Southwest Airlines got final approval from its pilot union on an agreement to introduce the 737-800 into the fleet and Southwest did what we all expected Southwest to do:  They announced they’ll be buying the 737-800.

I’m sure we’ll see these aircraft first on flights into and out of slot controlled airports such as NYC La Guardia’s or Washington D.C.’s Reagan National.  The speculative part is Hawaii.  Yes, these aircraft will have the range but that’s just the first issue to overcome.  To fly to Hawaii, Southwest would also have to have these aircraft ETOPS certified.

ETOPS certification would have to be kept up on every aircraft or on a small subset of aircraft that would operate from the West Coast.  There is a certain complexity there that, to me, doesn’t smell like something Southwest would be immediately ready to accept.  They know the value of Hawaii already and I think they would like to fly there via a partner or by themselves again at some point but how soon?

Look for these aircraft to show up in about 1.5 years.  They’ll first deploy to the slot controlled airport routes.  Next, don’t be surprised to see Southwest introduce some trans-continental services with these aircraft.  I don’t think we’ll see a lot of trans-con flying but I think we might see a few select routes get developed with the -800.  If those go well and they like how those distances feel, we then might see SWA prepare to fly to Hawaii provided they can figure out how to maintain ETOPS on either the whole -800 fleet or a subset of that fleet.

In other words, Hawaii is probably at least 3 years away if not more.  SWA may well try to link up with another partner and that isn’t necessarily a bad idea.  However, I think the unions have made it clear that they want to keep the flying “in-house” going forward as much as possible.   With the Airtran merger still on its plate and the integration of the two airlines over the next 2 years, I think a more realistic time to see a flight to Hawaii might be in as much as 5 years.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Virgin America is set to start 2 flights a day between Dallas and Los Angeles and 2 flights a day between Dallas and San Francisco and it began this past Wednesday with a party.  As expected, American Airlines is already responding.  AA is boosting its frequencies by 2 flights a day and they’re offering extra frequent flier points for booking on their flights as well as prizes for selected travelers.

It’s a typical AA response and one they’ve used against other entrants onto what they regard as their turf.  But is it enough?

In the past, new entrants have typically offered a service product that is no better than their so the competition was based on price and frequency.  While frequency is likely going to be a selling point, I’m not sure it’s going to be as much a factor this time since VA has decided to schedule its flights in what appears to be perfect “business” times.  Their morning flight to Los Angeles departs at 7:00am and their evening flight at 4:35pm.  This offers good arrivals times into LA and good departure times from DFW airport.  Their flights departing DFW for San Francisco leave at 8:00am and 2:15pm and while I’m not a fan of the latter, the former fits nicely too.

This might end up more about service product this time and VA has a service product that beats AA hands down.  American offers you a choice of their clapped out MD-80s, 757s or the possibility of their new 737s.  However, those 737s are equipped with less comfortable seats, no in flight entertainment and WiFi on AA is spotty.  Virgin offers WiFi on all their aircraft, in flight entertainment on all their aircraft, more comfortable seats on all their aircraft and better food and drink for purchase. 

Business travelers, especially those whose company has shunted them to economy, would be wise to give this product a try.  Anyone traveling on these routes would be wise to support VA in its entrance to the DFW market because this is exactly the kind of competition that AA hasn’t had for years on its routes from Dallas.  VA picked two very good routes to enter as they had exceptionally high fares.  I just checked on fares to both LAX and SFO for next Wednesday and found a low fare of $129 each way ($250 RT) available for both routes and that compares to fares that were in excess of $400 round trip on American.

I have an interest in seeing Virgin succeed on these routes.  I live in the DFW area and I’ve spent nearly 10 years getting angrier and angrier over the exceptionally high fares that AA has enjoyed a variety of routes departing DFW.  I’ve become so upset at the treatment I’ve received on AA that I’ve actively sought connecting flights on other airlines to avoid American’s “service”.   This is exactly the kind of new entrant DFW needs and stands in stark contrast to the others that have come here such as Spirit Airlines. 

Virgin America’s CEO is David Cush, a former American Airlines veteran executive and he gets what it will take to survive the attack from American.  I’m cautiously optimistic that he’ll recognize that there are plenty of other opportunities in this market and executing on them now puts his airline in position to do well even against Southwest after the Wright Amendment is fully lifted.

For those of you chasing the frequent flier status game, take a look at this new airline coming to DFW.  You’ll get better treatment and more opportunities for comfort and service for simply paying a lower fare than you’ll ever get as an AAdvantage Gold or Platinum member on routes such as these.  Do you want status and an old aircraft or service and a new aircraft?

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
1 Comment »

American Airlines is switching its 2 flights per day from Springfield, IL to Chicago over to their DFW hub next April.  By doing so, AA will be eligible to dip into available grants setup to defer start up costs on new routes. 

One of the things that irritates me the most about how the US airline world has become distorted has to be how regional jets are used.  We don’t use them on regional routes.  Well, they’re still used on those routes but far more often we use them on long, ultra thin routes like Springfield, IL to DFW.  Or how about the time I flew from DFW to Cleveland on a Continental Express ERJ-140. 

The truth is, any flights from Springfield, IL should be going to regional hubs that are nearby.  We should see larger turbo-props flying passengers from Springfield to Chicago, St. Louis and Memphis.   I don’t know if Springfield can honestly justify the 6 flights per day it has to Chicago at this time but, if it can, I would argue that 1 or 2 of those flights is superfluous at best. 

Small airports like Springfield get access to all kinds of grants and other funding that permit them to attempt to attract new services and, hopefully, help grow their local economy.  But those grants are used to distort markets and encourage flights that would never exist if they had to be justified on the real market demand.   How is Springfield, Illinois truly better served by 2 flights per day to the DFW area for AA/Oneworld connections to the rest of the world when it can access pretty much the same parts of the world easier (and more economically) through Chicago?

The truth is, if you look at just a 350nm radius emanating from Springfield, you’ll find that the options on a regional basis to hubs and/or focus cities that actually have both political and business ties to Springfield, you realize just how insane it is to be flying a Springfield to Dallas route of 630nm using an ERJ-14X aircraft. 

Cities like Springfield should be cultivating multiple routes to multiple hubs/focus cities near them.  They should seek to offer broad based links to their entire region instead of a link to one part of their region (Chicago) and another link to an area entirely outside of their economic sphere (Dallas).    Using Springfield as an example and defining their “region” as being roughly 350nm diameter, they could target links to Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City, Minneapolis / St. Paul, Memphis, Nashville and even Cincinatti and Columbus. 

Grants and incentives have a tendency to drive decisions towards things that are clearly serving a narrow, immediate “want” rather than a broad based, market driven “need”.  I would far rather see grants help improve airports themselves and let the municipal, state and business leaders of a city make a business case to airlines for routes they need.  All too often, when I see a route like DFW-Springfield, I wonder what local business executive wants that route for his convenience and to what other businesses detriment is it being done?

Filed under: Airline News, Airports by ajax
3 Comments »

It’s always fun to come up with contractions of names for airlines that merge.  My newest is Britberia Airlines, British Airways and Iberia Airlines.  Good news for those two:  they now have shareholder approval of their merger and expect to conclude the deal in January.  The new entity will be called International Airlines Group and it will manage both the British Airways and Iberia brands.  I wonder if someone at AA didn’t help with the new name as that is about as bland as one can get.

Willie Walsh, who will serve as over-arching chairman of this new group, says it’s been a good year for British Airways with this merger and their recent anti-trust approval to work with American Airlines.   While it may not have been their worst year, I don’t think it’s a “good” year.  They’ve still got a fight going on with their cabin crew union that really needs to get solved.

The new group still falls behind Lufthansa and AirFrance/KLM but it does make BA/IB a better player against those two but with a weakness or two as well:  They’re still dependent on a growth constrained hub at Heathrow airport and their ability to expand will lay with the Iberia hub in Madrid.  The other two SuperAirlines have got hubs in better places for more of Europe’s traffic.  Hubs in places like Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Berlin and Zurich.  They’re just more centrally located.

Walsh says future growth will be focused in Madrid but I don’t see how that helps BA in its home territory of the UK.  How is it more attractive to take a flight from Manchester to Madrid to go overseas to many places?  I think this union needs a northern European partner and I think they’ll seek one out once this merger is fully ironed out.  If not a European partner, then a different Ireland/UK hub is probably needed. 

Madrid and Spain seem logical for connections to Africa, South America and perhaps the middle East or even India.  The UK is a logical connection point for destinations within the UK, northern Europe and North America.  But growth is needed in the UK and Heathrow can’t continue to be the hub for all things BA.

Perhaps the Irish government will sell Aer Lingus to the group.  Dublin could be a nice gateway city for trans-atlantic flights and connections to airports throughout Ireland and the UK.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

The Nordic airline, Scandinavian Airline(SAS), is looking to modernize a good portion of its current fleet of 737 and MD-80 aircraft and Bombardier is reportedly favored to win with its CS300. 

SAS owns a pretty varied fleet which includes both Airbus A320 series aircraft as well as old and new generation 737s (including the unpopular 737-600).  A more harmonized fleet would help.

The problem is, SAS doesn’t necessarily need aircraft that are necessarily big players on medium haul routes.  While it does need some higher capacity aircraft for leisure destinations, it needs smaller capacity aircraft in bigger numbers for frequency.

The CS300 has a nominal maximum range of at least 2200nm and that’s enough for SAS’s world in Europe.  That would allow them to serve all of europe from their hubs of Copenhagen, Stockholm and Oslo or any of their other focus cities as well.  Take a look at what 1900nm range gets you from Stockholm by clicking HERE.

It’s notable that this airline is the only airline that found a real use for the 737-600 and bought 28 of them.  They also have a number of -500 models as well.

The Cs300 would probably fit well into their strategy and offer them a light aircraft with good capacity for flying frequency in their stronghold(s).   They would get an efficient engine for this kind of flying as well.

My guess is that the Boeing aircraft will go away completely over time and SAS will buy more Airbus aircraft for routes requiring more capacity.   Boeing just doesn’t have anything in its product line up that fits the SAS model.

A lot of people believe the CS300 isn’t going anywhere and even I wondered but it seems to me that this might be just the kind of niche Bombardier needs to serve.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

The dirty little secret in aircraft sales are the subsidies that are used both in the United States and Europe to bolster their exports.  You see, you can actually affect your trade balance by selling just a few extra aircraft and that really isn’t possible to do with virtually any other industry.

Right now, foreign airlines such as Emirates or Ryanair can purchase airliners using financing from sources such as the US government in the form of low cost loans.  If we sell and deliver more 737s to Ryanair or 777s to Emirates, it helps our trade balance.  The airlines get to grow with lower costs that are a function of these loans that offer lower than market interest rates.

And let’s face it, Ryanair and Emirates aren’t exact airlines in need of subisidies. 

The same situation exists in Europe with Airbus.  You didn’t think that United Airlines and Northwest Airlines bought those Airbus A320s at market rates, did you?

To date, it’s been the dirty little secret among governments and the manufacturers.  Recently, US airlines started pointing out the inherent disadvantages of this when it comes to their ability to compete and they’ve got a strong point. 

The truth is, sudsidies aren’t necessarily bad if we’re using them to bolster transportation in parts of the world where obtaining any financing is difficult.  But we’re not.  Not really.  It’s a good idea that has been turned on its head with loopholes for situations that just no longer exist. 

Now a pack of airlines who are major beneficiaries have indicated that they are open to relaxing the “home country” rule that forbids such subsidies being offered to airlines in home countries as long as no restrictions are put into place that would inhibit their own great deals.  Read more about it HERE. 

How nice.   It’s notable that removal of this “home rule” would also permit several of these airlines to get the same great financing  in Europe on Airbus models in addition to Boeing aircraft. 

How about we end all subsidies to all airlines with the exception(s) of those in true third world areas?   Is it appropriate that an airline like Ryanair can purchase airliners from Boeing at already ridiculously low prices and then finance them with such low cost loans that they’re able to buy a 737 and re-sell it for a *profit* 3 years later?

No, of course not. 

A better idea would be to come to an agreement on how to offer these subisidies to airlines in poor countries who might really benefit from such a subsidy and then eliminate such things for any airlines operating in modern economies.

This means you Ryanair/Emirates/Virgin Blue/Etihad/CargoLux/Oman/Norwegian/Pegasus/Wizz airlines.  Not a one of you is a disadvantaged airline.  Instead, you’re all airlines who are pounding your competition into the ground with lower costs that really are a direct function of these subisidies.

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

Tim Clark says Emirates wants more range from Airbus and its A350-1000 than it presently offers and it expects more from Boeing’s 777-300ER, too.  The airline is unsatisfied with the inability to serve ultra-long haul routes from Dubai with what it considers adequate payload.  Adequate payload is carrying 350 passengers from Dubai to Los Angeles with a full cargo/baggage load in about 16.5 hours. 

Frankly, that’s expecting a lot from even advanced technology.  We’re getting there but the big problem is how much fuel you have to carry to achieve those distances with those loads.   Those distances begin to require airliners to carry more fuel in order to carry more fuel for range and you can guess how quickly the diminishing returns show up on such a prospect. 

Lighter but stronger aircraft can solve that but we’ve already seen what a challenge  that can be with the 787.   There is no doubt that the manufacturers will figure out how to do it somewhere along the line but my gut tells me that this isn’t a problem solved with a better wing or better engine.  It’ll require re-thinking the large widebody airliner in a way that will require even better composites and other lightweight materials. 

It takes time to develop and test those materials.  It can take a lot of time to even figure out how to ramp up production on these exotic materials.   We still haven’t seen 787 partners prove they can meet production demands for CFRP fuselage barrels.  I think they can but the proof is in the pudding and we haven’t tasted the pudding yet.

My gut tells me we are at least 15 years away from producing a truly revolutionary widebody capable of carrying 40+ tons of payload for those ranges.  We’ll get there and it’s time to start thinking about it but don’t look for such an aircraft in the next 10 years.  It won’t be showing up. 

Besides, it’s a relatively limited market and it’s become clear that the manufacturers need to turn their resources towards producing a better short haul, single aisle airliner.  Frankly, that’s where the real money is at in the next 10 years.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
2 Comments »

United Airlines (ContiUnited aka Continental and United Airlines merged) has a problem.   Continental pilots have enjoyed one of the most restrictive scope clauses in the industry so far and United pilots have seen quite a bit of mainline flying move from their group to being outsourced to regional airlines flying the CRJ-700/900.   Both parties are unhappy with outsourcing the flying and both see the merger and need for a new contract as the perfect opportunity to gain ground on this issue.

At the same time, United needs to keep its costs in line with rivals Delta and American Airlines and, if possible, lower.  To do that under the present day model, that means outsourcing even more flying to regional airlines.

As usual, I would suggest that both parties need to meet in the middle a bit.  Pilots (and other flight crew) could stand to permit lower wagese for this “regional” flying to keep it “in house”.  United needs to recognize that this is about job security and these pilots want some assurance that their seniority means something in bad times.  Neither party is going to get what they want or even a majority of what they want. 

And if this conflict blooms into a multi-year negotiation, things won’t be good for either side.  Pilots will lose out on salary increase opportunities and United will lose out on the synergies that this merger is supposed to provide. 

One solution could be to retain the 50 seat Continental scope clause but pilots permit a lower entry level wage for 51+ seat aircraft or even perhaps a “B” wage scale until a pilot moves into generally accepted mainline aircraft (say 125+ seats.)  The pilots could be permitted to use their seniority to retain a job in the lower pay scale in the event of a downturn and bad times displacing only the newest pilots and at the same time the airline could benefit from being able to use regional airlines for truly regional flying. 

CEO Jeff Smisek would be wise to get creative rather than tough here.  This is a real obstacle to realizing the benefits of his merger.

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

Southwest Airlines is going to offer to buy you a drink if you are flying tomorrow on their airline.

And I still think doing this kind of thing is a bad idea. Particularly during the holidays.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
1 Comment »

Ground workers at Delta (and who were unionized at Northwest airlines) have rejected unionization at the combined airline by a similar vote (52% against) as the flight attendants making it a “win” for Delta. 

Everyone likes that Delta has so far maintained the status quo here although I’m sure the former Northwest employees continue to feel uneasy about this.  I think it’s good for both parties so far but let’s realize that one reason the elections have gone the way they have is the numerical superiority that original Delta employees have.  To be fair, they vote non-union because their experiences at Delta have been largely positive and fair although it would also be right to point out that most of them have never known a different environment. 

The key here is that Delta still needs to work on winning over these Northwest employees.  They still need to reassure these people and, if anything, work even harder at ensuring their needs are met and that they are being treated fairly in the grand scheme of the new airline.  That doesn’t mean they have to bow down to them.  It simply means that people can tell when they are and aren’t being treated fairly. 

Part of treating Northwest airline people fairly means listening to their concerns and accounting for why those concerns exist:  they don’t have a similar history of treatment from airline management at Northwest.   Actions speak louder than words and Delta management would be wise to use that as their mission statement going forward with all their labor groups.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
3 Comments »

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

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

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

American Airlines has announced that it will be offering Happy Hour prices on its drinks in December on flights departing between 5:00 and 5:59pm. 

First, that’s a short duration and I already see a problem.  Is this scheduled departure time?  What if the plane departs 2 hours late?  Second, for flights departing in just one hour of each day?  Really?  Even TGIFriday’s gives you more time than that.

Third, and more importantly, do we really need to be encouraging people to drink on flights?  Drunk passengers are a top pet peeve for both passengers and flight crew.  It is pretty much agreed among frequent travelers that drinking alcohol on flights is a bad idea.  It dehydrates you and the alcohol does seem to have a more measurable effect and can result in things like headaches and bodyaches and a general unpleasant feeling while traveling. 

But AA wants you to enjoy a happy hour during your holiday travel.  This has bad idea written all over it.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
1 Comment »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British Airways cabin crew union, Unite, has decided that it cannot recommend the latest deal  and put it to a vote among its membership.  Now it wants more talks with British Airways.

And I would like to offer this:  That’s bargaining in bad faith.

When you are the leadership of a union and engage in talks that result in a proposed agreement and you agree to put it to a vote, you damn well put it to a vote.  You don’t change your mind and then ask for more talks on threat of another strike.  Being weak and changing your mind just damages the process for both sides.  If your membership doesn’t like it, they won’t vote for it.  The outcome is the same but it’s an outcome that results from an appropriate course of action rather then a cowardly one.

I didn’t like BA’s punitive moves against the cabin crew and I did think that gave Unite the upper hand somewhat.  Now I think they’re both behaving atrociously and contrary to the spirit of what it means to negotiate a resolution.  One thing I can’t criticize British Airways for is being cowardly and indecisive.  Unite loses the upper hand here and goes back to wallowing in deep mud.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The great argument driving TSA rules on x-ray machines and patdowns derives from what was, quite honestly, a horrible act on September 11, 2001.  We’ve been treating air travel with high security for 4 decades starting with hijackings that resulted in bombs and deaths resulting from other horrific acts.  You have to acknowledge that air travel has, in fact, been used as a weapon and as a terrorist act more than once.

These acts have, in my opinion, driven us to accept conditions upon our free movement inside this country that we don’t accept anywhere else.  In fact, we are asked to accept conditions in order to travel by air that we don’t accept in virtually any other place in our lives.  Let me point out that we aren’t asked to accept this level of scrutiny in order to enter a courthouse, the Capitol, a military base or even the White House.  Even with respect to the real world, we aren’t asked to endure this scrutiny to visit a federal building or a movie theater or restaurant.   Think about that for a minute:  we aren’t groped (sexually or otherwise) in order to proceed about our lawful business in virtually any other setting.

I am far from suggesting that there be no security checks in airports.  To the contrary, I believe that there is a level of security that should be applied and applied evenly and without regard to race, religion, etc.   There should be absolutely no exceptions for anyone including flight crew. 

But I do think we’ve gone too far and I do think that we, the public, have been far too accepting of the latest indignities and, quite frankly, inappropriate searches of ourselves and our personal belongings all in the name of “security”.  This is making the free movement about our country a privilege rather than a right and I’m extremely uncomfortable with that.  And to argue that there are other choices is disingenuous at best in this modern age. 

What we’re really doing is carving out exceptions to basic and derived rights on the basis of security theater rather than real security.

It doesn’t just exist at airports although I think airports are the most extreme case.  Recently, I’ve made a number of trips to McAllen, Texas.  Ironically, by car and I’ve witnessed behaviour on the part of several law enforcement agencies that I honestly believe would not only not been tolerated but soundly stopped just 20 years ago.  Imagine traveling 90 miles and seeing 18 State Trooper cars, 5 Border Patrol cars and a mandatory checkpoint where you are interrogated and potentially asked to consent to a search before simply proceeding about your lawful business.

Privacy in this country has traditionally been a very sacred subject.  The right to privacy, to not incriminate oneself and even the right to engage in lawful business between two areas has been infringed upon to a degree that I think it’s changing our country. 

It’s time we start accepting that this world is not and has never been a perfectly safe place and to attempt to make it so does far more harm than it does good.  I’m rather shocked that people haven’t challenged these acts in the courts (is the ACLU really that docile now?) and that we haven’t complained rationally and loudly to our lawmakers and policymakers. 

For the record, I have written Congressmen and Senators and I think others should too.  Also for the record, I am not a libertarian or conservative or liberal.  If anything, I’d be identified as a moderate Democrat that find himself largely unrepresented by either side.

My standard in feeling revulsion at these developments has come from the fact that I’ve realized over the past few years that I actually feel more exposed and less safe as a result of these security measures.  They don’t reassure me and they don’t make me feel that my plane has been adequately protected from threats. 

I do think there are measures we could take and if we’re really serious about security, why aren’t we hiring bright and capable people to perform our security roles?  Furthermore, why are we endorsing a para-military approach to security at our airports when we find that, time and again, this mindset doesn’t result in greater security to ourselves.

I have a great fear that we are going to abrogate more and more rights in this quest to perceive ourselves “safe” that any value we derive from being citizens and residents in a country with uniquely protected basic civil rights will be simply gone.  And I wonder if that isn’t a “win” for terrorists as well.

Just in case you think I’m the only one out there disturbed by these many farces, read FL250’s post HERE.

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

When the Air Transport Association offers nothing much but criticism of new pilot fatigue rules, I have to call foul.  Pilot (and cabin crew fatigue) is something that has gotten worse and worse, not better over the past few decades.  In the drive to increase productivity, union rules and contracts have been renegotiated over and over resulting in less and less rest for crew members.

There was a time when getting that increased productivity was a reasonable thing because other factors affecting fatigue weren’t nearly the issues they are today.  One of the biggest issues is commuting and its a necessary evil in the airline world.  Pilots often have to commute from their home to their home base and that can mean flights anywhere from a short hop to a transcontinental flight. 

When that home base is stable, arranging and managing those commutes can be done.  However, home bases are often anything but stable these days as airlines have expanded, contracted, expanded, merged and even grown into entirely new regions.  Pilots are being moved around like inanimate objects and that leads to fatigue.  Fatigue doesn’t just come from lack of sleep.  It comes from commuting, stress, poor food and difficult schedules.  

This stuff just has to be managed better and I throw a red flag at the ATA.  Don’t just criticize, solve the problem.  Being a player in getting this issue solved.  Behaving as if nothing has changed over the past 2 decades is sticking your heads in the ground just as badly if not worse than the unions have at times.  Find ways to offer some stability and productivity and get those people better rested.  We’ve had one air disaster that clearly saw fatigue playing a role.  The fact that it was a small commuter aircraft that time doesn’t mean it won’t be a large widebody next time. 

I’ll add this:  unions need to get smart.  Demanding everything in terms of rest, wages, etc without finding a way to offer more productivity is a losing game and puts you in the penalty box with the ATA.  If you don’t find a way to come to some understanding on this, it will fall to the government and not a single person out there will find the solution satisfying or effective.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

It’s been announced that jetBlue and Emirates will have an interline agreement functioning through JFK airport and within the next few days, it will be possible to buy thru passage to destinations between the two airlines.   JetBlue has been arranging and aligning itself with a number of airline partners through this type of agreement and Emirates makes the seventh such agreement.  American Airlines was announced just a few months ago and jetBlue has been enjoying an arrangement with Lufthansa (a major shareholder with seats on the board) for some time now.

CEO Dave Barger has described this as an open architecture and that means they are doing deals with whoever it makes sense to do a deal with.  The problem is the potential for conflict among the various partners.  For instance, one can only imagine how amused Lufthansa was to learn of this since their CEO has been a vocal critic of the advantages that Emirates enjoys in international travel.  

This isn’t exactly new.  Alaska Airlines has been engaged in similar practices with a variety of partners both domestic and international for years.  In Alaska Airlines’ case, it’s made sense and worked to a fair degree although in part because Seattle, it’s hub, is not a hub or really a focus city for anyone else.   However, over time, Alaska did business with so many partners who were competing with each other individually, it began to annoy some.  For instance, AA has been gradually drifting away from its partnership with Alaska and Delta has been strengthening this partnership.

Ultimately, Alaska has found that it really does, in a sense, have to dance with the partner who is making a difference to their bottom line. Of late, that’s been Delta and when one airline substantially bigger than you starts contributing significant revenues to your balance sheet, it is only a matter of time before it starts conditioning those results upon receiving certain concessions.

JetBlue sees opportunity and there is opportunity at present from all of its partners.  However, over time, someone is going to start making a bigger difference to the bottom line than someone else.  Emirates has great potential for this as does American Airlines.  Just between AA, Emiratese and Lufthansa, you have two airlines aligned with different alliances and one airline who isn’t but who knows how to provide massive long haul feed.  The potential for conflict is huge in the future.

Maintaining some kind of balance between its partners is going to be key to keeping this open architecture.  Like any business, dependence upon one partner can lead to inequalities that drive your business in directions you never wanted to go in.  The size of airlines that jetBlue is partnering with indicates just how massive that potential is and no one should ever make the mistake that a huge airline won’t one day decide to use its influence to diminish the influence of other airlines its competing with. 

Frankly, I think it benefits a small airline to pick a dance partner and stick with it.  If jetBlue wanted to enjoy feed from other airlines, it would have been better served to have chosen an alliance and worked within its system where there is some understanding that picking apart a partner is counterproductive.  Under the current model, no one partner has any great incentive to remain loyal if the competitive environment evolves.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Damned if you don’t.  American’s labor woes are getting in the way of both the company and labor moving forward.  It’s a Mexican stand-off at this point.  Management has the argument that any higher labor costs would result in the company losing money again and potentially failing.  If it runs close to the line of failing, it’s either a liquidation (unlikely) or a bankruptcy reorgnization (very likely) or a purchase (somewhat likely).  In any of those situations, labor stands to lose and lose big.

Labor, on the other hand, has a knife to the throat(s) of current management.  If they win big gains, it’s the end of the current regime.  If any of the unions (particularly cabin crew or pilots) win the right to “self help” aka a strike, it’s the end of the current regime.  And the the end of the current regime may mean a reorgnization ultimately as well. 

Neither side can necessarily afford to stick with their current leadership.  AA’s management has allowed this to fester for a very long time and, I think, has gone past the time that would be regarded as “reasonable” to come to some agreement that would allow the company to move forward.  At least in the eyes of many shareholders.  Likewise, the unions don’t have a deal and don’t have a prospect of a deal and with the stance of “all or nothing”, stand to harm their memberships far more than help them. 

We’ve already seen the pilot’s leadership change to a more reasonable president but I see no evidence of that potentially happening among the other groups.  Not right now. 

If the brinksmanship continues, look for a regime change at AA.  If there is a regime change at AA that does not result in movement in the agreements, look for regime change of the leadership of flight attendants.  Then sit back and wait for the bankruptcy filing for reorgnization.

What seems even more dismal is this question:  Who wants to buy AA or American Eagle?

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

It’s never good when something bad happens and a manufacturer dribbles information out.  Rolls Royce has a PR problem that is about to get much worse before it gets better.  The latest news is that Rolls has acknowledged the potential for oil fires in their early Trent 900 engines now and it appears there have been a couple of quiet upgrades in the time the engine has been in service.

One wonders why it has taken more than a week for this information to come out and one also wonders what else hasn’t been discussed.  It’s understandable for a company to want public discussion to be about fact rather than speculation but you don’t manage speculation by withholding all the facts.  We see manufacturers do this time and again in all industries.

It never works out and it always has the flavor of deceit whether or not deceit really was a part of the intent.   Full disclosure reassures people and, most importantly, it’s the only right thing to do.

If there are potentially related problems on the Trent 1000 engine for the 787, Rolls Royce would be well advised to start that dicussion now rather than let it lay fallow for months only to have it erupt again.   The public understands a mistake, it doesn’t understand things being covered up.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »