I follow this city pair pretty closely because Milwaukee is my birthplace and I continue to have a lot family there and because I’ve never really understood why this route has so often been the ugly step-child given the demand between the two cities.
I took a look at what service airlines were offering (non-stop) between the two cities and thought I would give a summary since its so reflective of what is going on in Milwaukee in general. Just to keep things interesting, I looked at flights in mid-April.
American Airlines will have 5 flights spanning each day starting early in the morning and ending each evening. Every one of those flights is an Embraer ERJ-140/145 aircraft flown by American Eagle. American is competitive on price and even currently the low fare leader this far out but only by quite literally a few dollars.
Airtran has its flights for April now. They have 2 flights a day with one morning and one evening departure and both are very convenient to both business and leisure travelers. These flights will be on CRJ-200 equipment flown by Skywest Airlines. I still expect that these will quickly transition to Boeing 717 aircraft if Airtran finds this a popular route segment. Oddly enough, Airtran’s offerings are just over $100 more than what AA is offering.
Midwest Airlines has 4 flights spread over the day and all at convenient times ranging from early in the morning to the evenings. These flights are competitive with AA and are currently flown on Republic Airways E-170/190 aircraft, certainly the best equipment on that route presently.
Frontier Airlines now has codeshares on every Midwest Airlines flights and at the same prices. So, if you want to fly Frontier, uh, I guess you can. At the end of the day, it is neither Frontier nor Midwest Airlines (although the aircraft are painted in Midwest colors), it’s really Republic Airways.
That makes 11 physical flights and 15 flight offerings on 4 airlines between the cities for non-stop flights.
Now, here is the interesting development. Southwest Airlines will be offering direct flights (one stop, no plane change) between Milwaukee and Dallas come April. So far, I cannot discern where that aircraft stops along the way but it has to be on the way. Perhaps Kansas City or St. Louis because the duration of those direct flights is only 3.5 hours which is nominally one hour longer than the non-stop offerings but if you allow 40 minutes to land, disembark passengers, embark passengers and take off again, it cannot be a long or bothersome stop.
An hour longer seems like a lot, maybe, but you get to fly it on a mainline aircraft (Boeing 737) and on airline that does *not* charge luggage fees. You also fly into Love Field airport instead of DFW which means (for many) a much more convenient airport to fly to and from.
Best of all, Southwest is highly competitive on price. AA remains slightly cheaper but advance purchase fares mean that Southwest is nominally a few dollars more, potentially as quick (doorway to doorway) and on a more comfortable airline with friendlier service and no baggage fees. This may be the best deal offered if their flight times work for you.
Today, part 2 in my views on whether or not we’ll see a real “Ryanair” style airline here in the United States.
Watch what you fly here. The most recent LCC entrants here have bought Airbus. No real surprise as Airbus likes to make a heck of a deal on an aircraft for new airlines in the hopes they’ll have the “in” for future orders if that airline succeeds.
Boeing isn’t too interested in that. They want to see a solid business plan and a real possibility of success. What’s more, big orders aren’t the enticement they once were for Boeing. Boeing got burned on a few of those deals with Ryanair being the most notable since it allowed Ryanair to buy aircraft, fly them for a couple of years and sell them at a profit. Boeing isn’t going to let that happen again any time soon.
Is Airbus the right aircraft? Yes. No. Maybe. I kind of think not. I think it is well suited to the jetBlue and Virgin America airlines of this country because they can support that upgraded service product nicely. That said, those airlines would have done just as well with Boeing aircraft. In fact, jetBlue went with Airbus because Boeing refused to offer a decent price for a decent order.
But Airbus doesn’t strike me as quite the right choice for an LCC. They’re a bit higher off the ground, have a little worse operational dispatch rate and don’t always have the best range vs weight ration for certain routes. Yes, they’re a family of aircraft that offers a range of size that captain can fly across the type range.
Boeing seems better. Supported here in the United States, you have better access to mechanics, parts and plenty of maintenance contractors to keep you going. They’re a little bit closer to the ground, a little easier to turn around and have a little bit better dispatch rate. In addition, their range of capacities is a little bit better for routes and virtually every model has trans-continental capability now without being weight restricted.
The model I would look long and hard at isn’t either of those. I think a new LCC carrier trying to emulate Ryanair ought to take a serious look at the Embraer 170/190 aircraft. They’re cheaper to operate and can carry a full load of passengers and baggage although little cargo (which isn’t an LCC’s concern anyway.) They offer a family of sizes, have a good dispatch rate, offer quick turn arounds, great range, good comfort and great potential for routes requiring frequency and low costs. It is no wonder that David Neeleman chose them for his new airline, Azul, in Brazil.
But you can go used in the US and do pretty well too. Allegiant Airlines buys used MD-82/83/87 aircraft, for instance. They MD-80’s are overbuilt, cheap to buy and still pretty cheap to operate. They have range, good dispatch rates, ease of maintenance and they’re abundant on the used market. The same is true of older Boeing 737 models (pre Next Generation models) and those are becoming to cheap to purchase as well.
In the end, an LCC needs an aircraft type that is relatively easy to expand into a fleet, keep one class of pilots flying it and which has a ready source of aircraft to augment and/or replace the fleet with.
One type, many sizes should be the rule. Ryanair uses one size, the Boeing 737-800 and Southwest basically uses one size, the Boeing 737-700 but they can afford to do so. A new LCC needs operational flexibility and being prepared to use the three basic sizes of either type would be a good thing.
But you can split your types too. Airtran did this successfully by entering the world with DC-9s, transitioning to Boeing 717s and then growing in capacity by bringing on the Boeing 737. That worked because while they needed two different pilot groups, the pilot groups could be kept “rational” with the same pay rates. jetBlue split their types between the Airbus and the Embraer(190) and split their pilot groups pay rates too. There was risk involved in that but jetBlue avoided that by offering pay rates on the Embraer that were as generous as that being offered other pilots flying mainline aircraft at other airlines.
Find airports that welcome you and that have demand to locations you can serve. Sounds easy but it isn’t. In the US, airports tend to be wedded to airlines that have served them for decades. When DFW opened, it was served by a number of major airlines and each terminal served one or more airline. Now, DFW has been taken over by American Airlines (nearly 4 of 5 terminals) and does little to serve the needs of airlines who aren’t AA.
Airports need to figure out that putting all their eggs in one basket with a major, hubbed airline isn’t a good strategy in the long run. Once those airlines have that dominance, they use it to beat airports down on fees and coerce airports into paying for infrastructure the airlines then get to own. It doesn’t benefit the local economy to have one dominant airline as prices rise and service falls. This isn’t just true for DFW either. When airports begin to aggressively pursue new entrants, everyone will win.
New and existing LCC entrants need to make a better argument too. All too often, LCC’s tend to fear competing in those markets dominated by a major legacy carrier and that’s a mistake. Airtran wasn’t afraid to go up against Delta and it paid off. jetBlue wasn’t afraid to compete in one the most competitive markets in the world (NYC) and against some of the biggest airlines. In the past, there weren’t good examples of what an LCC can do for both an airport and a metropolitan area. Now there is and new LCCs in particular need to use that to their advantage.
Treat your staff well. Airlines sell a service product and while you may get customers on price, you’ll keep them with service. Offering strategies to your crews that permit you high productivity and your crew a living wage along with a good working conditions can only lead to your success. Treat them like commodities and you’ll fail. Southwest, Ryanair, jetBlue and Airtran get this. Skybus and Mesa Airlines don’t. Look at who is making money.
Quality of life is just as important to airline crew and staff as wages. Airlines that offer good quality life tend to have happy crew flying their flights and treating their customers right. At the end of the day, it is a lot cheaper to keep a customer than it is to find new ones every week.
Will we ever see a close replica of Ryanair’s model here on a national basis? Yes, I think so. Right now, no. The market is too crowded but that will change again and new airlines will be started again. US attitudes towards fees and advertising are changing, although slowly.
First we need to see a major airline liquidate or merge with another to reduce capacity some more. Then we need to see an uptick in the economy that induces people to spend some money on travel again (both leisure and business travel.) There needs to be a glut of aircraft useable for such a venture (and that’s happening already) and airports need to figure out that it is in their best interest to find space for these new entrants. That really hasn’t started to happen yet but it may yet still happen.
Ryanair is certainly the darling of LCC carriers and, to a certain degree, they even kind of outshine Southwest Airlines. Lots of people look at the US market and wonder about having a Ryanair-style carrier here. Skybus Airlines (read more about them HERE) was supposed to be the one but tanked miserably and by every appearance, the only people who didn’t expect them to fail miserably was their executive staff.
Could such a carrier exist here? Sure they could. In fact, I think it already does in the form of Allegiant Airlines (find out more about them HERE.) Allegiant is all about flying routes point to point using secondary or even tertiary airports and providing extreme low cost prices which are augmented by fees galore. And they make a considerable profit doing so.
What does it really take to be a Low Cost Carrier in the United States? First, let’s really define what that is. Interestingly enough, US Airways uses LCC as its trading identifier on the stock markets. Is it a LCC carrier? Not by any definition. jetBlue and Virgin America both style themselves as LCC carriers but, let’s face it, while they offer great value, neither are a Ryanair style LCC.
Southwest Airlines and Airtran Airlines are probably both the best examples of true low cost carriers operating nationally here in the United States. Allegiant certainly is but they’re still focused much more on the leisure markets and many of the routes they serve compete with quite literally no one.
Skybus failed for a few reasons. First, they picked a hub that defied rational thought in Columbus, Ohio. As you can imagine, there isn’t a whole lot of traffic trying to leave or get there. Hubs don’t work well for LCC carriers. Focus cities do but not hubs. If you want to make money as any kind of airline, you had best be offering flights between two places people want to go.
