The Dallas Morning News Aviation Biz Blog wrote THIS post yesterday about Continental’s business class passenger traffic being down.  Significantly, there is an abrupt drop in trans-Atlantic travel.  Continental has a reputation for being an excellent business class product and has a very loyal group of customers for their trans-Atlantic destinations.  I am, however, unsurprised at that sharp decline.  That is a cost that businesses address very rapidly in situations involving declining revenues and/or profits. 

The company I work for, a Fortune 500 DoD contractor as well as an aviation industry supplier, mandated coach travel for business trips overseas back in October.  In addition, all travel (including domestic) must be approved at the director level.   I must say that those rules have had a noticeable effect too.   Many people known for being routinely gone on business trips are now routinely in their office doing work. 

It has also imposed some hardships.  I have one co-worker who had to travel to Finland on business last Saturday.  He had to travel to New York City, connect to a flight to Helsinki, connect to another flight to a very northern town in Finland and then travel by car for 2 hours to the destination.  Now, ordinarily I do not approve of the rather lavish use of busines class even on transcontinental flights but I would have given him the business class seat on that trip.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

An article on CNN writes of passengers trapped on an Airtran airplane for 10 hours before taking off for Orlando from Colombus, Ohio.  No one would argue that this is not something that should be happening at this point and the flying public should take issue with an airline that can’t competently make a decision to cancel a flight after keeping passengers on board for just a few hours. 

If airlines do not want a passenger bill of rights passed in Congress, they must clearly communicate to their staff that this kind of event is both avoidable and irresponsible.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Update:  For those interested, the Hang Up Act (as reported out of House committee) can be viewed in its entirety HERE.

The Runway Girl has posted THIS entry to her blog on the subject of in-flight use of cell phones.   Mary Kirby (aka Runway Girl) is apparently distressed over the “Hang Up Act” rolling around Congress and decries it as  “silly”  and is apparently in solid support of the Passenger Communications Coalition which is comprised of members she often writes about.

Silly eh?  I don’t know about that.  If I were an airline, I would want to avoid use of cell phones on aircraft in the US as much as possible.  Adopting a libertarian attitude and comparing what is going on in the Middle East and Europe isn’t a very unbiased outlook either.  US Airlines fly crowded, uncomfortable flights that are often late, understaffed with a minimum of flight crew and which only serve to antagonize passengers already.   European and Middle Eastern airlines fly in different cultures that set a very different scene for the use of cell phones and how that might be perceived as a personal space violation when compared to the United States and Canada. 

Allowing in flight chatty people to conduct phone conversations seated among other passengers under those conditions is a good idea?  Really?  Who manages disruptive people abusing that privilege?  The flight attendants?  Really?  The pilots? 

While I do agree that many would likely not abuse such a privilege, I fear what happens both to the perpetrator and the victims when some guy refuses to lower his voice and stop disrupting passengers when asked to.  Aircraft here in the US are already on a short fuse with temperaments.  As an airline, I really wouldn’t want to invite more opportunity for conflicts and I certainly wouldn’t want to add to my staff’s list of things to control.

Add in-flight connectivity to the internet all you want.  Allow text messages and web browsing via cell phones all you want.  Be very careful about introducing something that has the potential to violate personal space such as cell phone calls.  Cell phone calls and internet connectivity are not the same thing and to treat them as such is folly.  And recognize that different cultures might well allow for the successful adoption of new technologies in one place and mandate against them in another place.

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

There isn’t any industry shaking news right now.  4th quarter / annual financial results are coming out on a variety of airlines but the news is much what you would expect.  Lots of losses, lots of hope for 2009.  So, a few things of interest that are going on but aren’t worth a post of their own.

Airtran

Airtran, interestingly enough, posted its first annual loss since 1999.  What is remarkable to me is that in 10 horrific years in the airline industry, they made a profit until the end of 2008.  That is impressive to me given where they hub from (Atlanta) and who level of competition they experience on almost all of their routes.  You can read more HERE in a USA Today / Associated Press story.

United Airlines

United Airlines posted a rather stunning loss of $1.5 billion (with a “B”) for 2008.  Those losses are a result of both declining revenue *and* being on the wrong side of a lot of fuel hedges.  To a degree, this was already expected.  However, UAL’s unrestricted cash reserves have declined to $2 billion (with a “B”) and while that seems like a lot, it really isn’t.  Yes, the airline industry is in the dumps right now but at some point sooner than later, United needs to earn some money.  Their status quo attitude isn’t helping with that goal.

Virgin Atlantic

The Telegraph newspaper in the UK is carrying THIS rather creative complaint letter from a passenger written to Sir Richard Branson himself.  It’s funny and it points out some flaws that should be addressed.  If for no other reason than humour, it is worth the time to read it.

