Delta has made what I think is a pretty significant change in its SkyMiles program: They’ll no longer expire after 24 months with no account activity.

This, and other changes coming, is about improving its SkyMiles program and one focus is on communicating with its customers better. Ultimately, as an airline, you do want those miles used for something because it enhances value.

You just don’t want them used when it is inconvenient for the airline.

Over the years, I’ve never really seen much good said about Delta’s frequent flier program. The mile chasers don’t value their program very much at all and my own cursory analysis is that their program appears to be about par for the course on first glance but the award availability is something south of atrocious.

Of course, you could wise up and start buying tickets based on best price, service and convenience instead of being a vassal to a mileage program but that’s another post.

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

I become more and more impressed with US Airways as time goes by. This is an airline that has worked hard to change its performance in quite a few areas. There was a time not too long ago when US Airways (and America West) really resembled the Continental Airlines of the early 1990’s. You felt abused at every turn. Not anymore.

They are doing spectacularly well in baggage handling and that’s after being atrocious and particularly so in Philadelphia. But it’s not just baggage that shows great performance. This airline has managed itself very well through weather events as well. They are, by the very nature of their hubs, avoiding more problems than many airlines as well.

It’s the customer service that just kind of stuns me. Particularly with reservations agents on the phone. Over the past 12 months, I’ve had several occasions to call (instead of just making a booking online) for reasons that, in my opinion, confound most US airlines call center staff at this point.

Instead of being on the phone a long time and then fighting to make my desires understood, I keep getting agents who “get it”, get it done and manage to be polite and friendly throughout the experience.

No one is going to have a 100% positive experience with an airline. Fly one long enough and you’ll have a problem that annoys. US Airways is no different. You can count a lot of things as important when selecting an airline but I think the ability to fly more or less on time, receive your baggage at your destination and the opportunity to deal with service staff that acts alive and interested is tops. Power on board, wifi onboard and even fees (and US Airways is the king of fees) come second.

If you buy on price, reliability and service, you can do fantastically worse than US Airways and I think they’re even giving even LCC airlines a real run for their money.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

We’ve read much about both Europe and the United States being snagged with huge airline delays and problems due to storms but one country took a slightly different tactic with their airlines this week.

Russian Prime Minister Vladmir Putin warned Russia’s airlines’ managers not to go on vacation while their flights were suffering delays and imposing hardships on its passengers.   Five of Russia’s airlines are being probed now:  S7, Transaero, UT Air, VIM, and Orenburg airlines all have to answer for the problems passengers have incurred.

Notably, OAO Aeroflot, largely owned by the Russian government, has escaped notice.

Most of the problems were experienced at Moscow’s Domodedovo Airport and Putin warned that officials should “”stop whining and start working.” 

I’m pretty sure that sent a chill through some people’s hearts.

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

Whenever a merger is announced between two airlines, one of the first things to be answered in the announcement is that no city is going to be hurt by this.  Obviously that is a politically driven statement because CongressCritters have a lot of power to make it difficult for airlines in a merger. 

The one thing about mergers is that absolutely flights will be combined wherever it makes sense.  Fuller aircraft make for vastly better profits.  But just because flights are reduced doesn’t mean that that is bad for a particular town or city.  A rationalized set of flights might reduce frequency a bit but result in a better, more comfortable aircraft serving the route. 

Hubs are different thing.  There is always the promise that hubs won’t be reduced but that’s a hard promise to keep sometimes.  You only need so many hubs serving so many regions.  In the case of ContiUnited, it seemed difficult to imagine that Cleveland would continue to exist as a hub in light of the fact that it was bounded by three better hubs:  Chicago, Newark and Washington D.C.

But, again, in this day and age that doesn’t necessarily mean that the city will suffer.  Now, other airlines often see opportunity in cities that are seeing their airport downsized as a hub.  A Southwest Airlines, for instance, may see high fares because of hub dominance and go in was another airline retreats and offer better fares and better flights to appropriate cities.

The Delta/Northwest merger has seen both Memphis and Cincinatti hubs being downsized and rationalized and that’s OK.  The good news is that there are number of strong(er) airlines who may be interested in offering smart services.

The ContiUnited merger had less overlap with just Cleveland appearing to be the ugly stepchild.  The smart thing for Cleveland to do is not fight to keep ContiUnited but fight for new airines to come into their markets.  Competition will lower their fares and a diversit of airlines will ensure a healthier business climate for its native businesses and industries. 

It seems safer to try to keep what you already have but it often smarter to fight to have change and experience better rewards with other airlines.

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

We just saw what an impending storm can cause when it comes to flight cancellations.  One thing that people often wonder at is the reason their flight was cancelled when it isn’t snowing yet in their departure city.

In fact, people are often left wondering what happened to their flight when it isn’t even forecast to snow in their departure city.

It has to do with with an airline’s network.  An airline may have to cancel a flight in one city because the aircraft is stuck in another city due to weather.  That’s really a common occurrence. 

Sometimes an impending storm results in an airline cancelling flights in advance of the arrival of a snow storm.  There are a lot of valid reasons for doing this.  It may be unwise to send a flight out to a city where the airline doesn’t customarily overnight aircraft.  Doing so potentially leaves the aircraft and its flight crew orphaned in an unknown city and unusable when weather does clear.

Since storms, particularly snow storms, can leave an airline’s network destroyed, it is attractive to the airline to keep its aircraft at its hub(s) so that when the storm does clear, it has the equipment to get people on their way immediately. 

