A new executive team for the merged airlines Continental and United Airlines has been announced.  We already knew that Glenn Tilton was moving up to non-executive Chairman and Jeff Smisek would be CEO.  However, now we officially know the fate of John Tague.  His position of President is going to Jeff Smisek. 

John Tague is largely credited for the operational turnaround at United and appears to have done a great job while there.  I think it is a shame to see him going away and I do hope another airline out there scoops him up. 

You know, someone like American Airlines who could use a little Tagueness. 

Also going away is Kathryn Mikells, current United Airlines CFO and also somone who has gotten a lot of credit for getting United’s financial house in order. 

Frankly, it bothers me to see the two shining stars of United leaving.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

One thing coming out of the 2nd Quarter financials from several airlines is, once again, just how much baggage fees are adding to revenues and, more importantly, profit.  United President John Tague is expecting that this kind of ancillary fee could soon be adding a billion dollars more to revenue and that is from its current levels of $350 to $400 million.

Like them or not, those numbers are hard to ignore. 

It does make me wonder how Southwest Airlines will continue to defend its no baggage fees approach going forward.  Load factors on airlines are at astonishingly high levels and that means that Southwest isn’t necessarily siphoning off customers from airlines with those fees.

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

and I don’t care.  The customer was flying standby and even if you’ve boarded, you are subject to the whims of anything when you fly standby.  Don’t want to be subject to that?  Don’t fly standby.

Here is the STORY on the Consumerist blog. 

I don’t care if it was a 14 year old fat kid or a 44 year old giant of a man.  Southwest shouldn’t be apologizing for removing a standby passenger from their flight regardless of their frequent flier status or “normal” procedures.  My opinion would be different if this person wasn’t flying standby, yes, but that isn’t the case here.  In fact, this strikes me as one more spoiled frequent flier lashing out because they didn’t get what they want.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Coming out of the latest financial reports from Delta, several news outlets noticed that Delta has plans to continue to acquire used MD-90’s for their fleet.  Unlike almost any other airline, Delta has found a use for these aircraft that beats the economics of the 737-800. 

Surely the low acquisition costs and high reliability of these aircraft make a good case for their purchase.  The MD-90 is a half generation newer than the MD-80 aircraft flying out there and since most were produced in the mid to late 1990’s, they have plenty of life left in them to be used for an economical period of time.   It’s clear that Delta prefers to bridge the gap between the current offerings of Boeing and Airbus and what future aircraft that may come along late in the next decade.

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

The Seattle Post Intelligencer has THIS story on a new 3 Hour Rule study done and it being condemned by the DoT.  Two “consultants” did a fast and dirty study on the 3 Hour Rule and its effects by using the first month’s data available (May 2010) to conclude that airlines were canceling flights to avoid risking fines.

I’ve said it BEFORE and I’ll say it again:  We have no meaninful data on this rule and its effects and it will take 12 to 24 months to have enough data on its effects. 

To do a quick and dirty study like that and make it public that quickly is bad statistical science and makes it and its authors (Darryl Jenkins and Joshua Marks) highly suspect.  I would like to know who is paying these “consultants” and what their credentials are.  You can see more HERE. 

These two people are describing themselves as a collaborative research program between the industry and Marks Aviation LLC.  In addition to a study that is bad statistical science, their website is bad too.  If one looks up Marks Aviation LLC on Google, one finds another really bad website you can see HERE. 

Perusing that awful piece of HTML, one discovers that Joshua Marks real claim to industry knowledge is some brief employment by MAXJet Airways.  While Josh claims a good education at Harvard, it would appear he’s been out of a job since 2008 (who hasn’t?) and I’m guessing Josh read somewhere that if you did trade studies, you bolstered your credibility while looking for a job.  Working for MAXJet Airways isn’t much to claim for experience considering its extremely limited operations, failed business model and its nose-dive into bankruptcy. 

All in all, I think Josh is trying to land a job and I think he’s trying to do it by stirring things up publicly so that he might get some attention from a real airline.  I’ve no objection to trying to get a job and I’ve no objection to “consulting” in the aviation industry while you look for one.  I have no objection to Josh even claiming some airline experience.  However, I object loudly to his “study” based on 1 month’s data and the first month at that.  Someone with a Harvard MBA really ought to know better.

As for Josh’s partner in this criminal study, Darryl Jenkins, well, his WEBSITE is bad too.  If Darryl was as credentialed and seasoned as he claims, he wouldn’t have put his name on such a bad study.  So that calls Darry’s credentials into question.  Older and wiser should know better.

Sorry folks, there isn’t anything to see here.  Just a bad wreck on the Airline expressway.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Recently the FAA has required operators of 767 aircraft to inspect the engine pylons on their fleet because cracking was found on a few pylons in the American Airlines fleet recently.  A co-worker expressed concern about this because they will be flying an American 767 in a few weeks and asked about it. 

I would have absolutely no worries about flying on a 767 of any type despite this discovery.  As aircraft age, they do develop new trends in how their structures age.  While the pylons found had cracked, very few, so far, have been discovered to have actual cracks.  I have no doubt that there will be increased inspections on this area of the aircraft and if pylons are showing fatigue, they’ll be replaced immediately. 

Yes, it stirs up pictures of a certain DC-10 from the 1970’s in Chicago.  However, there are differences between the two aircraft.  First, the DC-10 cracks developed because of improper maintenace procedures.  The cracks found on the 767 result from simple metal fatigue.  How is that different?  In the latter case, the progression is much more preditable typically.  In the former situation, severe stress was being placed on parts and in areas where it wasn’t supposed to be.  It is kind of like feeling sore and tired and how you got that way. If you were beat up by someone, you’re sore and tired and you may have other injuries.  If you’re just old, it’s a natural consequence of age and something you can do something about but it doesn’t necessarily indicate catastrophe or other injuries either.

Yes, fly the 767 with confidence.  It’s an aircraft that will be around for some time to come.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Continental Airlines and US Airways have gone from red to black in their latest 2nd quarter earnings reports and it’s a remarkable performance for both airlines.  Continental wobbled a bit in the 1st quarter but came back with a strong report of $233 million report and when you combine that with United Airlines earnings, you see a potential competitor to Delta that is the equal if not superior. 

Delta Airlines, American Airlines and the proposed ContiUnited merger all will result in airlines with revenues between $23 billion and $28 billion and it just strikese a yellow highlighter across American that it had a gap of over $400 million in profit this past quarter.

US Airways’ result, however, is even more impressive.  In fact, US Airways in general is becoming more and more impressive.  Operationally, they’re hitting high numbers on completing flights on time, losing baggage and just generally making people feel good about their choice.  This is not the airline you saw even 2 years ago and if I were asked about flying them today, I would highly recommend them at this point. 

US Airways came in with a net profit of $257 million this quarter and they did this with the least relevant hubs in the industry.  They did it despite the fact that after nearly 5 years their pilots still haven’t decided upon a union and negotiated a contract.  They did it despite becoming the third wheel among the Star Alliance’s US based partners.  They did it despite making Las Vegas, at best, a focus city instead of a hub. 

I would love to see some of that DNA move over to American and get things sorted for once.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

That’s a less than thrilling announcement.  To be fair, American Airlines has lost a great deal less money for Q2 this year than the previous year’s Q2.  This year’s Q2 loss is a bit over $10 million while last year’s was $390 million. 

The problem is that while this is an improvement, it also highlights just how far behind the curve AA is compared to its brother legacy airlines in the United States.  With Delta and United reporting huge profits for Q2 and Continental sure to follow with impressive numbers, American Airlines’ disadvantage is only highlighted. 

American blamed much of its Q2 losses on higher fuel prices.  The problem with that is that the fuel price to AA is essentially the same price it is to every airline in the United States.  The only mitigation for that is hedging and AA does engage in hedging.   So, higher fuel prices over this time last year isn’t really a very satisfying answer for what remains a result that is staggeringly far behind other US legacy airlines.

AA has attempted to mitigate that stark contrast by saying that, over time, other airlines’ costs will begin to approach AA’s again and the gap will narrow considerably.  Well, that sounds good but . . . that’s going to take years and years for that to happen.  What about investors today?  In addition, whether or not that gap narrows is contingent upon how each airline manages itself.  Is the airline doing mortal combat with its labor groups or is it finding common ground and securing productive contracts?   In other words, AA has good PR for that gap but it doesn’t have a substantive answer.

Or does it?  AA also just got DoT and EU anti-trust immunity to form closer partnerships with its Oneworld brothers, British Airways and Iberia Airlines.  In addition, it is on track to receive the same in a partnership with Japan Air Lines across the Pacific Ocean.  AA says that these partnerships could as much as $500 million in revenue by 2012.   That sounds like a lot until you realize that that is a 2+% revenue gain.  And that’s revenue, not profit. 

At the end of the day, we hear a lot about strategies AA has involving new partnerships and re-focusing on core cities.  We hear a lot of mitigation of cost gaps between AA and the rest of our legacy airlines.  We sometimes hear analysts praise AA for avoiding bankruptcy . . . usually right before the analyst highlights just how much that put AA at a disadvantage today. 

What we don’t hear about is substantive and real progress made towards reducing costs.  We hear noise and we see somewhat halfhearted attempts to paint a picture that something is being done but we haven’t heard about the real progress made towards not just containing costs but reducing them. 

At what point do analysts and investors require AA’s executive team to show them the money?

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

United Airlines announced a second quarter profit of $273 million and that’s an impressive result.  If Continental’s come in as impressive as that, the heat will be on American Airlines in ways we can only imagine. 

Speaking of United and Continental . . . their respective pilot groups have come to an agreement on transition.  There is a transition agreement now in place for them but don’t think this means that the groups are near a final merge agreement.  The transition agreement just governs how the two airlines will operate with the pilots during the merger transition.  I suspect that obtaining a final agreement is still going to be a bit bloody.

BA cabin crew have rejected the latest British Airways offer for settlement.  After voting was completed, the latest offer was rejected by about 2/3’s of the labor group.   While that isn’t wholesale rejection, it’s significant enough to be a real problem.  The hold up is the restoration of flight benefits.  BA did finally agree to restore flight benefits to crew that had originally had them taken away for participating in the first round of strikes earlier this year.  However, they were restored with loss of seniority and that means they were restored as if these crew were entry level again.  This is an area that I’m afraid I side with the union on.  Those flight benefits shouldn’t have been taken away as a punitive measure and its the one big misstep by Willie Walsh.  The smart move would be to cave in, get another vote going and come to a final settlement. 

At the Farnborough International Airshow, single aisle aircraft orders are happening at a rapid clip.  Both lessors (GECAS, Air Lease Corp, etc) and airlines themselves (LAN, Flybe, etc) are ordering large amounts of aircraft for delivery over the next several years.  LAN has an agreement for up to 50 Airbus A320 class aircraft and Flybe has ordered 35 of the Embraer E-175 jets.  GECAS, GE’s leasing arm, has ordered 40 737-800 aircraft.  Still, I think this reflect the rather dismal orders placed last year more than it does resounding growth for the next few years.  In other words, I think a lot of these are replacement equipment rather than aircraft purchased for growth.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Delta announced a 2nd quarter profit of $467  million.  That’s not an annual profit.  That’s a quarterly result and an impressive one at that.  That is coming from the merger of Delta and Northwest that formed a $28 Billion a year company less than 2 years ago. It’s notable that both Delta and Northwest managed to restructure their costs through bankruptcy reorganization. 

American Airlines, a company with revenues of nearly $24 Billion, is not expected to earn a profit this year.  This disparity really highlights the disadvantage American Airlines has with respect to costs and its failure to contain and restructure those costs even during the last 2 years of crisis in the airline industry.

And this is why ‘Continental and United want to merge so badly.  It shows a pathway to greater profitability and that’s something that has to exist in this industry going forward.  In fact, I find that Delta result so impressive, I really wonder if it won’t make LCC’s start looking at each other as well.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

There are several reports out now that Emirates Airlines is going to announce an order for 30 Boeing 777 aircraft at this year’s Farnborough International Airshow in the United Kingdom this week.  I’m sure that this will further strike fear in the hearts of airline executives and I’ll repeat THIS response.  Just because they order it doesn’t mean they’ll know what to do with it when the time comes.

Another interesting piece of news is that Air France has invited Airbus and Boeing to respond with a proposal for supplying as many as 100 widebody aircraft over the next decade.  The assumption is a mix of both the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787.  I suspect conventional wisdom will give Airbus the upper hand (we are talking about Air France based in France where Airbus aircraft like the A350 will be made and where the French insist on buying local) but I like Boeing chances for this.  Boeing could win this order by offering a mix of 787 and 777 aircraft with GE engines.  Air France already has a large fleet of 777 aircraft, experience with the GE engines and may well be attracted by the expected quick and relatively cheap transition for pilots to move between the two aircraft.

Steven Udvar Hazy has his new company, Air Lease Company, and reportedly will be at Farnborough on the hunt for building his new portfolio of lease aircraft.  While money is starting to flow back into the lease business, I do wonder if the game hasn’t changed since the early 2000’s.  Airlines have seen the benefits of owning their aircraft because in bad times, they can leverage those aircraft for more operating capital in those bad times.  In addition, I don’t think Airbus and Boeing are in the mood to offer huge discounts to the lessors anymore.  If Michael O’Leary of Ryanair can’t get a deal for 200+ aircraft, why should we think lessors will?

Randy Tinseth, VP of Marketing for Boeing, will be releasing Boeing’s most recent current market outlook at Farnborough and it’s quite a positive one.  Boeing sees a need for 30,900 new aircraft between now and 2029 of which they expect 21,000 to be single aisle airliners.  They’re forecast is based on a growth rate of 5+% per year in the airline industry and that’s based growth rates since 1978 deregulation in the US (which have averaged 5% per year.) 

What’s interesting to me is that they see the regional jet share of that outlook as being significantly less than in the past.  I think that depends on what you call a regional jet.  If you’re speaking of 50 or less seats, I agree.  If we’re talking about 75 to 110 seats, I’m not sure I do agree.  Indeed, I think that the 90 to 130 seat market is going to be very hot and I think that Boeing and Airbus ceding that market is a mistake.  Even car manufacturers have discovered that it’s wise to cultivate customers at the entry level as opposed to waiting 20 years for them to be able to afford your product.

Finally, I understand that Boeing’s 787, ZA003, has landed in the UK and that marks its first appearance in Europe.  FleetBuzzEditorial.Com got some photos of the 787 landing at Farnborough which can be seen HERE.  I still really dislike the demo interior they’ve installed in that aircraft.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
2 Comments »

and I say “D’uh”. 

The GAO report on airline fees is, frankly, more concerned with lost tax revenue because of de-bundling of “services”.  Baggage fees as well as other fees aren’t subject to the excise tax that are paid on the fare price of the tickets.  I’m wholly unsurprised that this hole is being revealed and talked about and I do expect that we’ll see that situation “fixed” some time in the future although I would point out that the airline indudstry is already highly taxed and the decrease in revenue over the past 2 years likely has to do with depressed traffic levels far more than lost revenue on de-bundling.

However, it makes both a good and official observation that the systems for purchasing a ticket at this point are in disarray.  An area that I’ve already addressed once this week prior to the release of the GAO report.  I’ve wondered whether or not the systems currently in place are legal.  I suspect they are legal but I also suspect that they dance awfully close to the line when it comes to fair trade practices.

Regardless, this is an area where some regulation is appropriate.  Customers are at a great disadvantage because of they cannot identify *all* the fees they are potentially subject to when arranging for their trip.  Baggage fees are, in some cases, not revealed until after a purchase.  If they are revealed prior to the purchase, they’re revealed just before consummating the transaction and long after price comparisons have taken place for a trip. 

But it’s not just baggage fees.  It’s fees for assigning seats, for getting good seats, for making a reservation via phone vs the internet and many others.  Some regulation that enforces transparency for pricing and which allows the consumer to make a reasonable comparison in prices is appropriate in this case.  No, airlines don’t want that transparency because they know that if they can get you to the moment of truth, getting your credit card out for the purchase, they are almost certainly assured of the sale. 

But our government isn’t here to serve airlines purposes solely.  By all means, allow them to compete on price and I’m willing to concede the point on baggage fees at this point (which doesn’t mean I like 1st bag checked fees one bit at all).  However, enforce transparency so that the consumer can make an informed purchase. 

We require this when it comes to purchasing an automobile or an appliance or most anything else.  Why shouldn’t it be required for purchasing transportation?

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
3 Comments »

A number of airline and aviation bloggers have been writing posts about the 3 Hour Rule since statistics for on-time departures, arrivals, cancellations and delays came out for the first full month under this rule.   The Cranky Flier feels certain that this rule is inconveniencing more people now.  Dan Webb writing Things In The Sky thinks it might be too early to make a final call on the rule.   PlaneBuzz speculates on whether or not the FAA will send a fine to the airlines who exceeded the 3 Hour Rule in that first full month (There were five 3 Hour Rule “violations” in May). 

For readers of this or any other blog on airlines, there are a few things to keep in mind about this rule and the statistics.  First, this rule wasn’t put into place because of statistics.  If statistics had driven the rule making, we wouldn’t have a rule.   The rule was driven by egregious delays that far exceeded 3 hours and it was far more political than fact driven. 

Second, the first month of statistics on this mean absolutely nothing.  Frankly, if you were going to use statistics to judge this rule, I think you would need, at minimum, 24 months of contiguous data at the least.  A 5 year data set would be far better.   It isn’t just airline decisions driving these statistics.  It’s weather, passenger trends, disrupted airport operations (for non-weather related reasons) and other factors.  The variables in play here are far too many to make a judgement based on statistics. 

Third, airline fans tend to favor airlines or, rather, they favor airline operations.  And that subset of airline fans we know as frequent flier freaks are even more favorably disposed to airline operations.  We’re a biased group because we see things from both the inside and outside and we tend to excuse events that appear to occur because of one-time conditions.  We tend to excuse what isn’t in the norm because of conditions that are outside of an airlines’ control.  While we may think we have far more than average knowledge and therefore better equipped to make that judgement on a 3 hour rule, we really aren’t.  We have the same bias that airlines as a whole have.

A politically driven rule generally occurs because of a general public perception, not statistics.  The general public perception, whether its based on fact or fiction, is really the controlling factor and the public perception of these delays is *bad*.   It’s bad because airlines have done nothing to change that perception and its bad because those who are trying to explain these delays are coming off as apologists for airlines rather than as subject matter experts.  There is a disconnect between the airline industry and the public consumer in that industry. 

In many ways, this problem of delays could have been solved by some saavy marketing.  The defensive posture airlines have taken during these events has done them no good and apologizing profusely and promising to “fix it” going forward now sounds hollow because these events continue to happen and airlines continue to often appear to have no clue about the passengers being affected by it.  

Airlines have received a lot of bounty from the public over the past several years.  Special considerations have been granted to the industry over and over, particularly since the tragedy of September 11th, 2001, and the airline industry has not acted very grateful nor very responsive in that same time period.  To the contrary, airlines have generally responded with acts that, to the public, appear overtly hostile to the customer.  The general public, right or wrong on its facts, is now entirely resentful of the entire industry. 

This is much more an airline marketing and PR problem than it is an airline operations problem. 

The rule isn’t going to go away and anyone who thinks there is a chance that it will is enjoying a nice fantasy.  The rule is a consequence of airlines doing a poor job to fix an admittedly tiny problem and then acting officious with anyone challenging their behaviour.  Failure to self regulate and respond *and* communicate during these problems created the rule.  There is a lack of public trust when it comes to airlines and that will take a decade or more to fix.  The best any airline or the industry itself can ever hope to accomplish is to hold off even more restrictive rules in the future and that will only be done by being better public citizens themselves.

Do I think the 3 Hour Rule is a success or failure?  I have no idea.  I would note that, anecdotally, the public isn’t crying out to the news media about being delayed an extra 12 hours because of a 3 Hour Rule cancellation.  Until they do, I am extremely hesitant to declare the 3 Hour Rule a failure.

Filed under: Air Traffic Control, Airline News, Airline Service, Deregulation, Frequent Flier by ajax
1 Comment »

I’ve thrown a few punches at Virgin America lately and their seeming cowardice when it comes to flying the markets they said they would fly.  Over the past few weeks, each time I’ve done so, I’ve realized that, in many respects, the same applies to jetBlue. 

David Neeleman has been gone for nearly 3 years and I see an airline that is kind of stagnate.  I’ll grant that times have been hard for the past 2 years but it’s notable that the airlines who’ve seen profits even in those times are the ones who have grown, not contracted.  They are the ones who had some vision to risk some new routes, not contract and play it safe. 

jetBlue, as an airline, has always impressed me with their courage and their vision.  They started in markets where there was more than adequate service and they made a difference not just because they were an LCC charging the lowest fair but because they developed an immediate and exceptional reputation for how they treated their customers.  Their amentities were innovative but it was how jetBlue valued you as a customer that won people over.

But where is that risk and vision and, frankly, customer treatment today?  The Cranky Flier recently had a post on their new food offerings.  You can read that HERE.   It really is illustrative of just exactly how jetBlue has evolved in the past 3 years.  They aren’t competing, they’re now simply matching what other airlines have to offer and holding on to what they have instead of growing themselves into markets where they genuinely have something to offer.

If an airline has the courage to get started in the New York City area and compete on some of the most important routes out of that area (and other major metro areas) and succeed, shouldn’t we see that as a successful model for the future?  jetBlue appears to now be sidestepping any opportunities to compete and instead defend their marketshare.

A partnership with American Airlines is a visionary step?  Really? 

I think it hardly surprises us that the stock price of jetBlue isn’t reflecting its former glory anymore.

How about coming down to DFW airport, setting up shop in Terminal E and going head to head with AA and Southwest.  If you can win in New York, you can win here. 

Instead, I read about “possible” nerd routes between Austin and San Jose.  C’mon jetBlue, you’re on the East Coast and the West Coast and down in the Caribbean.  Is it really possible that you’re afraid to enter into markets like Chicago, St. Louis, Denver, DFW or Houston?  And by enter, I don’t mean a couple of flights to your hub cities.  You have one of the best service products around (although it has been eroded some) and it’s time to find new focus cities and quite ignoring the middle US hub cities.  You can play there if you have some vision and courage.

One thing I’ll say about Southwest over the past 2 years is that they haven’t been afraid to explore opportunities.  Even as they slowed their growth, they still sought out opportunities and took on some risk to make things happen.  I’m not advocating that any airline bet the farm on anything.  I am, however, advocating that LCC’s like jetBlue and VirginAmerica really aren’t engaging where they can play and compete and I wonder what’s holding them back these days. 

I speculate often about that and I do wonder if it isn’t the CEO’s of those two companies.  Both Dave Barger and David Cush have long and significant histories at legacy airlines.  Continental and American Airlines respectively.   It can be very hard to break habits you learn at that kind of airline.  They’re both much more suited to a Chief Operating Officer role than a CEO role in my opinion and the boards of directors at both airlines could stand to start looking for someone who isn’t tied to “that’s how we do it in this business”.  A new David Neeleman or Herb Kelleher is what leads those airlines to the next level.  They’re out there, you just have to find them.

Sean Menke might just be available, it is certainly worth calling him.

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

Last Tuesday, the regular Delta Airlines flight from Portland, OR to Amsterdam experienced  a bit of mechanical trouble with cabin pressurization.  The Airbus A330 had to be diverted when it had already started out over the Atlantic and chose Goose Bay as its diversion, the closest airport available.

After landing in heavy rain, the passengers were house in the military base housing and fed in the military base cafeteria and generally killed time on base by doing things like playing tag in the parking lot.  It was an idyllic vacation.

A substitute aircraft didn’t arrive until Wednesday and, when it did, the crew for that aircraft timed out and couldn’t make the remaining 5 hour trip to Amsterdam.

Several passengers whose purpose in Europe had already passed were unable to simply turn around and go home but, instead, had to finish their trip to Amsterdam instead.  The original crew flew the now repaired original aircraft with passengers late Wednesday evening.

Delta gets you there.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

The American Airlines pilots union, APA (or Allied Pilots Association), has new leadership now and the President of that union, David Bates, is already sounding like someone far more reasonable than his predecessor, Lloyd Hill.  Bates acknowledges that to recover all the salary cuts given years ago is not possible to do in one fell swoop.  That’s a signal of a willingness to find some common ground in an agreement.

However, I remain concerned about a few things.  First, this continues to be about salary above anything else.  I understand that there continue to be pilots who are resentful of not earning a pre-2001 salary today but it seems unproductive to focus only on that. 

A better approach would be getting quality of life improved in return for productivity gains in the next contract.  I know of a blog written by a pilot who has spent 11 years at AA and the best he can do is hold a reserve line as an FO on the MD-80.  That has to be highly unsatisfying to him and others in the same position.  

One complication is American’s focus on its core cities:  LA, New York, Dallas, Chicago and Miami.  Those are very expensive cities to live in with the possible exception of Dallas.   Finding a better way to avoid longer commutes and longer duty days that occur day after day might just help pilots feel a bit more satisfied.  While these pilots get to ride aircraft for “free” to their duty stations, there are a number of associated costs that come with that option that are paid for by pilots.  Little things like food or a crash pad or a hotel room.

In fact, I’ve never understood why an airline like AA doesn’t offer some sort of accommodations in its large base cities to help with quality of life issues. 

Finding a way for a pilot to do his duty hours, get to and from home reasonably and otherwise be a productive member of the crew would go a long way towards making pilots feel appreciated.   If this approach was offered, pilots should take a long look at it instead of just counting dollars up.

One comment I’ve read does bother me.  Bates made the comment that many of these pilots families “had to pull their children out of school.”   What the hell?  It’s poor form to complain about taking your children out of school when that can only possibly mean you took them out of PRIVATE SCHOOL.  Sorry but a lot of people have had to readjust that way and you won’t get much public sympathy for not being able to afford private school for your children.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
5 Comments »

Now that more than a week has passed, I want to revisit my first post about the Virgin Atlantic flight diversion to Bradley International Airport last week.  You can read my original post HERE.

First, I think both Congressional and administration officials have grossly overreacted to this event.  This was not a 6 or 7 hour event.  It was a 4 hour event.   And the primary cause of keeping people contained on the aircraft was weather and then no available customs and immigrations officers to process passengers.  You see, it might be called Bradley *International* Airport but it’s “international” aspect derives from relatively short flights to Canada.

Now we have Senators and Secretaries demanding that we impose a 3 Hour rule on international carriers and decrying the inhumanity of what those poor people experienced.   Indeed, the more these people pound desktops, the more they reveal their ignorance.

Folks, I’ve sat in an aircraft waiting 4 hours to take off a number of times.  It’s boring.  It’s tedious but it isn’t inhumane.  The same is true of a flight that likely took about 7 hours from London to the NYC area.  

The real issue here is what we allow when it comes to a diversion and the reason for that diversion.  I said it in my first post and I’ll say it again:  Virgin Atlantic’s chief mistake was in putting themselves into a position to have to use Bradley or choosing Bradley for its relatively low cost to land, refuel and take-off again.  There were plenty of better alternatives and VA didn’t choose one. 

If we presume a 200 nautical mile diversion capability, let’s look at what was in range from Newark (EWR).  Click THIS MAP to see what was available.

This flight could have made Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, any of the NYC airports, Washington Dulles and maybe even Pittsburg.  Short of a real fuel emergency, this flight should have made for one of those major airports that has full facilities for a widebody jet carry international passengers. 

The fact that we don’t distinguish what is and isn’t a legal diversion in a non-emergency event is a bigger part of the problem for international flights.  We make any airport that has the ability to land the aircraft a legal airport for diversion and I’m not so sure we should.  Perhaps a better rule would be to insist on the ability to divert (for non-emergency reasons and weather ain’t an emergency in most cases) to a *capable* airport designated as such for an international flight. 

Regardless, one of the reasons given for the delays was lack of customs officials.  The airport would not dis-embark the passengers until they had staff.  I may be wrong but I believe they could have allowed them off the aircraft *if* they were kept in a sterile area until customs officials arrived.  Whether or not they had a sterile area large enough is another question but also reinforces the need for diverting to airports that are properly equipped for these events. 

Who is at fault?  Virgin!  Bradley!  The FAA!  The passengers! No one!

The better question is how do we fix this so that passengers can reasonable expect reasonable treatment in a reasonable time period in non-emergency diversions.  And reasonable really is probably some amount of time between 3 and 4 hours.  

Look, no reasonable passenger is going to be outraged by many hours of delay when the aircraft engine shuts down and the flight has to divert to the first and best available airport during a real emergency.   Sure, there is always the chance of a crank or arrogant passenger being outraged no matter what but in those events, they just don’t count and virtually all passengers understand the nature of a real emergency.

The real failures are in events like these where the pilots gambled (on circling and hoping they could land too long), the airline and pilots choosing a poor airport, the FAA not distinguishing what is and isn’t an appropriate diversion airport in an event like this (and the FAA has no right to be “outraged” at VA since they themselves make an airport like Bradley legal for this kind of diversion) and where airlines continue to be ill prepared to respond to passenger needs during such events.  Might I point out that I would find it extremely hard to believe that someone couldn’t deliver a little food or attach ground air conditioning (if that airport has it) or a ground power unit (which I’m sure they have) to help provide power for air conditioning?

Filed under: Air Traffic Control, Airline News, Airline Service, Airports, security by ajax
No Comments »

The Chicago Tribune has THIS story on American Airlines and their desire to lower the amount of fuel being carried as reserve on an average flight.  In short, AA has discovered that it is carrying an excessive amount of reserve fuel on the average flight.  What’s excessive?  Some aircraft are landing with almost twice the amount mandated by the FAA and let me point out that the FAA is a pretty conservative organization.

Predictably, American pilots see this as an instrusion on their authority and a dangerous path.   But is it?  Currently, the FAA mandates that you have 45 minutes of fuel reserves and that’s worked very,  very well over the years.  Interestingly enough, American itself requires 65 minutes of fuel reserves but the aircraft are landing with an average of 92 minutes of fuel reserves and that’s a problem. 

Why?  Because when you carry more fuel, you burn more fuel to carry that extra weight.  All American wants to do is get their average down much more closely to their mandated reserve number of 65 minutes.  Doing so would save them the cost of carry 30 extra minutes of fuel, which over the course of a year in a fleet of over 600 aircraft will translate into millions of dollars of savings. 

Captains, traditionially with final say on what fuel they’ll require for a flight, say that this is an intrustion on their authority and potentially puts them into the position of being reprimanded or fired if they do it too often because the airline wants pilots to justify extra fuel by filling out a form.   I think the pilots union would love for this to be another bone of contention between pilots and the company. 

However, every airline should be doing this for a variety of reasons.  First, we really do know how much fuel a typical flight should carry and we know that by route and model of aircraft and the process for figuring this out is genuine science and genuinely accurate.   Airlines do *not* want their flights to routinely lack enough of fuel that causes diversions, trust me.  Every flight that has to stop and refuel represents a flight that just lost a spectacular amount of money.

Does AA’s form make the process potentially punitive?  Yes, I think it does and I think it should.   American’s pilots are, quite literally, the best, most experienced pilot corps in the world.  The fact that AA’s average has gone up to 92 minutes of fuel left upon landing is shameful for those pilots.  They should be nailing the company average 10 months out of 12 and they’re not getting close.  So, yes, I think pilots should justify loading more fuel and if they’re inappropriately loading too much fuel, yes, I think they should be counseled on that too. 

Just like any other employee today in America’s workplaces who is wasteful and inefficient.

There are legitimate reasons to add additional fuel before leaving.  If an airport is particularly congested or experiencing long delays, a pilot will add extra fuel for taxi purposes.  If a flight route suddenly has developing weather crossing it, a pilot may add some additional fuel to fly around the weather.  There are other legitimate reasons as well and there is no reason why pilots can’t simply document their reasons for increasing their fuel reserves on a particular flight.

US Airways did this a couple of years ago and, yes, a few pilots were sent for extra training and counseling after repeatedly adding more fuel than necessary for flights.  Ultimately, US Airways and the pilots came to an agreement on how to work out those conflicts and the airline now saves money by meeting its reserve goals (also in excess of FAA minimums). 

This conflict is a union conflict, not a safety conflict.  More than a decade ago when fuel prices suddenly rose significantly, all Southwest Airlines had to do was communicate to their flight dispatchers and pilots that they needed to save more fuel and suddenly better, more fuel efficient altitudes were being planned and pilots were being exceptionally aggressive in requesting higher altitudes and more direct approaches to airports to save that money.  Safety wasn’t compromised and millions of dollars were saved.  If American has the most experienced crew of pilots, Southwest probably has the second most experienced crew.

At the end of the day, saving this money is essential for success in the airline world.  Pilots not only shouldn’t be pushing back on this idea, they should be embracing it and working even harder to find places for their airline to remain competitive.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Adding further shame to American Airlines, look who has revamped their website for full disclosure of fares and fees.

Spirit Airlines. Read the story HERE.

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

And, no, jetBlue isn’t buying the 737.  I’ve found three interesting items to comment on involving the 737 and jetBlue and New York city separately.

First, Southwest Airlines COO and Exec VP Mike Van de Ven has made a statement that re-engined aircraft whether they are a 737 or A320 won’t offer enough improved performance to be attractive to Southwest.   And I think there is a message here, particularly to Boeing, about what SWA wants and may be willing to buy.  Southwest is a huge customer  for Boeing on the 737 and Southwest is just the kind of customer Boeing wants to kick-off with.  

I think Southwest wants a new 737 replacement from Boeing and I think they’re signaling that they would be willing to become the launch customer for the right aircraft.  COO Van de Ven said: 

“I believe that a new narrowbody aircraft will produce one of the single most significant steps toward meeting our economic challenges.”

If nothing else, it’s a message to Boeing saying “please don’t re-warm the 737 again, we need you to work on a new replacement and deliver that as soon as possible.”

The Fort Worth Star Telegram Sky Talk blog has THIS story about the DFW Airport Board and its recent retreat.  It’s notable that they mention that they’re trying to use incentives to get jetBlue to start service between DFW and Boston.  Currently, American Airlines is the only non-stop airline on that route and, no, the fares are not cheap.  Frankly, I don’t think jetBlue will cooperate given their recently announced interline agreement and slot swap with AA.

However, this points up my chief rant about my home town area.  We do not have enough competition at DFW airport and I believe that AA is challengeable on both  fares and service.   Delta has begun challenging American on the Chicago – NYC (La Guardia) route and American is responding, currently, with triple air miles awards to retain its customers. 

More significant is that Delta has decided to go head to head with American on a route that American has *owned* for decades.  The big worry is about mergers and reduced competition they might create in the US market.  To the contrary, I think the latest round of mergers is going to lead to 4 legacy carriers who are going to start looking at each other’s dominance at various airports and, in particular, who isn’t making money and cannot afford to indefinitely “buy” routes with low fares.

That would be American Airlines.  US Airways is a bit weak in its route system but they earn profits.  AA doesn’t and hasn’t in a long time.  Delta’s incursion on the NYC-Chicago route is novel and it may or may not work but Delta has enough financial staying power to sit on that effort for a long time in hopes of building the business.   What happens when someone like ContiUnited comes along decides that AA shouldn’t own DFW-LAX?  I think we’re going to see plenty of competition in the airline world.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »