrade opportunities to a better seat.  I don’t get food but, then again, do I really want food from the airline?  In the real world I do not.  I’ll happily buy a burger or a breakfast at the airport because the food is not only cheaper but a bit more appetizing. 

 

Just for the record, I planned a similar trip from DFW to PDX (Portland, where my mother lives) for the same dates on both AA and Southwest Airlines.  Using the same criteria, here are the all in prices:

 

American Airlines:  $527 (including $21.00 in taxes and fees) for the ticket and a grand total of $575.00 (checked bag fees and meal prices included).

 

Southwest Airlines:  $469.00 (including $76.94 in taxes and fees) for the ticket and a grand total of . . . wait for it. . . $469.00.  Southwest has no baggage fees and they do not offer food.  Would I take SWA?  Nope.  Because it requires me to fly from DAL (Love Field) to ABQ (Albuquerque) and then to SLC (Salt Lake City) where I changes planes and fly on to Portland.  That’s a whipping and it’s just worth it to fly on AA’s decrepit MD-83 for only 3.5 hours to get there. 

In general, low cost carriers such as Southwest and Airtran are providing a slightly lower fare than the legacy carriers.  The difference in fares are mere dollars but that is because we examined economy super saver fares.  Want to know why those airlines soundly trounce legacy carriers?  Take a look at their business class fares.

 

DFW to EWR

AA:  $2902.00 all in.  Since it is business class, there will be no baggage fees and a decent meal will be provided. 

 

Airtran:  $1070.00 but since we’ll still have to buy a meal, let’s call it $1100.00 even. 

 

That is a savings of over $1800.  And it is the biggest reason why airlines such as American Airlines are doing everything possible to hold on to their valued frequent flier.  Sure, Airtran takes about 1.25 hours longer but if I’m running a business, my guys will be flying Airtran because with a savings of $1800, I don’t mind if they lose 2.5 hours of productivity. 

 

This is the real reason airlines such as American and United resent low cost carriers.   Low cost carriers set the price for the “fill” of the aircraft.  Which is the revenue they would not earn if they didn’t sell a seat at a discount price.  In addition, low cost carriers such as Airtran, Jet Blue and Frontier (and to a lesser extent, Southwest) are now competing for those business class passengers at prices legacy carriers can’t come close to. 

 

 

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
1 Comment »

The Dallas Morning News had This Story this morning.  It seems that Continental Airlines has found itself unable to resist charging a fee ($15) for the first piece of luggage to be checked.  It was encouraging to me that they had resisted this up to now and it is disappointing to see them join the band wagon.  No doubt the argument is that they are leaving money on the table by not charging this fee.  This also changes my mind some on the idea that someone will break away from this pattern among the legacy carriers.  These fees may be around for a lot longer than I originally thought.

 

 

Filed under: Airline News, Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

The USA Today Aviation Blog, Today In The Sky, reported on who operates the worst 30 late flights of the last month.  They are:

 

July’s 30 most-chronically delayed flights
1. Delta subsidiary Comair Flight 5292 (Minneapolis/St. Paul to New York JFK; late 100% of the time by an average of 134 minutes)
2. Delta subsidiary Comair Flight 5614 (Charlotte to JFK; 100%; 121 minutes)
3. Delta subsidiary Comair Flight 5491 (Albany to JFK; 100%; 97 minutes)
4. Delta subsidiary Comair Flight 5739 (JFK to Pittsburgh; 96.8%; 83 minutes)
5. Delta subsidiary Comair Flight 5440 (Washington Dulles to JFK; 96.8%; 83 minutes)
6. Delta subsidiary Comair Flight 5610 (BWI to JFK; 96.3%; 115 minutes)
7. Delta subsidiary Comair Flight 5588 (Norfolk to JFK; 96.2%; 132 minutes)
8. Delta subsidiary Comair Flight 5496 (Philadelphia to Boston; 95.5%; 83 minutes)
9. Delta affiliate Pinnacle 2021 (Charlotte to Atlanta; 94.7%; 97 minutes)
10. Delta subsidiary Comair Flight 5287 (JFK to Minneapolis; 93.6%; 103 minutes)
11. JetBlue Flight 1076 (Richmond to JFK; 93.6%; 78 minutes)
12. JetBlue Flight 136 (Fort Myers to JFK; 93.6%; 76 minutes)
13. JetBlue Flight 1108 (Raleigh/Durham to JFK; 93.3%; 111 minutes)
14. JetBlue Flight 1056 (Pittsburgh to JFK; 93.3%; 92 minutes)
15. Continental affiliate ExpressJet Flight 2412 (Providence to Newark; 93.3%; 69 minutes)
16. JetBlue Flight 160 (Denver to JFK; 93.3%; 58 minutes)
17. AirTran Flight 311 (Milwaukee to New York LaGuardia; 93.3%; 56 minutes)
18. American affiliate American Eagle Flight 4783 (Washington National to Boston; 92.6%; 72 minutes)
19. Delta subsidiary Comair Flight 5640 (Raleigh/Durham to JFK; 92.3%; 98 minutes)
20. JetBlue Flight 160 (JFK to Dulles; 92.3%; 73 minutes)
21. Delta subsidiary Comair Flight 5438 (Tampa to LaGuardia; 92.3%; 62 minutes)
22. United affiliate Mesa Flight 7297 (Chicago O’Hare to Allentown; 92.3%; 59 minutes)
23. Delta subsidiary Comair Flight 5678 (LaGuardia to Jacksonville, Fla.; 92.3%; 53 minutes)
24. Delta subsidiary Comair Flight 5592 (Richmond to JFK; 92%; 80 minutes)
25. American Flight 1629 (Miami to San Juan; 91.3%; 92 minutes)
26. Delta subsidiary Comair Flight 5741 (O’Hare to Cincinnati; 90.9%; 103 minutes)
27. Delta subsidiary Comair Flight 5366 (Detroit to JFK; 90.9%; 86 minutes)
28. Delta affiliate Atlantic Southeast 4358 (Atlanta to JFK; 90.9%; 84 minutes)
29. Delta subsidiary Comair Flight 5496 (Boston to Bangor; 90.9%; 72 minutes)
30. Delta subsidiary Comair Flight 5515 (Detroit to Cincinnati; 90.9%; 68 minutes)

 

22 of those 30 flights involve travel to or from the New York City area and of those, 16 were to JFK airport.  A little more scrutiny reveals that 15 of the 16 involving JFK were flights operated as commuter flights using regional jets.  One would be tempted to simply associate most of the problem with Comair (Delta’s regional affiliate flying many of those chronically late flights) but if it was just Comair’s operations, they would have fantastically late flights for other city pairs as well. 

 

I’m sure a pattern is revealing itself here.

 

First, airports in the New York City area and JFK Airport in particular cannot accomodate the flights unless it is a perfect day.  Since those airports are subject to severe weather both in the summer and winter, a fair number of those flights simply never take off or arrive on time.  Ever.  If there is one minor disruption at a peak flying hour, schedules for most airlines at those airports are shattered.

 

Second, because those flights are regional jets flown mostly by legacy airline “connector” airlines, they take low priority when it comes to dispatching.  If Delta has 25 mainline aircraft scheduled into the airport and another 20 regional jets, then it will give priority to dispatching those mainline aircraft first for the simple reason that there are more passengers on those airplanes.  Regional jets are carrying generally less than 60 passengers on those aircraft and by letting those aircraft arrive late in favor of mainline airplanes, they disrupt the fewest passengers.

 

However, doesn’t it seem a bit deceptive to have flights scheduled for a route that is 100% late?  Wouldn’t it seem deceptive to schedule flights that cannot arrive at least 60% on time with late being no more than 45 minutes at the worst?  Of course it does.  Airlines ask for and get performance guarantees when they buy aircraft.  A new airplane generally has to be within 2 or 3% of the guarantee or airlines receive performance penalty payments and sometimes negotiate their way out of the purchase contracts.  If Boeing delivered an airplane that was 100% over its fuel burn, they would be out of business.  If they delivered an airplane that was 10% over its fuel burn they would be out of business. 

 

The public puts up with this because it is pretty hard to find out just how reliable a flight is when booking a seat.  It can be done but I just did it on a hypothetical flight from DFW to ORD (Chicago) and it took me more than 12 minutes to check out the statistics on just 3 flights.  If those first 3 revealed themselves to be too late on average, I would have spent more time identifying one that wasn’t too late and that did have a seat at the price I wanted to pay.  Selling services that perform that badly would constitute fraud in many other service sectors. 

 

What if airlines had to publish their dispatch reliability and schedule reliabiilty along with a fare?  It would sure make the consumer approach his purchases differently, wouldn’t it?  After all, how willing are you to pay for a full fare economy seat if you know that the flight you are purchasing it on runs 100% late and by as much as 130 minutes?  You probably wouldn’t buy the ticket at almost any price if you are business traveler because those travelers need some predictability and reliability in their schedules.  Likewise, wouldn’t you be willing to pay an extra $20 or $30 to take a different flight at a similar time that *does* have a good track record?

 

One way to evaluate your prospects for a particular trip is to look at which airlines serve that city pair and what their actual performance is for that route.  FlightStats.Com is a good website for this information but don’t be afraid to insist your business travel agent ensure you are on a flight with good dispatch reliability and on time statistics.  It is cheaper to pay $50 more for a good flight than to risk your entire schedule on a flight that has a 100% chance of making you miss a connection and blow an entire business day. 

 

The greater the transparency in the airline industry, the better the service will be.   If we required a variety of statistics be published by airlines in their flight listings, I would be willing to bet there would be a wholesale change in consumer behavior towards those airlines.  Good for good airlines and bad for bad airlines.  Shouldn’t it always be that way?

 

Update:  I’m told by a frequent flyer who flies Continental most often that Continental *does* publish their performance stats on their website when booking a ticket.  To a degree, that is unsurprising since Continental Airlines is one of the very few airlines that has consistently followed a policy of measuring their performance with very real metrics.  A policy that started with Gordon Bethune and has been continued by Larry Kellner.  Well done.

 

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

American Airlines, in a rare move smacking of smart, began flying from Dallas Love Field to Chicago O’Hare (Midway would have been better) using their American Eagle subsidiary and the Embraer ERJ-145 aircraft.  The Wright Amendment allows this flight because it uses an aircraft with less than 56 seats. 

 

There are 6 daily flights each way and at very convenient times too.  This is smart because they can price the seats for these flights so they make money and, at the same time, build some customer loyalty for the flights while Southwest Airlines waits until 2014 to fly the same route.  The Dallas business traveler potentially saves an hour or more in total travel time for the same economy price he or she would pay flying from DFW. 

 

By using their 2 gates at Love Field (Dallas’s secondary airport) for these flights instead of competing directly with Southwest on flights to places like Austin and St. Louis, American Eagle Airlines will begin to get traction with the Love Field business commuter for once.  It would not surprise me at all if they introduced their CRJ-700 aircraft on this route with a few first class seats to reduce seating to the Wright Amendment limits.  The CRJ-700 or even the CRJ-900 could be uniquely well suited to this city pair in that could provide first class and/or economy plus seating for a price many would pay.

 

 

Filed under: Airline Service, Airports by ajax
1 Comment »

How do you regulate airlines?  You don’t.

 

You regulate the airports instead.  Rather than constrain airlines by route awards and fare regulation, the better model is regulate airports and we already have an agency that is well suited to the job.

 

Major airports, including those secondary airports in major cities, should be regulated by the regular auction of slots.   By auctioning these slots twice a year, airlines would be forced to consider the value of flying into an airport against the costs imposed on them by infrastructure and resources.  Currently, most large airports in the United States that suffer from congestion do so because of unlimited slot availability or overly high slot allocations per hour.  By setting hourly caps and making those slots available at a price, airlines will have to align their operations according to the value of operating a flight into the airport and the value of monopolizing those same resources would be greatly reduced.

 

What this means is that airlines who have to pay a high price for a slot at an airport such as JFK will be more likely to use that slot for an airplane carrying a larger number of passengers rather than wasting the slot on a regional jet carrying very few.  This would have the effect of shifting those regional jet flights to times of the day when airport use is relatively light.  Critics of such a plan (including airlines) would decry it as a loss of service for people in smaller communities and as interfering government regulation against free enterprise.

 

Nonsense.  Airlines should remain free to operate routes of their choice but they should only be permitted to use public facilities (and that is, in fact, what an airport is) in a way that benefits the whole rather than just their network.  Passengers from Binghamton, NY may have to realize that because they offer so few passengers, it may be necessary to fly at different times of the day and experience some longer connection times because there is no economic argument for them to experience the same service levels (or frequencies) as someone who lives in a major metropolitan airport.

 

By auctioning slots a couple of times a year, you force an airline to weigh the opportunity costs of operating flights into an area on a regular basis.  If Airline A cannot make a revenue argument for flying from Syracuse, NY to JFK at 5:00pm in the evening, then they won’t buy the slot for that route.  If, on the other hand, they can make the revenue argument for 3:00pm, they will.  