Another reason is that snow storms approach a lot of cities with a great deal of uncertainty.  It’s poor safety to send aircraft to a city prior to a potential snow storm because that storm may arrive early causing the aircraft to divert or hazard a landing in poor conditions. 

Flight cancellations are painful not because of the immediate inconvenience.  They are painful because airlines often are incapable of taking care of a customer for days afterwards.  That may be unacceptable.  There isn’t anything that an airline is going to do about it unless forced to.  The best alternative is to really weigh consequences of sticking to your travel plans.

Most airlines welcome a change to an earlier flight and offer the ability to do so without penalty in these situations.  Take advantage of that.  Sometimes no matter how much you want to go, you can’t.  Skip your trip if you can get a refund and many airlines will offer such a thing during bad storms. Flex a little and avoid being that person stuck in an airport for 4 days clinging to the idea of taking a flight somewhere.

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

When slots to fly from the United States to Tokyo’s Haneda airport, there was a mad rush to be awarded one or more by almost all the major airlines.  Access to Haneda airport is seen as very valuable to an airline since it is much closer to central Tokyo.

American Airlines won one of those slots to fly from New York City to Tokyo and had originally scheduled their flights to start in late January.  Now, American Airlines is asking for a “modest” extension to March.  Why?  Because business is slow for January.

I’ve always had a problem with airlines winning these opportunities and then later deciding to defer service to a more convenient time.  When these proposals are made, a great deal of justification for the award takes place in the form of arguing that traffic exists to sustain that service.  The demand is there and the airline promises essentially that it will offer the best service possible.

If that was true enough to win the award, then it’s true enough to fly the route when you originally schedule it.  If an airline cannot deliver on its promises in its proposal, that slot should be given to someone who will execute on that route.  While I agree that this really is a very modest delay being requested, it is contingent on the idea that business will pick up and nothing guarantees that it will.  It is all predicated on assuptions that may or may not be true.

An award for a route should require that an airline deliver on its promises or suffer the penalty of winning the award.

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

USA Today’s Today in the Sky had THIS story about US and European airlines no longer being the biggest airlines.   The criteria is based on market capitalization and it said:

Citing the airlines’ market capitalization values, IATA says they are Air China ($20 billion), Singapore Airlines ($14 billion), Hong Kong’s Cathay Pacific ($12 billion), China Southern ($11 billion) and LATAM ($11 billion). LATAM is the holding group for the recently announced merger that would combine Chile’s LAN and Brazil’s TAM airlines.

Let’s take a look at this.  First, it’s notable that none of these airlines (with the possible exception of Singapore Airlines) plays in very competitive home markets and all (except for Singapore Airlines) receive forms of market protection and support from their home governments.  Further, each of these is able to buy aircraft and finance these purchases through low cost financing being provided by import-export banks.   Finally, all of them benefit from relatively inexpensive labor compared to other parts of the world. 

Market capitalization really doesn’t mean much in terms of size except for how people are valuing the company.  It is the value of a share of stock in the market place times the number of shares out standing and often market caps are distorted by individual owner perceptions of the company and the market it plays in.

Some like to measure airlines by fleet size or the number of markets it flies to but each of those measures can be distorted too.  Are we to equate a fleet of 250 regional jets with a fleet of 250 mainline aircraft?  Similarly, is an airline that flies to 50 markets with one flight a day going to be the same as an airline that flies to those same 50 markets 5 times a day?

A far better measure would be revenue passenger miles.  That is the number of passengers times the number of miles the airline flew those passengers.  In other parts of the world, the measure is revenue passenger kilometers but it is the same measurement. 

By that measurement, European and US airlines continue to dominate the world’s airlines.  They also enjoy a wider mix in their fleets and tend to travel to far many more markets as well.  They are airlines that are typically broad based in everything that they do. 

These airlines, however, don’t enjoy the same market caps because their governments have engineered open skies agreements with most other places or at least liberal travel treaties.  They see far more competition compared to these other airlines and most do not benefit from low cost financing for their fleets either. 

Do we really want to believe that Air China is capable of buying and operating Delta Airlines?  It isn’t.  Even Singapore Airlines would be challenged by owning and operating a US or European Airline.  It is a bad idea to compare airline size and speculate about the future on the basis of what an airline is being valued at in the marketplace.

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

There are new laws requiring that airlines identify flights they are selling space on which aren’t actually their airline.  In other words, if an airline like Continental has a commuter airline operating flights on its behalf, it’s supposed to identify this fact on the first page showing the flight for booking. 

Does it matter?  Well, the original implication was about safety which I always thought silly.  Regional airlines really are not worse or better than mainline airlines when it comes to safety.  Or, rather, let’s say that in the United States, the difference is statistically insignificant.  Fly with confidence in that respect.

I think the greater implication is that people should know what they’re buying and I don’t disagree with that.  However, it has been possible to identify what you’re buying for a long time.  It’s just that it is difficult to “read” unless you learn some things about airlines.  In almost all cases, the aircraft type alone identifies a flight on a commuter airline. 

I think that consumers should be told what they’re getting but that isn’t going to be truly transparent until we classify things into groups.  For instance, if we classified all aircraft with 100 seats or less as “regional” aircraft, we would have some good assurance of the aircraft type.  Or would we?  An Embraer 170 has near 737-like qualities but just 70 seats.  However, an ERJ-145 has about 50 seats that are torture. 

I think things should be identifiable but I do also think that consumers need to educate themselves as well.  The problem is, there is no central location for consumers to educate themselves or use as reference material.  Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to look up a typical 757 or A320 and see what you can expect from such an aircraft versus a typical Dash 8 or Embraer 190?  Economy seating and its general pros and cons should be explained as should what to expect for a typical meal service or drink service on both mainline and “regional” routes. 

But I don’t think the airlines should have to spoon feed you the information so that everyone is 100% positively clear on what they’re getting into.  There is some burden on the consumer to at least make a cursory effort at understanding what you’re buying.  You would do the same thing for a $400 television so why can’t you do it for a $400 airplane ticket?

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

American Airlines has announced that they’ll be enjoying an even closer relationship now.  In addition to their codeshare/interline agreement, they’ll be adding additional flights including one from JFK to Budapest, Hungary. 

Even more exciting, they’ll have a reciprocal frequent flier agreement.  (and that’s why moving your reservations system to something real like Sabre is a good idea.  Are you listening Southwest?)

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

The New York Times has a story about Southwest Airlines that you can read HERE.  People always like to try to define Southwest and, in my view, often credit them in areas that really don’t apply and miss the point to so many facets of their success.

I’m always a bit amused that a distinction in Southwest’s success is so often low cost.  While there is no doubt that offering lower fares is a key component in Southwest’s model, people very often miss the fact that it isn’t a low service model.  To the contrary, Southwest delivers on its promises more consistently and with a smile.  If anything, it’s their low fares that draw people to the airline but it’s the service that makes them a repeat customer.  Let’s not confuse the fact that Southwest has never offered a meal with the lack of service.  Better yet, notice that their view on baggage fees is that they aren’t fair and their customers deserve better.

Another component to their success is both effiency and productivity.  Southwest doesn’t do anything spectacularly different than other airlines when it comes to running their flights.  They still have cabin crew, pilots, ground handlers, gate agents, etc getting that flight moving across the country.  The difference is that Southwest has managed to recognize that their people are a weapon for success rather than the “enemy”.  They pay well, treat their people well and ask for quite a bit in return.  That gives them the edge in productivity.  Let’s not fault them for remaining consistent in that policy for 40 years and, frankly, it’s time to stop waiting for the other shoe to drop in that area, too.

Industry insiders like to characterize them as cold and ruthless when it comes to a market.  First, let’s not act like this is a daycare playground where everyone is supposed to be treated equal and fair.  It is business and in this particular business, competition is almost always fierce.  Just because Southwest is able to fight well doesn’t make them cold and ruthless.  It makes them a good business with good people.

Furthermore, they are, if anything, often a very conservative company.  They study things, experiment, wait for the right moment (and in this business timing is everything) and try very hard to enter new markets when they can do so on their terms, not their competitors.  They are who we would wish our bankers of today would be.  They aren’t the pirates or the rebels, they’re the responsible people who show a great deal of concern for their stakeholders. 

Do they look for weaknesses?  Absolutely.  Is it smart to enter a market where an incumbent has an overwhelming advantage in every way over you?  Of course not.  Timing, as I’ve already said, is everything.  Just because another legacy airline is weak and unable to do business on any real world market terms doesn’t mean that Southwest should treat them with kid gloves.   That other airline’s weaknesses are opportunity and it’s nothing that anyone else in any other business wouldn’t try to capitalize on.

I’m all too often amused at how SWA is made out to be someone clinging to their business model after all these years and how so many perceive them to be unable to change.  Their so agile that they’re moving in new directions while other airlines are still figuring out they have a problem. 

They went sexy in the 70’s and no one ever noticed they went business casual in the 80’s so that their own appearance would match their customer’s own model.  They’ve stuck to the 737 but they’ve driven that aircraft’s design changes over the years with their own needs and few have ever noticed that.  It’s remarkable that one airline could hold such an influence over a business like Boeing and not manage to sell itself it out in the process. 

When there was war in the early 1990’s that suddenly impacted their business, the entire company recognized the needs to reduce costs immediately and did so in a matter of days while other others languished in the markets bleeding red in bright streams.  When fuel became a much more uncertain commodity, they became an early adopter of fuel hedging in order to make those costs much more certain and predictable. 

When they found themselves with no more underserved markets to enter, they didn’t stagnate, they reinvented themselves and began entering larger and larger markets.  Instead of rushing into places at any cost, they charted a course that required them to meet their own criteria  for entering a new market and then executed flawlessly.   If you had asked anyone 3 years ago if they would ever enter the New York City market properly, no one would have bet on that including me.  Now they’ve got a plan to serve it via 3 airports (La Guardia, Newark and Long Island).

It’s hard to call an airline as old as Southwest a new entrant.  Frankly, I don’t they are a rebel either.  I’m not sure they were ever rebel.  They simply run their business better than virtually anyone else and they do it so consistently that no one ever seems to quite believe that there isn’t something hidden.  I think the markets treat Southwest as that family relative you can never quite believe has it together that much since it doesn’t match what everyone else in the dysfunctional family is doing. 

Is Southwest becoming a legacy airline?  No, not really.  They are simply not following the crowd in everything they do.  They follow their own path and sometimes that means they are in step with the crowd and sometimes they aren’t.  Reading too much into it just results in speculation that doesn’t match fact.

Filed under: Airline History, Airline News, Airline Service by ajax
2 Comments »

I was a somewhat early adopter of Airtran starting with some flights in the late 1990’s and for a variety of reasons, the airline just worked for me.  No one would describe Airtran as having a luxurious service product but, somehow, it was a service product that found a fan base.

Now there are many Airtran Fans who are lamenting the merger between Airtran and Southwest Airlines and what it means for Business Class.  Right now, it means it’ll be going away. 

I think that’s a mistake.  The way Airtran operated their business class was somewhat unique and was a great upsell for many passengers including me.  I have often arrived for a flight and paid the upgrade fees at the spur of the moment although I have to say that buying that upgrade at the last minute has gotten to be pretty difficult.

Airtran’s business class is a bit special.  It’s really more a decent seat, a few free drinks and a ride at the front of the bus.  It isn’t a luxurious “total experience” that a SuperLegacy might offer but it does embody the 3 best parts of riding in a business class product. 

And at the price it was offered at, it not only made money for Airtran, it also didn’t tax Airtran’s LCC service model either.  Airtran didn’t have to dedicate one of the cabin crew to that section to rub the toes of those passengers and it didn’t have to carry meals either.  They did their drink service and when in the front of the bus, they didn’t charge for the first couple of alcoholic drinks. 

What I’m really saying is that Airtran’s business class actually *does* embody the Southwest service model.  It is the Southwest service model translated by Airtran into a business class product. 

In fact, I think you could retain it and toss assigned seating to the wind and few, if any, would even pause over that. 

But here is the thing:  it’s time to get over the idea that Southwest is the champion of the little people and it’s time to get over the idea that Southwest is completely egalitarian. 

They are neither and, in some respects, they never were.  Southwest was successful in Texas because it offered fast travel between city centers for the new breed of businessmen:  entrepreneurs.  It is true that Southwest did stimulate first time travel in people as it grew across the country but those days are over too.   The 1980’s were a period when air travel became accessible and it was solidified in the 1990’s but the idea that there are a great number of people in various markets who have never considered air travel until Southwest (or other LCCs) showed up is disingenuous at best.

More to the point, an Airtran business class product is well suited to the Southwest frequency model that is still employed today.  Imagine the revenue opportunities that exist in their newest markets from New York City to destinations like Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC and Houston. 

Southwest has matured in many ways and all for the better.  Retaining a business class product like Airtran’s offers far more opportunity than it does risks and for SWA to dismiss it out of hand is a flawed move.  Keep it, play with it and look for advantages.  Use it to start eroding the appeal that newer LCC models like jetBlue and Virgin America have built up.  If you think it’s the in-flight entertainment those airlines offer that is driving their business, you’re kidding yourself.  It’s the better seat at the better price where they compete against legacy and SuperLegacy airlines.

Southwest’s quick move to announce it would go away struck me as inflexible and particularly so given their agility in most things.  Yes, they are slow adopters, experimenters and generally an airline that waits for scale to develop before they make a move.  The scale is there, Airtran is a ready experimentation and they’ve already adopted a number of features to better accommodate business travelers. 

For all you Airtran Business Class Fans, I’m with you.  It’s worth keeping not just because you like it but because it has all the appearances of being a solid business choice.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
4 Comments »

I have to be honest, I thought Donald Nyrop was already dead.  I was wrong.

Donald Nyrop died on Tuesday, November 16th, at the age of 98. 

I’ll wager that quite a few younger airline fans may not even know his name.  Nyrop was one of the Titans of the airline industry and served as CEO of Northwest Airlines.  He should be thought of in the same category as Robert Six (Continental), Juan Trippe (Pan Am), Jack Frye (TWA) and CR Smith (American Airlines) in my opinion. 

Nyrop was a former government lawyer who ran Northwest as frugally as possible.  American Airlines is known for leaving their aircraft unpainted to save money but Nyrop did it for the same reason.  He kept their headquarters in Minneapolis in a non-descript building near the airport and he often fought with his airlines’ unions during his tenure. 

But he is the man who made that airline what it was and certainly it embodied his spirit in some form or fashion and for good or bad right up to the point it merged with Delta.   Don Nyrop retired from the Northwest Airlines board all the way back in 1984 leaving a legacy of frugality and safety.  Not many men could navigate those two prioties with the success he did.  Northwest was the airline that pioneered things like forecasting clear-air turbulence, for instance.

He wasn’t without his quirks.  Nyrop reportedly became convinced that employees were lollygagging in the restrooms reading newspapers and once had the doors to the stalls removed to stop it.   Like many other airline leaders of his time, he was also known for being very solicitous of his employees and looked after their well being with many simple, undeclared acts of kindness. 

He was tough with aircraft manufacturers and their salesmen and demanded safe aircraft that met Northwest’s needs.  He standardized their operations as much as humanly possible in his time insisting that aircraft all have the same configurations including engines.  He insisted on the best navigational equipment for Northwest’s routes to Asia and employees respected the way he made money in a business where that quality is rare.

I’ve often tried to find a biography on this man.  I always wished that Robert Serling had written about him and this airline because its a story that I suspect hasn’t been fully told.  Serling would have told it best, I believe. 

I find it a bit sad that his obituary appears only in the Minneapolis St. Paul Star Tribune because it should be noticed in so many more places given his contributions to both Northwest and aviation.  It’s even a bit sadder that Nyrop goes unmentioned even in the Wikipedia entry for Northwest Airlines (as I write this anyway).  So, if you happen to see a Northwest aircraft, especially one of the old DC-9’s, raise a hand and wave because it was bought under Nyrop’s leadership and it’s really quite remarkable that it continues to fly on today.

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

For the past few months, I’ve seen a number of “quality” ratings go out on airlines in the media.  The criteria of these various media outlets seems to be out of step with reality in the airline world and I want to talk about that for a minute.

First, any one airline experience is a highly subjective event.  Complaints about airlines are usually driven by 2 or more bad experiences on flights rather than one and keeping statistics on single events to drive an evaluation doesn’t necessarily reveal whether or not airlines are offering good service. 

Second, the criteria being used to “rate” an airline is often based on the luxuries offered such as in-flight entertainment, WiFi, food or business class seats.   Three of those 4 criteria are often based on price as a function of the kind of ticket a person bought. 

Third, the loyalty programs of airlines tend to skew ratings as well.  It’s amazing how many passengers will continue to rate an airline as “good” in return for those almighty miles.  A “free” ticket excuses a lot of discomfort and abuse. 

Why  not rate airlines on things like seat pitch available in economy seating?  And what about the costs to upgrade to a better seat and/or level of service?  Shouldn’t the ” a la carte” pricing scheme of airlines be included in such a rating? 

Imagine a rating system that offers negative points for less than 31″ of seat pitch, no points for 31″-32″ of seat pitch and positive points for anything 33″ or greater in seat pitch.  Let’s consider bag fees and offer negative points for anything costing over $25 or more for 1st bag checked, no points for $20 to $24 per bag and positive points for less than $20 per 1st bag checked.  You could do the same with food offerings as well. 

Let’s count things like baggage loss claims on annual basis and on time ratings as well.  Offer positive points for being in the top 3, no points from level 4 to level 6 and negative points for being below level 6.  Let’s evaluate how the airline accomodates passengers inside its hub terminals because airlines do have some control and influence over the environment they offer you in most cases. 

Why not include regional carriers in the evaluation of the legacy and SuperLegacy airlines?  They are, after all, selling you the ticket and their brand is what is being touted so shouldn’t those regional airline flights be included in evaluating the brand?

And let’s evaluate on the basis of economy, economy plus and business (and first class domestic) class.  First class, on an international basis, doesn’t really matter because I assure you that it will be top notch compared to any other service level you could experience.   On any given domestic flight, about 10 to 12 percent of the seats available are business/first class seats.  The rest are economy.  All too often we’re rating airlines on how well they’re treating the vast minority of passengers. 

And let’s leave loyalty programs out of it.  They cause passengers to act irrationally and only to the benefit of the airline. 

Wouldn’t it be nice to choose a flight based on such a rating system and the price for a fare?  You can bet that airlines would pay a lot more attention to the basics and a lot less attention to the 10% whose fares are generally being paid for by their business and who don’t have a financial stake in their choices.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

Examiner.Com has a story about Delta wanting to hire an additional 1000 flight attendants starting in June 2011.  There are quite a few things that I think people ought to be ware in this story.  For instance, Delta has already received over 85,000 applications for these jobs.  For every one opening, 85 people are available to fill it. It’s a highly competitive field for jobs even in the best of times.

Flight attendant with 12 years of seniority at Delta who flies about 75 flight hours* a month earns roughly $41,000 a year.  In other words, a college graduate who wins this job can expect to earn that after 12 years of rather hard work.  These days, we don’t treat teachers that rough.

Want the better advantage in winning this job?  Then speaking Japanese, Mandarin Chinese, Dutch or Spanish will help a lot.   With the exception of Spanish, those aren’t language skills that are common or easy to acquire. 

In addition to that, only the candidates who are exceptionally personable, conscientious, and physically able are going to even get past a first group interview. 

While it’s more possible to hold some kind of line at Delta with junior seniority, there are some airlines where flight attendants fly reserve** for a decade or more before being able to hold a line***.   That means a decade of working the unknown every month. 

And that $41,000 per year is income that has to go towards paying for the expenses involved with working a job that requires one to be away overnight regularly and a job which does not supply even a meal despite being captured in the air sometimes for more than 12 hours per day.  So you get to earn that $41,000 / year after 12 years while your hungry and without snapping at pushy customers.

In the base salary, at most airlines anyway, you get to pay union dues.  Those dues pay for someone to represent you with the company in contract negotiations that involve your compensation for the future.  Contract negotiations that can go on for as much as 4 years but which average at least 2 years before a resolution is reached and voted on. 

Yes, people actually want these jobs.  Lots of people want them.  Yes, you get flight benefits but those flight benefits are traveling for free on space available basis.  Let me point out that load factors on aircraft are at historically high numbers.  In other words, the chances of getting to use that flight benefit are less than ever before.  It’s a benefit that has marginal value at best these days.

Yes, any job you choose should be done right and done cheerfully.  It is the job.  But before we cast stones, let’s remember just what comes with this job and be a bit more tolerant of those servicing us when we fly.

*  Flight hours aren’t how many hours flight crew work.  Flight hours are the hours you work (and get paid for) essentially from the time the door closes on an aircraft to the time it opens again.  A crew member who works 8 flight hours in a day may end up working a “real” 12+ hours in a day. 

** Flying reserve means that you are to make yourself available to fly a flight to replace another crew member with little notice.  Some forms of reserve require you to sit at the airport wait to be told where you are going with as little as 30 minutes notice.  Other forms require you to be at home, near a phone to take a flight with as little as 2 hours notice.

*** Holding a line means that a flight attendant gets to bid for a certain group of flights and have some knowledge of what they’ll be working for a month.  This changes from month to month and the best “groups” of flights are held by the most senior flight attendants.  It can take 25 or more years to be able to fly the best “groups” of flights. 

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
1 Comment »

Airlines have spent a lot of time talking about how consolidation has helped the industry raise air fares and begin earning a profit.  It is constantly promoted as a very positive development and that is generally not refuted by anyone out there most of the time. 

But let’s take a look at the landscape and see what is going on.  In 2004, we had as major airlines the following:

1. American Airlines
2. United Airlines
3. Delta Airlines
4. Northwest Airlines
5. Continental Airlines
6. Southwest Airlines
7. Alaska Airlines
8. jetBlue Airlines
9. Airtran Airlines
10. America West Airlines
11. US Airways

These are in no particular order but each of the above could be described as viable operating entities that served large regions of the United States if not on a national basis.   Of the 11 listed, 5 were really completely national airlines, 3 were semi-national and 3 were regional. 

Now, if we consider recent mergers and the recently announced Southwest Airlines – Airtran merger, we have:

1. Delta Airlines
2. United Airlines
3. American Airlines
4. US Airways
5. Southwest Airlines
6. jetBlue
7. Alaska Airlines

Of these listed, 5 are national airlines (With Southwest moving from “semi national” to “national” in my opinion) and 2 which are really regional airlines primarily.  The 2 which I call “regional” do have flights outside of their core strengths but you can’t really call them even semi-national. 

I see 2 problems arising from this new landscape.  First, the top 3 airlines range in annual revenues between $23 Billion to $29 Billion.   US Airways had about $11 Billion in revenue, Southwest earned about $11 Billion and Airtran enjoyed roughly $2.5 Billion in revenue.  In other words, going forward US Airways and Southwest Airlines will be roughly half the size (in terms of revenue) that the top 3 enjoy.

Alaska Airlines, generally a good performer, earned about $3.5 Billion and jetBlue, also generally a good performer, earned $3.3 Billion.  They are each roughly 1/3 the size (in revenue) of the tier above them. 

My point is that there is a great inequality between the now extremely dominant SuperLegacy airlines and the tiers below them.  Between US Airways and Southwest, US Airways clearly remains an “at risk” airline due to the markets it continue to try to be dominant in.   Indeed, with the Southwest-Airtran merger, US Airways will see yet another market (Washington D.C.) finally being intruded upon by Southwest.

 There is little left to challenge the largest airlines in a region.  They will compete with themselves and it will take many years before you see Delta trying to encroach on American territory or United encroach on Delta territory.  Each of these SuperLegacy airlines needs to settle down.

My second point is barriers to entry.  Airlines have grown both in revenue and network so much now, there is a barrier to entry for new airlines or even existing airlines to enter new markets.  A 2nd tier airline has some chance of competing regionally but 3rd tier airlines are now faced with competing against SuperLegacies that can quite literally bury them with both capacity and staying power. 

In other words, going forward, it will be very difficult for airlines to be started that have any hope of competing in marketplaces because any marketplace that may have high air fares is also going to be dominated by SuperLegacy airlines that can fight off that competition with capacity and the ability (via revenues) to stay the long course with that strategy. 

Starting and operating an airline is a highly capital intensive affair.  It is possible to start an airline and build a network inside a region with fast growth.  jetBlue did it in a market that was highly competitive just 10 years ago.  However, while going from zero to 50 aircraft is somewhat doable still, growing beyond that is very expensive and difficult.  It’s hard to find investors willing to capitalize airlines with enough money to sustain that growth to a network that is served by 150 or more aircraft.

Furthermore, it’s difficult for airlines to make that leap from small to medium and keep their operations stable.  It often requires entire systems changes that stop growth and start a period of mediocrity that is often difficult to work past.   (Hello jetBlue)   In addition, it’s difficult to imagine the required resources to make the leap from medium to a truly national player because, so far, it really hasn’t been done except via mergers and that resulted in an airline (US Airways) that remains tied to cities that aren’t the most attractive for being a major player.  Just look at where US Airways isn’t a player such as New York City, Atlanta, DFW, Chicago, Denver, San Francisco (and arguably Los Angeles.) 

That means that SuperLegacies and major nationals are likely to go unchallenged for the foreseeable future.  Unchallenged airlines usually mean air fares that are high enough to slow economic growth in areas and service levels that will continue to be reduced over time.  It’s not good for customers and it isn’t good for the United States.

I wouldn’t argue that we need 6 SuperLegacy airlines (in terms of size) but I do think we need more national airlines (a la US Airways or Southwest) so that competitive pressure remains in place.  Even new regionals in the form of a jetBlue or Airtran would be good but . . .

How do they get started?  How do you make an argument to investors that capitalizing an airline with the intent of competing even on a regional level is a sound business investment at this point?  It was hard to do before the last 3 years but now it is almost ludicrous to enter a conference room an argue that you can sustain a bruising battle for market share on a profitable route with the remaining top 5 airlines.

In addition, we have tacitly endorsed airline systems that are inherently economically inefficient.  The hub and spoke systems just got a shot in the arm but they do not lend themselves to lean operations and high aircraft utilization.   But the sheer size of the networks we have agreed to now make it possible for those same inefficient operations to enjoy new life for a decade or longer now.

I do think airlines should enjoy profits.  I do not think they should enjoy profits just because they say they should.  The argument that airlines couldn’t enjoy profits in the US anymore without consolidation is refuted by the very performance of other airlines operating under a different model:  Southwest, jetBlue, and even Alaska Airlines and Airtran.  I just named 4 airlines who did enjoy profits on a pretty consistent basis over the last 10 years by not engaging in the SuperLegacy hub and spoke (only) operations systems.

