American Airlines’ PR machine continues to beat the same drum on how they’ll succeed exiting bankruptcy as a standalone airline.  The story is that they’ll fly considerably more international flights, do even more code sharing and partnering with existing Oneworld airlines and “right size” their flying with the new fleet they’ve ordered.

And everyone else keeps saying that ain’t gonna get it done.

Analysts don’t like the extremely aggressive growth being spoken in the plan because it reflects above industry average in growth when capacity restraint has shown that that is the pathway to reliable revenues.  Growth may only come from one thing:  Exiting bankruptcy with such superior labor costs that it can undercut other SuperLegacy airlines on price and start a fare war.  That would anger just about everyone in the business.

Codeshares have been touted by AA for several years now but AA never seems to aggressively capitalize on these codeshares.  It adds some incremental revenue here and there but the additions never seem that strategic and even its codeshare and interline partners seem inclined to poach on AA’s turf right now.  There is, after all, a reason why both JetBlue and Delta Airlines have added flights between NYC and DFW:  AA is vulnerable and, frankly, not doing a good job of keeping the interest of its business travelers.

International flying is more profitable and American Airlines has ordered the aircraft for increased international travel in the form of 777-300ERs and 787 aircraft.  It has not managed to achieve a contract for those aircraft at all with the pilots union and seems to have forgotten that it couldn’t manage an acceptable agreement with the pilots to add a new route between Dallas and China a few years ago.  What makes it think that pilots and other aircrew are going to agree to more flying internationally on these aircraft without some concessions?  It’s a bargaining chip that the unions have and will use.

Finally, nothing in the business plan addresses what are fundamentally important issues for the airline presently.  It performs much worse on the revenue side today because it has older, less pleasant airlines, a website that just angers more than serves its customers, service fees that seem hostile towards a customer and a service staff that seems intent on delivering a cynical and lackluster service product to its passengers.

Where is the plan to upgrade aircraft into a pleasant experience?  Where is the plan to get employees happy again to serve their customers?  Where is the website that, you know, allows you to prepay for a checked bag when checking in online?  Where is the rational fee structure that makes sense and an implementation that doesn’t feel like extortion to the passenger?

You can beat the same drum hoping to get people dancing to the beat but if the beat is awkward and without rhythm, no one is going to join you on the dance floor.

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

When Allegiant Airlines announced their new carry-on luggage fees for those needing to use overhead storage, quite a few people said “Aha!  I told you others would do this after Spirit did it!”  Spirit was the first and they do share something with Allegiant.  They are both ULCC airlines in the United States.

Will it happen with other legacy carriers?  No, I still do not think so.  Nor do I think it will happen with LCC carriers.

ULCC carriers aren’t worried about loyalty.  LCC and legacy carriers are.  In fact, LCC and legacy carriers are very worried about loyalty and a carry-on fee is one of those things that, I think, those carriers realize could be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Does Allegiant’s move make any difference in the airline world?  No, I think not.  It isn’t even very newsworthy as it will never affect more than single digit percentage of passengers in the United States.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

One comment from travelers that constantly defeats my imagination is the comment about an experience on an airline that was terrible and that they therefore will never travel that airline again.  I inevitably ask when this experience occurred and I inevitably find out it was 10 or more years ago.  In one case, a woman I met admitted she stopped flying Continental as a result of such a bad experience back in 1993.  She said so in 2010.

Airlines change.  In the case of the Continental Woman, had she tried Continental just 3 years later, she would have been pleasantly surprised.  Furthermore, stories of bad experiences become anecdotal folklore out there and particularly so over the past 10 years.  The world wide web and social media have not only spread anecdotal stories but have encouraged them to flower and provided them with staying power that would have been unimaginable in the 1990s.

You can’t judge an airline based on a single experience.  In fact, I would argue that you have to try the airline at least 3 times to start making a judgement.  Things happen on every airline.

You also can’t judge an airline entirely on experiences based in one hub.  I find American Airlines flight attendants to be old, surly and unpleasant out of DFW but I also know that they’re much better out of New York City bases.  The hub has an effect.  One can expect a higher number of problems from hubs such as Atlanta, Chicago or New York City than one can from hubs in Denver, DFW or Salt Lake City.

But even if you have had a few bad experiences on an airline, if its been 10 years, you’re experiences are likely out of date and you’re hurting yourself.  I myself expended a lot of effort to not fly US Airways (America West) as recently as 2008.  It’s 4 years later and I would heartily recommend them to travelers at this point.  In fact, I would strongly recommend them over airlines such as American Airlines and Delta.  Your chances of a good experience would be higher on US Airways.

Airlines change over time and its worth looking around for current comments before ruling them out as a choice.  You may not only save money but experience less impact to your schedule and arrive in a happier state of mind.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

Customer service rankings of airlines are very interesting to me these days because it is the LCC carriers such as Southwest Airlines, JetBlue and Virgin America who are doing very well in these.   There was a time when legacy airlines such as American Airlines, United Airlines, Delta Airlines, etc would be the ones to garner high rankings and largely because they were regarded as full service airlines.

Before I go further, let’s just toss out first/business class experiences.  They are typically quite good no matter what airline you are on and it isn’t worth doing too much comparison.  The truth is, if you’re flying in first or business class on most any airline, you’re going to be well taken care of.

Economy class is where the differentiation takes place.  Legacy airlines have dumbed down their service so much over the past 4 years that few customers see real value in flying on these airlines.  The typical customer flying mainline service from one of these airlines can expect a cramped seat on an older aircraft on a flight whose departure and arrival are far more dependent upon a hub system that can have immediate ripple effects when there are problems at a hub.  In addition, that customer can expect to pay for checking baggage and even privileges such as a well placed seat or softdrink.  Best (or worst) of all:  the consumer can expect a less than friendly experience from service staff and that extends from the front door of the airport to the back of the aircraft.

That isn’t the experience on most LCC carriers.  To the contrary, a passenger can generally expect to *not* pay for checking a bag, not pay for a non-alcoholic drink, not pay for a snack and even not pay for changing a ticket (Southwest).  The aircraft are far newer and frequently have onboard entertainment available for purchase and WiFi for a small service fee.  The service staff tend to be friendlier from front of airport to back of aircraft and the fee structures that do exist don’t generally come off as someone nickel & diming the passenger.

In short, the LCC carriers are generally offering far greater value for the price of an air fare than the legacy airlines are.

The truth is that LCC carriers aren’t really low cost anymore in terms of sheer price.  In fact, it’s been noted that LCC fares are ranging far higher than once before and often they let the legacy carriers set the price in markets.  Where the LCC carriers are winning is in the value delivered:  few or no fees, better service, more comfortable aircraft, etc.

Ironically, this is how airlines differentiated themselves until the late 1970s.   Then, airlines didn’t get to differentiate on price because fares were set by regulatory authorities.  Instead, they could differentiate on schedule and service and they certainly did so.  People often flew those airlines based on the kind of service they enjoyed.  A TWA passenger wasn’t typically a Braniff passenger.  An American Airlines passenger wasn’t typically a Pan Am passenger.

That’s happening again.  A Southwest passenger tends to not be a JetBlue or Virgin America passenger and vice versa.  The differentiation is on service.  Southwest passengers tend to like the reliable, consistent and fast service.  JetBlue passengers enjoy the amenities vs price.  Virgin America passengers like the full service approach versus legacy airlines.

If you believe that your experiences on legacy carriers has been lacking, I couldn’t shout loud enough in favor of going to the LCC carriers for your needs.  The service experiences are far superior (in general) and for the same or lower price.  Each has their own loyalty programs that are as generous as anyone else’s as well.

This is an area where Virgin America does very well.  They are entering traditional route markets and competing on service for the business traveler successfully.  Their schedules are well suited to those travelers, their service product is superior and their prices are vastly more reasonable on those same routes.

And that’s the way it will continue to trend.  Legacy carriers who’ve even got their act together are still competing largely on price alone and while that works to a degree, it doesn’t work well over the long term.  To a degree, this is being answered with Economy Plus seating on these flights but those service options largely make it possible for the airlines to offer the frequent flier an “upgrade” that isn’t what  an upgrade used to be.  If it was intended as a real service upgrade of value, the pricing for that seating would be far more competitive than it is.

LCC carriers will continue in this path because they have a sustainable service model and a business model that allows the airline to earn the profits necessary to be sustainable as an airline.  They haven’t lost sight of the fact that service with a smile wins customers and keeps them.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

Given all the airlines who have flights to Hawaii, a huge leisure destination, is Hawaii the right choice for an airline such as Southwest Airlines?

I think it is.  Make no mistake, the market that Southwest would enter into after such a decision is the incredibly competitive West Coast to Hawaii market but I think Southwest could offer something that even the experienced airlines can’t. 

Exceptional service and better than average comfort in economy class.  Let’s leave out the idea of flying there in Business Class on your airline points.  It’s irrelevant to earning revenue.  Instead, let’s consider the economy class service of airlines serving Hawaii.  The cheap seats that people *buy* to go on a vacation.

You can bet that Southwest can offer a better than average experience to Hawaii and I think they can do it profitably with the 737-800 and very profitably with 737-MAX8 aircraft. 

Will we see it this year? No.  In fact, I would argue that it’s unlikely we’ll see it in 2013 but I do think we’ll see it in 2014 and I think that, like most SWA efforts on new routes, it will be done in a way that will be both highly efficient and highly rewarding to a customer. 

Consider that a flight from LAX to Honolulu isn’t any farther than some of Southwest’s trans-continental flights today and that their choice of aircraft can and will permit them to offer no bag charges for the first 2 bags.  Their seating is more generous than average and their flight crews are generally happy to see you and serve you.  Better yet, SWA frequent flier members can use their points for a *value* oriented flight to Hawaii that based on points values probably will seem frugal compared to many airlines.

That’s a powerful recipe for success.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

Before and after American Airlines bankruptcy filing, there has been a great deal of speculation on American merging with another airline.  Most often, US Airways is cited as the candidate.

The truth is, there isn’t a perfect candidate at this point.  Prior to the Delta / Northwest and United / Continental mergers, American Airlines was vastly larger in size by any measurement you would care to use.  Now there are 3 airlines roughly the same size in the United States and a larger number that are greatly inferior in size to those.

A merger should add value before anything else.  How it adds value is subject to debate.  American Airlines acquisitions never really added value so much as they eliminated nuisance competition.  American, in a sense, bought airlines more to pay off people from competing with them.  To be fair, Southwest Airlines has done this as well.

With the state American Airlines is in today, a merger doesn’t add value.  The first order of business is to get the house completely in order.  Unfortunately, this means quite a bit of pain for everyone involved and I include the executive management in this as well.  If anyone thinks they come out of this bankruptcy unscathed, they are kidding themselves.

US Airways might be a candidate for merger with American Airlines but where US Airways adds value is in conflict with the very people who are running AA today.   What I mean is that US Airways has the management team (and I do mean team, not just Doug Parker as CEO) that knows how to run a competitive, revenue positive airline in today’s marketplace.  Unfortunately, the current management team at American Airlines shows no evidence of knowing how to do so thus far.  They know how to manage money and an airline is a whole lot more than money. 

The only conceivable situation where US Airways adds value to American Airlines in a merger is if most of the executive team at AA is let go. 

Are the systems compatible?  Frankly, I think so.  Far more than I think many appreciate.  US Airways is in possession of a system that is fairly complementary to AA’s system.  US Airways has strengths in marketplaces where AA is weaker (the Southeast and Southwest) and in cities that are weaker in the American Airlines system (Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Phoenix come to mind.) 

Must the fleets be compatible?  To some degree, yes.  They need not be perfectly compatible.  Frankly, I think American Airlines could use the A330 in its system and I think US Airways could use the 777 in its system.  Both will have Airbus A320 series aircraft in a short time. 

The real challenge is labor.  Can you take one airline that has yet to see its pilots and flight attendants integrated into one system (US Airways) and merge the seniority lists with an airline’s employees that are viciously disappointed in its own company (American Airlines)?  I think that is a very, very tough job for anyone. 

In short, I think we won’t see a merger with AA and anyone else for the next 2 to 3 years.   Over that time, it is quite possible that circumstances will have evolved considerably and a candidate for merger with AA may appear.  It is entirely likely that US Airways may be that candidate.  But to expect those two to merger over inside the next two years is, I think, unreasonable.

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

I’ve had cognizance of the airline industry in one way or another for over 35 years and if there is one thing that stands out the most, it’s the inability of the industry around the world to manage their PR.  The truth is, airlines are PR challenged and most couldn’t put positive spin out there for themselves even if it involved a direct competitor failing. 

Airlines have done a terrible job when it comes to political lobbying and they mirror that performance with the flying public.  The industry is bullied and overtaxed on a regular basis but the airlines response is often to get boisterously defensive in the public arena.  If there is one thing I know, it’s that you will not beat a politician when it comes to a public argument. 

Politicians are very saavy at this game and they know how to throw an airline under the bus way better than airline knows how to load a piece of luggage.  It’s second nature to them and because of how the airlines handle themselves, they frequently become a target that politicians can use to score points. 

Airlines are the opposite of, say, defense contractors.  They do not know how to spend their money, make friends with politicians or how to make themselves important to a politicians consituents.  When they do try, it makes one cringe frequently.   As a result, airlines and their customers suffer greatly for it. 

What’s worse is how airlines handle themselves with their customers.  Airlines are always in a defensive crouch and certain that their customer is trying to one up them.  When accused of poor service, particularly in a public forum, their response to either go silent or to lash out in a manner that just seems mean.  The poor responses to public problems often stun me with their lack of empathy for the very people who ensure their business viability.

In one sense, airlines know that they sell a commodity in a fairly free marketplace and that passengers are overwhelmingly making their choices based on price first and schedule second.  Airlines know that many people will be abused for years before changing airlines and voting with their pocketbook.  Consumers are to blame here in their drive to save $10 instead of actually paying for what they say they want most:   service.

The recent Alec Baldwin incident on American Airlines and Leisha Haley incident on Southwest Airlines causes me to pause and ask a question of the airlines.  Do you not understand that employing some humour in these moments can greatly defuse the situation?

I’m always leery of these incidents because while I think there is always a grain of truth in what these celebrities are complaining about, I also think that their public behaviour is atrocious.  It is the behaviour of a 3 year old rather than an adult and I resent that out of people who gotten past the age of 30. 

Furthermore, I would argue to the airlines, you really do not have to be all things to all people.  If someone has truly acted up on your plane, defuse it publicly with humour and ask the person to not fly your airline again.  It is, after all, your house. 

There is a flip side to this, though.  I have noticed airlines adopting what I would call an interesting lean towards espousing “family values” in what they expect from their passengers.  This shows just how naive an airline can be.  We all like to think that we’re “average americans” in this world but the truth is, damn few of us really reflect that picture when it comes to the “family values” image. 

We’ve all got skeletons in the closet.  It truly is a diverse world that we live in.  It bothers me considerably that a Muslim doesn’t fit within that picture.  Nor does a gay or transgender person.  Nor do many other non-Northern European races. 

And that’s wrong.  When you ignore that reality, you are actually ignoring the *majority* of your potential customers, not some small minority.  It comes as no surprise to me that many minority groups travel by airline far less than that white male/female segment.  The problem is, when you tally up all those minority groups, they encompass a group of people that greatly outnumber that white male/female segment.

In short, it’s bad business to try to enforce those values onto your customers. 

By the way, inappropriate sexualized conduct on a plane is always inappropriate.  I think that any adult over the age of 16 really does know what is and isn’t appropriate for what is a public area albeit enclosed with a fuselage.  If you don’t. don’t be surprised when you get chastised for the behaviour. 

Furthermore, when the rules say you can’t do something, you can’t do it.  Not being able to play a game on your smart phone during takeoff isn’t an infringement on your “rights”.  It’s a rule and a rather smart one at this time.  If research and circumstances change, I’m sure the rules will to.  But the customer needs to quit acting like a know-it-all jackass in this area.

Airlines could stand to evaluate their policies more completely and in the context of the times.  All too often, they lag far behind of developments in the world and try to fit square pegs into round holes.  It’s an unsatisfying experience for all.  Every airline is guilty of this but some do behave better than others. 

In the end, I cannot fathom why airlines do not do a better job of distinguishing themselves with better responses to their customers and government in the public.  This isn’t an industry hidden from most of the public.  To the contrary, it’s one of the most visible service industries out there.  But airlines are ham-handed at best when it comes to dealing with PR challenges.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

Short of tarmac delays, lost luggage drives more hate of airlines than just about anything else I can think of.  I frequently hear stories from people about their bad experiences with lost, misplaced and stolen luggage and, to be honest, I generally discard them as data points to evaluate airlines by.

I’ve been flying since I was 2 years old and I have flown as many miles as any of today’s frequent flyers.  In that time, I’ve had luggage delayed or misplaced maybe as many times as can be counted on one hand.  I’ve had luggage completely lost once and, believe it or not, that was on a train, not an airline.

With a few exceptions, I check my luggage.  I have no interest in making my life more miserable navigating airports and flights with it. 

There are times when airlines not only get it wrong but get it wrong consistently.  US Airways wasn’t particularly good for quite a while in Philadelphia, for instance.  London Heathrow has handled such things very badly at times as well.

To the traveler, I say this:  planning for the event that has less than one percent chance of happening will only stress you out more than a single incident of it actually happening.   And if you can’t afford to check your bag, you can’t really afford to travel. 