 

In addition, it will force more competition upon the airlines for serving such airports because Airline B may be willing to pay more for a slot as a function of having lower operating costs and the airline who manages their costs will be rewarded with greater revenue rather than Airline A who has held on to slots under the current “use them or lose them” regime in place at capacity constrained airports. 

 

Put another way, if Airline A, a legacy carrier, cannot justify bringing 10 regional jets into an airport such as JFK at 5pm in the evening, and Airline B and C can justify bringing in 5 mainline aircraft each into the airport at the same time, the greater whole is better served.  Rather than enjoying those slots as a monopoly, the airlines are forced to regularly evaluate the economics and cannot engage in predatory pricing to deny other airlines opportunities. 

 

The follow on effect of such regulation is that the patterns of demand on airport infrastructure would smooth out some which means airlines and airline facility labor demands would also smooth out resulting in greater productivity on a unit basis.  Airlines would have less incentive to “sit” on gates they’ve leased for peak demands and the barriers to entering a crowded market would be lessened.  If American Airlines has the same number of flights into JFK but they come in more spread out over 24 hours, they need fewer gates and airlines have no incentive to hold those gates for their exclusive use if they cost them money without producing revenue.

 

Does it favor trunk route flying at peak times?  Yes and it should.  An airport like JFK (or ATL or DFW or ORD) should see predominatly high capacity aircraft arriving and departing at those times.  It is more efficient for both the passenger as well as the airline.  It should not be possible for an airline to fly a regional jet between two major cities during the day because of the opportunity cost of doing so.  Right now, airlines are using low capacity regional jets to boost frequency on hub routes and the incremental cost of those passengers makes it more expensive for passengers flying that same route on mailine aircraft. 

 

If the FAA auctioned such slots at airports, they would have a revenue source for additioning staffing at peak times and an incentive for redesigning airways and air traffic control to boost slots at airports. 

 

It would also have the effect of providing a dis-incentive to people who want to fly a corporate jet into a busy hub airport at a peak time.  Such jets offer maximum inefficient use of airport infrastructure at the worst times.  Currently, landing fees offer no disincentive for such aircraft who want to use the airways (modern corporate jets fly at the same altitudes as commercial traffic) and airports (these jets are light and pay small landing fees presently).   The greater good is not served when 4 business people  travel from Cleveland to NYC in a Falcon business jet at 8am on a Monday.  Those people should be traveling on a Continental 737 or 757 to NYC.

 

Likewise, major airlines will have an incentive to right-size their fleets to their routes.   A major carrier will no longer be able to justify “holding” a lot by operating a larger aircraft on a route than necessary because the cost of that slot (presently almost non-existent) will rise to a point that requires a business justification for operating the right aircraft for the right route.  Put another way, a legacy carrier might operate a larger MD-80 on a peak time route, at times, that enjoys only a 50% load capacity just to “hold” that slot for better times.  Under an auction model, that airline can only justify the right aircraft for the right route at the right time and no more.  That legacy carrier might find it of far greater benefit to operate the same route with a Embraer 190 that enjoys a 90% load factor and 30% lower operating costs. 

 

If anything, this pattern of regulation serves to boost competition and efficient use of facilities which, in the end, does benefit the consumer *and* the taxpayer. 

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

In the late 1990’s, I worked in a general contractor partnership with two other men.  We reached a particularly bad period where despite all our efforts, our clients weren’t giving us business.  After almost 2 months of giving ourselves $200 paychecks every other week, it was clear that it was time to do something else. 

 

Our particular situation seemed to be based on our costs.  Things like sheetrock and doors had been rising in costs to the point where it became necessary to raise our prices to support the work we did.  There were other competitors, one man shops with a pickup for an office, who were undercutting our bids just enough to win the business.  We faced a choice of lowering our prices to win the business and not have any money or to stand firm and not win the business.  Or so we thought.

 

One of my partners and I were motorcyclists and decided to take a ride during this period that lasted 18 hours.  At one point, we were taking a breather alongside a very quiet road and began talking about our business troubles.  We realized a couple of things that changed our game.  First, the people that were undercutting our business were formerly from larger construction companies setting out on their own.  They were winning on price, not quality and dependability.  Second, we had an operation that had grown some and no longer fit well with some of our clients. 

 

The next business day, we renewed our effort to check in with clients on a regular basis and continued to bid every job available.  By doing this, we began to underline our ability to a project better and for a reasonable price.  We also began to go out and seek new clients who better fit into our business.  This meant asking for the business and delivering exactly what we promised on each job.  The result was that old customers that continued to fit our model came back and we gained new customers who were looking for a company that performed.