Second, you have to pick between offering frequency and relative value or absolute lowest cost and infrequent service. You can’t be all things to all people. Skybus kind of offered high frequency and absolute lowest cost and hoped it would stimulate new traffic. The problem is, there is only so many people who want to fly between Columbus, Ohio and Greensboro, NC. You really can’t do that route once or twice a day every day of the week. Not at any price. Not with large, mainline aircraft anyway.
Third, just because you can fly to a secondary or tertiary airport doesn’t mean people will go to that airport to use your airline at any price. Case in point, Bellingham, WA and Skybus again. Bellingham, Washington is a long way away from most anyone in the Seattle-Tacoma area. It’s 90 miles from downtown Seattle, 122 miles from Tacoma and it is a tortuous drive in traffic for anyone in that metro area. Bellingham is convenient to, say, Vancouver, British Columbia but that means crossing a border. In the case of the SEA-TAC area, you need to be flying from their main airport. And the lesson is that you have to look long and hard at each area you’re serving.
LCC carriers have succeeded in flying from secondary, smaller airports such as Love Field (Dallas) and Midway Airport (Chicago) and even Long Beach (LA area) because those airports remain highly accessible to a large number of people. And as both Southwest and Airtran will tell you, sometimes if you want to enter a market, you have to bite the bullet and fly where people want to go. I take note that since Airtran has decided to defend itself against Allegiant, even Allegiant figured out it needed to change airports in the Orlando area to remain competitive.
Choose your fees and advertising carefully. The United States is a different place than Europe. Advertising that is racy or in bad taste doesn’t go well here under the best of circumstances. It doesn’t matter if you think it should or not. It just happens to be that way and a new airline is going to change the moral outlook of this country. Oh, yes, Spirit Airlines has gotten away with it now and then but they remain a minor player and it has possibly turned off as many people as its turned on.
An a la carte fee system (a la Ryanair) is something that this country is completely unfamiliar with when it comes to airlines. Now, that is changing and it will likely change more but it is an evolutionary thing, not revolutionary and some fees are going to make customers feel burned no matter what. Skybus’ Ryanair-like approach to charging a fee for even looking in their direction was offensive to customers here in the US particularly when, at that time, no one else had even really dabbled in it.
While I do think more a la carte offerings will and should be instituted among airlines, it will be done differently here. Luggage fees have generated a massive amount of resentment with customers and while they have generated significant additional revenue for major airlines, it has also caused many customers to more carefully consider their options. Southwest has bucked that luggage fee trend and the results are showing.
There is place for an airline that charges for checked luggage, beverages, meals, blankets and airport check-in. But the amounts of those fees still have to have some value. Particularly when legacy airlines already have those fees as well. Charge more for checked baggage than American Airlines and you run the real risk of turning people off. We’re really not a true a la carte culture here.
Be careful of your publicity. Ryanair’s CEO, Michael O’Leary, gets away with outrageous statements and even expressing a certain outright hostility to his own customers. That works in Europe and, in particular, within the UK and Ireland. Those are cultures who know how to take such statements with a bit more of a wink and a smile. Here in the United States, it’s a flat turn off. Our culture is based more on politeness and friendliness. Bark at your customers or even insult them and they will walk elsewhere.
There is a huge battle taking place over who gets to have Japan Air Lines (JAL) business. The financially struggling airline has suddenly become a hot property and American Airlines (OneWorld) and Delta Airlines (SkyTeam) are fighting over JAL like it’s a supermodel. Both airlines are offering hugely attractive financial packages to JAL and I suspect the poor airline has no idea of who to nod their head towards.
Ultimately, I think JAL will stay in Oneworld. There is more at stake here than what is offered as a financial rescue package. Japan is still a very nationalistic country and keeping the identify of what is, for most purposes, its flag carrier will be important. It has a solid relationship with Oneworld and American Airlines and compared to the risk of joining with SkyTeam and the possibility of being a second tier player in that relationship, JAL has a safer bet with Oneworld.
In addition, I don’t think JAL can afford to wait for anti-trust immunity to act with airline partners and it won’t have to by staying with Oneworld.
The Middle East:
I continue to think that the major international airlines (Emirates, Qatar, Etihad) of the Middle East are more at risk than they claim. Yes, they’ve experienced phenomal growth and, yes, they continue to purchase aircraft like a 5 year old buys candy but what’s next for them and their route systems?
The Middle East doesn’t offer a good connecting point for North or South America. Airlines in North America can reach their markets non-stop with existing aircraft and why would a passenger choose to connect via an airport in the UAE (United Arab Emirates) when they can fly non-stop at a competitive price. Better service product won’t attract these customers.
There is very little business between South America and Africa, India, The Middle East or Southeast Asia and, so, South America isn’t a place that could serve as a growth area for those airlines.
Emirates, Qatar and Etihad have succeeded by offering a hub between Europe and the Middle East, India, Southeast Asia and (to some extent) Australia/New Zealand. However, even European airlines are adding longer range aircraft and are able to reach each of those destinations non-stop more and more with the exception of Australia and New Zealand.
In addition, each of those airlines is bankrolled to some extent with oil profits and the uncertainty of those profits and the uncertainty of other investments in the Middle East has to raise the risk for that continued bankrolling. I don’t see any of these airlines failing in the next year but I do see them perhaps deferring orders and re-organising their fleets.
India:
What a catastrophe! No airline in India will do well for now and there has to be some consolidation in this market in the near future. Kingfisher and Jet Airways are both excellent candidates for takeovers and, perhaps, they are excellent candidates for each other. Kingfisher bet on Airbus by ordering A330 and A340 aircraft first. Their A330 fleet doesn’t quite have the range it really needs to expand outside of its current markets and the A340 was a terrible choice for long range flights. So much so, it got rid of the aircraft on order.
Now, Kingfisher has a few A350 and a few A380 aircraft on order for deliveries starting in 2014. While it could desperately stand to have the A350 now, I don’t see how it can wait until 2014 for the aircraft. I also seriously doubt it will ever take up the A380 both because of cost and an inability to fill the aircraft enough for regular flights.
Jet Airways also has a great service product but bought too big of an aircraft for the routes it needed to compete on. Jet Airways purchased the 777-300ER when it really needed the 777-200ER/LR for the international routes it proposed to serve. Now 4 of the aircraft are leased to Turkish Airlines and 3 are going to Royal Brunei leaving just 3 for Jet Airways.
Both Kingfisher and Jet Airways have a great service product and good networks across India and neighboring countries. They would be better served by merging and using one brand for their national service and another for their international services. Kingfisher for India and Jet Airways for international service.
The Far East:
China has a lot of problems coming to roost with the inevitable decline in their economy which is heavily dependent on North America and Europe. Look for some consolidation in this market. I do think that Chinese airlines face potential issues from government mandates to purchase indignenous aircraft being developed now. There is little chance that the aircraft being built will be competitive internally or externally. At least for this first round of development.
While JAL is suffering and ANA (All Nippon Airlines) isn’t performing that great at present, I see no major changes in the Japanese markets. This is an area that will bounce back but only after a long fight. The same is true for Korea.
Oceania:
Australia will be interesting to watch. I’m tempted to guess that the status quo will remain in most cases. The competition between the US and Australia only continues to grow more fierce and something has to give. I still think that United Airlines may well be the airline to withdraw from this market and only because of the rather unique market relationship formed between Delta and V Australia (and Virgin Blue).
QANTAS will continue to own a large piece of all air travel from its home nation and they could be helped along with some deliveries of the 787. At some point, QANTAS must grow and growth means a lot of long and thin routes to be added.
South America:
I don’t think there will be any major news from this continent over the next year. LAN will continue to succeed by operating smart and honest. Brazilian airlines will continue to fight things out but there is enough international business for each of them and their real threat comes from Azul on a domestic basis.
Look for Azul to consider adding a larger aircraft to its fleet and don’t count Boeing out on that deal. It would be easier for David Neeleman to add the Boeing 737 to his fleet in Brazil because he could outsource maintenance more easily.
Aerolineas Argentinas: Well, what can I say? This disaster is much like the country itself. It won’t go away but it won’t perform either. No outside airline will consider taking it over after what happened with Grupo Marsans’ ownership. They lack an appropriate fleet for their flying, a strategic plan for stabilizing their revenues and no clear plan for future growth. But the Argentinian government also won’t let them go away. It is a matter of national pride.
LAN Argentina is growing in Argentina but somehow I remain skeptical that it will be allowed to succeed too well. Why? For one reason, the government of Argentina owns Aerolineas Argentinas and it has a vested interest in that airline earning money. For another reason, LAN Argentina is owned by the LAN Group of Chile. Look up how Chileans and Argentinians feel about each other.
Colombia and Venezuela:
Avianca Airlines has joined hands with Grupo Taca and I suspect that will be a good thing for both airlines. Avianca could benefit by the exellent managment of Grupo Taca and Grupo Taca could benefit from greater access to South American markets. Its almost certain that the two will harmonize their fleets and service products for greater economies while maintaing the two identies for greater acceptance throughout Central and South America.
Venezuela: All airlines erode further due to the increasing interference of the Venezuelan government and, more specifically, Hugo Chavez. I lost hope for Venezuela’s airline industry when they forced Conviasa (in partnerhsip with Iran Air and originally using an Iran Air 747-SP) into a route between Caracas and Tehran with an intermediate stop in Damascus. This is the ultimate in “this route makes no sense.” If the government can do that, then they’ll do other things to damage the industry.
Europe:
The European continent’s airlines are hunkered down just as much as the US based airlines. There isn’t much to be expected in Europe for the next 12 months but let’s look at it anyway.
British Airways is kind of the American Airlines of the UK. They’ll always somehow manage to survive and generally pretty well. They have their own labour troubles but, again, they seem to be capable winning these for now. British Airways needs to cut costs a bit more so I wouldn’t be surprised at some order deferrals and/or hastening the exit of the 747-400.
The one airline I continue to wonder about in Europe is Lufthansa. While they have a good service product and an excellent reputation, they also seem to have some weaknesses. Lufthansa continues to purchase weaker sisters in Europe such as SWISS, Brussels Airlines, Austrian Airlines, Lauda Air and, now, BMI.
20 years ago, this would seem reasonable in that European countries were pretty nationalistic. Now, not so much. Yes, there are some pockets of nationalism that exist but I wonder at maintaining so many different brands, fleets and networks now. It would seem that the brands could be pared down to 2 or 3 mainline airlines and 3 to 5 regional airlines. BMI wasn’t an airline that was succeeding in any great way and what does Lufthansa get for their purchase? I see little of value. I don’t know that BMI gets Lufthansa an entry into the UK that is of any more value than the Lufthansa brand itself.
I also wonder about their fleet. They have a large fleet of A340 aircraft serving medium to long haul routes and that cannot be very efficient or profit enhancing. Yet, Lufthansa has made no real move to correct this problem. Their one major aircraft order in the past several years was for the four engined 747-8i. They have no orders for the 787 (although Boeing would no doubt happily accomodate them with early delivery positions) nor the A350 (and I’m certain Airbus ould love to add them to the order book as well.)
This puts Lufthansa into competition with British Airways who has moved towards operating more twin engine, long haul aircraft (777 and 787) as well as KLM/Air France (777). Yes, they do own some A330 aircraft but their true long haul equipment is the A340 and 747.
KLM / Air France: Not much here. I don’t see an order for aircraft coming from them unless Airbus magically announces a GE engine for the A350-1000. Otherwise, I seem them holding their cards close to their vest and waiting to see what happens in Europe.
The BA/Iberia merger: I never saw the attraction myself. It’s a low rent copy of the KLM/Air France union and I suspect there are many issues to resolve before the two really combine. Personally, I think the odds of this merger actually taking place is, at best, 50/50.
Their alliance with AA over the Atlantic will continue to be a strong issue for the US Justice Department. The BA/AA strength on the US/UK routes and the the IB/AA strenght on the US/Spain routes is really a bit too much. I think the DoT/FAA is willing to let this alliance go forward but I think the DoJ is going to speak loudly and force a request for concessions. Concessions that I think, this time, BA and AA may meet with some negotiation.
Unlike this time last year, probably not much. There was some momentum for change last year that really doesn’t exist this year. Airlines will continue to fight to hold their own in the marketplace and with the reduction in capacities, even the worst of the lot will likely cling to life this year.
North America:
Major airlines of North America have made all the changes they can and all are managing their businesses and cash very closely right now. I don’t expect much, if any, change to develop in the next 12 months but let’s take a look anyway.
American Airlines has some labor issues to address but with the current economic climate, they have been getting away with their efforts to defer those issues. Labor unions would like to push a few issues with American but they’re smart enough to realize that now isn’t the time. Most likely they’ll continue their face saving efforts at making a point with their members but I don’t expect any real labor action at this airline this year. Perhaps, if things get better, we’ll see some movement in the 4th quarter.
United Airlines, my least favorite legacy airline, has similar issues that American has with labor but, again, those labor issues aren’t likely to see much movement either. I suspect that United will continue to move more of their flights over to regional airline partners because its worked (for now) and their customers will find themselves on more and more regional jets. Since price is the prime driver for customers right now, they’ll accept that move and hate the flights as much as they always have.
Delta/Northwest should see more of its operatioins combined and, possibly, a unified single operating certificate by the end of the year. That doesn’t mean much for their customers since Northwest aircraft are being painted into Delta colors at a furious rate. The service product is already being harmonized to a fair degree and it’s a good one already.
I don’t see any major aircraft purchases and I remain interested in whether or not they’ll keep their 787 orders. There has been rumour and innuendo that they won’t but I kind of think they will keep them. Their 767 fleet is old (except for the 767-400) and I can’t think of a reason why you wouldn’t want to have the 787 begin filling the role of those aircraft. I’ve wondered if their hints aren’t just an opportunity to get Boeing to get interested in offering a better deal for more aircraft.
US Airways needs two things in this next year. First, they need their pilots to get together and start operating as a single group. As dangerous as it is to try to interfere with a union group, I wonder if US Airways won’t wade into the problem in an attempt to have a final resolution. Certainly they could argue that they’ve been patient enough.
They also need to manage their cash very, very closely. Cash is blood to an airline and US Airways has a bit of risk in this department. Should cash holdings be depleted more, they’ll have to start seeking that merger partner again and no one appears interested in marrying with them. This is another reason it needs resolution for its labor problems. That said, I don’t see US Airways disappearing or filing for bankruptcy again.
Continental Airlines has felt the hurt this past year and its unlikely to feel much better this year. Their business model depended a bit more on business class travel and the economy hurt that demand the most. That said, I can’t imagine a better group of managers for keeping that airline on track through the rest of the downturn. Things will hurt and belts will be tightened a bit more but I don’t see the service product changing. When the economic downturn does really turn the corner, Continental will be better placed to succeed than many.
Despite their recent move to the Star Alliance, I do *not* see Continental getting any closer to United Airlines whatsoever.
Low Cost Carriers / Regionals:
Southwest Airlines continues to manage itself to the tune of its own drummer and the results of their long(er) term thinking are showing left and right. They’ve managed to make solid overtures to business clientele in areas that, I suspect, count more day in and day out.
I don’t see a merger partner in the future for them except, possibly, for Sun Country Airlines. For some reason, I see this as a real winner for Southwest in that it gives them space and routes in Minneapolis / St. Paul, a labor group that is accustomed to delivering Southwest style service and which can be harmonized into the Southwest labor groups relatively easy. There is no rumour of this purchase but Sun Country has its own problems and it’s a match that fits the Southwest acquisition model.
I think Southwest will remain persistent in its Denver expansion and will work hard to create a network in the upper midwest states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and Missouri. The wild card, in my mind, is the Washington D.C. area and the NYC/Boston areas. Shuttle type service is what Southwest knows very well and I wonder if they won’t try very hard to organically grow their flights in these areas. If so, Southwest needs to find an “in” at Washington Reagan airport. To do this, they would need to buy a shuttle operation from US Airways and/or Delta. Perhaps US Airways will be interested in such a sale if their cash holdings erode more.
Frontier/Midwest/Republic: I don’t know what happens here. Midwest really isn’t an airline anymore. It really isn’t even a brand anymore. It’s a name for selling tickets. Frontier remains an airline and a brand and Republic seems to want to continue caring for both. Since Republic is managed by very smart people, I kind of think that they may look for a way to wind down the Midwest name over the next 12 to 18 months and make Frontier the primary airline. A tasty cookie isn’t a good reason to keep the Midwest name around.
Airtran deserves some applause. This airline has managed to grow itself some, find new markets and earn some money during one of the worst downturns in the airline industry.
Their move into Milwaukee has succeeded and promises to continue to succeed. Milwaukee is a loyal city, to be sure, but it is a city that appreciates value even more. Airtran has managed to offer great value, good service and appeal to a city that just a couple of years ago was kind of anti-Airtran. The one obstacle in their way is the arrival of Southwest, another airline very good at offering value and appealing to the Milwaukee kind of customer. I think Airtran has the upper hand but they are by no means the sure winner in this market. Southwest may be able to beat them with frequency.
Virgin America keeps showing up and usually right after I become convinced they’ll disappear. I still don’t know what this airline does best and I still don’t see them as being a scrappy enough operation to fight their way into the cities it needs to be in. Virgin continues to dance around Chicago (claiming they can’t get space but if they wanted it bad enough, they could). Their product would servce cities such as Dalllas, Denver, Houston, Chicago, Atlanta, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and, perhaps, Cleveland/Cincinatti very well.
Instead, they added flights from the west coast to Fort Lauderdale and talk about adding service to a Texas city such as Austin. This is too timid. The CEO, David Cush, seems afraid to compete against his old employer (AA) and that is a shame since they have a very competitive and attractive trans-continental product. I would speculate on VA being bought by another airline but . . . why? They just don’t have much there and seem to have little interest in exploiting real advantages that they do have. Maybe they’ll just run out of money and get shut down.
Alaska Airlines has felt the heat from Virgin America but they continue to do pretty well with their little airline and they continue to do it without being aligned with a major. I don’t see much changing for Alaska Airlines. They’ll continue to be a scrappy airline with good service to a limited number of destinations. And, somehow, that seems OK when it comes to Alaska.
Tarmac delays seem to produce lots of passion on both sides of the debate. Consumers are very attracted to this issue, in part, because they’re often abused by airlines in so many different ways. This is one issue where the consumers can get together on their outrage. Industry insiders and airlines are vehemently against this kind of rule frequently citing conditions that aren’t addressed by it or pointing to certain conditions of the rule as being silly.
This morning, I had 2 emails asking my opinion and I’ve been engaged in a debate with two other people on the subject as well. What do I think? I think the rule is a good idea.
Not because it solves tarmac delay problems. It doesn’t. Not because it strikes a blow for consumers across the country, it really doesn’t. I like it because it sets some sort of criteria for a situation that needed to be addressed. It’s a start, not a finish.
Lots of issues related to airline traffic, delays and congestion have been deferred for years by a debate on how to render a solution for everything. That’s never going to happen. However, it is possible to address certain issues and this new rule is simply a limit on some egregious behavior.
Let’s look at some of the arguments against this rule:
If a pilot is next to take off and hits his 3 hour window, he has to turn and head back to the gate immediately! Balderdash. If a pilot is next in line to take-off, ATC can give the aircraft an exception because it *will* disrupt airport operations if that pilot has to now taxi down the runway to get back to the gate. For that matter, do we really believe that the FAA is going to fine an airline for waiting an extra 5 minutes to complete a take-off at that point? Really? I don’t. The FAA is many things but they grant variances to certain conditions all the time already (including safety related items.) They understand that those situations are not always black and white.
Food and water are required after two hours. Well, personally, I agree with the Cranky Flier that the food requirement after two hours is a bit silly. However, is this a reason not to have a rule setting a standard? No, of course not. What this food requirement really means is that airlines will need to stock some snacks on those bad days and distribute them after 2 hours. When you think about it, distributing a small snack and some water after two hours isn’t exactly a bad business decision anyway. Doing that should help keep some tempers cooler. And think about this: What if the delay isn’t a take-off delay but a diversion delay? What is that aircraft was flying for 3.5 hours, landed at a diversion airport and two more hours have passed? That’s a minimum of 5.5 hours since departing a gate and, yeah, feeding some people at that point is probably a good idea again, isn’t it? Could the requirement be written better? Certainly. On the other hand, it’s not a good argument against a 3 hour rule.
What if everyone wants to stay on board after 3 hours and continue to try to take-off? What if almost everyone want to keep trying and just a couple of people want off? Well, in theory, that sounds like a real moral dilemma. let’s take a look at what reality is more likely to be. If an aircraft hits its 3 hour point and isn’t anywhere close to taking off, it’s time to give it up anyway. If it is near taking off, then almost by definition this aircraft won’t be able to “leave the line” without massively disrupting airport operations and under that circumstance, the ground controller is going to issue an exception and keep them there.
This wouldn’t have fixed the Rochester incident. Granted, that ugly incident was more a result of an uncooperative party than anything else. However, the fines issued in that incident and this new rule clearly communicate that airlines need to do better and cooperate more with each other. The FAA fined all three parties to that incident and made it clear that while Mesaba was the obstacle, neither ExpressJet nor Continental exactly wielded their influence in that situation either. More could have and should have been done. Airlines are getting that message and acting accordingly now. Regardless if this would have or would not have fixed that particular incident, it still isn’t an argument against doing something and setting some standard to live by.
Airlines are doing better now anyway! Maybe. Maybe not. We’ve only just entered this winter season and while I grant that the airlines in the NYC area did *much* better with last weekend’s storm, it doesn’t mean it can’t happen again. Most people would agree that those airlines acted as they did last weekend because of public backlash. They cancelled flights earlier and managed their loads with larger equipment. Something they should have always been doing but didn’t. Let me also point out that airline capacity has been dramatically reduced over the past 18 months and it’s no wonder that there was less of an issue. That capacity will come back someday, however. So, if they’re doing better, how does this rule harm them? It doesn’t and it’s not a good argument against a standard.
This rule means that with more cancellations, more people won’t get home for the holidays. Again, maybe. Maybe not. First, it will depend on whether or not there are delays during the holidays. Last year, major holiday periods didn’t see any severe weather. This year, we will see some. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, passengers can be much better consumers in most cases and plan their travel to reduce their delay and cancellation risk. Just as airlines need to do better, so do customers. But this rule doesn’t arbitrarily mean that more people don’t get where they’re going for the holidays. And, so, again, it really isn’t an argument against a standard or rule. And, let me point out again that airlines coped with the last storm by *cancelling* earlier and more flights than they would have originally be inclined to do so. In other words, even the airlines who claims they’ve fixed it, fixed it essentially the same way this rule forced them to do.
I do think the rule could be a tad better. I do think that we need more solutions to more of the problems that contribute to these delays. This isn’t an end to the problem. It’s the beginning of finding a solution to just one of those problems. And after 10 or more years of egregious tarmac delays*, it’s time to try something. So we’ll try this for a while. You can be sure that no one is going to go bankrupt from this rule and the delays certainly aren’t going to get worse because of this rule so let’s see how this works out.
* Most people date tarmac delays to the infamous 2006 Kate Hanni in Austin on American Airlines incident. Well, these delays were going on for a lot longer than that. I can recall delays in the Chicago area for summer storms reaching 5 and 6 hours back in ’98 or ’99. I remember horrific tarmac delays in Detroit (and nearby cities) in the summer of 2000, too. The pot simply boiled over in 2006.
USA Today published an op-ed found HERE on the honesty of code shares that exist between major airlines and their regional partners. Noting the safety issues that appear to exist in the regional airline industry, they call it a problem for truth in labeling. Is it?
The truth is that the issues that the public has been focused on for the past several months with respect to regional airlines does and does not exist. It depends entirely on the regional airline and the relationship it enjoys with its partners.
Certainly there exists an issue with fatigue and experience among airlines. However, those problems don’t exist simply because regional airlines exist. Even if regional airlines didn’t exist or if they were operated directly by major airlines, those problems would still exist. The problem of fatigue exists because of the existing system of rules governing rest for pilots. Even pilots working for major airlines are enduring more fatigue as a result of work rules.
Experience does count but the perceived problem of experience is a greater problem because we put brand new pilots into situations that require them to fly schedules in and out of busy airline hubs as much as 5 times in a duty shift. A new pilot is potentially flying more hours and flying in and out of busier hubs more often than an experienced pilot working for a major airline. That will only be solved when we require more experience to become a captain.
Unfortunately, pilots (and cabin crew) are tied to a legacy seniority system that they are unwilling to give up. Pilots get upgraded to larger aircraft and into the position of captain on the basis of seniority rather than experience or merit.
For more information on pilots, fatigue and the reason for regional airlines, read these posts HERE, HERE. HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.
Airlines use regional airlines differently and according to the agreements they have with their own unions as well as according to their needs for service in various areas. Some airlines own their own regional airlines such as American Airlines who owns American Eagle and Delta/Northwest who owns regional airlines such as Comair, Mesaba and Compass. Other airlines such as United or US Airways contract with independent companies more often.
Now, I think *any* regional airline operating in the United States is operating to a fairly high degree of safety. We have too many laws and regulations in place for any to slip too far down the ladder. However, I do think that independent regional airlines operate with a bit more aggressiveness towards both their operations as well as their personnel. I would point to the independents as having a bit more opportunity to fail in safety than those owned by the major airlines.
In fact, I would regard our regional airlines as generally being more safe than the major were in the early 1980’s.
To call code shares deceptive is a stretch in my opinion. Airlines and travel websites do a pretty good job of revealing both the type of aircraft being used as well as the fact that regional flights are being operated by regional airlines in partnership with the major airlines. A quick check on AA.com, Delta.com, Travelocity.com and Orbitz.com shows that to be true.
If a problem exists, it really exists with the consumer who is either ignorant or unwilling to be an informed purchaser of the services being offered. If the consumer is neither ignorant nor uninformed, then they may also be a bit selfish and lazy by choosing not to act in their own best interests when purchasing a flight.
You really do invite trouble into your life when you purchase your travel based almost exclusively on price. If you could pay $20 more to travel through a hub that is less congested or prone to trouble, wouldn’t that be a small price to pay? If you could pay $20 more to travel on regional airline owned and operated by a major airline, wouldn’t that be a small price to pay?
When you become a slave to one airline through frequent flier miles or the idea that a non-stop flight is always best, you put yourself at risk. Consider whether or not it is better to fly on American Eagle from DFW to Milwaukee non-stop or if it might perhaps be better to do it via Southwest Airlines making one connection and only on a 737. The American Eagle flight will be a cramped regional jet that is prone to being weight restricted operated by an airline that doesn’t exactly have a sterling record for caring for your baggage. The Southwest flight will be flown by the most experienced pilots available in the US using a 737 and your baggage will be handled by people who have an excellent record and who care about their customers. That Southwest flight might take add an extra 45 minutes to your trip and may even cost $20 more but your assurance of a positive experiences goes way up.
Sometimes taking the longer view when planning your travel is best. Particularly when you plan your leisure travel.
If safety is a concern, become an informed consumer. Don’t become prejudiced on the basis of what kind of airplane you’re getting onto. Become interested in what kind of airline is operating that aircraft. There are fantastic regional airlines with fantastic safety records and there are major airlines who are marginal at best with merely OK safety records. Be proactive and enjoy a better travel experience.
At the first of the year, I wrote 3 blog posts shown HERE, HERE and HERE. It was really just my random speculation on what to expect over the next 12 months. Well, now it’s December of 2009. Let’s see how I did.
Boeing 787: I guessed at an April 2009 first flight. It still hasn’t flown although speculation has it flying this month either by December 14th or December 22nd.
Airbus A380: I guessed they would make their goal of producing 21 aircraft this year. As of November 30th, 2009, Airbus says they have delivered 7 A380 aircraft this year. Ouch. This is a program that is in financial trouble. No, I don’t think it will be cancelled. Not yet but please don’t try to tell me this program will make a profit.
My deathwatch had Midwest Airlines going away most likely by a sale. That did happen and while the airline has essentially evaporated (from its original form), it does remain as a brand being run by Republic Airways.
I speculated that Frontier Airlines would be bought out of bankruptcy but I guessed that jetBlue would be the buyer. In fact, Southwest Airlines and Republic Airways were the suitors and Republic won.
I thought that United Airlines and US Airways would announce a new merger with Continental a dark horse candidate for buying United. In fact, Continental became a member of the Star Alliance and firmed its relationship up with United but wisely kept its distance otherwise.
I said that Southwest Airlines would maintain its status quo but that Gary Kelly would be under fire from both employees and outsiders and he was. However, that view is already being reversed again by Southwest’s resurgent strength in the business.
I thought that the Middle Eastern airlines such as Emirates, Etihad and Qatar wouldn’t see a bankruptcy or merger but would slow their growth and aircraft deliveries. That, in fact, has happened and now we see Emirates working hard to distance itself from Dubai World’s financial woes.
China: I said deferred orders. Pretty much what happened.
The Far East: I said airlines from that region would maintain their status quo, probably would not defer orders and might make new orders to replace existing equipment for greater effiency. Again, pretty much what happened.
Australia: I saw QANTAS slowing growth, deferring some orders and fighting hard against new entrants. Again, that’s pretty much what happened. I also saw two weak competitors on the US-Australia routes: United and V Australia. That is pretty much what is happening although V Australia has been pretty smart in working into a relationship with Delta where it appears the two airlines will cooperate with codeshares. United remains alone and with weakening demand.
South America: I said the Argentine government would take Aerolineas Argentinas back from Grupo Marsans and the airline itself would muddle along or contract rather severely in some areas. Bingo. Exactly what happened. I also predicted Azul would become the jetBlue of Brazil and its not hard to guess that that airline is pummeling its competitors. A future prediction was for the airline to fly internationally in 2014 with Airbus equipment. We’ll see.
Africa: I saw Delta continuing to pursue flights to major African cities (true) and SAA (South African Airways) issuing a small RFP for 777 aircraft to replace its rather inefficient A340 aircraft (didn’t happen.)
India: I thought Jet Airways and Kingfisher might merge with the name Jet Airways being retained. In fact, both airlines continue to exist but both are suffering severe financial problems, deferring aircraft deliveries and generally flailing about trying to find a way to continue. One of these airlines will still ultimately have to exit the market and I continue to think it will be Kingfisher. They have the wrong aircraft and the wrong aircraft on order. However, Jet Airways is suffering badly from labor actions among its employees.
United States: I picked United to fail. It hasn’t happened and while they continue to live, their cash holdings are being reduced, they still have severe labor issues, their service product continues to suffer and I still think they should be the ones to disappear. I also thought Glenn Tilton would be ousted and, possibly, replaced by Doug Steenland. That didn’t happen but John Tague has been groomed as Tilton’s replacement. I still think Tilton should go if United can’t fail.
Europe: I thought we would hear of a surprise from Lufthansa. I didn’t like their purchase of SWISS and I didn’t like their flying the A340 in competition against the 777 being flown by many of their direct competitors. They’re still here, still making money and they bought BMI. I still think we’ll here of misfortune from them but apparently it will take a while longer.
Random Speculations:
I thought Southwest might add another aircraft type. It didn’t happen but I think their interest got perked up when they looked at buying Frontier and saw the economics on the Q400.
I thought Delta might order more Airbus A330 aircraft. Instead, Delta is parking them in the desert for the winter season.
I speculated that both China and Japan would defer or drop their regional jet programs. That didn’t happen but the Chinese jet program appears to be a bad aircraft and unlikely to be used by anyone except Chinese airlines forced to buy it.
I thought Bombardier would see a major order (20+) for their Q400 series aircraft from a US customer. Horizon Airlines did up their orders for 10 more but there were no other significant orders.
Airtran to form a small midwestern hub. Yup, that happened. In Milwaukee where they’ve taken over from Midwest Airlines and now face Midwest (brand owned by Republic) and Southwest Airlines entry into the market. I think Airtran will hold on here and continue to develop business.
Last, I hoped that jetBlue or Virgin America would enter the DFW market. Virgin’s CEO, David Cush (formerly of American Airlines) did recently speculate about adding flights to either DFW or Austin. I suspect they’ll choose Austin and DFW will remain a fortress for AA.
That’ s it for my 2009 predictions. I’ll make more at the start of 2010. On the whole, I probably did as well as anyone in making predictions in this business.
A couple of weeks ago I wrote about Airtran’s decision to enter the Milwaukee – Dallas / Ft. Worth market using Skywest Airlines. That post is HERE.
I noted that American Airlines has virtually owned this market with Midwest also having a nice chunk and AA hasn’t really had much in the way of competition for that route. Well, the American Airlines of old has responded. According to the Airline Biz Blog, AA is adding flights to that route using American Eagle and those flights match up closely to Airtran’s announced times. No one should be too surprised that AA has responded this way since it’s been their strategy to flood new competition with capacity and frequency and to capitalize on their hub connections.
Will it work? Many would give AA the advantage in this battle because they do have a tremendous number of connections through Dallas. The problem is, my sense is that the main part of this route is traffic that originates and ends at those two cities. I’m not sure there is a whole lot of connecting traffic. Certainly there is some.
However, American Airlines has kind of abused Milwaukee for several years charging very high fares for that route and Midwest has never challenged them much instead choosing to enjoy an uneasy level of detente. Now we see Midwest, Airtran, American Airlines and, indirectly, Southwest Airlines in this market. Interesting.
The next move is up to Airtran. If they keep Skywest aircraft (50 seat CRJ-200)on this route and don’t upgrade it to their own aircraft, I suspect American Airlines will win this fight. If Airtran chooses to move their B717 or even their B737 (I suspect the former is a better fit) on to the route, I think American Airlines might just see their traffic erode badly. Milwaukee to Dallas consumers are accustomed to the B717 and, I think, would enjoy the relative comfort and opportunity to upgrade to Business Class (cheap and easy to do on Airtran).
Midwest is the unknown. Frankly, they are using their Embraer E-170 aircraft (76 seats, all coach) on this route now and while it is certainly better than American Eagle’s ERJ-145s (50 seats, cramped coach), they still aren’t what those customers are accustomed to enjoying on that route. Until less than a year ago, Midwest flew very comfortable 717 aircraft that included both a comfortable business class as well as a comfortable coach seat. Airtran can offer that now.
Would AA add MD-80 or B737 aircraft to the route? No, they don’t have aircraft available and the best they could do is, perhaps, a CRJ-700 via American Eagle. However, those aircraft are already very busy on other routes.
American called Airtrans’ bluff and even raised the stakes, so to speak. American Airlines is not in the habit of giving up either so we can expect that they’ll keep these frequencies (and the lower prices) as long as they think they can to preserve the market share. Right now, they are offering a matching $89 fare (each way) for advance purchase. However, their remaining economy fares are $678 and $863 each way (there is a First Class fare for over $1700 each way but which requires a connection to someplace like Chicago so you can fly on a mainline aircraft). I think we see where Airtran can offer real value here.
So, we know two things. First, it is up to Airtran to make another move or accept the status quo. Second, there is way too much competition going on for Milwaukee traffic. Some airline will have to quit.
I find it interesting that of the established LCC carriers in the United States, only one of them seems unafraid to compete with major legacy airlines at their established hub and/or focus city airports. Airtan.
Every other successful LCC airline has followed a model of ducking and weaving away from the home territories of established major legacy airlines and, they, too have been successful. However, I think Airtran has managed to prove you don’t need to be afraid of a legacy airline if you have the right product and prices. I would applaud loudly if they ever came into DFW and provided some real competition to American Airlines by making DFW a focus city.
The Dallas Morning News Airline Biz Blog is reporting that Airtran is arranging for commuter airline SkyWest to fly new routes on behalf of Airtran from Milwaukee, WI to several destinations including Dallas / Fort Worth and Washington D.C.
SkyWest will be using 50 seat Bombardier CRJ-200 aircraft for these flights and that interests me for a few reasons. Due to long time personal connections to Milwaukee and living in Dallas for the past 40 years, I’ve long monitored what various airlines offer between the two cities. Strangely, it’s a city pair that does have a lot of traffic but it has never been served very well by any one airline.
I suspect the establishment of this route is really for a few reasons. One, it allows Airtran to compete with the current “dominant” player on the route which is American Airlines. American Airlines at one time had as many as 5 frequencies on the route until the current economic decline. Presently, they are serving it with 3 flights a day using Embraer ERJ-145 aircraft. The flights haven’t been well served that aircraft because the flight duration exposes a lot of discomfort for the passenger during the 2.5 hour flight. In addition, it has often been necessary to deny boarding to passengers due to weight and balance issues for making the flight. The airplane often cannot carry a full load and enough fuel for the flight.
But American’s only real competition for non-stop flights has been Midwest Airlines. Midwest has flown about 4 frequencies per day using the Boeing 717 and now the Embraer E-190. Anyone who has flown Midwest on that route knows that that is a very comfortable flight and generally staffed with much nicer people. Midwest has a loyal following on that route and I suspect Airtran wants to try to eat into it using price.
Finally, by offering the non-stop flights, Airtran gets to tweak the nose of its newest competitor in Milwaukee, Southwest Airlines. By starting this route now, Airtran has an opportunity to grow the business and offer a competitive distinction between themselves and Southwest in the Milwaukee market. Southwest Airlines cannot fly that route as a non-stop yet because of restrictions placed on it due to their using Love Field airport in Dallas instead of DFW.
Airtran is likely to be very successful on that route because American Airlines has never treated it as anything but an unloved step-child and much of the traffic between the two cities is O&D rather than follow on traffic. American may retain some passengers for follow-on travel to regional destinations around Texas but I suspect that will be done by using 2 flights a day in the near future.
In addition, Airtran has managed to endear itself to Milwaukee despite the ugly picture painted about themselves when they were attempting to take over Midwest Airlines. Locals in Milwaukee like them and have found them to be a real alternative to Midwest Airlines both on price as well as quality.
I think Airtran will manage to grow this route (as well as the others being served by SkyWest) and ultimately take them over with their Boeing 717 aircraft in the future. Airtran will likely erode AA’s traffic first and then take over some of Midwest’s loads on price allowing them to ultimately become the dominant player in that city pair. It’s doable using a CRJ-200 for now and upgradeable to a Boeing 717 pretty quickly in the future.
There is a push to get more and more people to bring carry-on baggage only on most airlines here in the US. The trend actually started in Europe with airlines such as Ryanair leading the charge but what works there doesn’t necessarily work here. And the best reasons for it over there are not necessarily the best reasons over here.
The duration of trips and even the habits of dressing in Europe are very different from the US / North American markets and lend themselves much more readily to using a carry-on only strategy. For the LCC carriers of Europe, infrastructure is very different as well. The secondary airports they often serve have far inferior baggage handling capability than our secondary airports do. In fact, our secondary airports are often just as busy (proportionately) as they international/hub airports in the same area. Our secondary airports have to have handling facilities that are commensurate with the traffic.
Boarding and disembarkation is also very different between the two countries. In Europe, LCC carriers frequently use both entrances to the aircraft (front and back) to disembark passengers while at the same time boarding new ones. Or they use both entryways to the aircraft at the same time for each function. Either way, it helps with their turnaround and it’s a model Europeans are accustomed to cooperating with.
Not so here. We board people via one jetway and disembark via one jetway. Our airport infrastructure was designed and implemented decades ago and is poorly designed to handle thousands of people carrying their life’s possessions. Our check-in desks are “owned” by airlines and not shared assets. Our baggage handling is done (primarily) by airline employees instead of shared services provided by ground handling companies. Our security apparatus wasn’t provided for in the design of airport terminals and, as a result, find us dealing with huge lines that are often bogged down by travelers carrying all their luggage. Our aircraft fleets are equipped with overhead bins that were really placed there as purse/coat/hat/briefcase storage rather than for heavy carry-on luggage.
And then there is the passenger. The frequent US traveler is often found carrying more “stuff” such as 2 suits where 1 would do. This person is often traveling for a longer duration too, requiring more “stuff” as well. The inexperienced travelers are trying hard to avoid those bag fees but don’t know how to quite do it properly because they learned how to travel in a different time. How many times have we been behind someone in security who had their cosmetics/shampoo/toothpaste wrongly packaged and packed and holding up the line? Very few airports have room enough to establish multiple lanes for security and that means we all bottleneck at the least disruption.
My own pet peeve is the established frequent flier. They’ve learned a lot in their time on the road but also engage in practices that inhibit anyone but them. I’m speaking of the guy in the dark grey suit on my last Airtran flight who boarded, loaded his carry-on into a bin at the front and then walked to the back half of the aircraft to his seat. Jerk. He took up space that others sitting in that area could have used and forced *those* people to put their bags farther back than desired. This meant that when the plane landed, 4 people attempted to get down the aisle against the flow to gather their own luggage holding the vast majority of people up. In addition, I had to watch no less than 4 Airtran staff find locations for those bags before we could close the aircraft and depart resulting in a nearly 20 minute delay.
My own anecdotal observation is that aircraft aren’t leaving quicker. The airlines aren’t using fewer people and the flight crew is now taxed with another duty: policing baggage. There may be some savings in fuel as a function of less baggage but that could be achieved with stricter checked baggage limits. Want to bring the weight down? Set a 30lbs limit per bag instead of 50 lbs. That will improve things quickly. Still want a fee for checked baggage and those incremental revenues? Set that limit at 30lbs for the 1st bag checked and make it free (Set a size limit too!). Charge $20 for the next bag up to 50lbs. You’ll still get your incremental revenue but your flows on and off the airplane and inside your own terminal will improve greatly. Your aircraft turnaround will improve slightly and you should still see some savings on fuel costs as a function of reduced weight.
If you are one of the people that are convinced that airlines lose baggage all the time and for every flight, get over it. It is an apocryphal story that few have ever experienced. I’ve been flying for over 20 years and had my luggage “lost” once and twice more it was delayed 2 hours (came in on the next flight.) I’m not luckier than anyone else. Does it happen? Sure. In most cases, people are reunited with their luggage hours after their arrival in their destination city. In a few more extreme cases, they see it the next day. The number of people left after that are so small as a function of the number of flights each day that they aren’t even statistically significant.
You can’t add fees without looking to also increase or improve service or you will get extreme backlash in the form of complaints that result mostly from higher expectations. You can add fees if you change those expectations with reasonable limits and improve the overall perceived service value.
Just because everyone hates most every airline presently doesn’t mean that will always be the case. Some airlines are already discovering that improving the perceived value is as important as any incremental revenue from fees. Those are the airlines that will continue to thrive.
Almost everyone who follows the airline business and the airlines themselves continue to insist that people buy overwhelmingly on price and there is quite a bit of evidence to support that general feeling. The best example is that among legacy carriers serving a particular non-stop route, when one airlines lowers their price, the other airlines can and do see a drop in their bookings for that route if they don’t match that price.
There is a lot of truth that individual routes can be seen as nearly perfect competitive environments. Any airline executive worth his salt will tell you that when an airline opens up a city pair, they look upon it as growing another business. Each route is a “business” to be developed and nurtured and maintained.
Legacy airlines are the masters of being all things to all people. Low cost carriers are the masters of high frequency/low cost models. Leisure airlines have learned how to serve market with low frequency but high value.
But what do most people want? That isn’t ever as clear as people want to believe. The dynamics between two cities change over time and adjusting to those changes is essential to maintaining that “business”.
My father, once a very senior airline executive, told a story to me long ago that I’ve never forgotten. His airline, Braniff, served the Dallas / NYC route with a daily late afternoon flight that for years was a huge money maker because it was flown primarily by businessmen. In the mid-1970’s, they noticed that traffic on that route began to erode ever so slightly and even a small erosion worried an airline even back then. Then he happened to take the flight to do some financial business in NYC on behalf of the airline and he realized the problem.
Business between the two cities had begun to change. Traditional businessmen such as bankers or leaders of large corporations had continued to fly that flight because their model was to go to NYC the night before, conduct some business until 2 or 3 in the afternoon and then fly home to be in their own homes by mid-evening. But entrepreneurship had begun to flower and more and more businessmen/entrepreneurs saw that as a waste of time for such a trip. They wanted to work until late afternoon and fly home as late as possible in order to maximize their time there.
So Braniff added a second flight in the early evening that allowed businessmen to work until 4:30pm, go to the airport and catch the 7:30pm flight home which put them back in Dallas late at night but which met their needs to stay as long as possible to maximize their work. As a consequence, both flights began to do much better because even the entrepreneurs could recognize that when their work was done, it was time to go home and if it was done at 2pm, they went to the airport and caught the early flight home. Traditional businessmen began to be expected to be more efficient and when they couldn’t leave at 2pm, they knew they had another option for later in the day. Braniff began to own that route again. Frequency was the answer.
I would argue that when two or more airlines “own” a route, service is often going to be the discriminator. But what form of service will be necessary? Is it options in seating that allow a traveler to have more legroom? Is it more frequency? Is it some form of a meal? Is it WiFi or video on demand?
For 30 years airlines have worked to harmonize their fleets, reduce the different number of equipment types and flatten their service offerings to the lowest common denominator. Particularly the legacy airlines. But for the past 10 years, we’ve seen new airlines offering more segmented choices on each flight and those airlines are the ones who continue to earn a profit, experience growth and satisfy shareholders.
There have been some half hearted experiments with increased choice and segmentation. Delta had Song airlines offering more entertainment and a brighter, cheerier environment. United had Ted airlines which was economy oriented. But I suspect that it wasn’t necessary to change the brand so much as it indicated a need to offer more choice on the aircraft.
I think in the future we’re going to see more choices in seating on airlines. The low cost only passenger wants price above anything else. The business traveler needs an economy choice (to satisfy their company’s desire to economize) that offers a little more room. I think we’ll see different seat pitches offered and different service choices (a la Frontier) offered as well. This is an area where Frontier has pioneered change and seen positive results. Same for jetBlue. Those airlines continue to earn an operating profit and grow.
Legacy airlines are going to have to be more flexible in fleet, fleet configuration and they’ll even have to consider offering things like meals and entertainment. There already is a move to do this among certain airlines. Continental is adding LiveTV to their fleet. Delta/Northwest has recognized that having a varied fleet allows them to “tune” their service to the demands and continue to earn a profit.
When an airline can adjust capacity on a route by season, month or time of day, it can continue to make money. When it has just two choices of aircraft to use on a route and both have more capacity than needed, they start to lose money. (Hello AA.)
I think that one day one legacy airline will have the guts to start advertising in markets that speaks to “real world” experience on their line versus the airline that “owns” the city. For instance, I think Continental could come into the Dallas market and already argue that yes, you have to connect in Houston to go to NYC but if you do, more often than not you’ll get there in the same time with better service than flying American Airlines who has an untrustworthy on-time record and who treats their passengers to old aircraft and little or no service. Someone will have the guts to start trying to change the perceived value of travel.
The truth is that there is a great difference between legacy airlines on any two city pairs. The key is to identify that difference and communicate it to the traveler. Right now, that really doesn’t happen. An airline such as Continental shouldn’t attempt to compete with AA on price alone. They should offer the real differences such as a meal on flights of 3 hours or more, LiveTV, equipment that is as much as 10 years newer or more than AA and a staff that enjoys doing its job. They should offer incentives for changing airlines and trying them once such as a guaranteed business class seat for the price of AA’s economy seat.
It will happen in some form. It has to. The newer airlines such as Frontier, Airtran, jetBlue and Virgin America have all proved that offering more choice on the aircraft works. Even Southwest has recognized that it has to offer more choice in order to retain their very valuable business traveler. What’s more important is that even some passengers who buy on price alone have realized that the incremental extra cost of one or two of those “extras” is worth it once again.
I’m glad that there has been a dialog on excessive flight delays for the past few years. Just having the dialog has helped, I think. But now people are starting to talk about real solutions as opposed to shouting out “there ought to be a law!”. I agree, there should be a law but I also agree with airports and airlines that the law ought to be sensible too.
The cause of long delays on the tarmac derive from a variety of factors. Certainly weather is the biggest one of all. Severe weather is somewhat unpredictable both in timing and severity and I get that. You just can’t always guess right. But I think there are some issues that are getting ignored in the discussion.
First, I would ask why we allow airlines to board airplanes and send them out in droves when it is clear that airport operations are about to be impacted severely by an arriving storm? I blame airlines, airport management and the FAA for that. When an arriving severe storm is on the horizon, cramming people into the airplane and trying to rush it out for take-off before it (the storm) arrives is just a bad strategy. Every airline is pursuing that at the same time and that means maybe 10% of all the aircraft are going to make their departures.
Airlines have several incentives to behave that way. One, if they leave the gate within 15 minutes of scheduled departure, they get to count that as an on time departure. That counts in the evaluation(s) of virtually every airline employee working that particular flight. Bad idea because it allows them to shove the problem on someone else without consequence. Wouldn’t it be better for the Department of Transportation to set criteria for these “on time” departures that reflects both reality and common sense? Isn’t it better to declare an amnesty on on time stats during severe weather on the part of airlines? You need to dis-incentivize that behavior during those times.
The big unspoken problem that airlines haven’t really mentioned is the impact to their operations system wide. If an airline starts canceling flights in a hub city, that impact will start to be felt all over the country in as little as 2 hours. Canceling flights has an impact potential for creating disarray in airline operations for days. Delaying them but ultimately getting them to their destinations that day has far less of an impact. There could be a few solutions to this problem such as a mutual aid pact between airlines. Why not consolidate 2 delayed flights onto one aircraft, share the revenue and return to normal asap rather than try to send 6 delayed flights to the same destination at the end of a storm? There is a history of mutual aid pacts among airlines but they largely disappeared with deregulation. However, that doesn’t mean they can’t be encouraged again.
Airlines need flexibility but the drive to equip a fleet with as few different aircraft types as possible means that they lost some flexibility. I wonder if the costs of sorting out a massive disruption aren’t worth an extra aircraft or two to mitigate against problems. Again, airlines used to have a history of having backups for these kinds of problem but lean operations demanded by shareholders don’t really allow for proper risk mitigation. Better fleet planning and utilization might allow an airline to fly a 767 with 2 flights of 737 passengers to a destination during a severe disruption to operations. By consolidating the passengers into one flight, getting them to their destination instead of stranding them and eliminating some departure congestion, every one’s best interests and pocket book might be better served. But it requires us to allow some cooperation among airlines and some long range planning too.
If you make it the law that a passenger must have the right to get off an airplane and abandon the flight after 3 or 4 hours, you won’t solve anything. There will be as much congestion (and possibly more) and the potential for greater delays. However, if you allow the FAA to “prioritize” departures under certain circumstances and meter the flow, airlines won’t be so quick to board airplanes and shove them out onto the taxiways. Airports and airlines should be forced to consider the whole picture before boarding an aircraft. If it has no opportunity to taxi to the runway and take off within one hour, it shouldn’t be leaving the gate in the first place.
Airports could help better too. You can’t expect them to accommodate every displaced passenger during a storm but you can expect them to have a good emergency plan that includes keeping restaurants and stores open, overflow areas for passengers to park themselves for longer durations and equipment that allows disembarkation during storms that keep ground personnel indoors.
Right now, you have people saying that airlines should allow individual passengers off an airplane if they want off after three or four hours. That potentially further delays 100+ passengers for the benefit of 5 or 10. Instead, airlines should simply be required to return to a gate and accommodate passengers reasonably if they haven’t departed within 3 hours. Like it or not, a flight should be an all or nothing proposition.
Finally, airlines should be required to consider what the diversion options are. Airlines have been increasingly using alternate cities that are close by but non-standard stops for their business. Should American Airlines keep aircraft on the ground at an airport that doesn’t have proper ground handling equipment or facilities for those passengers? Absolutely not. The context of potential diversions should be considered when planning a flight. If an airline is faced with potential diversions when flying to a particular area, it should carry enough fuel to divert outside of that area of disruption and to a location where they can reasonably accommodate the aircraft and passengers.
It does absolutely no good to anyone to send flights to Rochester, MN when MSP is shutdown if the airport can’t accommodate the aircraft and passengers in the first place. For that particular event, it would have been far better to send that aircraft to Milwaukee, Des Moines or Rockford where the airports were experienced in accommodating diverted flights late at night.
Without genuine cooperation between airlines, empowering the FAA and air traffic control and requiring airports to plan for the worst rather than the best, this problem doesn’t get solved to any one’s satisfaction.
The Cranky Flier had a post today discussing Continental’s new moves in LAX which include new flights to Hawaii. Continental will have an all 737 base in the Los Angeles area with two 737’s serving new flights from Orange County to Hawaii. It made me think.
Back in the pre-regulatory days, flights from the mainland US to Hawaii were served by large aircraft such as the 707, DC-8 and, later, the 747, DC-10, L-1011 and even the 767. The routes allowed airlines to serve huge numbers of customers with large aircraft and make money. Braniff International had the franchise for Dallas to Honolulu in the 1970’s and served it with a 747 and an amazing 16 hours per day utilization.
Then deregulation came and airlines slowly began to develop new routes. It was no longer necessary to fly to a “gateway” city to catch a flight to Hawaii. More and more cities found themselves being served with those routes to Hawaii. Again, Braniff International, at one time, had a 747 flight from Portland, OR to Hawaii. (It carried little traffic, however.)
There was some consolidation after airlines learned that not everyone in a particular city was dying to fly to Hawaii. But the big change for Hawaii has been ETOPS or twin engine flights overseas. This allowed airlines to serve smaller markets with aircraft both capable of the loads as well as the distance. The truth is, when the airlines don’t have to feed 150 passengers a day to a gateway city but can fly them directly, they make more money. 20 years ago, I would have chuckled if someone told me that 737-700 aircraft would fly to Hawaii from the mainland.
Boeing and Airbus have different views for the roles of widebody, large capacity aircraft. 10 years ago, Boeing forecast that the market would continue to fracture with more and more direct routes being employed as opposed to large capacity hub to hub flying. Airbus, however, believed that the crowded skies would force more large capacity hub to hub flying onto the airlines. It turns out that Boeing was more right.
The markets drive these changes and when an airlines can make more pure profit using right sized aircraft flying direct, they will. Yes, the legacy airlines of the US (and other parts of the world) continue to follow a hub and spoke model primarily but they’re all learning that more direct flying where the loads fully justify it is a good and profitable thing.
Accordingly, this is where I think Boeing continues to have a winning strategy with its 787/777 product line. Yes, there are a few airlines capable of filling an A-380 and those airlines will make money from using that aircraft. But as more and more nations open up their skies to more competition, that is going to change. Having the right aircraft for the right route will be key to a manufacturer’s success and Boeing seems to have a better feel for the world market whereas Airbus seems more plugged into the Euro/Middle East markets they already do so well in.
I’m no longer sure there is a real place for the new 747-8 aircraft. Boeing’s 777-300 is just as capable in almost every case and carries a massive number of passengers without being so big that it adds risk during seasonal low periods. The same is true for the 777-200.
And what happens when aircraft such as the 787 family begin flying? This family is roughly 767-sized in capacity but its range is far greater and that means even more markets can be accessed via long haul direct flying. An international airline can probably make more money (through passengers *and* cargo) using the 787 and 777 families for more direct flying with aircraft that are “right sized” for the markets than they can using much of the Airbus family.
Airbus has one aircraft model suitable for this right now. The A-330. the A-340 is essentially dead since it under performs against the 777 in virtually any mission. The A-330 is right sized for a number of the current markets and many more of the future markets. The A-380 is suitable for only a few markets and those are already dwindling for some airlines. For instance, QANTAS has introduced the A-380 on their routes to the US. However, with a new Open Skies treaty between the two countries, there are also new entrants to the market like V Australia and Delta who are vying for customers with United and QANTAS very competively. Those airlines understand that it will take a while to develop their routes and build relationships with airlines in both countries to feed traffic but it will happen. As that traffic shifts from what was originally two airlines (QANTAS and United) to four airlines (QANTAS, United plus V Australia and Delta), what happens to each airlines’ loads?
It’s notable that QANTAS flies the 747 and A380 to the US and United flies the 747 exclusively. The new entrants are using the 777-300 and 777-200 for their flights. The 787 and it’s longer range capabilities will quite possibly fracture that market even more by making it possible to fly from the interior of the US to Australia instead of having to use a west coast gateway city. At that point, I don’t know that QANTAS has a use for very many A380s or 747s and, additionally, they don’t have any right sized aircraft for the route(s) until they start receiving their 787s which are late and somewhat deferred.
The Airbus A350 is capable of competing on many 777 routes and while it does have slightly lower trip costs vs the 777, it also has less revenue capabilty because it can’t haul as much cargo on the same missions.
The world’s airline routes are going to continue to expand internationally and at a far greater rate than traffic grows between any two nations. Having the right equipment for the right moment is going to be key for any international airlines survival. Those who don’t plan for it now and have it arriving in the next 5 to 10 years are going to wither to a slow death.
I was going to write up something about my return trip on Airtran but here is the summary: I left on time, I arrived late in ATL, I left ATL late and arrived in Dallas late. I was tired but the aircraft and onboardservice was much the same as it was going outbound.
Now a word or three about what, I think, is still missing from the airline industry. You, the airlines, can charge me fees for better seats and even my 2nd or 3rd bag checked. You can outright eliminate food and beverages for all I care. Your inflight magazine does nothing for me and internet access is pretty cool but wholly unnecessary even in today’s modern world.
I’d like to have a properly padded seat instead of an old worn one that I can feel the metal framing on. I would like to have at least 32″ of seat pitch but I’d prefer 33″ of seat pitch. If we are going to persist in this idea that flight attendants are there for my safety only, then how about we insist they treat their safety briefings as something more than a bored recitation. And when you ask me if I know that I’m in an exit row and if I’m comfortable with that, at least look at me to see if I’ve nodded my head yes or no.
I would like the flight to depart and arrive reasonably on time according to the schedule you set. I’ll define “reasonable” as being within 30 minutes of what you publish as the times (which is 15 minutes more generous than the government.) It would be good for you to have my bag(s) at the baggage carousel within 15 to 20 minutes of opening the aircraft for us to deplane. You are, after all, now charging me a fairly hefty fee to carry them. And speaking of that fee . . .
I’d like my bags to be more secure in their travel. That means providing a security apparatus that actually detects and stops thievery immediately. If you want me to check in online, then don’t be charging a fee to do so. After all, you (the airlines) wanted to eliminate the paper and you got what you want.
I do expect a company that is capable of flying a multi-million dollar aircraft across the country to be able to provide sufficient and up to date status of my flight. In other words, if you are going to change a gate assignment for an arriving airplane, change it in a timely manner so that my wife isn’t having to drive around the terminal *again* to pick me up because you couldn’t be bothered. Don’t bother updating it 10 minutes after I’m in her car. It does do any of us any good at all.
I don’t want to subsidize the frequent business traveler. If they need larger seats and an internet connection, make *them* pay for it, not me.
I’ve already agreed to sit in your metal tube for a specified time. I know that part is going to be somewhat unpleasant and I accept that. I don’t want to sit in your seats designed by Torquemada because you can’t adequately schedule your flights and find yourself unable to take off for several hours. That is your problem, not mine. Putting people on an aircraft and then holding them on a taxiway for even an extra two hours is the equivalent of fraud.
You want better air traffic control andbetter flow around airports? Great! Do what airlines used to do and get together as an industry and”git ‘er done”. I’ll happily fund it as a taxpayer but come to some agreement on what has to happen and *push* for it. Wringing your hands and pointing at the FAA while yelling “Your Fault” is just childish. You have both the staff and know how to help fix the situation so do it.
Treat your staff better. You dont’ have to pay them the salary of a doctor but treat them like the human beings they are. Reward their efforts and recognize them when they go beyond the call of duty. Southwest Airlines manages to do this and they manage it with some of the highest labor costs in the industry. It is a profitable and cost saving thing to do. Quite acting like every one of your employees is reaching into your pocket and stealing.
Yo! Employees of airlines! Get real too. I do think you should be paid a living wage and treated well. But I also think that you could adapt to the new world and figure out how to make your company succeed. Quit extorting with the threats of labor action and come up with some solutions. You work the jobs and therefore should have some solutions to the industry problems. And if you just hate your job, find another one. Don’t take out your frustrations with being away from home on me as I walk onto your aircraft. You knew what that job entailed before you were hired so don’t make it my problem now.
To my fellow passengers: Grow up. You are no longer paying for food, drink or a reclining seat. It’s an unfortunate reduction in service but it comes with a huge discount in the cost of flying. Get on the plane, get a book out and enjoy a nice cup of shut the hell up. Acting the prima donna only serves to raise tension levels enormously andby now you should have figured out that it doesn’t change anything. When I ask you to raise your seat back *off* my kneecaps, don’t respond like I just asked you for a hundred dollar bill. Show some courtesy and accomodate the request. In return, I won’t speak to you and I’ll even let you have the arm rest if you’re quiet too.
In my last post, I mentioned that I was traveling Airtran. My flight was from Dallas / Ft. Worth to Newport News, VA (Patrick Henry Field). The Newport News airport is close to Williamsburg, VA where I have family and far more convenient than Richmond or Norfolk which are far more common for flying into that area.
First, I’ll mention my booking and check-in experience. Airtran’s website works pretty well these days and even accommodates the pre-payment of checked luggage when you do your online check-in. My biggest criticism of the Airtran site is that you have to go through many different pages to complete the reservation and/or check-in process. I suspect many airlines will be adding more pages to their processes if only because of the a la carte nature of the new airline business model.
I’ve mentioned in other, earlier posts that some airlines are developing and implementing electronic boarding passes to be carried on one’s PDA. During my struggle to maintain 3 sheets of paper for each day of travel, I began to long for being able to use such a system on Airtran. On my two leg trip from DFW to PHF via ATL, I had to have 2 different boarding passes on two separate pieces of paper (why, I don’t know since they are to be scanned) and I carried my receipt for pre-paying my checked baggage in case of trouble when I arrived at the airport. Having those boarding passes and that receipt on a PDA would help immensely with simply managing the paperwork.
DFW to ATL (Boeing 737-700) Seat 18A: This aircraft was clean and generally well cared for but my particular seat kept wanting to recline without being asked to do so. As a consequence, I kept raising my seat back during the 2 hour flight and found my back feeling a bit strained after awhile. As a rule, I don’t recline my seat when sitting in coach on such a flight simply because it’s truly discourteous to do given the little leg room and personal space that is afforded in coach. Ordinarily, I enjoy the Airtran 737 because they use a nice Recaro seat that seems to fit my body very well. This flight was an anomaly compared to previous experiences.
The gate agents loaded the plane quickly and efficiently and the flight attendants and other Airtran staff were quick to “solve” any passengers problems with stowing carryon luggage. They did it politely but firmly and kept people moving. As a result, the boarding process actually felt streamlined and we were able to push back precisely on time.
Arriving in Atlanta, I remembered what I really don’t like about Atlanta’s airport. It isn’t the terminals, the crowds or the often required dash to another concourse for your next flight. It’s the taxi time from the terminal to the runway or vice versa. It is as if you land and then travel another 40 miles to the terminal. It feels excessively long and since your aircraft is usually behind another, you get the unpleasant aroma of burning kerosene to keep you company. That isn’t Airtran’s fault though.
The Atlanta terminal is just as I’ve experienced it in the past. Despite common complaints, you can actually move quite quickly from one gate to another as long as you’re sensible enough to get your info and read a terminal map. If you can’t do that or won’t learn how, then you deserve what you get. One thing I did notice about the ATL concourses was that the stores goods seemed to be priced much more fairly than usual. They weren’t selling $3 bottles of water or $2 candy bars. Yes, the prices were a little more expensive than the average convenience store but reasonably so.
ATL to PHF (Boeing 717-200) Seat 21F: I like the Boeing 717. Yes, it’s a tad smaller but there is something about that aircraft that suits me very well. Again, this aircraft was well cared for, staffed by flight attendants who acted as if they enjoyed going to work and my seat worked properly. This flight had an even longer taxi time than my inbound flight but once it reached the runway, we took off quickly and seemed to get routed on a very direct path out of ATL.
Both flights had a drink service with pretzels and both services were done with good cheer. As we approached PHF, I remembered something peculiar about flying into that general area. For some reason, the approaches feel like you arrive at high altitude and the pilot suddenly dives the airplane to the airport. It seems as if every flight I’ve taken to that general area finds the aircraft shuddering and straining to slow down and lose enough altitude to land at the airport. Touchdowns are always very firm and positive instead of being floating greasers.
PHF is a great little airport. It’s secondary to Norfolk but served regularly by both Airtran and Delta. Airtran with mainline equipment and Delta by a mix mostly dominated by regional jets. It’s convenient to most of the southern area of the peninsula bracketed by the York and James rivers. Best of all, flights to PHF tend to be about $100 cheaper than similar flights to Norfolk or Richmond, VA. The airport is very clean, feels very new and is easy to navigate. You can get to I-64 in just a couple of minutes drive and be on your way to just about anywhere you need to go in the area.
I’ve always liked Airtran. They offer a superior coach product compared to most legacy airlines and they continue to adjust to the changing environment in ways that, if not exactly accomodating, are at least less punishing than most.
I went on hiatus last may because of increased work demands. Now, my business is entering a slower period and I’m back. I had been planning on re-starting this weekend but when I got a free Airtran GoGo Inflight WiFi pass, I decided to re-start at 33,000 feet.
What can I say? I’m impressed with the service. Speed seems excellent and I’m tracking my own flight via FlightAware.com right now just for kicks. I can report that it appears to be about 3 to 5 minutes behind “real time”.
Airtran has, once again, reminded me of what real value is when flying today. It’s pleasant cabin staff, on time departures, decent seats and while I *hate* the baggage fees, I’ll at least give a shout out to Airtran for being one of the more affordable airlines as well as making it possible to pre-pay the fee online when doing one’s check-in.
I’m landing soon so I’m out for now but the blog is live again.
It feels like an odd pairing. DFW to the new Branson, MO airport on Sun Country which is a Minneapolis / St. Paul based airline. Well, maybe. maybe not.
First, Branson has a new airport about to open. It is unique in that it is a private airport built with private money. You can view its website HERE. Or, rather, you can kind of view it. It really isn’t working very well as a website. Not today anyway.
Second, it does kind of make sense. Sun Country will be flying Mon-Wed-Fri from MSP to Branson. Then, it appears, it will use the same aircraft to fly the DFW / Branson segments as well. That means high utilization for the aircraft. From what I can see, the flight will travel MSP to Branson, Branson to DFW, DFW to Branson, Branson to MSP on those days.
Sun Country already flies in and out of DFW (and not just to MSP) and already understands how to fly to leisure destinations. There should be enough traffic from both the DFW and MSP areas to feed to Branson (a kind of mid-western Las Vegas show theatre town if you are unfamiliar with it) and it should be able to do so very competitively against the bus excursions that already exist. You see, there was no close by airport for Branson until now. Previously, it means flying very expensive commuter flights to places such as Joplin, Fort Smith, Springfield or Fayetteville and you *still* had at least a 2 hour drive by bus or car to get there.
Not anymore. These flights should do well and I will note that AirTran is another airline that will be flying to this new destination and Sun Country also has just added flights from Boston to Branson (I’m a little skeptical of that one being successful.) Branson is offering incentives to these airlines to start these flights in the hopes of jump starting more growth of their tourism industry. So far, you have to give them high marks for targeting the right kind of areas and the right kind of airlines. If they had asked American Airlines to serve the destination, it would have been done with old regional jet aircraft and at high prices. Instead, they picked airlines that understood the leisure business. I would not be surprised to learn of Allegiant starting flights into Branson as well.
What’s more, it will be done with mainline aircraft such as the Boeing 737, 717 and, if Allegiant jumps into the game, the MD-80. All aircraft much more suited to the demographics of the typical Branson traveler.