Now, with all that said, I also think airlines do an atrocious job of handling these problems.  Airlines have never handled the problem well and they’ve only gotten worse at it by compounding the problem with luggage check fees. 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:  No airline should be charging a fee to check at least the first bag and as long as that bag is within some reasonable weight limit (50lbs domestic and 30lbs international strikes me as fair.)  The very nature of getting on an aircraft to go somewhere implies that a passenger is carrying luggage.  It’s silly and insulting to the traveler.

And to charge that fee regardless of whether or not you have delivered the bag with the traveler at the same time is also insulting.  If you want to charge fees, you need to be prepared to answer appropriate for not providing that service.  Airlines aren’t unique in that service sense.  Do we expect to pay for a meal that is 2 hours later at the table in a restaurant?

Furthermore, not doing your job in delivering the luggage with the person can impose an expensive, time consuming and challenging problem upon people.  Denying reasonable compensation in a timely manner is just wrong.  Plan for the expense and fix the problems causing the losses.

Writing complex and unfair clauses in your contracts of carriage is wrong.  I’m not sure the rules in place today are exactly fair to the airlines at times but they are the present rules.  Not following them or trying to sidestep them is wrong.  It’s bad business to cheat your customers.

There should be a time limit to how long an airline has to find your luggage and return it to you.  That should be something like 48 hours for domestic losses and no more than 5 days for international losses.  After that, you pay reasonable claims. 

I don’t think it particularly fair for a person to be able to pack $10,000 worth of items in a suitcase and then claim their loss entirely either.  But my solution would be to suggest to airlines that you charge insurance for any luggage exceeding $1000 in value.  There, I just gave you a new revenue stream and an opportunity to keep passengers happier and more secure.  Want to pack your Apple laptop in your luggage?  Go ahead but take out $1500 in insurance at, say, $10 per trip against this loss. 

And prove you actually put the expensive items in your suitcase. 

The dirty secret in this business is that you, the customer, have a long history of inflating the value of your possessions during a claim.  Suddenly a $200 Canon point and shoot camera becomes a $1000 Nikon in a claim.  That wrong and it’s fraud.

I also think airports and the TSA have a *strong* duty to keep luggage secure while transiting airports.  I know of already too many incidents where luggage secured with TSA approved locks were pillaged for their expensive items and then RELOCKED AND PUT ON THE PLANE.   That’s theft and only people with TSA lock *keys* are able to get into those bags. 

More transparency, fairness and insurance is required on all sides.  Everyone needs to quit addressing the problem with greed and most could stand to quit taking it personally.  Even airlines have a bad problem of acting as if they are victims over any lost luggage and they aren’t.

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

One result of the consolidation that has gone on in the US airline market is that we have 3 SuperLegacy airlines with each roughly the equivalent of each other in size and revenues.  Each of those SuperLegacy airlines has both fortress hubs as well as hubs in extremely competitive markets.  I speculated that the result of these mergers would actually be more competition rather than less in major markets because that’s where the money is.

American Airlines has a plan that involves channeling 98 to 99 percent of its traffic through one or more of five “cornerstone” markets:  Dallas, Miami, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York.  There are just two fortress hubs in that mix today:  Dallas and Miami.  Los Angeles and New York are highly competitive markets for all airlines and Chicago is a major hub for both AA and United as well as being a strong focus city for Southwest Airlines. 

Delta Airlines retains its strength in Minneapolis (fortress hub), Detroit (fortress hub), Atlanta (fortress hub + LCC carrier encroachment), Salt Lake City (fortress hub) and competes aggressively in New York and Los Angeles.

United Airlines has its focus on Houston (fortress hub), Chicago (major hub with AA and Southwest), Washington DC Dulles (fortress hub), Denver (fortress hub + LCC),  San Francisco (hub) and competes strongly in the New York City and Los Angeles markets.

It’s not hard to see who the loser is here.  American Airlines has the highest costs and suffers more competition in more of its focus cities.  Even in Dallas, a fortress hub if there ever was one, American Airlines gets to face increasing competition from LCC carriers at DFW who’ve identified exceptionally high fares on cities they can serve and they face increasing competition from Southwest Airlines at Love Field particularly in 2014 when the Wright Amendment essentially goes away.  Miami is strong revenue wise but will never serve as a convenient hub for the rest of the United States.

The only way these airlines continue to grow is to make inroads in these competitive major markets.  Their established dominance leaves little low hanging fruit to explore.  If one were feeling predatory, an airline such as Delta would begin to focus on cities such as New York City, Los Angeles and Dallas.   So far, Delta has engaged with the competition in the first two cities.  Why do this?  Because American Airlines can no longer afford to fight sustained battles on its home turf on price and its service product is at least a generation behind the other two SuperLegacy airlines. 

In fact, I would maintain that engaging American Airlines in the DFW area could yield great success over 2 or 3 years.   American cannot fight that kind of engagement off on price alone.  It doesn’t have the service product it once had and its regional airline is one of the worst in the country at this point.  There is a reason why Virgin America and Spirit Airlines have shown up there.  There is a reason why Lufthansa is doing well with flights to Germany there and there is a reason why Emirates smells an opportunity there too. 

The weak animal in the forest is American Airlines.   If Delta and/or United can work up a sufficient warchest, competing for AA customers in its cornerstone markets can provide growth.  But they aren’t immune to encroachment themselves.

Both airlines suffer competition from LCC carriers and, in particular, Southwest Airlines.  Look at where SWA is now a viable and cost effective alternative to the SuperLegacy airlines.  Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix, Denver, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Washington D.C., Atlanta and New York City (3 airports currently).  Southwest can provide price competitive fares, an equal or better economy service product, an equal or better ontime record and flights that are just as convenient if not more convenient at the end of the day. 

Southwest achieves that while also serving what I would describe as 2nd and 3rd tier cities.  Cities such as Kansas City, St. Louis, Nashville, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Lubbock, Little Rock, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh. Albany, Buffalo, Norfolk, Seattle. . . you get the idea.  And they serve these cities with a better offering than most SuperLegacy airlines.  In fact, Southwest tends to not just get the most frugal passengers but also the most value oriented passengers.

What’s different between those two?  Frugal flies the cheapest flights . . . period.  Value oriented passengers pay for the most bang for the buck.  A value oriented passenger pays a premium price for a fare that lets them travel efficiently, comfortably and without fees.   He or she doesn’t buy the cheapest fare.  They buy the SWA business class fare because it is hundreds of dollars less than SuperLegacy fares, doesn’t nickel and dime them and provides convenience they can no longer get from other airlines. 

They do well with those passengers in their focus cities but they do really well with those passengers in those 2nd and 3rd tier cities.  Do the math:  Fly on AA from Little Rock on an MD-80 or regional jet in cramped quarters to a hub or fly on Southwest on a more comfortable, newer 737 and direct to your destination. 

Those cornerstone strategies used by SuperLegacy airlines are heavy weights hung around their necks.  First they’ll survive at each other’s expense and then they’ll all suffer at the hands of the more convenient LCC carriers.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

Conde Nast has named Open Skies the best small airline.  This may well be true.  It is a small airline and getting smaller, not larger.   OpenSkies is the French(ish) airline set up by British Airways when an Open Skies treaty between the EU and the United States became a reality.  The airline is an all business class airline flying transatlantic routes between Paris and the United States using 757 aircraft.

If you are wondering if that business model sound familiar, it does.  This was the model for MAXJet, Silverjet and EOS airlines.  And, no, neither of those airlines are around today. 

What’s worse, OpenSkies is contracting as an airline rather than expanding.   At one point it was flying from Amsterdam and Paris in Europe (now down to Paris) and to JFK, Newark and Washington D.C in the United States.  However, after this month, there will only be flights to Newark.   In short, this is a quickly evaporating airline. 

And now we come to why I really dislike “ratings” from travel magazines and websites.  What good does it do to make such an award to an airline that flies one route and which is clearly about to fold into itself?   The landscape is littered with airlines that delivered “exceptional” service and then nose dived into the ground.  It’s disingenuous at best to be calling an airline such as OpenSkies a “best” in anything regardless of how much their onboard iPad made your socks roll up and down in excitement.   It is a disservice to the public.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

Airlines are now starting to look seriously at using their onboard WiFi setups to also stream on demand video in a variety of situations.  The general idea is that the WiFi equipment onboard is vastly underutilized for internet access and by adding onboard storage, one could stream video throughout the airplane easily enough.  It will also offer more revenue streams and that isn’t a bad thing.

This newer approach also innovates inflight entertainment.  Virgin America, for instance, is going to adopt a new IFE system that will, once again, raise the bar for their already superior IFE but also reduce the infrastructure and weight necessary to serve such a system.  Simply put, it reduces how much wire has to be installed and that reduces weight and maintenance.

I like this approach because it allows people to use personal devices whether they be laptops, tablets or smartphones which are all devices those same people are familiar with.  In addition, it reduces weight and offers the opportunity to present IFE with a small footprint.   Small enough that even Southwest Airlines is going to do this.

It does reveal an evergrowing need on aircraft today and that is power connections.  Some airlines have them, some don’t.  Some airlines present it at a limited number of seats and some offer it at every seat.  I would argue that on flights greater than 2 hours, you need it at every seat and possibly in two forms.  You need a standard 110v AC plug capability and (optionally) a USB power connection.  That will add weight. 

However, the additional revenue streams that airlines could enjoy from this infrastructure probably offsets the additional associated costs with weight.  Furthermore, it allows airlines to stay competitive with each other when it comes to offering wireless internet connections and IFE. 

I like the approach and I like the opportunities it gives airlines.  One would expect that a multitude of airlines will adopt this fairly quickly.  Hear me Delta?

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

I think it’s been at least 2 months since I’ve spoken about things like tarmac delays, flight cancellations and the infamous 3-Hour Rule.  Now that we’re solidly in hurricane season and our first hurricane, Irene, has passed through, I’d like to take note of what has been going on for about 1 full year now when it comes to delays.

First, airlines aren’t being financially crippled by this rule.  In fact, the impact of this rule so far does not appear to hardly make the radar screen when set next to the impacts of fuel and labor costs.  And it never should have raised that kind of notice.  I do think it has had some impact in some form because flights having gotten cancelled to avoid violating the 3 hour rule. 

Second, I think the forward thinking and proactive planning that has taken place in advance of storms and natural disasters has shown some positive results.  Airlines are recovering their schedules, by all appearances, far more smoothly and with far less impact to both themselves as well as passengers. 

I don’t think this rule has placed an undue financial burden upon airlines.  I think it has placed some burden upon them but that’s a burden that, frankly, in most instances they should have been bearing already.  Good planning and proactive decisions lead to a better organization, not a worse one.

Has someone been severely impacted by this rule?  I have no doubt that that is true.  There are several anecdotal tales of someone missing an important meeting or being unable to reach a city to manage a crisis as a result of their flight cancelled.  But the question is this:  Are we to bend the entire airline system to what are essentially a handfull of people who want to depart no matter what the cost and no matter what their status?

This is working better than anyone really wanted it to.  Even for the airlines and there is a reason why many airlines and airline CEOs have gone radio silent on the subject.

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

What is an airline selling these days?  Food?  Baggage transportation? In flight entertainment?  Mood lighting?  Opportunities to upgrade to business class?

It’s kind of hard to tell these days what an airline is selling with the dilution that has occured as a result of de-bundling services.  The truth is, airlines are more frequently in the news for some subsidiary service they’ve de-bundled than they are for their primary service product.

The primary service product is transporting passengers reliably between point A and point B and if you don’t do that, no manner of any fees is going to make you profitable.  It won’t matter how many channels of TV you have if the customer can’t get where he/she is going on time frequently enough to build trust, you aren’t going to make a profit.

Think I’m wrong?  Ask yourself why Southwest succeeds with a very basic service product even compared to many other LCC airlines. 

It’s about the customer getting where they want to go when they wanted to get there, stupid.

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

Over the past 3 years, we’ve seen a proliferation of WiFi on airlines throughout the United States.  Some airlines such as Virgin America, Delta and Airtran have already installed it fleet wide and some are already working on fleetwide installations (Southwest).  Others have installed it on a smaller sub-set of their fleets such as American Airlines, United Airlines and US Airways.

I like it.  I’ve used it and even a few years later, I kind of marvel that I live in an age where we can have internet access on an aircraft for what is a pretty small fee.  Remember the age of $3.00/min phone calls on airliners?

The question is, is it a viable revenue stream for airlines?  It’s difficult to find out the “take” of revenue per flight but the percentages bandied about range from 5% to 10% so far and that is even on airlines who are offering it fleetwide.  It costs about $100,000 to install the Aircell GoGo Inflight system on an aircraft.  Reportedly even more for the Row44 kit that Southwest is deploying.

Remember when internet access began to pop up at hotels?  The fees were, at times, almost outrageous at $30 / day and it was only found at the more “elite” hotels.  Over time, that changed and now it’s more uncommon to find no internet access at your basic Motel 6.  It’s prolific and, in most cases, free.

I think that is what is going to happen with airlines in the United States.  I think we’ll one day see this service free or available for a fee so cheap ($1 to $2 per flight) that it will seem free.  And that is why I think airlines such as American, United and US Airways remain somewhat hesitant to go with a fleetwide installation. 

I believe they’ve seen the future and the future presents a kit of equipment on the aircraft that adds weight and generates, at most, $100 per flight.  That isn’t a self sustaining model and it implies that airlines will one day have to sustain it with air fares.  The very thing they’re working hard at de-bundling services from.

I do not think that WiFi is going away one day soon.  To the contrary, this is just the kind of added value service a LCC can offer and competitively distinguish itself from legacy airlines. 

The only kind of flights that I think WiFi has revenue potential on are long haul, overseas flights.  Particularly those flights between the US east coast and Europe.  Flights full of business people who work on those flights which are short enough to fly frequently but long enough to eat and also get something done as well as capture a nap.

Given the cost to install and maintain these systems, I cannot ultimately see airlines keeping this system in place to generate revenue that adds to profit.  At most, the fees will pay for the initial installations and, perhaps, maintenance over time but this isn’t the holy grail for profits.

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

If you fly enough, you’ll have a bad experience on an airline.  It is inevitable and one bad experience does not describe an airline’s ability to delivery service.  Too many people judge airlines on one experience, in my opinion.

Social media can be similar.  One bad rant does not describe an airline.  However, one bad rant does have the potential to become the story.  Recognizing that, many airlines have adopted social media departments to help control the story.  I’m fine with that because why shouldn’t an airline be able to defend itself?

However, then there are the airlines who adopt social media solely to try to control the story and those airlines are missing the picture when it comes to social media.   Participating in the story is just one half of the objective to social media.  The other half is responding. 

In the social media sphere, it’s about quick and timely answers with real solutions.  Some airlines have figured that out, some haven’t.  Some airlines who have figured that out still slip and fall from time to time.  That’s the nature of the game in social media. 

It’s about risk.  Social media is about accepting a certain amount of risk in letting your social media department respond with a certain freedom accepting the idea that vetting an answer or only permitting non-responsive answers isn’t going to promote a good image.  Instead, airines who do this well accept the idea that you cannot always make a bad story go away even when you do answer appropriately.  Think Kevin Smith and Southwest Airlines.

Now we have This Rant about American Airlines.  American Airlines doesn’t possess the kind of corporate culture that succeeds in social media.  The first word of advice I would give them is that if you cannot empower your social media team to make something happen, stay out of social media.  Lame responses really are worse than no response and, what’s more, they give your competition an opportunity to poke at you. 

What this gentlemen describes, I’m sad to say, is far more common than it should be.  His experiences are exactly what I have experienced over and over again.  They are the reason why it is a better bet for me to fly SWA or Airtran or Continental with a connecting city than it is to get on AA to fly someplace non-stop.  The really insulting part of it is that if you are flying from an AA hub, you more than likely are paying a higher price for that non-stop flight. 

Furthermore, these kinds of experiences including the social media Twitter response point up to just how little AA does value its customers.

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

The latest stats on airline complaints have Delta at the top with 2 complaints per 100,000 passengers and Southwest at the bottom with just .27 complaints per 100,000 passengers.  The legacy airlines (and many of their regional airlines) occupy the worst positions with LCCs and smaller airlines doing the best.  Does that mean that bigger is worse?

No, not really.  Southwest Airlines carries a tremendous number of passengers but it carries them on shorter flights and most flights are “point to point” rather than hub flying.  In fact, the better airlines tend to be more “point to point” flyers and the worst airlines are those with exceptionally heavy hub flying.    Does that mean hub flying is bad?

No, not really.  It’s notable that Airtran which definitely uses hubs occupied a low complaint position despite being heavily hubbed out of Atlanta, home of Delta Airlines. 

If anything, I would argue that it indicates just how much an airline values a customer and their repeat business.  Those airlines holding bad positions sacrifice service to maintain revenue and in many instances that works out OK for them.  However, those airlines who pretty much always show profits in good times and bad are the ones that are occupying the best positions. 

There is a lesson there for airlines:  Value your passengers total experience and they’ll value the services you offer.

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

Returning to Dallas on Southwest from Chicago was a different experience.  First, we neglected to insist on avoiding Lakeshore Drive from downtown Chicago to Midway.  This found us sitting in stop and go traffic with our margin of safety time eroding quickly.  A quick tip and some encouragement to the taxi driver found us suddenly surging ahead when a hole opened and he got us there with time to spare. 

Again, I paid for Early Bird check-in on my flight.  This found me with a seat number of A group, position 37.  This is unsatisfying and I don’t believe the old “A” group went to 37.  What I’m saying is that A37 really translates into roughly B10 when you consider the number of people ahead of you and the fact that virtually every flight departing MDW originated somewhere else and already has passengers on it. I obtained a seat in the back on the aisle and that’s OK.

My security experience at MDW was unpleasant and I would say it was about average for a lot of busy airports.  In this case, I put the blame squarely on the staffers.  They were certainly moving in the Chicago Way.  One thing that found me objecting vocally were the wheelchairs.  While I stood in line with my belt and shoes in my hands, I saw 3 wheelchair bound people go to the front of the line where all three people got up, walked able bodied through the process and then sat down again. 

Sorry but being in a wheelchair does not entitle you to get in front of two dozen people waiting to move through.  I objected and the TSA offered that I was being unreasonable.  I offered that fair is fair and able bodied people in wheelchairs don’t get to go in front of me. Based on the reaction of passengers around me, public opinion was on my side.

Again, this airport is crowded and I walked the full lengths of both A and B concourses where I did not witness an empty Southwest gate.  I witnessed empty Delta gates and empty Porter Airlines gates but not one Southwest gate.  They are bursting at the seems and the gate areas don’t quite have enough space for full flights in my opinion. 

On this flight (via STL again), I witnessed person after person trying to stuff grossly overpacked and slightly oversized rollaboard cases into overhead bins.  This causes many delays when boarding the aircraft.  People move through the aisles slower, they put their things away slower and they fight for overhead bin space near their seat.  Flight attendants numbering just 3 per aircraft are not enough to keep this kind of herd flowing smoothly.  Even a few off duty Southwest staff pitched in to help and made little difference.

One staffer attempted to move my modest briefcase and light fleece jacket all the way to the back.  Uh, no, you aren’t going to penalize me for being efficient in favor of people who are apparently clueless about checking oversized bags.  My stuff took up, at best, 1/5 of the overhead bin.  I’m comfortable with that and it’s notable that just 2 fat bags were able to fit into the bin next to my stuff and the bin lid was only closed after a SWA FA essentially beat the bags down with the lid until it latched.

The flight departure was significantly delayed and I would attribute all of that to people boarding slowly, sitting down slowly, arguing for bin space instead of accepting a gate check of their bag and, last but not least, a 100% full flight.  These 100% full flights are exactly why SWA needs the Boeing 737-800 in its fleet.

Once every got seated, we did depart the gate fairly rapidly and experienced about a 10 minute taxi delay as well.  Once we took off, things settled down and the trip into STL was quick.  Taxiing into STL was efficient and deplaning went quickly.  However, once again, it was 100% full and, once again, we played baggage and seat games far longer than necessary.  This found the plane departing even later. 

Ultimately, I arrived in DAL about 40 minutes late.  That was unsatisfying because it wasn’t weather and it wasn’t the aircraft.  It was the sheer mass of people attempting to occupy too much space on that aircraft.   Southwest needs bigger gate areas to get people organized onto the aircraft and it might be time to consider some variation of assigned seating.  Too many people are jockeying for position on full aircraft and that delays things quite a bit.  Assigned seating would eliminate the jockeying and, I think, speed seating.  Unassigned seating on aircraft that are seeing 70% load factors is one thing but on aircraft that are as much as 89% load factor average, it becomes almost untenable.

All of that said, I still think the experience on both flights was as good or better than what was available to me via American Airlines, DFW and ORD airports.  And about $300 cheaper as well.  I still recommend Southwest but I also recommend that you use flights that are “no plane change” flights into and out of MDW or you may well risk making a connection.  That recommendation stands until Southwest improves its ontime rate at Midway.

One more hint:  Southwest doesn’t charge for checking your bags.  It has an excellent record when it comes to lost or misplaced baggage and it delivers checked bags to its carousels pretty quickly.  Save yourself trouble and just check your rollaboard.  You’ll find yourself able to maneuver on and off the airplane quicker.  You won’t have to fight for overhead bin space near you (and if you don’t get it near you, you’re going to be massively delayed in getting off that aircraft anyway.)  Don’t be vain and insist on taking it onboard when it is completely unnecessary on this airline.

Filed under: Airline Seating, Airline Service, Airports, security, Travel Hints by ajax
1 Comment »

Last Saturday, I wrote about a trip I was taking from Dallas to Chicago on Southwest.  This was my first opportunity to fly Southwest between the two cities and I’ve long believed that even though the flight was a one stop flight, it was actually as efficient or more efficient than taking a legacy carrier such as American Airlines from DFW to ORD.

Yes, it was.  Entry into Love Field and moving to the gate was simple and quick.  I don’t know why but they appear to be able to move more people through security at Love Field in shorter time than anything I’ve ever seen at DFW.  I also don’t know why the TSA staffers at Love Field are coherent and focused and polite in stark contrast with the typical TSA staffers I’ve seen at DFW.  The experience at Love Field is better in every way that counts.

The flight departed on time and arrived in St. Louis on time.  I paid for Early Bird check-in and got an excellent window seat in the front of the aircraft.  The flight was about 80% full to STL but I managed to not have someone sit next to me on that segment. 

Departing STL for Chicago, we were delayed a brief while and the Captain announced that they were holding at the gate due to traffic congestion in Chicago.  The weather in Chicago was overcast with extremely light snow falling and temperatures at about 36 degrees.  When we did take off, there was light to moderate turbulence for the first 45 minutes or so but it wasn’t really uncomfortable with a seatbelt on.  As we neared Chicago, the pilot performed a series of “S” turns and I would presume he was asked to do so to fit into the traffic pattern.

Landing at MDW was uneventful and the taxi to the gate was short and quick.  But now we get to the downsides.  It’s clear that Southwest is overtaxed at MDW.  It’s clear by the fact that virtually every gate had an aircraft and when I deplaned, I found every gate area I passed full to overflowing with people awaiting a departure.  The walk from the gate areas to the baggage claims is long(ish) but no more so than at many other older airports.  Certainly not really more than one experiences at Love Field. 

By the time I claimed my baggage, the person I was to meet there arrived and I waited another 15 minutes for him to claim his luggage as well.  Travel into downtown Chicago was efficient and quick but probably only because we insisted on taking the interestate northwards instead of being lead to Lakeshore Drive.  Make a note of this:  You’ll generally always be better off if you insist on the taxi driver not taking Lakeshore Drive to downtown.  They’ll insist that it is quicker, it isn’t.  It’s slightly shorter but much more congested as a rule.

My Southwest service excellent in all respects on that flight but I do understand why MDW is having delay problems.  I don’t think it is the airport so much as it is the fact that virtually every Southwest flight into and out of this airport is full.  By full, I mean full to the brim. 

What makes those full flights worse is the fact that a great many people are business travelers carrying quite a bit of carry-on luggage.  By quite a bit, I mean an obscene amount.  With unassigned seating, these travelers jockey for position, jockey for overhead bin space and jockey to avoid sitting in a middle seat.  I’ll have more on that in my next post on this trip.

Overall, the experience was pleasant and everything Southwest is praised for.  But that said, you’ll find that I see some growing pains in the Southwest model that I think Southwest is going to have to figure out if it expects to continue to profit in the future.

Filed under: Airline Service, Airports, security, Travel Hints by ajax
2 Comments »

Hey Southwest! No one likes a snotty busy body off duty, in uniform flight attendant trying to be all things to all people at the expense of the customer who has paid your fees and checked his bags. Like the one (FA) in 16C today.

And make the people carrying on board grossly overpacked and slightly oversized luggage gate check their bags. You’ll turn those flights faster.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
1 Comment »

Later today, I’m flying from Dallas to Chicago and this time I’m trying out Southwest Airlines’ service from Love Field to Midway Airport.  Both airports are the quintessential second airports for their respective cities and both have a strong Southwest history. 

Why this airline and these airports?  I’ve long advocated that you can enjoy a better, less expensive flight on Southwest that is essentially the same time elapsed “door to door” as a flight on a carrier such as American Airlines. 

So, I’ll be making a much quicker drive to Love Field airport where I’ll make a much quicker transit  through security to my gate.  I did pay the $10 Southwest Fee to early check in to improve my seating options (and it’s a fee that, for Southwest customers, does provide extra value).  My flight, however, is not non-stop.  I’ll be on a one-stop Southwest flight that pauses briefly in St. Louis.  Total programmed flight time?  2 hours, 55 minutes.

I paid $408 for this trip last Saturday compared to American Airlines fare for similar departure times on the same days of $659 and that does not include the fees for one checked bag that I’ll have to take with me.  All in, AA would have cost me (or, rather, my client) over $700. 

If I had taken AA, I would have had a much longer drive to DFW airport and a much more expensive one as well.  (One takes a tollway to DFW if one expects to get to DFW in a reasonable amount of time from where I live.)  The difference in time to get to each airport for me on a day where there are no traffic jams?  About 20 minutes less to access Love Field.

My Southwest flight time will be 2 hours, 55 minutes (if they’re on time) and a similar choice with American Airlines would be 2 hours, 30 minutes.  With the difference in drive time alone, I’ve just made up 20 minutes of a 25 minute difference.  When you account for the fact that I can arrive at Love Field with a bare minimum amount of time for passing through vs DFW airport where I would arrive about 15 minutes before my one hour deadline prior to flight time (because checking bags and passing through security at DFW can be easy or it can be real lengthy), I’ve just gained another 10 minutes. 

Since I”m arriving at Chicago Midway Airport, I’ll have a drive to my hotel in downtown Chicago that is nominally 6 miles shorter in distance and about 20 minutes quicker than if I arrived at Chicago O’Hare.  I’m now up by 30 minutes using Southwest.

At least in theory.

But let’s take a look at the contrasts in experiences I’m liable to enjoy between the two airlines.  On Southwest, I paid the $10 Early Bird Check-In fee so I’ll have a very high likelihood of obtaining a good, front of cabin seat on a 737-700.  It will be a fairly new aircraft and possibly a brand new aircraft.  It won’t be old and it won’t have old, worn out seats either.  I’ll enjoy 32″ to 33″ of seat pitch, most likely a friend flight attendant and no charge for a beverage.  Because of the nature of my trip, I have to check a bag and that comes free and on an airline with a good reputation for baggage handling and security.

If I had taken American Airlines on similar flight time, I would have enjoyed a 20+ year old MD-82.  Since I would have bought AA’s best economy price, I would have likely been at the back of the aircraft and sitting in old, worn out seating with 31″ of seat pitch.  My flight attendants would have most likely been cranky, older crew who have a reputation of taking out their job dissatisfaction on their customers.  (AA flight attendants can be good but in my experience the DFW and Chicago based crews are frequently hostile to customers.) 

My bag would be handled by an airline who had a less than positive reputation for baggage handling (and strangely I’ve had many bags delayed over the years on the DFW-ORD route) and only for a $25 fee each way.   If I had paid AA’s fee for priority boarding, I’d get earlier access to overhead bins but no options to sit in a preferred seat up front and an economy passenger on an AA MD-80 flight is going to have the options of “bad” and “worse” when it comes to seat assignments.

Savings in dollars:  About $300

Savings in time:  About 30 minutes door to door (if this works out as I expect).

What do I give up?  I don’t get frequent flier points on American Airlines.  Let me point out that my dollar savings alone just bought me a “free trip” if I wanted it.  Which would you rather have?  about 1600 frequent flier point or $300 in savings?  Which would you rather fly on?  An old MD-80 with old seats and a hostile flight crew or on a fairly new 737 with new seats and a friendly flight crew?

Once I complete this trip, I’ll write up what actually happened.

Filed under: Airline Fees, Airline Fleets, Airline Seating, Airline Service, Airports, Frequent Flier, Travel Hints by ajax
4 Comments »