I ask myself where innovation may come from to challenge existing airlines in the next 10 to 15 years and I presently don’t see any encouraging developments.  I don’t see any new David Neeleman’s looking at these conventional systems and thinking outside of the box when it comes to aircraft, routes or labor.   How does a brand new airline argue for competitive prices when shopping at Boeing or Airbus when compared to the SuperLegacies who can make a “top off” order larger than a new airlines’ initial order?

Airline fans can shout about the renewed prospects for earning money presently but I do wonder what we, as a country, have to shout about when we discover that lack of innovation in a few years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After the merger announcement between Southwest Airlines and Airtran last week, there was quite a bit of speculation on who would be relieved by the announcement and who would be on edge over it.  Conventional wisdom (which includes me) saw this move as relieving Southwest of some burdensome competition in some markets such as in the NorthEast and in Milwaukee.  Airtran competed effectively to drive down pricing with their flights. 

Some have said Delta has nothing to worry about and Frontier has been foolish enough to see this as an improvement for them.  I think Delta needs to worry a lot and Frontier is made weaker from this merger.

In Atlanta, Delta won’t see much change in Atlanta, I agree.  It’s possible that in the regional area near Atlanta, Delta may even do better in the short run.  However, Southwest has something Airtran didn’t:  frequency.  I think that Delta will discover that when Southwest’s capacity for frequency is deployed on traditional Delta / Airtran routes, competition is going to get a bit stiffer.  The truth is, Airtran had many destinations but not always that much frequency.  It’s one reason they were tolerated by many legacy airlines.

However, legacy airlines have generally always defended routes from other carries including LCC carriers by the ability to add frequency.  That’s never worked well against Southwest .  Southwest doesn’t go into a market with the idea of being a small player.  They enter routes where they can deploy reasonable frequency right off the bat and they know how to schedule flights just as well or better than most legacies.  Southwest’s size is already formidable weapon and it got a lot more formidable when the Airtran merger got announced.

Frontier and other LCC carriers (Hi jetBlue!) shouldn’t feel relief either.  It’s that same frequency with an additional weapon that can spell hard days ahead for them, too.  Southwest can compete with anybody’s frequency and I can think of just one LCC in just one area that has the frequency and capability to match what Southwest can ultimately deploy.  jetBlue has that in the New York City area.  But that’s it and Southwest is clearly building momemtum to be a bigger player in the NYC area. 

That additional weapon?  Network.  Yes, Southwest isn’t a traditional hub and spoke carrier but they do know how to make their network work for the consumer.   People aren’t adverse to connections if the price is right and the risk is relatively low.  Southwest has lots of focus cities / hubs to provide network access to destinations that the other LCC carriers just don’t have. 

Frontier has Denver and Milwaukee and is spread thinly in many cases.  While they compete against Southwest in Denver, that’s changing slowly.  They’ll never compete against Southwest in Milwaukee because Southwest is already capable of offering a network of destinations that Frontier can’t begin to approach. 

Southwest has also done something that other LCC carriers have foolishly ignored.  They covered the midwest.  It isn’t sexy territory but it’s territory with lots of industry and commerce and need to get from point a to point b.  It’s an area that appreciates a frugal approach to life and it’s an area with lots of family connections between cities.  It’s also an area that has a strong attraction to the leisure areas that Southwest is strong in such as Florida and Arizona and California. 

And now Southwest will have international capability to those same kinds of attractive leisure destinations in the Caribbean and Mexico.  Frankly, I think Frontier should be very scared of what Southwest can bring to the table because it potentially spells their demise.  I think jetBlue needs to start thinking about how they can grow their network and quite adding flights to the Florida and the Caribbean from the NorthEast. 

jetBlue is also weak in another respect.  They’re building focus operations in cities that are notoriously difficult to operate from in weather.  Their operations can be significantly impacted in New York City, Boston and Baltimore-Washington by the very same storm system.  All three of those are focus cities for them.  Southwest doesn’t have those same weaknesses.  They fly in the same areas and they’ll no doubt grow in those same areas but they continue to manage their risk by operating flights from those areas to other focus cities that are far less likely to be impacted by the same storm system. 

And Atlanta will just add to that capability.  I’m not saying Southwest’s system is perfectly isolated from risk but it is far more insulated from risk than other carriers like jetBlue and even the SuperLegacies. 

Southwest is scarier because it has lots of resources and can operate in a very agile manner.  The LCC’s can’t and the SuperLegacies can only do so much within the limitations of their hub style operations.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

I like Southwest and feel that they have, more than any other airline, executed an extremely consistent business plan for nearly 40 years.  I think they’re a better value today than they were 20 years ago and I recommend them frequently when people ask me for a suggestion on what to fly. 

That said, I think Southwest has a few weaknesses that have really begun to stand out in the last few years.  One of those is democracy.  There was a time when a passenger on Southwest Airlines knew one thing for sure:  everyone got on that aircraft on pretty equal terms.  Lately, in the drive to attract a more business oriented passenger, things have begun to seem, well, different.

Now some passengers appear to be more equal than others. 

That comes from some of the fees that Southwest has instituted.  Mind you, I like their approach to fees in general because you are getting more for paying more on Southwest vs other airlines charging you for what was once included.   But this rather soft approach to offering something attractive to the business traveler is starting to look a bit silly. 

I genuinely believe that Southwest should look at adopting a business class on their aircraft.  I think they could pioneer a different business class that offers value, comfort and workspace for a great price and I think buying Airtran gives them the chance to take a look at the viability of that.  It would be poor form to dismiss it out of hand at this point.

They’ve already said they’re going to replace/upgrade their IT systems and I think that’s fantastic.  However, I would suggest that instead of an internally focused effort over many years, it’s time to do a cost benefit analysis on adopting an industry standard.  There is a reason for Southwest’s present system and that has to do with the rather unjust way it was handled in other reservations systems nearly 2 decades ago. 

Thing is, that world doesn’t really exist anymore.  I admired their approach to internet sales and going it alone.  I liked that they saved money on travel agency fees back in those days.  But those days are over and I wouldn’t mind seeing Southwest listed alongside other airlines when I shop. 

I think Southwest is now missing traffic because they aren’t listed alongside other airlines on travel websites.  I think they’re too easy to forget in many instances and a bit of a pain to compare fares with at other times.  Adopting new IT systems is a perfect time to do a cost benefit analysis of joining the rest of the world again when it comes to booking a flight. It might be the right decision.

Southwest likes experiments and buying Airtran and deciding to keep the Boeing 717 fleet is an experiment.  Southwest will see how pilots get along with the concept of two fleet types and how managing crews across these types works out for them.  It also allows them to see what happens when they right-size an aircraft to a market.  That’s all good but I think they could stand to go one step farther.

Which leads to the idea that Southwest doesn’t have hubs.  Well, actually, they do.  If you want to call them focus cities, fine by me but they’re hubs.  People fly aircraft into these “hubs” and connect with other flights to other destinations.  The difference is that flights into and out of these hubs are more rationally scheduled and don’t involve “banks” of connecting flights.

But they still have “regional” flights bringing traffic to these “hubs” where passengers can connect to a flight to a destination farther away.   It’s time to look at the possibilities of flying these “regional” flights with different equipment.  It is no secret that I like the turbo-props for these flights because a turbo-prop can generally fly a segment just as fast as a jet when its distances are under 400 miles. 

Southwest has a lot of sub-400 mile routes and I think they’re going to have more in the future, not less.  A fuel efficient turbo-prop would permit Southwest to offer even lower fares and with Southwest’s famous ability to operate and maintain aircraft, I think they could make it work at a level not seen in the US so far.

But if turbo-props are just too revolutionary, they should also take a look at the latest generation of so called regional jets.  I like the Embraer E170/190 class for Southwest.  It fits all their original criteria for a jet and can fly those sub-400 mile routes very quickly and efficiently.  It’s a better choice for a two type fleet than the 717 is.  And it has the range to fly some long and thin (for Southwest) routes that would fit well within their point to point style of flying.

It’s a great time for Southwest to learn from this merger.   I respect their decision to be Southwest but that decision doesn’t mean things don’t change.  Just looking at Southwest’s history for the past 20 years will reveal plenty of change and it feels like one of those moments when SWA can adopt some change while integrating another airline.  They would be wise to examine what Airtran was doing right before discarding it out of hand.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
1 Comment »

With the Southwest/Airtran merger announcement, there has been a lot of rampant speculation on what US Airways or American Airlines should do in the face of this industry consolidation.  Many see them about to come under pressure from financial markets and shareholders to find a pathway to play in this consolidation game. 

While you could argue that US Airways is at a disadvantage to any of the SuperLegacy airlines now, I don’t think that AA is so much at a disadvantage that they *must* do something.  In fact, their problem is that a merger doesn’t bring much to the table for them since they would be the surviving entity and they already have high costs.  US Airways is doing just fine for now and I think they can afford to be cagey for a while at the least.

The truth is, I think jetBlue will be under more pressure than any other airline.  Their growth is largely stalled right now and then continue to re-trench in existing markets.  They’re busy defending NYC, Boston and, to a lesser extent, the Northeast.   While I admire how jetBlue got its foothold by operating out of JFK airport, I also think that they’ve begun to forget just how much the Atlantic seaboard chews up airlines. 

Yes, they’ve got their nifty trans-continental routes to the west coast and they appear to do pretty good with those on some level.  What jetBlue doesn’t have is a clearly defined pathway forward.  What’s their stategy?  The status quo?  More and more trans-continental routes that don’t offer all that great aircraft utility?  More flights from the Northeast to Florida?  More flights from Florida to Caribbean leisure destinations?  None of that sounds very attractive.

Lest you think I’m speculating, read this story quoting CEO Dave Barger.   He states they’ll continue to focus on their “growth plan” for Boston and the Caribbean.  I’ll point out that Southwest Airlines is already a national airline with a hole in their network.  That changes with the addition of Airtran and they become *much* more competitive with jetBlue upon completion of the merger.  Yes, I think SWA will stumble some during integration but I do not think that will inhibit their ultimate success. 

Contrary to popular belief, there is some low hanging fruit out there for the right airline.  jetBlue has the right service product, labor costs and, frankly, network to go take advantage of that.  But there is no vision for that kind of growth.

I suspect one thing that is inhibiting such growth is aircraft financing.  It’s a tight credit market out there and good terms on aircraft aren’t nearly as easy to acquire as they once were.  However, there are airlines out there with plenty of the right equipment and who could possibly be bought for the right price. 

I think it’s jetBlue that finds itself under pressure for an acquisition and/or merger.  It can’t continue to grow in its existing markets.  There isn’t any room to grow without a bruising and expensive battle.  I think it is going to take new leadership at jetBlue.  Dave Barger does a great job of keeping operations going and maintaining the status quo but he has done a poor job of setting a vision for growth into new markets.  There is plenty of opportunity out there and many airlines are seeing it and executing a strategy for it.  That is going to put a lot of pressure on jetBlue in the next year or two to find a way to articulate what their next plan is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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