American Airlines announced that they will be closing the Kansas City Maintenance Base in about a year.  The maintenance base was begun by TWA and has existed for oer 50 years servicing aircraft that include the Lockheed Constellation, the Boeing 747 and the McDonnel Douglas MD-80.    The Kansas City newspaper has a photo gallery of this base HERE.

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

Northwest Airlines pilots have their flying privileges revoked by the FAA.

 

The FAA has revoked the pilots’ certificates immediately.  They now have 10 days to appeal this emergency action (and no doubt will.)

 

More from the Dallas Morning News HERE.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
1 Comment »

If you are ever at an airport and see an aircraft with the company name Capital Airways, you’ve just seen the US Justice Department’s own little airline for transporting prisoners.

 

This is an example of what it looks like.

Filed under: Trivia by ajax
2 Comments »

I  have a funny feeling that safety and getting those Delta/Northwest ops combined is about to become a big focus at the airline. 

 

Incident 1: NTSB INVESTIGATING LANDING OF COMMERCIAL JETLINER ON TAXIWAY IN ATLANTA
——————————————————————————–

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the landing of a Delta B-767 on an active taxiway at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport (ATL).

According to preliminary information received from several sources, on Monday, October 19, 2009, at 6:05 a.m. EDT, a Boeing B767-332ER (N185DN) operating as Delta Air Lines flight 60 from Rio de Janeiro to Atlanta landed on taxiway M at ATL after being cleared to land on runway 27R. No injuries to any of the 182 passengers or 11 crewmembers were reported.

A check airman was on the flight deck along with the captain and first officer. During cruise flight, the check airman became ill and was relocated to the cabin for the remainder of the flight. A medical emergency was declared and the company was notified by the crew. A determination was made to land at the scheduled destination of ATL.

The flight was cleared to land on runway 27R but instead landed on taxiway M, which is situated immediately to the north and parallel to runway 27R. The runway lights for 27R were illuminated; the localizer and approach lights for 27R were not turned on. Taxiway M was active but was clear of aircraft and ground vehicles at the time the aircraft landed. The wind was calm with 10 miles visibility. Night/dark conditions prevailed; twilight conditions began at about 7:20 a.m. EDT and the official sunrise was at 7:46 a.m. EDT.

A team of four from the NTSB, led by David Helson, is investigating the incident.

The issue of runway safety has been on the NTSB’s Most Wanted List of Safety Improvements since its inception in 1990. Information on the NTSB’s work on runway safety is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/mostwanted/runways.htm
Incident 2: NTSB INVESTIGATING FLIGHT THAT OVERFLEW INTENDED MINNEAPOLIS AIRPORT
——————————————————————————–

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating an incident where an Airbus A320 overflew the Minneapolis-St Paul International/Wold-Chamberlain Airport (MSP).

On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, at 5:56 pm mountain daylight time, an Airbus A320, N03274, operating as Northwest Airlines (NWA) flight 188, became a NORDO (no radio communications) flight at 37,000 feet. The flight was operating as a Part 121 flight from San Diego International Airport, San Diego, California (SAN) to MSP with 147 passengers and unknown number of crew.

At 7:58 pm central daylight time (CDT), the aircraft flew over the destination airport and continued northeast for approximately 150 miles. The MSP center controller reestablished communications with the crew at 8:14 pm and reportedly stated that the crew had become distracted and had overflown MSP, and requested to return to MSP.

According to the Federal Administration (FAA) the crew was interviewed by the FBI and airport police. The crew stated they were in a heated discussion over airline policy and they lost situational awareness. The Safety Board is scheduling an interview with the crew.

The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) have been secured and are being sent to the NTSB laboratory in Washington, DC.

David Lawrence, the Investigator-in-Charge, is leading the team of 3 in investigating the incident.

Parties to the investigation are the FAA and Northwest Airlines.

 

It would appear that pilots at the combined companies are allowing themselves to be a bit distracted these days.  I particularly hope that the CVR transcripts for that second incident become available one day.  Something tells me that policy talk wasn’t the problem.

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

There is a push to get more and more people to bring carry-on baggage only on most airlines here in the US.  The trend actually started in Europe with airlines such as Ryanair leading the charge but what works there doesn’t necessarily work here.  And the best reasons for it over there are not necessarily the best reasons over here.

 

The duration of trips and even the habits of dressing in Europe are very different from the US / North American markets and lend themselves much more readily to using a carry-on only strategy.   For the LCC carriers of Europe, infrastructure is very different as well.  The secondary airports they often serve have far inferior baggage handling capability than our secondary airports do.  In fact, our secondary airports are often just as busy (proportionately) as they international/hub airports in the same area.  Our secondary airports have to have handling facilities that are commensurate with the traffic. 

 

Boarding and disembarkation is also very different between the two countries.  In Europe, LCC carriers frequently use both entrances to the aircraft (front and back) to disembark passengers while at the same time boarding new ones.  Or they use both entryways to the aircraft at the same time for each function.  Either way, it helps with their turnaround and it’s a model Europeans are accustomed to cooperating with.

 

Not so here.  We board people via one jetway and disembark via one jetway.  Our airport infrastructure was designed and implemented decades ago and is poorly designed to handle thousands of people carrying their life’s possessions.  Our check-in desks are “owned” by airlines and not shared assets.  Our baggage handling is done (primarily) by airline employees instead of shared services provided by ground handling companies.   Our security apparatus wasn’t provided for in the design of airport terminals and, as a result, find us dealing with huge lines that are often bogged down by travelers carrying all their luggage.  Our aircraft fleets are equipped with overhead bins that were really placed there as purse/coat/hat/briefcase storage rather than for heavy carry-on luggage. 

 

And then there is the passenger.   The frequent US traveler is often found carrying more “stuff” such as 2 suits where 1 would do.   This person is often traveling for a longer duration too, requiring more “stuff” as well.  The inexperienced travelers are trying hard to avoid those bag fees but don’t know how to quite do it properly because they learned how to travel in a different time.   How many times have we been behind someone in security who had their cosmetics/shampoo/toothpaste wrongly packaged and packed and holding up the line?  Very few airports have room enough to establish multiple lanes for security and that means we all bottleneck at the least disruption.

 

My own pet peeve is the established frequent flier.  They’ve learned a lot in their time on the road but also engage in practices that inhibit anyone but them.   I’m speaking of the guy in the dark grey suit on my last Airtran flight who boarded, loaded his carry-on into a bin at the front and then walked to the back half of the aircraft to his seat.  Jerk.  He took up space that  others sitting in that area could have used and forced *those* people to put their bags farther back than desired.   This meant that when the plane landed, 4 people attempted to get down the aisle against the flow to gather their own luggage holding the vast majority of people up.  In addition, I had to watch no less than 4 Airtran staff find locations for those bags before we could close the aircraft and depart resulting in a nearly 20 minute delay.

 

My own anecdotal observation is that aircraft aren’t leaving quicker.  The airlines aren’t using fewer people and the flight crew is now taxed with another duty:  policing baggage.   There may be some savings in fuel as a function of less baggage but that could be achieved with stricter checked baggage limits.  Want to bring the weight down?  Set a 30lbs limit per bag instead of 50 lbs.  That will improve things quickly.   Still want a fee for checked baggage and those incremental revenues?  Set that limit at 30lbs for the 1st bag checked and make it free (Set a size limit too!).  Charge $20 for the next bag up to 50lbs.  You’ll still get your incremental revenue but your flows on and off the airplane and inside your own terminal will improve greatly.  Your aircraft turnaround will improve slightly and you should still see some savings on fuel costs as a function of reduced weight. 

 

If you are one of the people that are convinced that airlines lose baggage all the time and for every flight, get over it.  It is an apocryphal story that few have ever experienced.  I’ve been flying for over 20 years and had my luggage “lost” once and twice more it was delayed 2 hours (came in on the next flight.)  I’m not luckier than anyone else.  Does it happen?  Sure.  In most cases, people are reunited with their luggage hours after their arrival in their destination city.  In a few more extreme cases, they see it the next day.  The number of people left after that are so small as a function of the number of flights each day that they aren’t even statistically significant.

 

You can’t add fees without looking to also increase or improve service or you will get extreme backlash in the form of complaints that result mostly from higher expectations.  You can add fees if you change those expectations with reasonable limits and improve the overall perceived service value. 

 

Just because everyone hates most every airline presently doesn’t mean that will always be the case.  Some airlines are already discovering that improving the perceived value is as important as any incremental revenue from fees.  Those are the airlines that will continue to thrive.

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

Almost everyone who follows the airline business and the airlines themselves continue to insist that people buy overwhelmingly on price and there is quite a bit of evidence to support that general feeling.    The best example is that among legacy carriers serving a particular non-stop route, when one airlines lowers their price, the other airlines can and do see a drop in their bookings for that route if they don’t match that price.

 

There is a lot of truth that individual routes can be seen as nearly perfect competitive environments.  Any airline executive worth his salt will tell you that when an airline opens up a city pair, they look upon it as growing another business.  Each route is a “business” to be developed and nurtured and maintained.

 

Legacy airlines are the masters of being all things to all people.  Low cost carriers are the masters of high frequency/low cost models.  Leisure airlines have learned how to serve market with low frequency but high value.  

 

But what do most people want?  That isn’t ever as clear as people want to believe.  The dynamics between two cities change over time and adjusting to those changes is essential to maintaining that “business”. 

 

My father, once a very senior airline executive, told a story to me long ago that I’ve never forgotten.  His airline, Braniff, served the Dallas / NYC route with a daily late afternoon flight that for years was a huge money maker because it was flown primarily by businessmen.  In the mid-1970’s, they noticed that traffic on that route began to erode ever so slightly and even a small erosion worried an airline even back then.   Then he happened to take the flight to do some financial business in NYC on behalf of the airline and he realized the problem.

 

Business between the two cities had begun to change.  Traditional businessmen such as bankers or leaders of large corporations had continued to fly that flight because their model was to go to NYC the night before, conduct some business until 2 or 3 in the afternoon and then fly home to be in their own homes by mid-evening.   But entrepreneurship had begun to flower and more and more businessmen/entrepreneurs saw that as a waste of time for such a trip.  They wanted to work until late afternoon and fly home as late as possible in order to maximize their time there.

 

So Braniff added a second flight in the early evening that allowed businessmen to work until 4:30pm, go to the airport and catch the 7:30pm flight home which put them back in Dallas late at night but which met their needs to stay as long as possible to maximize their work.   As a consequence, both flights began to do much better because even the entrepreneurs could recognize that when their work was done, it was time to go home and if it was done at 2pm, they went to the airport and caught the early flight home.  Traditional businessmen began to be expected to be more efficient and when they couldn’t leave at 2pm, they knew they had another option for later in the day.  Braniff began to own that route again.  Frequency was the answer.

 

I would argue that when two or more airlines “own” a route, service is often going to be the discriminator.  But what form of service will be necessary?  Is it options in seating that allow a traveler to have more legroom?  Is it more frequency?  Is it some form of a meal?  Is it WiFi or video on demand?

 

For 30 years airlines have worked to harmonize their fleets, reduce the different number of equipment types and flatten their service offerings to the lowest common denominator.  Particularly the legacy airlines.  But for the past 10 years, we’ve seen new airlines offering more segmented choices on each flight and those airlines are the ones who continue to earn a profit, experience growth and satisfy shareholders.

 

There have been some half hearted experiments with increased choice and segmentation.  Delta had Song airlines offering more entertainment and a brighter, cheerier environment.  United had Ted airlines which was economy oriented.   But I suspect that it wasn’t necessary to change the brand so much as it indicated a need to offer more choice on the aircraft.

 

I think in the future we’re going to see more choices in seating on airlines.   The low cost only passenger wants price above anything else.  The business traveler needs an economy choice (to satisfy their company’s desire to economize) that offers a little more room.  I think we’ll see different seat pitches offered and different service choices (a la Frontier) offered as well.  This is an area where Frontier has pioneered change and seen positive results.  Same for jetBlue.  Those airlines continue to earn an operating profit and grow.

 

Legacy airlines are going to have to be more flexible in fleet, fleet configuration and they’ll even have to consider offering things like meals and entertainment.  There already is a move to do this among certain airlines.  Continental is adding LiveTV to their fleet.  Delta/Northwest has recognized that having a varied fleet allows them to “tune” their service to the demands and continue to earn a profit. 

 

When an airline can adjust capacity on a route by season, month or time of day, it can continue to make money.  When it has just two choices of aircraft to use on a route and both have more capacity than needed, they start to lose money.  (Hello AA.)

 

I think that one day one legacy airline will have the guts to start advertising in markets that speaks to “real world” experience on their line versus the airline that “owns” the city.   For instance, I think Continental could come into the Dallas market and already argue that yes, you have to connect in Houston to go to NYC but if you do, more often than not you’ll get there in the same time with better service than flying American Airlines who has an untrustworthy on-time record and who treats their passengers to old aircraft and little or no service.   Someone will have the guts to start trying to change the perceived value of travel.

 

The truth is that there is a great difference between legacy airlines on any two city pairs.  The key is to identify that difference and communicate it to the traveler.  Right now, that really doesn’t happen.   An airline such as Continental shouldn’t attempt to compete with AA on price alone.  They should offer the real differences such as a meal on flights of 3 hours or more, LiveTV, equipment that is as much as 10 years newer or more than AA and a staff that enjoys doing its job.    They should offer incentives for changing airlines and trying them once such as a guaranteed business class seat for the price of AA’s economy seat. 

 

It will happen in some form.  It has to.  The newer airlines such as Frontier, Airtran, jetBlue and Virgin America have all proved that offering more choice on the aircraft works.  Even Southwest has recognized that it has to offer more choice in order to retain their very valuable business traveler.   What’s more important is that even some passengers who buy on price alone have realized that the incremental extra cost of one or two of those “extras” is worth it once again.

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

I’m glad that there has been a dialog on excessive flight delays for the past few years.  Just having the dialog has helped, I think.   But now people are starting to talk about real solutions as opposed to shouting out “there ought to be a law!”.  I agree, there should be a law but I also agree with airports and airlines that the law ought to be sensible too.

 

The cause of long delays on the tarmac derive from a variety of factors.  Certainly weather is the biggest one of all.  Severe weather is somewhat unpredictable both in timing and severity and I get that.  You just can’t always guess right.  But I think there are some issues that are getting ignored in the discussion.

 

First, I would ask why we allow airlines to board airplanes and send them out in droves when it is clear that airport operations are about to be impacted severely by an arriving storm?   I blame airlines, airport management and the FAA for that.  When an arriving severe storm is on the horizon, cramming people into the airplane and trying to rush it out for take-off before it (the storm) arrives is just a bad strategy.  Every airline is pursuing that at the same time and that means maybe 10% of all the aircraft are going to make their departures. 

 

Airlines have several incentives to behave that way.  One, if they leave the gate within 15 minutes of scheduled departure, they get to count that as an on time departure.  That counts in the evaluation(s) of virtually every airline employee working that particular flight.  Bad idea because it allows them to shove the problem on someone else without consequence.  Wouldn’t it be better for the Department of Transportation to set criteria for these “on time” departures that reflects both reality and common sense?  Isn’t it better to declare an amnesty on on time stats during severe weather on the part of airlines?  You need to dis-incentivize that behavior during those times.

 

The big unspoken problem that airlines haven’t really mentioned is the impact to their operations system wide.  If an airline starts canceling flights in a hub city, that impact will start to be felt all over the country in as little as 2 hours.   Canceling flights has an impact potential for creating disarray in airline operations for days.  Delaying them but ultimately getting them to their destinations that day has far less of an impact.   There could be a few solutions to this problem such as a mutual aid pact between airlines.  Why not consolidate 2 delayed flights onto one aircraft, share the revenue and return to normal asap rather than try to send 6 delayed flights to the same destination at the end of a storm?  There is a history of mutual aid pacts among airlines but they largely disappeared with deregulation.  However, that doesn’t mean they can’t be encouraged again. 

 

Airlines need flexibility but the drive to equip a fleet with as few different aircraft types as possible means that they lost some flexibility.  I wonder if the costs of sorting out a massive disruption aren’t worth an extra aircraft or two to mitigate against problems.  Again, airlines used to have a history of having backups for these kinds of problem but lean operations demanded by shareholders don’t really allow for proper risk mitigation.  Better fleet planning and utilization might allow an airline to fly a 767 with 2 flights of 737 passengers to a destination during a severe disruption to operations.  By consolidating the passengers into one flight, getting them to their destination instead of stranding them and eliminating some departure congestion, every one’s best interests and pocket book might be better served.  But it requires us to allow some cooperation among airlines and some long range planning too.

 

If you make it the law that a passenger must have the right to get off an airplane and abandon the flight after 3 or 4 hours, you won’t solve anything.  There will be as much congestion (and possibly more) and the potential for greater delays.  However, if you allow the FAA to “prioritize” departures under certain circumstances and meter the flow, airlines won’t be so quick to board airplanes and shove them out onto the taxiways.  Airports and airlines should be forced to consider the whole picture before boarding an aircraft.  If it has no opportunity to taxi to the runway and take off within one hour, it shouldn’t be leaving the gate in the first place. 

 

Airports could help better too.  You can’t expect them to accommodate every displaced passenger during a storm but you can expect them to have a good emergency plan that includes keeping restaurants and stores open, overflow areas for passengers to park themselves for longer durations and equipment that allows disembarkation during storms that keep ground personnel indoors. 

 

Right now, you have people saying that airlines should allow individual passengers off an airplane if they want off after three or four hours.  That potentially further delays 100+ passengers for the benefit of 5 or 10.  Instead, airlines should simply be required to return to a gate and accommodate passengers reasonably if they haven’t departed within 3 hours.  Like it or not, a flight should be an all or nothing proposition. 

 

Finally, airlines should be required to consider what the diversion options are.  Airlines have been increasingly using alternate cities that are close by but non-standard stops for their business.  Should American Airlines keep aircraft on the ground at an airport that doesn’t have proper ground handling equipment or facilities for those passengers?  Absolutely not.  The context of potential diversions should be considered when planning a flight.   If an airline is faced with potential diversions when flying to a particular area, it should carry enough fuel to divert outside of that area of disruption and to a location where they can reasonably accommodate the aircraft and passengers. 

 

It does absolutely no good to anyone to send flights to Rochester, MN when MSP is shutdown if the airport can’t accommodate the aircraft and passengers in the first place.  For that particular event, it would have been far better to send that aircraft to Milwaukee, Des Moines or Rockford where the airports were experienced in accommodating diverted flights late at night. 

Without genuine cooperation between airlines, empowering the FAA and air traffic control and requiring airports to plan for the worst rather than the best, this problem doesn’t get solved to any one’s satisfaction.

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

The Cranky Flier had a post today discussing Continental’s new moves in LAX which include new flights to Hawaii.   Continental will have an all 737 base in the Los Angeles area with two 737’s serving new flights from Orange County to Hawaii.  It made me think.

 

Back in the pre-regulatory days, flights from the mainland US to Hawaii were served by large aircraft such as the 707, DC-8 and, later, the 747, DC-10, L-1011 and even the 767.  The routes allowed airlines to serve huge numbers of customers with large aircraft and make money.  Braniff International had the franchise for Dallas to Honolulu in the 1970’s and served it with a 747 and an amazing 16 hours per day utilization.  

 

Then deregulation came and airlines slowly began to develop new routes.  It was no longer necessary to fly to a “gateway” city to catch a flight to Hawaii.  More and more cities found themselves being served with those routes to Hawaii.  Again, Braniff International, at one time, had a 747 flight from Portland, OR to Hawaii.  (It carried little traffic, however.)

 

There was some consolidation after airlines learned that not everyone in a particular city was dying to fly to Hawaii.  But the big change for Hawaii has been ETOPS or twin engine flights overseas.   This allowed airlines to serve smaller markets with aircraft both capable of the loads as well as the distance.  The truth is, when the airlines don’t have to feed 150 passengers a day to a gateway city but can fly them directly, they make more money.    20 years ago, I would have chuckled if someone told me that 737-700 aircraft would fly to Hawaii from the mainland. 

 

Boeing and Airbus have different views for the roles of widebody, large capacity aircraft.  10 years ago, Boeing forecast that the market would continue to fracture with more and more direct routes being employed as opposed to large capacity hub to hub flying.   Airbus, however, believed that the crowded skies would force more large capacity hub to hub flying onto the airlines.   It turns out that Boeing was more right. 

 

The markets drive these changes and when an airlines can make more pure profit using right sized aircraft flying direct, they will.  Yes, the legacy airlines of the US (and other parts of the world) continue to follow a hub and spoke model primarily but they’re all learning that more direct flying where the loads fully justify it is a good and profitable thing.

 

Accordingly, this is where I think Boeing continues to have a winning strategy with its 787/777 product line.  Yes, there are a few airlines capable of filling an A-380 and those airlines will make money from using that aircraft.  But as more and more nations open up their skies to more competition, that is going to change.   Having the right aircraft for the right route will be key to a manufacturer’s success and Boeing seems to have a better feel for the world market whereas Airbus seems more plugged into the Euro/Middle East markets they already do so well in. 

 

I’m no longer sure there is a real place for the new 747-8 aircraft.  Boeing’s 777-300 is just as capable in almost every case and carries a massive number of passengers without being so big that it adds risk during seasonal low periods.  The same is true for the 777-200. 

 

And what happens when aircraft such as the 787 family begin flying?  This family is roughly 767-sized in capacity but its range is far greater and that means even more markets can be accessed via long haul direct flying.   An international airline can probably make more money (through passengers *and* cargo) using the 787 and 777 families for more direct flying with aircraft that are “right sized” for the markets than they can using much of the Airbus family.

 

Airbus has one aircraft model suitable for this right now.  The A-330.  the A-340 is essentially dead since it under performs against the 777 in virtually any mission.  The A-330 is right sized for a number of the current markets and many more of the future markets.   The A-380 is suitable for only a few markets and those are already dwindling for some airlines.  For instance, QANTAS has introduced the A-380 on their routes to the US.  However, with a new Open Skies treaty between the two countries, there are also new entrants to the market like V Australia and Delta who are vying for customers with United and QANTAS very competively.  Those airlines understand that it will take a while to develop their routes and build relationships with airlines in both countries to feed traffic but it will happen.  As that traffic shifts from what was originally two airlines (QANTAS and United) to four airlines (QANTAS, United plus V Australia and Delta), what happens to each airlines’ loads? 

 

It’s notable that QANTAS flies the 747 and A380 to the US and United flies the 747 exclusively.  The new entrants are using the 777-300 and 777-200 for their flights.    The 787 and it’s longer range capabilities will quite possibly fracture that market even more by making it possible to fly from the interior of the US to Australia instead of having to use a west coast gateway city.  At that point, I don’t know that QANTAS has a use for very many A380s or 747s and, additionally, they don’t have any right sized aircraft for the route(s) until they start receiving their 787s which are late and somewhat deferred. 

 

The Airbus A350 is capable of competing on many 777 routes and while it does have slightly lower trip costs vs the 777, it also has less revenue capabilty because it can’t haul as much cargo on the same missions. 

 

The world’s airline routes are going to continue to expand internationally and at a far greater rate than traffic grows between any two nations.  Having the right equipment for the right moment is going to be key for any international airlines survival.  Those who don’t plan for it now and have it arriving in the next 5 to 10 years are going to wither to a slow death.

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

I was going to write up something about my return trip on Airtran but here is the summary:  I left on time, I arrived late in ATL, I left ATL late and arrived in Dallas late.  I was tired but the aircraft and onboardservice was much the same as it was going outbound.

 

Now a word or three about what, I think, is still missing from the airline industry.  You, the airlines, can charge me fees for better seats and even my 2nd or 3rd bag checked.  You can outright eliminate food and beverages for all I care.   Your inflight magazine does nothing for me and internet access is pretty cool but wholly unnecessary even in today’s modern world.

 

I’d like to have a properly padded seat instead of an old worn one that I can feel the metal framing on.  I would like to have at least 32″ of seat pitch but I’d prefer 33″ of seat pitch.  If we are going to persist in this idea that flight attendants are there for my safety only, then how about we insist they treat their safety briefings as something more than a bored recitation.  And when you ask me if I know that I’m in an exit row and if I’m comfortable with that, at least look at me to see if I’ve nodded my head yes or no.

 

I would like the flight to depart and arrive reasonably on time according to the schedule you set.  I’ll define “reasonable” as being within 30 minutes of what you publish as the times (which is 15 minutes more generous than the government.)  It would be good for you to have my bag(s) at the baggage carousel within 15 to 20 minutes of opening the aircraft for us to deplane.  You are, after all, now charging me a fairly hefty fee to carry them.  And speaking of that fee . . .

 

I’d like my bags to be more secure in their travel.  That means providing a security apparatus that actually detects and stops thievery immediately.  If you want me to check in online, then don’t be charging a fee to do so.  After all, you (the airlines) wanted to eliminate the paper and you got what you want. 

 

I do expect a company that is capable of flying a multi-million dollar aircraft across the country to be able to provide sufficient and up to date status of my flight.  In other words, if you are going to change a gate assignment for an arriving airplane, change it in a timely manner so that my wife isn’t having to drive around the terminal *again* to pick me up because you couldn’t be bothered.  Don’t bother updating it 10 minutes after I’m in her car.  It does do any of us any good at all.

 

I don’t want to subsidize the frequent business traveler.  If they need larger seats and an internet connection, make *them* pay for it, not me.  

 

I’ve already agreed to sit in your metal tube for a specified time.  I know that part is going to be somewhat unpleasant and I accept that.  I don’t want to sit in your seats designed by Torquemada because you can’t adequately schedule your flights and find yourself unable to take off for several hours.  That is your problem, not mine.  Putting people on an aircraft and then holding them on a taxiway for even an extra two hours is the equivalent of fraud. 

 

You want better air traffic control andbetter flow around airports?  Great!  Do what airlines used to do and get together as an industry and”git ‘er done”.   I’ll happily fund it as a taxpayer but come to some agreement on what has to happen and *push* for it.   Wringing your hands and pointing at the FAA while yelling “Your Fault” is just childish.  You have both the staff and know how to help fix the situation so do it.

 

Treat your staff better.  You dont’ have to pay them the salary of a doctor but treat them like the human beings they are.  Reward their efforts and recognize them when they go beyond the call of duty.   Southwest Airlines manages to do this and they manage it with some of the highest labor costs in the industry.  It is a profitable and cost saving thing to do.  Quite acting like every one of your employees is reaching into your pocket and stealing. 

 

Yo!  Employees of airlines!  Get real too.  I do think you should be paid a living wage and treated well.  But I also think that you could adapt to the new world and figure out how to make your company succeed.  Quit extorting with the threats of labor action and come up with some solutions.  You work the jobs and therefore should have some solutions to the industry problems.  And if you just hate your job, find another one.  Don’t take out your frustrations with being away from home on me as I walk onto your aircraft.  You knew what that job entailed before you were hired so don’t make it my problem now.

 

To my fellow passengers:  Grow up.  You are no longer paying for food, drink or a reclining seat.  It’s an unfortunate reduction in service but it comes with a huge discount in the cost of flying.  Get on the plane, get a book out and enjoy a nice cup of shut the hell up.   Acting the prima donna only serves to raise tension levels enormously andby now you should have figured out that it doesn’t change anything.   When I ask you to raise your seat back *off* my kneecaps, don’t respond like I just asked you for a hundred dollar bill.  Show some courtesy and accomodate the request.  In return, I won’t speak to you and I’ll even let you have the arm rest if you’re quiet too.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

In my last post, I mentioned that I was traveling Airtran.  My flight was from Dallas / Ft. Worth to Newport News, VA (Patrick Henry Field).  The Newport News airport is close to Williamsburg, VA where I have family and far more convenient than Richmond or Norfolk which are far more common for flying into that area. 

 

First, I’ll mention my booking and check-in experience.  Airtran’s website works pretty well these days and even accommodates the pre-payment of checked luggage when you do your online check-in.   My biggest criticism of the Airtran site is that you have to go through many different pages to complete the reservation and/or check-in process.  I suspect many airlines will be adding more pages to their processes if only because of the a la carte nature of the new airline business model.

 

I’ve mentioned in other, earlier posts that some airlines are developing and implementing electronic boarding passes to be carried on one’s PDA.  During my struggle to maintain 3 sheets of paper for each day of travel, I began to long for being able to use such a system on Airtran.   On my two leg trip from DFW to PHF via ATL, I had to have 2 different boarding passes on two separate pieces of paper (why, I don’t know since they are to be scanned) and I carried my receipt for pre-paying my checked baggage in case of trouble when I arrived at the airport.  Having those boarding passes and that receipt on a PDA would help immensely with simply managing the paperwork.

 

DFW to ATL (Boeing 737-700) Seat 18A:       This aircraft was clean and generally well cared for but my particular seat kept wanting to recline without being asked to do so.  As a consequence, I kept raising my seat back during the 2 hour flight and found my back feeling a bit strained after awhile.  As a rule, I don’t recline my seat when sitting in coach on such a flight simply because it’s truly discourteous to do given the little leg room and personal space that is afforded in coach.   Ordinarily, I enjoy the Airtran 737 because they use a nice Recaro seat that seems to fit my body very well.  This flight was an anomaly compared to previous experiences.

 

The gate agents loaded the plane quickly and efficiently and the flight attendants and other Airtran staff were quick to “solve” any passengers problems with stowing carryon luggage.  They did it politely but firmly and kept people moving.  As a result, the boarding process actually felt streamlined and we were able to push back precisely on time. 

 

Arriving in Atlanta, I remembered what I really don’t like about Atlanta’s airport.  It isn’t the terminals, the crowds or the often required dash to another concourse for your next flight.  It’s the taxi time from the terminal to the runway or vice versa.  It is as if you land and then travel another 40 miles to the terminal.  It feels excessively long and since your aircraft is usually behind another, you get the unpleasant aroma of burning kerosene to keep you company.  That isn’t Airtran’s fault though.

 

The Atlanta terminal is just as I’ve experienced it in the past.  Despite common complaints, you can actually move quite quickly from one gate to another as long as you’re sensible enough to get your info and read a terminal map.  If you can’t do that or won’t learn how, then you deserve what you get.   One thing I did notice about the ATL concourses was that the stores goods seemed to be priced much more fairly than usual.   They weren’t selling $3 bottles of water or $2 candy bars.  Yes, the prices were a little more expensive than the average convenience store but reasonably so.

 

ATL to PHF (Boeing 717-200) Seat 21F:  I like the Boeing 717.  Yes, it’s a tad smaller but there is something about that aircraft that suits me very well. Again, this aircraft was well cared for, staffed by flight attendants who acted as if they enjoyed going to work and my seat worked properly.  This flight had an even longer taxi time than my inbound flight but once it reached the runway, we took off quickly and seemed to get routed on a very direct path out of ATL. 

 

Both flights had a drink service with pretzels and both services were done with good cheer.  As we approached PHF, I remembered something peculiar about flying into that general area.  For some reason, the approaches feel like you arrive at high altitude and the pilot suddenly dives the airplane to the airport.  It seems as if every flight I’ve taken to that general area finds the aircraft shuddering and straining to slow down and lose enough altitude to land at the airport.  Touchdowns are always very firm and positive instead of being floating greasers. 

 

PHF is a great little airport.  It’s secondary to Norfolk but served regularly by both Airtran and Delta.  Airtran with mainline equipment and Delta by a mix mostly dominated by regional jets.  It’s convenient to most of the southern area of the peninsula bracketed by the York and James rivers.  Best of all, flights to PHF tend to be about $100 cheaper than similar flights to Norfolk or Richmond, VA.   The airport is very clean, feels very new and is easy to navigate.  You can get to I-64 in just a couple of minutes drive and be on your way to just about anywhere you need to go in the area. 

 

I’ve always liked Airtran.  They offer a superior coach product compared to most legacy airlines and they continue to adjust to the changing environment in ways that, if not exactly accomodating, are at least less punishing than most. 

 

Next post will be my return flight(s).

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline Service, Airports by ajax
2 Comments »

I went on hiatus last may because of increased work demands.  Now, my business is entering a slower period and I’m back.  I had been planning on re-starting this weekend but when I got a free Airtran GoGo Inflight WiFi pass, I decided to re-start at 33,000 feet.

What can I say?  I’m impressed with the service.  Speed seems excellent and I’m tracking my own flight via FlightAware.com right now just for kicks.  I can report that it appears to be about 3 to 5 minutes behind “real time”. 

Airtran has, once again, reminded me of what real value is when flying today.  It’s pleasant cabin staff, on time departures, decent seats and while I *hate* the baggage fees, I’ll at least give a shout out to Airtran for being one of the more affordable airlines as well as making it possible to pre-pay the fee online when doing one’s check-in. 

I’m landing soon so I’m out for now but the blog is live again.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
1 Comment »