Southwest Airlines

Southwest Airlines has announced $49 one-way fares between Chicago and its new destination, Minneapolis / St. Paul.  Between Southwest, American Airlines, United Airlines and, most of all, Delta/Northwest Airlines, this is surely going to spark a capacity and fare war between these two cities.   There is no doubt in my mind that the legacy airlines will defend their flights on that route to the utmost.  Most particularly, Delta/Northwest will likely get downright ugly about it and while Southwest does understand the need to spend time growing a new market, they won’t necessarily try to win by wearing down Delta/Northwest with fare sale after fare sale.  If customers don’t embrace Southwest in a reasonable time, that route will get dumped.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
1 Comment »

CNN is reporting that an FedEX ATR-42 cargo plane crashed in freezing mist at Lubbock’s Preson Smith International Airport.  While the aircraft did catch fire, both pilots were reportedly taken to a hospital but are considered to be in good condition. 

Airport officials are saying weather was *not* a factor although it defies my imagination how they could know that. 

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

As I suspected, the new focus on airline safety is all about bird strikes.  The Middle Seat Terminal Blog (a Wall Street Journal blog) has THIS post.  After the US Airways Flight 1549 ditching, I suspected that there would be lots of chatter about preventing bird strikes and there has been.

Some of this chatter is about putting screens in front of the engines, for instance.  No one stops to think just how strong and well engineered a screen would have to be to withstand the force of an 8 pound bird and well as how fine it would have to be to keep debris from entering the engine.  Nor does anyone consider that by putting such a screen in front of an engine, you are effectively disrupting the air flow into the engine and that will, at the least, reduce engine efficiency if not keep it from operating as designed.

Consider a goose that weighs about 4 kilograms being struck by an aircraft going about 250mph.  That is just about the exact scenario for Flight 1549.  Such an impact represents over 27,000 joules of energy.   In very rough terms, that is enough energy to move more than 3 tons of weight about 1 yard.  By the time you engineer a screen for that jet engine, you need a better, more powerful jet engine to carry all that extra weight. 

The truth is that bird strikes are not uncommon and almost always result in non-event.  In fact, engines and other parts of aircraft structure have to be engineered to withstand most bird strikes likely to be encountered.  Jet engine makers have to prove their engine can take a strike and not furiously disassemble itself and damage a wing or fuselage.  Cockpit windows have to be able to take a punch too. 

The truth is that commercial aircraft handle these events very well and what happened to that Airbus A320 was actually a statistical anomaly.  It is so rare for a commercial jet to encounter birds and lose both engines to the point that the aircraft cannot return to an airport that in my research, I cannot find another instance.  Oh, it may well have happened but it is exceedingly rare. 

Put another way, you have a far greater likelihood of experiencing an “incident” from turbulence than you do from a bird strike.  That doesn’t keep you from flying does it?   From my perspective, this incident proves that nothing more does need to be done to mitigate problems from bird strikes. 

First, it is rare for them to disable an engine but it does happen.  A jetBlue Airbus encountered a bird strike this past weekend and rejected its take off.  After returning to the terminal, evidence of a bird strike was found.  Any other week, this would not have made national news.  For birds to disable both engines is virtually unheard of and that is a good thing.  Any modern two-engine airliner is capable of taking off, losing an engine and maintaining climb power to go around and return to an airport. 

Airports do their part to prevent this problem.  Unfortunately, airports happen to be places that attract birds because of the wide, open areas that are flat and which generally contain a lot of what birds want.  Airports scare them away and do their best to make flight areas a very unattractive place for them to flock to.  And they are very successful at that in general. 

One of the other points that I think escapes what happened to US Airways is the altitude that they encountered these birds at.  It was at about 3000′ above the ground and how common do you think it is to find birds at that altitude?  Very rare.

The traveling public is quite safe when it comes to bird strikes.  This was an anomaly and you are just only now hearing about this “problem” because it just rarely happens to ever truly affect a flight. 

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

IN 1968, a JAL DC-8 was essentially “landed” into the San Francisco Bay in error and about 2.5 miles from the runway it was supposed to land on.  There was no declared emergency and there was no other reason to do this except that it was an accident.  Everyone survived and the DC-8 was actually returned to service eventually (although I’d wager that it wouldn’t be today).  The biggest difference between this incident and the US Airways incident is that the DC-8 wasn’t fully loaded and didn’t have a nearly full fuel load.  Weight makes a big difference. 

What particularly impresses me is the Captain’s explanation for this act when he testified in the investigation.  You can read that HERE.  I didn’t know about this statement until I was reminded of the ditching when reading an aviation forum last night. 

Filed under: Trivia by ajax
No Comments »

I received an email off line expressing wonder at how quickly everyone showed up to assist the passengers of Flight 1549.  The truth is, the captain couldn’t have picked a better place to put down.  That particular part of the Hudson River is rife with all kinds of water traffic including multiple ferries, barges, tug boats and even private water craft.  It’s a major commuter corridor between Manhattan and Hoboken. 

The FDNY and New Jersey State response was impressive because on both sides of the river there are many docks with old warehouses and older boats.  Sometimes they catch fire and you really do want to respond to that asap because those old docks, warehouse and boats go up like tissue paper in a bonfire.  So both the states and the cities along the Hudson are very well prepared to respond to emergencies on the waterfront in a moment’s notice.  Nonetheless, their response and professionalism is very praiseworthy.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

This incident with US Airways Flight 1549 has made me realize that we now have two incidences (at the least) on record where a superb landing was made in an emergency situation and was done so during moments that call for graceful aircraft handling. 

I feel certain that this US Airways incident is one.  It does take grace and experience to land an Airbus A320 gently enough in the Hudson River so as to avoid any breakup of the aircraft.  A fully loaded, fully fueled airplane is not easy to handle and keeping it from over-stressing itself and breaking apart is a genuine feat.    The pilot, Chesley Sullenberger, is a certified glider instructor. 

Another incident that many airliner fans certainly know about is the Gimli Glider episode.  An Air Canada Boeing 767 ran out of fuel and was glided to a safe landing at a decommissioned air force base.   A fueling mistake had  been made at its last stop and both pilots found themselves woefully out of fuel in the middle of a transcontinental flight.   The Captain of that flight, Bob Pearson, was also an experienced glider pilot and used some flight techniques from that experience to make a safe landing at Gimli.  You can read all about that incident HERE.  (It’s well worth the time.)

What strikes me about this incident, so far, is that the pilots had very little time to execute a plan and manage their situation when it happened.  The bird strike occured somewhere near or over the Bronx Zoo (based on the observed flight track from Passur.Com).  From that moment, they had just a hair over 3000 feet in altitude, two failing engines and a highly populated area underneath them.  With engines providing some forward thrust, they maintained control of the aircraft, executed a tight turn just north of Manhattan and made contact with air traffic control.

While attempting to manage the aircraft for an emergency landing at New Jersey’s Teterboro Airport, the pilots had enoug presence of mind to realize, quickly enough, that they had not enough altitude nor forward airspeed to make it there and quickly lined up on the Hudson River instead.  Gently landing an A320 that likely weighed in excess of 150,000 lbs and which had little airspeed to maneuver with  is a nightmare scenario for any pilot.  Captain Sullenberger managed to line the aircraft up with the river, lower it to just above the water’s surface and then stalled the aircraft just right so that it essentially dropped into the water with almost no forward motion.  He did it so good, most passengers have described the impact as no worse than a minor rear end car accident.

A very well done job for all the flight crew and it was a genuine touch of class that Captain Sullenberger was able to walk the aircraft and ensure all his passengers were off and manage to be the “last one off the ship” as well.  For a really bad situation, it was the best of all outcomes.

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

James Wallace of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is reporting today on Airbus and notes a Wall Street Journal report that quotes Tom Enders of Airbus saying:

 

He disclosed that the A380 superjumbo program remains troubled by teething problems in its industrial phase, and that the company now expects just 18 deliveries of the world’s largest passenger aircraft this year, down from a previous target of 21 that was revised from 24 last year.

I optimistically forecast that Airbus would *increase* its deliveries over their projected schedule in this post. 

That’s a significant reduction in deliveries for Airbus and the A380.  What it means is that Airbus will suffer financially on that program even more now that they will be unable to receive the forecasted revenue for 3 of the A380 deliveries.  The list price fo the A380 is about $320 million for each aircraft.  Even with significant discounts, that 3 aircraft reduction in the schedule means reduced revenue of nearly $1billion. 

It would seem that, this time, the problems are that the computer models for production of the aircraft did not take into account the effects of gravity on the aircraft structure itself and, accordingly, some assemblies and parts won’t fit correctly on production aircraft. 

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

I’ve made an animated gif of the US Airways Flight 1549 flight track from when it took off from New York City’s La Guardia Airport until it landed in the Hudson River. I was able to follow the aircraft using Passur’s AirportMonitor website and taking screen shots. Notice that in the middle of it, another aircraft was flying northwards up the Hudson River and, at very close point, the vertical separation was just 500 feet with the other aircraft turning hard over Manhattan.

You can see this animated gif HERE. (Note: This is a large file)

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Here is an image of the area where US Airways Flt 1549 went down. It landed somewhere in the middle of the river just a hair south of where the Hoboken label is. It has since floated to near the Battery Park Pier shown in the lower right of the image.

CLICK HERE FOR IMAGE.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Update:  The Dallas Morning News Airline Biz Blog has THIS post about the pilot of US Airways Flight 1549.  He’s Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger and I suspect he will be cheered by many for his cool head while landing the aircraft and his conscientious handling of passengers.

Update: Here is another photo from CNN’s I-Report showing passengers on both wings evacuating the aircraft.

Update:  The aircraft is still floating and now approaching Battery Park.  HEREis a photograph shown on CNN’s i-Report.

Update:  After speaking with my brother, I’ve learned that this aircraft landed in the water of the Hudson River between Hoboken and Manhatttan.   He is a resident of Hoboken.

Update:  This certainly will change my mind about the real possibilities of surviving an aircraft ditching into water. 

Update:  According to Today in the Sky, ABC has reported that the pilot may have been attempting to fly and land at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey.

Update:  Bloomberg News is reporting that pilots reported the loss or partial loss of both engines on the aircraft.  Flying into a flock of geese would certainly be a reasonable explanation for that.

Update:  For information on bird strikes, The Fort Worth Star Telegram Sky Talk Blog has THIS post.

Update:  Flightblogger, Jon Ostrower, has THIS image of the flight’s track through New York and along the Hudson River.

Update:  Courtesy of the Dallas Morning news, very good photos of this accident can be found HERE and HERE.

Update: A very striking photo of passengers evacuating the aircraft and getting into rafts and standing on the wing.

Update:  Flightaware.Com has this URL for the flight showing it to be, in fact, an A320 and having a flight duration of 6 minutes.

Update: There are now credible reports that the airplane’s captain reported a bird strike and subsequent engine failure to air traffic control. All passengers have survived. Remarkably, the aircraft remained afloat and passengers were able to exit in an orderly manner.

CNN is now reporting that US Airways Flight 1549, a flight from NYC (La Guardia) to Charlotte, North Carolina, went down in the Hudson River after just taking off.  There is a report that a flock of geese may have been the cause of the crash. 

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Runway Girl has THIS STORY on some newly available flight tracking websites for the hard core traveler. 

For those of you who prefer to use your Blackberry or iPhone or Treo or other PDA-type mobile phone, there is a new service you can use to track your flight online.

http://mobile.flightview.com/

And there is another new service being offered that will permit you to track both your flight and the flights just before it that are using the same aircracft.  The advantage?  You can see how weather or other system delays are affecting your flight long before anyone begins updating the status for you flight.   The downside?  They charge for their service.  $8 per month or $88 per year or you can buy “packs” of flight tracking (10 flight tracks for $15 or 50 flight tracks for $75).  This is for the serious road warrior who is traveling from or through highly congested hubs.  Here is their website:

http://fltadvisor.com/fltadvisor/home.jsf

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

American Airlines has a contest titled One Big Million offering one million frequent flier points to those who are AAdvantage Members, register for the contest and purchase one ticket between now and March 5th, 2009. 

http://www.aa.com/onebigmillion/

Look for other contests and bonuses for other frequent flier programs and do register.  Why?  Because it quite literally costs you nothing and could well offer you more points.  Many airlines offer “bonuses” for traveling on certain routes or to certain destinations but you must register for the bonuses BEFORE booking the trip.  One coach trip to Belgium once netted me 21,000 miles total.  Another to Baltimore earned me 7,000 miles total. 

Ordinarily I no longer believe in hunting miles but if airlines offer these kind of bonuses, it really is quite possible to get yourself a domestic ticket in short time even if you are the casual flier.  The trick is, don’t horde the miles, use them instead.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

We often hear the claim from airlines, particularly legacy airlines, that it is the business class passenger who pays for the bulk of a flight but is that true?  Well, maybe. 

The frequent business flyer does provide much of the profit that an airline might earn but the business class passenger on today’s domestic flight is often a frequent flier who paid for a coach ticket and who received enough upgrade points to move to Business Class.   But that passenger doesn’t necessarily make for a profitable flight either. 

If the full fare business traveler was the most profitable passenger on an aircraft, then all of those business class airlines formed over the years would still be around, wouldn’t they?  Over the years airlines like Legend (a business class airline that flew from Dallas to major trunk destinations in the 1990’s) and like EOS and MAXJet (who flew the NYC to London trunk routes) tried the all business class model and it never worked. 

Some would say it was because there just aren’t enough business class travelers any one day for a  particular flight.  Others would say it was because the legacy airlines fought back with greater frequency, frequent flier awards and unprofitable fares that put them under.  The truth is, it was probably a bit of both but if an all business class airline made sense, it would have succeeded by now.

Everyone pays the the way for a flight in reality.  Most often, it’s those last 5 to 10 passengers on a flight that provide any real profit for an airline and those last 5 to 10 passengers are often passengers who wouldn’t have flown but for a discounted fare being available.  Airline revenue management dictates that an airline has to sell as many of those seats on a particular flight for a price that people are willing to pay.   Some people are willing to pay $1000 for a seat that others only value at $200.  Airlines manage this demand by offering unrestricted fares for a high price and discount fares with a string of restrictions that most business travelers can’t accept.  These different fares create enough demand for a flight and if it is done the right way, that flight earns a profit. 

If those low discount fares didn’t make sense and add profit to the bottom line, the airlines wouldn’t offer them.  You, the consumer, wouldn’t benefit from those low fares if there weren’t a certain number of people willing to compete for them at a low price by conforming to the restrictions placed on them. 

When the airlines reduced their capacity in the latter half of 2008, they essentially bet that there would be increased competition for those last few seats and that the competition would raise fares for those same seats.  Now it appears that that theory had a fault.  Once more airlines have realized that at a certain higher price, those last 10 passengers will either forgo that airline trip or find another means to make the trip.   When they start declining those opportunities, airlines have to reverse course and make a concerted effort to win them back by offering fare sales through expensive advertising. 

Why would airlines routinely engage this activity?  Because that is what competition is about.  It’s a natural part of any business cycle and it means that the market is constantly adjusting to its present circumstances. 

With the rather dramatic fall-off of demand, we are, once again, seeing low fares blossom again.  It isn’t because fuel is cheaper.   Cheaper fuel makes a fare sale a bit more possible but what happens if an airline sells a ticket for late April and finds itself paying twice the cost of fuel in January?  They lose money.  No, low fares show up because filling those airplanes is critical.  If they take off with an empty seat, it is giving up a revenue opportunity forever. 

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

The Cranky Flier made this post to his blog last week. In short, CF decried a woman’s New York Times Op-Ed on the demise of the glory days of travel which she apparently experienced as a flight attendant for TWA.   The Cranky Flier reckons that the changes that deregulation has brought on are what has made air travel affordable and to bring back the high service given in the 50’s, 60’s and early 70’s would deny that access to most of us.   Quite honestly, I do agree with him but I think a point was missed in Ann Hood’s Op Ed as well.

I’m pretty sure that Ms. Hood was decrying the loss of the great meals, comforting flight attendants and more correct behaviour but I think what prompted her Op Ed was actually a perceived lack of service on *any* level by airlines today.  I don’t think anyone realistically expects air travel to include 3 choices of meals, pillows and blankets and free cocktails anymore.  However, what causes people to continue to get upset is the generally poor nature of any service provided by most airlines.

I experienced that service as an airline brat from the late 1960’s to the early 1980’s and it really was pretty remarkable in many respects.  However, I don’t miss the Chateau Briand on Braniff flights between Dallas and Portland and I really don’t seem to miss the first class seat or the pillows or drinks.  OK, I do miss the seats but that is because I’m a 6’2″ man weighing 260lbs with long legs. 

What drives this perceived lack of service is airlines not keeping promises made when you buy a ticket.  Those promises are outlined by airline advertising which is quite good at showing a relaxing customer on an airplane enjoying a drink as he or she flies to their destination with the expectation that the airplane will be kept at comfortable temperature and will arrive on time.

Let’s look at what an airline passenger might enjoy from the time they decide to book a flight to the time they arrive back home from their trip.   First, they must book their flight online.  Most people not only don’t mind this, they prefer it these days.  However, none of us are amused when we attempt to book a flight online only to find the website overloaded from a fare sale or network disruption caused by weather.   If the customer tries to phone the airline to book they’ll be faced with long phone queues, surly reservations agents and the threat that their airline ticket is now going to cost them a bit more for booking via phone.

The customer is gratified at being able to check in early through the web but when they arrive at the airport they discover that checking in their suitcase requires them to stand in another long line in order that they might essentially check-in a second time so they can check a bag.  Even if they only have one bag, they’ll have to pay a fee to check it unless they are a road warrior with some sort of privileged status with the airlines’ frequent flier clubs.   Then they get to stand in yet another line while watching those same privileged fliers go through an express line with the TSA. 

Once at the gate, they’ll have to work to find an open seat to sit in while waiting for boarding call because aircraft are flying much more full these days and most gates at most airports aren’t designed to accommodate the loads that many airlines serve on their narrowbody aircraft.   At the boarding call, they get to watch those same privileged fliers board first onto the aircraft (even if they aren’t flying first class that day with their free upgrades they still get to board first) and then wait for their group to be called while some fellow passengers cheat and just board early anyway.  Since most customer service agents at the gate are unwilling to enforce the rules in many cases, these cheaters get away with that move.

If the passenger has a boarding call in the last 1 or 2 groups, they get to discover that all the other passengers have apparently carried their life’s possessions with them and occupied all the overhead luggage space.  If they say anything about the lack of space, some flight attendant will inform them that they might have to gate check their bag or put it under the seat in front of them.  Putting a bag under the seat in front of you hasn’t really been possible for adults since the early 80’s when airlines reduced seat pitch in coach from an accommodating 34 to 38 inches of space down to a tight 30 to 32 inches of space.   So, they put their coat in a crammed overhead bin and hand over their luggage to a surly flight attendant who is annoyed that they now have to catch the attention of ground personnel so the bag can be loaded in the luggage compartment.

Once seated, the passenger waits and waits for departure from the gate which is delayed a few minutes.  Finally after watching their watch for an additional 13 minutes, someone hurriedly closes the door and the pilots get a pushback.  Technically, the flight has left on time at this point.  Only the pushback results in them taxiiing slowly towards the runway where they run into a traffic jam of aircraft waiting to take off because most airports are woefully lacking in the infrastructure to accomodate the number of flights trying to depart at the same time. 

After another delay of 20 minutes, the aircraft takes off.  As it levels off, the surly flight attendants go to work immediately to serve their one beverage service during the 2 hour flight.  Now, the passenger knows that soft drinks (and virtually any other beverage) now costs money so they ask for water when it is their turn and find a surly flight attendant telling them that will be $3 for the half litre bottle of water they offer.   The passengers declines the water and tries to recline their seat only to discover that while the seat may recline, it reclines right into the knees of the passenger behind them who objects loudly. 

Upon arrival at their destination, the passenger collects their things and moves slowly towards the door.  In some cases, they now must wait on the airbridge for their gate checked luggage to be brought up to them and in other instances they must now trudge off to find the baggage carousel to collect their things.  Because these aircraft are flying so full, this amounts to another delay of 20 minutes or more. 

Once they have their baggage, they make their way to the curbside and take out their cell phone to call the person picking them up to tell them they are at the curbside now.  They have to do this because security no longer allows anyone inside the terminal and the airport management is now charging $7 to park in the parking structure for less than an hour to pick up their party.  

Go through that kind of experience each way and it is no wonder that passengers are decrying service from airlines left and right.  If you only experienced half of what I’ve described just now, you’ll loathe and hate the airline you just flew.  Not because you weren’t served a 3 course meal but because the airline who implicitly promised you a safe, relatively pleasant and on time experience didn’t even really pretend to try to deliver that promise. 

What people want is for an airline to be honest in what they’ll provide and to honestly deliver it with the possible exception of extraordinary circumstances.  Oh, there are a few airlines who do deliver on such things and they quite rightly also make a profit.  Southwest, jetBlue and Continental all come to mind as airlines that really do delivery almost every time.  However, for much of the US traveling public, those three airlines aren’t an option nearly as often as they would like. 

Indeed, the situation I just described is almost precisely what I experienced flying Airtran last year from Dallas to New York City.   It’s disappointing at the least and offensive in most respects.   Did I like the ticket price?  Sure.  But if you accurately described the more likely service scenario and then asked if I wanted to pay $50 more to just get where I wanted to go without that scene playing out, I’d happily dive into my wallet and hand over the cash.  

The problem isn’t that we’re addicted to the lowest fares possible.  We’re not.  We, the passengers, are too stupid to realize that the airlines aren’t really going to deliver on those implicit promises.  Like the co-dependent wife who keeps taking back her alcoholic husband, we keep going back to the airlines and expecting a different experience.  The truth is, if we would examine our last service experiences with various airlines and seek a different choice until we found an airline that treated us well, airlines would pay attention. 

Why?  Because it quite literally costs nothing extra to deliver what an airline generally promises today.  jetBlue, in particular, gets that concept and that is the biggest reason why they have succeeded flying from JFK airport in spite of all the known obstacles to flying from that airport.  So does Continental as they have huge hubs at weather delayed airports too but they understand that giving the customer the implicitly promised service leads to greater success on their part.  Southwest promises less service than either of those two airlines but has some of the highest customer satisfaction of any airline because they DO DELIVER ON WHAT THEY DO PROMISE. 

It isn’t the glory days of service that we miss.  It’s the constant disappointment we experience on airlines today that causes us to lament a lack of service.  It simply doesn’t exist for most passengers.  We are treated better, on average, at an inexpensive restaurant where we spend about $9 for for a meal than we are on an airline where we spend $200 or more for a flight.  Most airlines’ attitude is to chastise the passenger for complaining.  That’s the motivator for the glory days.   In the glory days, airlines didn’t act like you should be grateful just to have a seat on their aircraft.  They acted grateful that you chose them to make you trip on.

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

Maybe.  News media yesterday and today have been full of stories about various airline fare sales.  A friend of mine managed to book a business class fare from Raleigh/Durham to NYC for just over $100.  He also booked two round trip tickets on Airtran to Las Vegas (for travel in May) for just $198 / ticket.  American Airlines has sent me not one but two emails in the last 24 hours advertising fares as low as $39 / each way.

Reading over the AA email, that low price of $39 each way is to fly from DFW to Tulsa.  I’m pretty sure that is a fairly small market but let’s give them credit for drawing us in to read the email.   Here is a sample of some of there other teasers:

• Chicago to Detroit:  $43
• San Jose to San Diego:  $49
• Boston to NYC (LGA): $59
• Chicago to Kansas City:  $63
• Dallas to New Orleans:  $64
• Chicago to Orlando:  $78
• Washington D.C. to Miami:  $101
• Atlanta to Dallas:  $104

Now, all of these fares are one-way based on round-trip purchase.  I’m sure that most of the other airlines are advertising similar fares on similar routes with similar restrictions.   The part that interests me is that some of those fares AA is advertising are primarily business routes (DFW to TUL, ORD to DET, ORD to MCI) and those aren’t customarily the routes you discount that much.  Some of the others are to leisure destinations and that makes a bit more sense. 

When there is a fare sale, I like to price DFW to PDX (Portland) because American Airlines dominates this route with non-stops and has exceptionally high fares for those flights.  If those prices have dropped, then I know they’re hurting.  I did so today and AA is proud to offer me a $278 roundtrip (with taxes, $320) which is actually pretty good.  A year ago that fare was being offered for over $400.  But there is a catch.  AA wants me to fly from DFW to LAX,  change planes to either Alaska Airlines or Horizon Airlines, and fly to Portland.  Transit times range from 7 hours to more than 9 hours.   Would I do it for the fare?  Perhaps.  I’d certainly think about it. 

A quick check with Travelocity.Com shows fares for that route at $327 and up and AA advertises the non-stop routing for $378.  The $327 fares on Travelocity are those same AA fares I found at AA.Com so the next non-American Airlines best price is actually Continental Airlines for $356 changing planes in Houston and with approximately the same transit times that AA has through LAX.

Would I go?  Probably not.  Why?  Because the cost to me in vacation time, actual flight costs (more than $40 more than the advertised price once I pay taxes) and the sheer agony of spending about 8 hours making the trip just isn’t worth it.  What would be worth it?  A fare of about $200 to $250 (taxes included) I suspect. 

The point of my analysis is that while those fare teasers are interesting and very attractive, they really aren’t all that good for where most of us want to fly in the next 3 to 4 months.  If you want to fly from DFW to TUL, you’re set.  If you want to fly from DFW to just about anywhere else, the prices really haven’t come down much if at all.  These sales are, I suspect, airlines scrambling around and yelling “Look At Me” but without much substance.  If I were going to shop for a mid to late spring flight, I’d probably wait a few weeks.  The reality of spring / early summer bookings will be more clear to the airlines and then I think you’ll see some real discounting. 

Filed under: Airline News, Travel Hints by ajax
No Comments »

Pilots and flight attendants are perceived as having jobs that are easy and financially secure.  This is largely due to the fact that flight crews commonly have several days in a row off each month where they are able to enjoy a different schedule and life.  Flight crews, in fact, have just as much stress, fatigue and constraints as any other job. 

Many in the flight crew start out augmenting their income with 2nd and even 3rd jobs they work during their off-duty hours because they earn so little money at the start of their careers.  A fully trained and qualified pilot starting out on his career can expect to make as little as $20,000 / year and flight attendants often earn less than $16,000 / year to start.  So in order to pay their rent and other living expenses, they take on flexible 2nd and 3rd jobs.  Later, when they are earning living wages, they tend to keep those jobs because their needs and wants have continued to grow in proportion to their total income.  In other words, they become a bit financially addicted to the supplemental income those 2nd and 3rd jobs provide.

Airlines pay so little to start because the lifetime costs to employ that flight crew members can be very expensive when they enter the last half of their career.  Unions have negotiated contracts that are first and foremost dependent on date of hire seniority and flight crew turnover is therefore very small compared to other industries.   There is no incentive to look for another job with another airline unless your present employer goes through a significant contraction or bankruptcy and has to lay you off.  Even then a flight crew member may well have incentives to earn supplemental income and wait for a callback rather than seek employment with a new airline. 

But it is airline management that has created this problem because they’ve failed to redefine the job positions to fit a new economic reality.  They exacerbate their situation by treating their employees (and unions) as hostile entities to be fought at every turn rather than finding new, more efficient ways to employee people. 

Airline management needs to first realize that the lifetime earnings of flight crew are unlikely to go significantly down or up.  But there is a way to distribute that income during the flight crew career in a way that provides better job security, more productivity and in a way that provides the stability employees want. 

First, stop paying flight crews horribly low salaries in their early years.  These people are trained and qualified professionals and deserve to be paid a wage that is more commensurate with the job skills they must possess to perform in those roles.  In other words, it’s time to pay a living wage right from the beginning.  Pilot’s should earn from $40K to $50K to start, for instance,   And pilots should recognize that in return for a living wage right from the start, they have to offer more flexibility in work rules.  They need to be willing to work on a more daily basis but for fewer hours per day so that airlines can begin scheduling them in a more rational manner.

Second, airlines should pay salaries that are roughly equivalent to engineers.   A senior engineer (not manager but engineer) can earn as much as $100K / year at the zenith of their career but not $300K.  For that kind of wage, an engineer must enter management and exhibit performance that justifies that wage.   Pilots should have retirement plans that are also commensurate with engineers.  Not pensions that pay out by the years of service but, rather, modern investment plans such as 401k plans that allow them to manage their futures and have some opportunity for portability.  Pensions are tied to seniority.  401k retirement investment plans are tied to the person and smart choices. 

Why is such a system better for a pilot?  For one, it reduces their dependency on one airline.  They are far less tied to the fortunes of their employers and have more opportunity to leave a badly managed airline in favor of a better managed airline.  Let’s face it, who wouldn’t want to work for a better managed airline in favor or a badly managed one?  Making that possible industry wide would provide more opportunity for pilots to manage their stress and the demands their job makes on their personal lives. 

Unions should focus less on maximizing wages and more on improving the quality of life for their members.  Unions have the power to negotiate better work rules that alleviate horrific fatigue and stress and which provide a more humane way of living.   Happiness really doesn’t come from a top wage.  It comes from a living wage and having a real life.  Unions should seek more security for their members by negotiating flexible work rules that might allow flight crews to fly part time or job share with someone else.  That kind of flexibility would allow airlines to schedule flights more rationally and earn more profit  and be better positioned to offer wage increases more regularly rather than fight them at every contract negotiation. 

Airline management must recognize that the largest variable controlling their financial success is their flight crew.  Flight crew represents the largest part of their costs and the biggest factor in determining the service product they offer.   Treat them humanely and pay them a living wage and airlines can begin to experience more profit which will only make their investors happy. 

Unions have to recognize that the work rules in place now were only fitting for airline up to the late 1970’s.  It’s time for them to define how to best serve their members by identifying all the variables involved in a prosperous career rather than simply wages.   They should push for company financed training, better scheduling and work rules that permit both parties to profit from extra effort put forth serving a flight.

The go! Airlines pilots mentioned in yesterday’s post were fatigued because they were flying 8 leg segments for multiple days in a row.  Why?  Because under the present system of compensation and work rules, airlines must schedule pilots intensively in order to get the most for each dollar spent.  Airlines would actually be more flexible with hours worked if pilot’s earned a salary and had a negotiated minimum and maximum of hours to be worked each month.  

Under a new system such as I described above, pilots (and other flight crew) would no longer feel tied to working for an airline that punished them with a grueling schedule week after week.  They could seek better employment elsewhere without necessarily taking an enormous pay cut to do so.  Airlines would have more predictable labor costs, greater productivity and an incentive to take better care of their crew. 

It would also solve another looming problem for airlines.  A shortage of pilots.  Presently, the barriers to entering a career as a pilot are huge.  Airlines require new hires to obtain their minimum qualifications for hire at the employees expense and then pay them near poverty level salaries for the first several years of employment.  Fewer and fewer people can afford the $100K to $150K price tag to obtain those initial qualifications and certainly find the idea of earning a poverty wage after being hired unappealing. 

Under a new system of training the pilots and paying a living wage initially, airlines can attract new people to the jobs and ensure a steady, well trained and stable work force that wants to come to work and offer an efficient service product.  Potential pilots (and other flight crew) have better opportunities to enter the profession and a career that is more stable in the early years and entirely profitable throughout the lifetime of the employee.

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

I want you to imagine waking up at 5:00am on a Monday morning and then being at work by 6:30am.  Once at work, you’ll be climbing into another car and driving 1 hour trips across a busy metropolitan area such as Chicago or Dallas or Los Angeles.  At each stop you’ll have about 5 to 10 minutes to go to the bathroom or to get something to drink or munch on through the day.  You do this from 7:30am until 7:30pm at night. 

Once finished, because you are far away from your home, you get a motel room and go someplace to eat like Chili’s.  You do get to sleep by 10pm (and mind you I just gave you only 2.5 hours to find a motel, get something to eat and then get yourself prepared to sleep which sounds like a lot but really isn’t) but you are in a strange, hard bed and your sleep is disturbed somewhat. 

You get up at 5:00am again, shower and pack and get a ride back to your duty station and climb back into a car to drive from 7:30am to 7:30pm again under the same conditions described above.  Once done, you do get to go home and sleep and arrive home at around 9pm.  You have to eat, get to sleep and, once more, get up at 5:00am to do this routine one more time all day.

How tired are you going to be on that third day of duty?  Almost anyone, physically fit or not, is going to be pretty exhausted.  He or she will be prone to make mistakes in their daily work and will find it difficult to stay awake at the wheel at certain points of the day.  That’s the life of a domestic airline pilot.  It’s really not any different for flight attendants, by the way.   Oh and before we go on, I want to point out that that pilot working those duty hours will actually only be paid for about 8 or 9 of the 12 hours they’ll be working on such a schedule. 

Now, some people might be tempted to say they could or did handle such a schedule and it wasn’t any big deal.  Really?  No big deal?  Well, I’ll agree that many of us have had to work such a fatiguing schedule (including myself during my courier driver days 20 years ago) but let’s not act like it isn’t a big deal.  It is.  Under such situations, most people will make bad mistakes, act irritable towards fellow workers or even customers, they’ll eat poorly and they’ll be prone to falling into micro-sleeps (nodding off for brief moments) during their work. 

Is that who you want flying you from Chicago to Cedar Rapids?  Well, you have probably a 2 in 3 chance that your pilot on such a flight will be just that fatigued.   Think about that for a few moments.

 Earlier in 2008, two pilots (an experienced captain and first officer) fell asleep while flying a go! Airlines (a subsidiary of Mesa Airlines) commuter flight in Hawaii.  The NTSB has released a final report on that incident which can be found HERE.  In short, both the captain and first officer had flown schedules not unsimilar to the scenario I described at the start of this post and both fell victim to fatigue.  While there was no harm suffered from their falling asleep, it is a disturbing development.   Mesa fired both pilots as a result of this incident which, in part, ultimately came to light from their self reporting the problem (as well as the problem being originally identified by ATC when they tried to clear them to their destination.)

It highlights a problem that is growing among pilots over the past 20 years.  Fatigue and work rules to mitigate it are a major subject of many, if not most, union contract negotiations.   Airlines are fighting new work rules as proposed by the FAA in court now.  Pilot unions are refusing to cooperate with work rule variances on many new ultra-long haul routes that have the potential to be major money makers for airlines.   Two years ago, American Airlines bid to fly a route from DFW airport to China and ultimately had to amend their proposal because the pilot’s union refused to give a work rule variance for the 18+ hour flight.  American Airlines lost the bid as a result. 

In Part 2, I’ll discuss the opportunities to make a real change in this problem that could benefit both pilots and airlines. 

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