 

This should sound remarkably familiar to those who follow the airline industry.  There has been a cycle of attempts to enter the industry by people thought they had a game changing business plan and some were successful while others haven’t been.  Jet Blue brought a new LCC model based on the Southwest turnaround and fleet efficiency but that was also focused on a higher level of comfort and service.  They introduced two types of fleets to right size their routes but stuck with only two in order to benefit from economies of scale. 

 

Skybus came about based on the single fleet, pay for everything model that Ryanair of Ireland built.  They promised rock bottom fares and engineered a plan to accomodate that by flying to secondary cities and airports that offered lower operational costs.  Skybus failed partly because of rising fuel costs but also from a failure to recognize that distances in the US make it much more inconvenient to fly into those secondary cities. 

 

Airlines who identify their niche and develop a plan for it are more likely to survive.  You cannot be all things to all people in this business because that means you have to compete against every other airline at the lowest common denominator.    Why would American Airlines wish to compete against Allegiant Airlines when doing so puts them at a competitive disadvantage?  Allegiant is based on a business model that addresses low frequency, leisure travel combined with ancillary revenue derived from charging for every convenience.  Their labor costs are low and their fleet capital costs are low.   American Airlines isn’t built to compete for that business.

 

Continental Airlines is an excellent example of a company serving the people that fit their niche.  It doesn’t operate a low cost airline, it operates a high frequency, high service system that serves business travelers.  They understand that maintaining a modern fleet with modern conveniences is important to that customer.  They fly where their customers want to go and worry a lot less about being all things to all people when it comes to destinations. 

 

Southwest Airlines has found itself evolving over these past several years.  Often identified with the first time flier in the past, business travelers have realized that Southwest Airlines offers something that many don’t:  dependability.  When they fly Southwest, they know that there is a very high degree of probability that they’ll be able to get to their destination on time and, often, closer to their needs in a particular city.   While Southwest still offers a very low fare compared to its customers and still attracts those first time fliers, they’ve also begun to serve the needs of the business traveler by remodeling their gate areas to offers business conveniences such as laptop power ports.  They are in the process of testing in flight internet connections for the business traveler as well. 

 

In contrast, you have United Airlines who has pursued the “be all to everyone” philosophy and it shows.  With a huge network to leisure destinations, they get soundly beat by other airlines who compete on price.  Their national and international business traveler destinations are served by older, unrefurbished equipment and their service model denies the conveniences a business traveler expects such as meals, beverages and even charging for checking the first bag.  Notice that Continental hasn’t ignored the incremental revenue from such fees in general (they charge $25 for the 2nd bag checked) but they haven’t offended the business traveler with 1st bag checked fees either. 

 

American Airlines and United Airlines have pursued a strategy that offends or, at the least, disappoints their core customers.  Continental, on the other hand, recognizes that the opportunity cost of forgoing that 1st bag fee is paid back in customer loyalty when it comes to choosing Continental. 

 

The last thing the business or frequent flyer wants to hear is that the airline resents them and wants more.  Indeed, many have said publicly that if an airline wants more money, charge a higher fare but don’t insult them by charging for a bottle of Ozarka water on a flight.  It strikes such people as petty and money grubbing.   At the same time, these travelers don’t need to be singled out as the ones to carry the burden of paying for a flight.   Don’t charge exorbitant business fares simply because the company is paying for it rather than traveler.  These business travelers are smart people and generally the ones traveling are some of the smartest.  They will begin to recognize that the fare to travel somewhere on business becomes inefficient at a certain point.

 

I suspect that it is time for airlines to begin eliminating some perks in the business class cabin as well.  Often the business cabin is occupied by many travelers who purchased full fare economy class tickets and used their frequent flier status to upgrade into that seat.  Airlines will have to begin to find ways to differentiate their service and charge accordingly.  Perhaps a full fare economy ticket should be upgradeable to an Economy Plus seat rather than a business class seat. 

 

Service is important to the frequent flier but what is that “service” that is most important?  Is it a hot meal?  A business class seat?  A friendly flight attendant?  No doubt each of those things has some importantance but I’d argue that the primary measure of service is whether or not you can dependanbly transport your customer from point A to point B on time.   That is, after all, what the airline is contracting to do.  Deliver that and the customers bags as well, and you’ll likely win their hearts and minds.

 

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »