It would be easy to see my two previous posts as anti-union but, in fact, I’m really just anti-stupid and anti-selfish. The primary issue I have with most airline unions is that they have leadership that stands for election on the basis of “getting more” no matter what the present airline industry climate is. The best strategy, presently, for that leadership to remain in power is to promise and fight for short term gains.

 

I firmly believe that both airline management and airline unions would be far better served by contracts that span a far longer term (7 to 10 years). These contracts would fall into term periods that would most likely contain both up and down cycles in the business. Management is better served by having long term, predictable costs to plan for and union leadership would be able to make a better argument for the well being of their membership in that each party recognizes that the long term success of the business supports the long term financial security of the employees.

 

Airlines suffer such exaggerated cycles because it is so difficult to diversify an airline company with other counter-cyclical businesses. The business strengths of an airline do not necessarily carry over to other industries. However, it is possible for an airline to perform a kind of business diversification for itself by diversifying its route and customer structure. Several airlines such as Delta, Continental and Northwest have recognized that by increasing the percentage of their business (and revenue) that derives from international travel tends to balance against their domestic business. Accordingly, they’ve worked hard to adding new, fuel efficient aircraft and flying new long haul routes to mitigate against domestic conditions that rarely align with the rest of the world.

 

This means the business model is changing and that requires a certain cooperation from airline employees. It means that pilots may have to fly longer trips but that can be balanced by requiring fewer trips over a certain period. It means that airlines likely need to measure this “balance” for their employees over a 90 day period instead of a traditional 30 day period. But that can benefit an airline employee as well. Having a route schedule planned for 90 days means that employee can make better personal decisions about their lives and how to accommodate their work.

 

Many of the work rules in place at large legacy airlines derive from the 1950’s and airline travel in the 1950’s was vastly different. Airline travel in the 1990’s is vastly different now too. Wiping the slate clean and negotiating a contract that provides for flexibility (on both sides), economic security (for both sides) and which addresses both the existing business model as well as the evolving one would be of huge benefit to both parties.

 

Unions mistake the need for increased productivity per dollar spent as a call to eliminate jobs in this industry. It isn’t. Increased productivity means being able to use a mechanic to work a variety of aircraft or being able to use a pilot for a variety of routes. It means re-arranging the job functions and duty times to provide for financial growth, not to simply eliminate jobs.

 

Many legacy airlines have let their employees down in one area in particular. Leadership. An airline is best served by a CEO who is, first and foremost, a leader. That CEO should no doubt be served by an executive team who excels at management but a leader “leads” all the employee groups with some common goal and with some harmony. In fact, many legacy airline unions often call for more “leadership” on behalf of their employees and I believe it is no hollow wish.

 

Find a successful airline, today or 30 years ago, and you’ll most often find an airline being run by a leader. American Airlines employees used to refer to former AA CEO Bob Crandall as a Son of a Bitch but they also acknowledged that he was *their* Son of a Bitch. Former Continental CEO, Gordon Bethune, did not architect Continental’s rise from the ashes of bankruptcy through financial management alone, he did it by working very hard at re-aligning the goals and interests of his employees with the airline’s long term success. He worked to make things both flexibile and financially rewarding.

 

It comes as no surprise that many United employees are badly demoralized and disillusioned with their leadership. That executive team has found ways to reward itself during bankruptcy, after bankruptcy and in spite of poor financial performance while tirelessly grinding away at the financial security of their own front line employees. Shareholders would be wise to structure financial incentive packages that only reward and retain airline executives who deliver financial and service performance.

 

The Continental executive team has proven at least 3 times in the past 15 years that it can turn a profit while treating their employees humanely and their customers with great service. The same is true of Southwest Airlines (who I note does have some of the longest term union agreements in the industry.)

 

If an airline executive doesn’t wish to remain a CEO if he doesn’t get millions in financial incentives each year whether the airline performs good or bad, then he (or she) really isn’t the best choice to lead the airline. Airlines are a business whose success can only be measured over a fairly long duration of years. Indeed, if you look at the financial results of legacy airlines just this year, there is no argument for ever investing in the business.

 

The airline employee is the front line service delivery mechanism for an airline. It isn’t the plane, it’s the people staffing the airline that provide that discriminator for choosing one airline over another. No airline in the US can afford to discriminate on price alone anymore. Southwest, a low cost leader, recognized that a few years ago and now has begun offering a more differentiated service product that is more attractive to the business traveler. It is critically important for airline management to get over itself with this idea that airline employees are commodity. They aren’t. They are the prime service provider for customers and customers really do notice and differentiate on that experience more than anything other discriminator (aircraft choice, etc.)

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

United just announced a new Buy on Board food program for both their domestic and international flights.  You can read all about it here.

 

The basic summary is that snacks will be eliminated on domestic flights in favor of selling Buy on Board food in economy.  In domestic business class, beverages remain complimentary but now they will charge for food.  In addition, meal service on international coach service will, on many trans-atlantic flights, be reduced to Buy on Board as well.  Best of all, Buy on Board prices will be going up too.

 

What’s more, flight attendant staffing will be reduced to FAA minimums on such flights. 

 

So, United Airlines is reducing service in business class (coach already gets FAA minimums), reducing or eliminating more food service and charging more for their Buy on Board product while having fewer fight attendants available to sell the over-priced product.  This stunning and bold new move has earned United 1st place on my death watch because any airline stupid enough to do such things to their service product and particularly to their business class customer deserves to be out of business by Christmas. 

 

I’d say this was too painful to watch but it isn’t.  I’m going out to buy popcorn for this one.

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

United Airlines, an airline that has offered spotty-at-best service for more than 10 years, seems to have the 9 lives of a cat to most people.  Unfortunately, of all the legacy airlines, it is the one that should have melted away some time ago.   It emerged from bankruptcy in 2006 after spending 3 years and over $300 million reorganizaing itself to operate in a world with $50 / barrel oil without a realistic plan to deal with contingencies.

 

The problem is, oil was already at $60 / barrel when it started fresh.  Since 2006, United has been the one airline that always manages to arrive to the party in rumpled clothes and only a $5 bill to pay the door charge.   Those rumpled clothes are an aging fleet (although all of the truly old Boeing 737s are now being withdrawn from service to cut capacity) of aircraft that do not match the interior quality or service level of most of its competitors. 

 

The management team, most importantly CEO Glenn Tilton, has spent more than 2 years maneuvering to merge this airline with another and, yet, has been rebuffed by all potential candidates such as Continental, Delta and US Airways.  Indeed, they took a particularly condescending attitude towards US Airways’ offer to explore mergers when Glenn Tilton implied that he and his team would remain in place and “mentor” the US Airways management team including Doug Parker. 

 

Say what you will about US Airways but it isn’t the company we knew in the 90’s or even 3 years ago.  Doug Parker and team are really America West and they’ve been better at executing to plan than virtually any other management team at a legacy airline.  If anything, Mr. Tilton would be well served by Mr. Parker’s mentorship. 

 

Now the marriage dance in airline mergers is essentially over.  Delta and Northwest are walking down the aisle, Continental has chosen to stand alone (wisely in my opinion) and American Airlines has decided to pursue trans-atlantic partnerships with British Airways and Iberia Airlines.  There is no one else left for United to pursue a merger of equals and they lack the cash and operating plan to purchase a smaller airline as well.  Indeed, Continental Airlines is joining the Star Alliance (of which United is a founding member) and that may benefit United but if they think they will remain the shining star in the US market for that alliance, they are sadly mistaken.

 

Continental’s management team is stable, smart and agile in this market.  They are uniformly the choice of airline among business travelers (and that is who pays the bills) and possess a young, modern, harmonized fleet of aircraft that serve the routes efficiently.  Continental has hubs that will serve that alliance well in both NYC, Houston and Cleveland and offer Star Alliance members excellent codeshare options throughout the United States.

 

United Airlines has a fleet of 747s that are some of the oldest -400 models and by all passenger accounts they are in desperate need of refurbishment (unplanned for 3 years and not recognized for another 2 years while United showed its legs to potential suitors).  They possess a large 777 fleet which, on the surface, would imply some modernity there.  However, about half of that fleet are early model “A” market 777s powered by the less powerful and efficient Pratt & Whitney engines.  No lip gloss found there.  The other half are 777-200ER models that would at first glance appear to be more modern intercontinental aircraft.  They aren’t, really.  They’re what Boeing originally referred to as “B” market 777s and, once again, they are powered by the less reliable and efficient Pratt & Whitney PW4000 series engines.  I would point out that every other operator of this aircraft in the US is using the more powerful and efficient Rolls Royce Trent or GE90 engines (American Airlines, Delta Airlines and Continental Airlines.)

 

Their 767 fleet, a large one comprised of 767-300ER models, shows the same flaws as their 777 fleet.  While some were built as recently as 2001, they are all powered, once again, by the less fuel efficient Pratt & Whitney engines.  I’m sure a theme is beginning to reveal itself here. 

 

The same also remains true for their 757 fleet in that they are powered by the lesser Pratt & Whitney engines while other airlines are utilizing the real rocket of that type, the Rolls Royce RB211 powered 757 that, with winglets, is capable of ETOPS trans-atlantic operations.

 

Ignoring the soon to be gone 737 fleet (which is old and dingy but not powered by Pratt & Whitney for once), the remaining aircraft are various Airbus A320 types.  While they are not old by airline standard, most are more than 10 years old and some are approaching 15 year of age now. 

 

An old airplane is not an unsafe one but, in United’s case, it is an uncomfortable one.  While other airlines have paid attention to maintenance, comfort and even tuning engines, United has spent its time navigating bankruptcy and its management team has bet their golden parachutes on a merger.  With no other really suitable partners, they are now faced with operating an airline that by most standards, is not competitive.  What’s worse, they have lost 2 years time that could have been spent executing a service plan that might work.

 

If the cost pressures airlines are facing continue for another year, they (United) will be faced with another potential bankruptcy and, this time, it should be a liquidation.  There is no argument for this airline continuing its operations under the present regime nor is there an argument for it continuing to operate simply to support air transportation in the United States or abroad.  There are plenty of air carriers that can take up the slack and operate more coherently than United.   In fact, the only part of United ceasingly to exist that I find distasteful is that it potentially offers American Airlines an even greater lock on Chicago’s O’Hare airport.  Since I experience that kind of fortress here in the DFW area, I know just how expensive that can be for a consumer.

 

Successful airlines share a few qualities that I’ve noticed over the years.  They generally possess a young, fuel efficient and harmonized fleet.  They buy the airplanes configured for performance on a variety of routes.  They have leadership rather than just executive management.  They focus on a clean, comfortable flight experienced that is defined by the service provided by its employees.  Such an airline also carefully watches its money and nurtures its finances to avoid running cash short on the wrong day.  It takes care of its employees not by offering the best salaries but by offering a living wage, a hospitable workplace and with fair treatment in both hard times and good.

 

That is the antithesis of United Airlines and, so, they go on the Death Watch.

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

Airlines have begun making it possible to have a boarding pass using a 2D bar code to check in via PDA and/or Cell Phone.  Here is Continental Airlines’ website regarding this new innovation.

 

In principle, this is a great innovation for many travelers but it comes with some warnings not mentioned by any airlines at present.  If you are a true frequent flier then you are likely aware that sometimes your mileage isn’t credit from a flight now and then.  Airlines require that you send a copy of your boarding pass to prove the credit. 

 

Airlines such as Air Canada and Continental have not figured out how to give you credit when you have a PDA/Cell Phone boarding pass.  So, if you try out this option, buyer beware for now anyway.

 

Ultimately, this is a great innovation and choosing this option does not prohibit you from having a boarding pass printed at check-in (generally by swiping a credit card) so if your cellphone / PDA isn’t working, you’re still covered. 

 

 

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

This story was passed on to me today: Just Plane Art

 

Simply bringing a more human touch to the flight experience changes passenger impressions forever.  It’s a shame that more airlines don’t have more people like this woman, Jewel Van Valin of Delta. 

 

I used to say that my dream job would be bringing a more human touch to service at some place like American Airlines.  Teaching flight crews the art of using humour to deflect the problems of that day’s flight would raise the bar on customer experience everywhere.

 

 

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

The USA Today aviation blog, Today in the Sky, mentioned THIS story on ATW today.  Tim Clark of Emirates says they won’t be joining alliances and he feels that if you need an alliance, your business model is flawed.   Just a few days ago, I wrote this.

 

Just a couple of days ago, I was questioning what happens to airlines like Emirates who eschew alliances?  I’m not sure this is credible criticism from someone who has commited his airline to ordering 58 Airbus A380 aircraft either.   I still can’t identify why connecting via Dubai (or anywhere else in the UAE) is more attractive and I don’t know why we would consider them an attractive cargo stop either (other than for cargo directly on a path intersecting with Dubai.)

 

This is Dubai’s new airport, Al-Maktoum International Airport.  While it will be an impressive facility by anyone’s definition, it was built on the premise that it is perfectly situated to be a global hub.

 

No, really.  Yeah, the problem with this world is that no matter how “ideal” you believe yourself to be, circumstances have a way of teaching you a lesson.  Look up Montreal-Mirabel airport for an example.  Better yet, here it is.

 

If you plan to use even 50% of the planned capacity of that airport in one year, you would need more than just one or 3 airlines operating from it.  You would need a large group of international airlines operating to and from that hub and probably it would need to be a large alliance network airport at that.

 

The planned capacity at that airport is about twice that of London Heathrow.  London Heathrow gets its traffic from a vast array of airlines and has had to organize itself around alliance needs lately.   At that, it has the traffic it has because not only does it offer good hub connections, it’s a major world city connected to other major world cities. 

 

Dubai isn’t a major world city.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

The latest on-time statistics are out on US airlines and the Dallas Morning News has them here.

 

I’m struck by  more than one item. First, how strange is it that 2 commuter airlines that fly for legacy airlines have better on-time numbers than any 48 state legacy airline? These airlines fly aircraft that is subject to more technical delays and cancellations. It boggles my mind that SkyWest and Pinnacle Airlines are at the top.

 

Skywest flies for United, Delta and Midwest as their feeder “connection” airline using CRJ200/700ER/900 aircraft (and a few Embraer EMB-120 turbo-props).  Ordinarily, the Bombardier aircraft is not universally known for its dispatch reliability but the new(er) CRJ700/900 must be doing much better than its older cousin the CRJ200. 

 

Pinnacle Airlines flies the CRJ200/440/900 aircraft, all similar or the same as Skywest, for Northwest Airlines and Delta.  Right now, you could drop me with a feather.  In addition to the aircraft, these airlines fly out of major hubs that are often disastrously affected by summertime weather. 

 

What is a bit more surprising (if you can believe it) is that US Airways is the top on-time non-LCC legacy carrier.  There are reports that they’ve made drastic improvements at their Philadelphia hub.  Right now, they are neck and neck with Southwest Airlines and, frankly, I’d say you are doing pretty good to be playing ball in Southwest’s neighborhood.

 

What I have to ask is this:  Is it an anomaly (unlikely as US Airways has been climbing steadily) or is because they’re able to depart on-time more often since instituting charges for checking bags?  If this climb in reliability is due to changes in customer baggage habits, look out. 

 

Three LCC carriers, Southwest, Frontier and Airtran, are virtually neck and neck in these ratings and, again, I wonder if this might be due to people traveling with more carry-on luggage than in the past. 

 

American Airlines is dead last (even beat by American Eagle) in the ratings and that, to me, indicates graver trouble at that airline.  There have been some reports of pilots becoming slightly inflexible with respect to work rules.  I believe it is more a symptom of an airline that has become sick in morale and flexibility.  Gerard Arpey won’t fix this with more mattressmakers.com analysis, better financing or capacity constraints.  It gets fixed with leadership.  Something that American Airlines really hasn’t been blessed with since Robert Crandall retired. 

 

Finally, if you offered me a bet that Mesa would have better on-time ratings than American Eagle, I’d have taken the bet with glee.  When you are worse than Mesa, you’ve got real problems.

 

 

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

Etihad, Emirates and Qatar all have massive orders for massive aircraft.  Each is betting on the UAE (United Arab Emirates) becoming *the* international hub for global travel.   It is certain that each of these airlines is well funded largely from oil profits.  Nothing wrong with that.

 

But what happens when that funding gets tight?  Further, can these airlines really sustain themselves on what is really a global hub model given that most markets are fracturing into point-to-point missions?

 

Aircraft no longer need to fly one-stop between the US and India, for instance.  The 777-200LR makes it possible for an airline to fly a full passenger and cargo load between these two countries.   Why is it better to connect in the UAE when traveling to Australia as opposed to Singapore?  And what happens when we really do have aircraft capable of flying London-Sydney non-stop?

 

These airlines are clearly attempting to build a global network but how does that serve someone in Europe, North America and South America when we can already fly direct in most cases and fly on airlines that reward us with frequent flier perks for doing so?

 

So far, each of these airlines has not really embraced the alliance model either.  How will Emirates, for instance, ensure that they can fill A380 aircraft daily flights from JFK to Dubai without having some assurances of feed from the US domestic market? 

 

I smell a market crash coming one day. 

 

It seems the next step in airline network strategies is to further embrace the major alliances.  The three major alliances have worked diligently to craft networks that are global in reach.  With anti-trust immunity, they can begin to cooperate more closely on schedule and pricing too.  At what point do these alliances become a new kind of airline? 

 

It seems that the Big 3 in alliances could one day become the Big 3 airlines in all but official name.  It may  be possible that even airline identities will be blended into the alliance identity rather than the participating airline.   What I’m suggesting is that we may one day see OneWorld 777s and Star Alliance A330s instead of AA / BA 777s and Lufthansa A330s. 

 

It seems that closer ties and participation in each other’s planning might just result in these kinds of identities.

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

The competition that exists between Boeing and Airbus has to be one of the fiercest fights ever seen in commercial aviation.  Among aviation enthusiasts, most are dedicated only to one or the other and just visit an aviation enthusiasts discussion website and you’ll discover debate that is even more heated than what exists between Airbus and Boeing.

 

Family and friends have, from time to time, asked me whose airplanes I like the most.  I probably lean towards Boeing more than anyone but for different reasons than many have.  Before going further, I should say that I think Airbus builds a modern, competitive airliner and is in no way materially inferior.

 

I like Boeing’s approach to an aircraft.  I think they value customer experience just a bit more whereas I think Airbus tends to value an airline just a bit more.  One example is the difference between the 737 and the A320 aircraft.  Both are made for the identitical market and both are modern, fuel efficient jets.  Both have had rough spots over the years and both companies work incredibly hard to sell these jets to all kinds of airlines.

 

I should say that I admire how well Airbus has done at making their aircraft families cross-compatible when it comes to flight crews.  A pilot for an A320 can upgrade to an A330/A340 with a lot less training than a similar upgrade from a B737 to B767/B777.  Airbus makes owning their entire aircraft family highly beneficial *if* their aircraft family can fill all of your missions. 

 

However, I do find the 737 just a hair more comfortable.  I’m a rather tall and big person with longish legs.  Having flown numerous examples of both aircraft, I find the aisle seat experience roughly similar and the window seat experience very different.  The A320’s fuselage is more “circular” and therefore curves inward more at the shoulder to head height of most people.  At the window, my perception is that my head must lean away from the fuselage and that feels uncomfortable.  The 737’s fuselage is more ovoid and that same curve is more gradual and starts more above the passenger than next to him. 

 

The seats should be roughly the same but my perception is, again, different.  This simply may be a function of what US airlnes are using for a seat on the Airbus vs the Boeing.  My perception is that the A320 class of aircraft typically have a seat that is a touch thinner, a touch harder and therefore a touch less comfortable on flight durations of 2+ hours.  I have felt it on America West aircraft, US Air aircraft, United Airlines aircraft and Northwest Airlines aircraft.

 

I once had a chance to fly from PDX (Portland) to DFW (Dallas / Fort Worth)  via DEN(Denver).  My flight from PDX to DEN was on a United Airlines A320 that appeared to be older but not “old”.  Within 1 hour, I found myself fidgeting and since I was in Economy Plus next to a window, I expected to feel more comfortable.  I didn’t.  The next segment was on a United Airlines 757 (not a 737 but it does have the same fuselage dimensions and uses the same seats) in plain old Economy rather than Economy Plus.  I was simply more comfortable.  The window seat felt more accomodating and I was finally able to relax enough to nap despite less legroom. 

 

Each aircraft manufacturer tries hard to find the right niche for aircraft and I would argue that as a result of this competition, they actually are more complimentary these days than directly competitive.  An airline could be well served by both Airbus and Boeing without sacrificing efficiency. 

 

If I were to pick a fleet for the upcoming Delta / Northwest merger, I would center on using the 737 family for domestic service (using a combination of 737-700 and 737-800 aircraft, the 767 (or 787-3)  for domestic transcontinental and Hawaii service, the A330 for trans-atlantic (Europe and Africa) and South American service, the 787 for South American / Southeast Asia and trans-pacific service and the 777-200LR and 777-300ER for long haul, high density international traffic from hubs like ATL (Atlanta), MSP (Minneapolis / St. Paul), DTW (Detroit), JFK (New York City) and LAX (Los Angeles). 

 

It’s hard to say where the new Airbus A350-XWB will fit in “mission-wise” when it comes to such an airline.  While it’s passenger economies may be a tad better than the 777, it won’t haul nearly as much cargo.   At present, it cannot quite adequately fill the 777 mission role and it might just be a tad too big to compete directly with a 787-9/10 either. 

 

One thing I admire about Boeing is that they tend to “right size” their aircraft for various markets.  Often people directly compare Boeing and Airbus aircraft on the criteria that one aircraft can carry more people on the same mission than another.  Occasionally, that’s valid.  More often, not.

 

An airline needs aircraft that “fit” the passenger and cargo demand of various routes.  Boeing has 40 years of experience helping airlines plan their fleet on these needs and does it well.  The 787 was never intended to be a 767 or 777 replacement.  It was developed to fit an emerging demand that really fell in between those two aircraft. 

 

The next replacement for the 737/757 series will fall somewhere new as well and probably will not fill a need below the 737-700 and probably will not fill a role that exceeds the 757-300.  That’s a 2 class aircraft that will probably have a family range accomodating from 150 passengers to 220 passengers.  Real aircraft range will probably include transcontinental capability for all variants at about 3500 to 4000 nm (nautical mile) max range.  Airbus will likely target a similar set of criteria with the next generation aircraft.

 

The discriminators in the next battle between Airbus and Boeing will be things like the best operating efficiency, dispatch rates and passenger comfort.   I would give the edge to Boeing when it comes to efficiency and dispatch rates and it is anyone’s guess on passenger comfort.  I’m certain that both companies will sell an amazing amount of the next generation single aisle aircraft and I’m equally certain that airlines will praise both.

 

 

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline Service by ajax
7 Comments »

This story is on the Aviation Blog of the Dallas Morning News.  In short, Delta has decided to charge $50 for the 2nd checked bag on their flights starting shortly.  Many airlines are now charging fees for the first checked bag as well.

 

This is just bad, bad form.  While I certainly agree that an airline can, and perhaps should, charge fees for various services, those fees should be charged on amenities not basic services.  Carrying baggage on a flight is, in the US, a basic service.  This just makes them more vulnerable to LCC superstars such as Southwest Airlines.  Southwest has been using a great “No Fees” ad campaign in their strong markets with great success and I suspect that these fees for basic services will be the issues that drive fliers away from their chosen legacy carriers. 

 

Let’s see . . . my choice is to fly AA and pay fees for a checked bag and enjoy a high probability of a delayed flight or I can fly SWA and expect reasonable comfort (often on the same type of airplane), 2 bags checked for free, generally lower prices and friendly service.   Yeah, hard choice isn’t it?

 

Starting this year, I made a decision that I would no longer buy air travel using frequent flier miles as a decision point.  It’s too hard to redeem the points and now legacy airlines are charging ever increasing fees to redeem them.   Why bother?  I think you now get more value by shopping for the low price and schedule that fits.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »