The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this story today.

 

Northwest Airlines has disclosed that it has written off its $213 million investment in the partnership with TPG Capital (Texas Pacific Group) that owns Midwest Airlines. Not only does it reflect Northwest’s view on the survival of Midwest Airlines, such a move also likely influences other investors views of both Midwest and the airline industry.

 

Texas Pacific Group is not in the habit of investing in companies and letting them fail but without new leadership and a new strategy for attracting traffic, Midwest has a very poor outlook. TPG does have leadership that is famliar with the airline industry such as David Bonderman (founder) who acquired Continental Airlines in 1993 and who was instrumental in bringing Gordon Bethune into the company from Boeing (trivia: Gordon Bethune worked for Braniff as VP of Maintenance at the same time my father was EVP of Marketing.)

 

However, at this point TPG would have to look seriously at acquiring another airline and merging it with Midwest. That would difficult given Midwest’s fleet (Boeing 717 and now grounded MD-80), its hubs (Milwaukee and Kansas City) and its expensive labor force (as much as 40% more expensive than industry average.)

 

Midwest has been unable to define itself as either a premium service or low cost airline and its struggle to be all things to all people is bleeding it of cash and opportunity. It would have been much better off merging with Airtran when that airline began making offers in December of 2006. Airtran already operates a large fleet of Boeing 717s and Boeing 737 aircraft and could have brought more long haul routes to Milwaukee and increased traffic at Kansas City as well. Even Midwests strategy of Signature and Saver service (effectively a 4 abreast business class and 5 abreast coach service) mates very naturally to AirTran’s own service product.  In fact, it continues to defeat me why Midwest so ardently defended against the merger in favor of TPG and Northwest except that, perhaps, the senior executive staff saw a chance to remain in power.

 

At present, there are no other airlines that make for an attractive partner with Midwest except AirTran and AirTran is now expanding its presence at Milwaukee with both short and long haul flights on its own.  In short, AirTran doesn’t need Midwest anymore and the only business case for acquiring them is to shrink capacity on Milwaukee routes its either operating or plans to operate.  Indeed, AirTran operates on a business model that fits nicely inside the MKE Airports strategy of being Chicago’s 3rd Airport by offering high value, low cost service to a wide variety of destinations.

 

Fans of Midwest Airlines celebrate its cookies and high quality service.  Unfortunately, what Milwaukee really requires is a low cost airline that connects to a variety of destinations important to Milwaukee businesses. 

 

AirTran has the fuel efficient equipment to operate the soon to be discontinued Midwest routes of MKE-SFO, MKE-SEA, MKE-LAX and MKE-Florida.  In fact, it already operates flights into all of those areas and has the ability to feed far more traffic into those routes than Midwest was able to do with its relatively small network.

 

Look for Midwest to continue to be squeezed by both AirTran and Northwest in the next few months with little space to maneuver.

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

This story was passed on to me today: Just Plane Art

 

Simply bringing a more human touch to the flight experience changes passenger impressions forever.  It’s a shame that more airlines don’t have more people like this woman, Jewel Van Valin of Delta. 

 

I used to say that my dream job would be bringing a more human touch to service at some place like American Airlines.  Teaching flight crews the art of using humour to deflect the problems of that day’s flight would raise the bar on customer experience everywhere.

 

 

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

The USA Today aviation blog, Today in the Sky, mentioned THIS story on ATW today.  Tim Clark of Emirates says they won’t be joining alliances and he feels that if you need an alliance, your business model is flawed.   Just a few days ago, I wrote this.

 

Just a couple of days ago, I was questioning what happens to airlines like Emirates who eschew alliances?  I’m not sure this is credible criticism from someone who has commited his airline to ordering 58 Airbus A380 aircraft either.   I still can’t identify why connecting via Dubai (or anywhere else in the UAE) is more attractive and I don’t know why we would consider them an attractive cargo stop either (other than for cargo directly on a path intersecting with Dubai.)

 

This is Dubai’s new airport, Al-Maktoum International Airport.  While it will be an impressive facility by anyone’s definition, it was built on the premise that it is perfectly situated to be a global hub.

 

No, really.  Yeah, the problem with this world is that no matter how “ideal” you believe yourself to be, circumstances have a way of teaching you a lesson.  Look up Montreal-Mirabel airport for an example.  Better yet, here it is.

 

If you plan to use even 50% of the planned capacity of that airport in one year, you would need more than just one or 3 airlines operating from it.  You would need a large group of international airlines operating to and from that hub and probably it would need to be a large alliance network airport at that.

 

The planned capacity at that airport is about twice that of London Heathrow.  London Heathrow gets its traffic from a vast array of airlines and has had to organize itself around alliance needs lately.   At that, it has the traffic it has because not only does it offer good hub connections, it’s a major world city connected to other major world cities. 

 

Dubai isn’t a major world city.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

Yes, flying from point A to point B is a challenge these days.  Particularly if you are connecting through a hub or traveling to or from one.  Arm yourself with phone numbers.

 

Are you a frequent flier member of the airline you are taking?  If not, join right away and you usually can do it online.  If you are a member, good.  Why?  Because most frequent flier programs have dedicated phone numbers you can use to access a reservations agent.  Get that phone number and access to those agents. 

 

If you are flying internationally, get the phone number of the alliance (OneWorld, Star Alliance, SkyTeam, etc) your airline belongs to.  Frequently member airlines will cooperate with you when you are having trouble with a connection. 

 

Look for codeshare partners on flights you want to save money.  For instance, when I was traveling to Moscow from Dallas, I saved over $200 by calling Finnair and booking the flight through them instead of American Airlines and the very same route using the same flights on American Airlines flight numbers was really that much more.  In addition, because I was flying as a Finnair passenger, I got priority boarding *and* frequent flier points on American Airlines.  I should also mention that when I called Finnair, I got a nice reservations agent immediately instead of an automated system hopelessly trying to recognize my voice.  Sweet, huh?

 

When you are going to be in a foreign city, leave prepared with the booking phone number of your airline in that city.  Even better, travel with a cell phone that you can access service globally if possible.  That way, when you are stuck at London Heathrow with 20,000 other passengers, you can call the US and get a hold of your airline there.  I use ATT (Cingular) service myself which is a GSM system that is compatible with most systems around the world.  Yes, the fee to call the US can be a bit expensive but it is a lot cheaper than battling your way through problems locally . . . sometimes.

 

Consider traveling to a different hub than London or Amsterdam.  The truth is, it takes about the same time to fly from DFW to Frankfurt and then on to another destination in Europe as it does to fly to London and use their preferred partners.  There are plenty of hubs to choose from such as Frankfurt, Munich, Madrid, Brussells, Rome, Zurich and many others.  Try a foreign airline that offers Frequent Flier points on your plan but which uses a less crowded hub to connect their traffic through.

 

That same strategy can be used domestically as well.  Look for less congested hubs.  Instead of Chicago or Detroit, consider St. Louis or Cleveland.  Instead of Atlanta, consider Charlotte.  And choose on the basis of seasonal weather.  You do *not* want to fly into New York City in the summer unless it is your final destination for instance.  Likewise, Chicago and Detroit can often be affected by weather in the oasisnaturalcleaning.com summer.  DFW or Atlanta airport hubs can often be much more reliable because they eperience drier weather in the middle of the summer.   

 

Check Weather.Com and see what the seasonal weather is like at your choice of hubs and plan accordingly.  It usually doesn’t cost more to go through a different hub and you can save a great deal of time connecting through a hub that is slightly out of the way as opposed to trying to connect through a busy, weather affected hub.  It isn’t a guarantee against problems but it does greatly mitigate against potential problems.

 

 

Filed under: Travel Hints by ajax
1 Comment »

The latest on-time statistics are out on US airlines and the Dallas Morning News has them here.

 

I’m struck by  more than one item. First, how strange is it that 2 commuter airlines that fly for legacy airlines have better on-time numbers than any 48 state legacy airline? These airlines fly aircraft that is subject to more technical delays and cancellations. It boggles my mind that SkyWest and Pinnacle Airlines are at the top.

 

Skywest flies for United, Delta and Midwest as their feeder “connection” airline using CRJ200/700ER/900 aircraft (and a few Embraer EMB-120 turbo-props).  Ordinarily, the Bombardier aircraft is not universally known for its dispatch reliability but the new(er) CRJ700/900 must be doing much better than its older cousin the CRJ200. 

 

Pinnacle Airlines flies the CRJ200/440/900 aircraft, all similar or the same as Skywest, for Northwest Airlines and Delta.  Right now, you could drop me with a feather.  In addition to the aircraft, these airlines fly out of major hubs that are often disastrously affected by summertime weather. 

 

What is a bit more surprising (if you can believe it) is that US Airways is the top on-time non-LCC legacy carrier.  There are reports that they’ve made drastic improvements at their Philadelphia hub.  Right now, they are neck and neck with Southwest Airlines and, frankly, I’d say you are doing pretty good to be playing ball in Southwest’s neighborhood.

 

What I have to ask is this:  Is it an anomaly (unlikely as US Airways has been climbing steadily) or is because they’re able to depart on-time more often since instituting charges for checking bags?  If this climb in reliability is due to changes in customer baggage habits, look out. 

 

Three LCC carriers, Southwest, Frontier and Airtran, are virtually neck and neck in these ratings and, again, I wonder if this might be due to people traveling with more carry-on luggage than in the past. 

 

American Airlines is dead last (even beat by American Eagle) in the ratings and that, to me, indicates graver trouble at that airline.  There have been some reports of pilots becoming slightly inflexible with respect to work rules.  I believe it is more a symptom of an airline that has become sick in morale and flexibility.  Gerard Arpey won’t fix this with more mattressmakers.com analysis, better financing or capacity constraints.  It gets fixed with leadership.  Something that American Airlines really hasn’t been blessed with since Robert Crandall retired. 

 

Finally, if you offered me a bet that Mesa would have better on-time ratings than American Eagle, I’d have taken the bet with glee.  When you are worse than Mesa, you’ve got real problems.

 

 

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

Etihad, Emirates and Qatar all have massive orders for massive aircraft.  Each is betting on the UAE (United Arab Emirates) becoming *the* international hub for global travel.   It is certain that each of these airlines is well funded largely from oil profits.  Nothing wrong with that.

 

But what happens when that funding gets tight?  Further, can these airlines really sustain themselves on what is really a global hub model given that most markets are fracturing into point-to-point missions?

 

Aircraft no longer need to fly one-stop between the US and India, for instance.  The 777-200LR makes it possible for an airline to fly a full passenger and cargo load between these two countries.   Why is it better to connect in the UAE when traveling to Australia as opposed to Singapore?  And what happens when we really do have aircraft capable of flying London-Sydney non-stop?

 

These airlines are clearly attempting to build a global network but how does that serve someone in Europe, North America and South America when we can already fly direct in most cases and fly on airlines that reward us with frequent flier perks for doing so?

 

So far, each of these airlines has not really embraced the alliance model either.  How will Emirates, for instance, ensure that they can fill A380 aircraft daily flights from JFK to Dubai without having some assurances of feed from the US domestic market? 

 

I smell a market crash coming one day. 

 

It seems the next step in airline network strategies is to further embrace the major alliances.  The three major alliances have worked diligently to craft networks that are global in reach.  With anti-trust immunity, they can begin to cooperate more closely on schedule and pricing too.  At what point do these alliances become a new kind of airline? 

 

It seems that the Big 3 in alliances could one day become the Big 3 airlines in all but official name.  It may  be possible that even airline identities will be blended into the alliance identity rather than the participating airline.   What I’m suggesting is that we may one day see OneWorld 777s and Star Alliance A330s instead of AA / BA 777s and Lufthansa A330s. 

 

It seems that closer ties and participation in each other’s planning might just result in these kinds of identities.

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

A smaller, western US airline was involved in a tragic mid-air collision that resulted in their airplanes being painted yellow.  Who was that airline?

Filed under: Trivia by ajax
No Comments »

Driving to work today, I spotted an AA MD-82.  There just isn’t an uglier livery than AA’s.  What happens when the next generation of aircraft are introduced into their fleet?  Will they just paint them all grey and be done with it? 

 

A lot of US Airlines don’t have the greatest livery.  Northwest, in my opinion, is the exception.  I think their colours and design are fantastic.  It will be a shame to see that scheme go. 

 

I like Continental and Delta’s tail designs but I’m just not much for the Bland Fuselage look.

 

 

Filed under: Airline Fleets by ajax
1 Comment »

My wife and I went on a peace-keeping mission yesterday by visiting DFW airport to do some plane spotting. She’s actually quite enthusiastic about these trips and, I hate to admit, is better at framing a shot of an airplane than I am. Damn it.

 

We have 4 locations that we often visit. You can see them all on this Google Map.

 

Yesterday, we visited the Temporary Founders’ Plaza location for about 5 minutes to see who was on the northwest freight ramp. We were hoping to spot a China Cargo 747 that was scheduled to take off about 20 minutes after we arrived. We didn’t see that airpane but we did see a UPS 747 on the ramp (a passenger conversion of a 747-200) and a North American Airlines 757 at Terminal B (Braniff’s Old Terminal 2W).

 

We then went to Minter’s Chapel Cemetary located on DFW property on the southwest side of the airport. From here, you can view spectacular take-offs and the occasional aircraft taxiing by. Unfortunately, this location generally offers many different varieties of American Airlines aircraft and very little else.

 

There were 2 particular airplanes we wanted to try to get today. A China Cargo 747-400 and a British Airways 777-200ER that were scheduled to take off. The first was the China Cargo and it never did. I had my laptop connected to the internet via my cell phone but flight in FlightAware.com never changed its schedule and never showed itself as having taken off.

 

After more than hour of photographs, we were leaning against our car in the shade and suddenly my wife asked “What is that airline?” and pointed. Ummm, it was the British Airways 777 we were waiting for. By this time, I had lost the batteries in my camera so she took the photos with OK results. (It was a long, long shot for her camera.)

 

After getting that photo, we decided it was time to pack and leave. As we were putting together our things, I looked to the northwest and saw this rather large aircraft coming in for a landing.

 

Me: “Hey! That looks like a 747 coming in!”
Carolina: “Yup. We aren’t going to miss it like all the other 747s are we?”

 

You see, we have this history of leaving the airport, looking over our shoulders and seeing a 747 coming in for a landing. Not a good history but a history.

 

After landing and taxiing, we discovered it was the China Cargo 747 and was just late arriving so its takeoff clearly was going to be late too.

 

There is some good news. DFW is nearly finished building a NEW Founder’s Plaza (See the Google Map for the location) at a new location that is on the northwest side of the airport. It is nearly adjacent to the UPS freight facility and practically in front of runways 18R and 18L.

 

Here are some selected shots from both this trip and one we took about a month ago. Click Here.

Filed under: Airplane Spotting by ajax
No Comments »

The competition that exists between Boeing and Airbus has to be one of the fiercest fights ever seen in commercial aviation.  Among aviation enthusiasts, most are dedicated only to one or the other and just visit an aviation enthusiasts discussion website and you’ll discover debate that is even more heated than what exists between Airbus and Boeing.

 

Family and friends have, from time to time, asked me whose airplanes I like the most.  I probably lean towards Boeing more than anyone but for different reasons than many have.  Before going further, I should say that I think Airbus builds a modern, competitive airliner and is in no way materially inferior.

 

I like Boeing’s approach to an aircraft.  I think they value customer experience just a bit more whereas I think Airbus tends to value an airline just a bit more.  One example is the difference between the 737 and the A320 aircraft.  Both are made for the identitical market and both are modern, fuel efficient jets.  Both have had rough spots over the years and both companies work incredibly hard to sell these jets to all kinds of airlines.

 

I should say that I admire how well Airbus has done at making their aircraft families cross-compatible when it comes to flight crews.  A pilot for an A320 can upgrade to an A330/A340 with a lot less training than a similar upgrade from a B737 to B767/B777.  Airbus makes owning their entire aircraft family highly beneficial *if* their aircraft family can fill all of your missions. 

 

However, I do find the 737 just a hair more comfortable.  I’m a rather tall and big person with longish legs.  Having flown numerous examples of both aircraft, I find the aisle seat experience roughly similar and the window seat experience very different.  The A320’s fuselage is more “circular” and therefore curves inward more at the shoulder to head height of most people.  At the window, my perception is that my head must lean away from the fuselage and that feels uncomfortable.  The 737’s fuselage is more ovoid and that same curve is more gradual and starts more above the passenger than next to him. 

 

The seats should be roughly the same but my perception is, again, different.  This simply may be a function of what US airlnes are using for a seat on the Airbus vs the Boeing.  My perception is that the A320 class of aircraft typically have a seat that is a touch thinner, a touch harder and therefore a touch less comfortable on flight durations of 2+ hours.  I have felt it on America West aircraft, US Air aircraft, United Airlines aircraft and Northwest Airlines aircraft.

 

I once had a chance to fly from PDX (Portland) to DFW (Dallas / Fort Worth)  via DEN(Denver).  My flight from PDX to DEN was on a United Airlines A320 that appeared to be older but not “old”.  Within 1 hour, I found myself fidgeting and since I was in Economy Plus next to a window, I expected to feel more comfortable.  I didn’t.  The next segment was on a United Airlines 757 (not a 737 but it does have the same fuselage dimensions and uses the same seats) in plain old Economy rather than Economy Plus.  I was simply more comfortable.  The window seat felt more accomodating and I was finally able to relax enough to nap despite less legroom. 

 

Each aircraft manufacturer tries hard to find the right niche for aircraft and I would argue that as a result of this competition, they actually are more complimentary these days than directly competitive.  An airline could be well served by both Airbus and Boeing without sacrificing efficiency. 

 

If I were to pick a fleet for the upcoming Delta / Northwest merger, I would center on using the 737 family for domestic service (using a combination of 737-700 and 737-800 aircraft, the 767 (or 787-3)  for domestic transcontinental and Hawaii service, the A330 for trans-atlantic (Europe and Africa) and South American service, the 787 for South American / Southeast Asia and trans-pacific service and the 777-200LR and 777-300ER for long haul, high density international traffic from hubs like ATL (Atlanta), MSP (Minneapolis / St. Paul), DTW (Detroit), JFK (New York City) and LAX (Los Angeles). 

 

It’s hard to say where the new Airbus A350-XWB will fit in “mission-wise” when it comes to such an airline.  While it’s passenger economies may be a tad better than the 777, it won’t haul nearly as much cargo.   At present, it cannot quite adequately fill the 777 mission role and it might just be a tad too big to compete directly with a 787-9/10 either. 

 

One thing I admire about Boeing is that they tend to “right size” their aircraft for various markets.  Often people directly compare Boeing and Airbus aircraft on the criteria that one aircraft can carry more people on the same mission than another.  Occasionally, that’s valid.  More often, not.

 

An airline needs aircraft that “fit” the passenger and cargo demand of various routes.  Boeing has 40 years of experience helping airlines plan their fleet on these needs and does it well.  The 787 was never intended to be a 767 or 777 replacement.  It was developed to fit an emerging demand that really fell in between those two aircraft. 

 

The next replacement for the 737/757 series will fall somewhere new as well and probably will not fill a need below the 737-700 and probably will not fill a role that exceeds the 757-300.  That’s a 2 class aircraft that will probably have a family range accomodating from 150 passengers to 220 passengers.  Real aircraft range will probably include transcontinental capability for all variants at about 3500 to 4000 nm (nautical mile) max range.  Airbus will likely target a similar set of criteria with the next generation aircraft.

 

The discriminators in the next battle between Airbus and Boeing will be things like the best operating efficiency, dispatch rates and passenger comfort.   I would give the edge to Boeing when it comes to efficiency and dispatch rates and it is anyone’s guess on passenger comfort.  I’m certain that both companies will sell an amazing amount of the next generation single aisle aircraft and I’m equally certain that airlines will praise both.

 

 

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline Service by ajax
7 Comments »

Most probably think it was the Concorde or the Russian made Tu-144 “Concordski” was the first commercial airliner to exceed the speed of sound.  Neither was.

 

It was a DC-8-40 powered by Rolls Royce Conway engines.  During a test of leading edge wing improvements over Edwards Air Force Base in August of 1961, this aircraft dived from 52,000 feet and achieved Mach 1.012 (660.6 mph) at 41,088 feet.

Filed under: Trivia by ajax
No Comments »

An Emirates Airbus A-380 is landing at JFK airport for the first time today.  The flight is scheduled to arrive at around 4:45pm EDT.  As big as that aircraft is, I actually think it would be worth looking up now and then from 4:00pm on just in case.

Filed under: Airplane Spotting by ajax
No Comments »