CEO David Cush of Virgin America made statements this week saying that he was the latest wave of consolidation as an opportunity to preserve and even extend competition on the government’s part. Cush noted that the obstacles to a new airline entering a market are A) gate space B) landing and take-off slots and C) frequent flier programs.
It is notable that Virgin America has been essentially shut out of routes that it not only wants to fly but which it was designed to fly. These are trans-continental routes to destinations such as Chicago and Newark.
He states that VA’s position is that those landing slots are public assets and greater access to them is good for everyone.
I couldn’t agree more and I’ve said so before. Allowing dominance at gateway and/or hub cities is a bad idea. There should always be a mechanism for a new airline to enter a market if only to offer a toehold opportunity. I’ve supported seaonal auctions for those slots at slot controlled airports and I believe airports could do a far better job of allocating assets such as gate space too.
However, I also take note that Virgin America has so far avoided any opportunities at destinations that are dominated by one airline and, in particular, dominated by American Airlines. (Cush is a former AA executive.) I would point out that VA could be flying routes from California to Dallas, for instance and they have so far studiously avoided that and instead chose to explore options like California – Florida (a notoriously low yield set of routes).
An Dallas isn’t the only place. VA has had opportunity to fly to Chicago but has refused to enter the market because the gate space that is available is less than perfect. Another opportunity might be California – St. Louis: there are huge aerospace and defense industries with ties to each other in both locations. It’s also notable that, again, St. Louis is an AA and SWA city.
I would love to see middle America experience an airline like Virgin America or jetBlue. I think it contains some greatly overlooked opportunities. There couldn’t be a better time to explore those opportunities while legacy airlines are otherwise occupied in managing cash and stemming losses.
Yes, let’s open the markets up. However, if you’re going to talk to the talk, please walk the walk.
Teenage girl Abby Sunderland set off two emergency beacons after her boat’s mast was removed in heavy weather yesterday. You can read details HERE.
The rather interesting part of this rescue operation, to me, was that she was located and contacted after a QANTAS A330 was chartered and sent to find her. No coast guard aircraft could make that trip and very few (if any) military aircraft in that part of the world would have been capable of doing it. An empty A330 could do it easily (it was about a 9 hour trip total). The pilots of the aircraft were able to communicate with Ms. Sunderland when she used her marina radio.
There is no doubt the airline industry is changing again. With legacies merging to become SuperLegacies and owners of very diversified fleets, there is more and more pressure on regional airlines. In addition, the bankruptcies of the 2000’s have led to airlines with lower cost structures and revised contracts that allow more “regional” flying of mainline routes. That would imply more regional airline flying but the “regionals” flying those aircraft under those scope clauses are, for the most part, owned by the legacy airlines.
Republic airlines has been attempting ot diversify itself by buying Frontier and Midwest. Mesa airlines is just holding on by a thread. ExpressJet tried branded flying and corporate flying without much luck. So, where does it from here?
I think cost is going to be the driver in the future. Regional jets became prolific for one reason in the 1990’s: cheap oil. That’s gone and it is unlikely that we’ll ever see it again. Three regional airlines adopted a newer model of flying modern turboprop aircraft and I think it is interesting that those three also happen to be pretty profitable and reliable operations. Horizon (wholly owned by Alaska Airlines), Frontier’s Lynx and Pinnacle (Colgan) on behalf of Continental all adopted the Q400 turboprop and made it work very nicely.
Yes, Lynx is going away since Republic couldn’t justify a small subfleet when it had other aircraft that were more expensive and which would sit idle if not used on behalf of Frontier. However, even Southwest Airlines was very intrigued by what they saw of Lynx last year when they decided to bid for Frontier. Horizon continues to be profitable and flies this aircraft on some pretty long routes and remains competitive with regional jets and even some mailine aircraft. Pinnacle (Colgan) has done very well for Continental out of the NYC area and will soon be expanding its turboprops into Houston for Continental.
The turboprop is much cheaper to operate. A 30% to 40% load factor can result in a break even flight whereas some airlines effectively lose money on similar routes using small regional jets.
They are cheaper to buy. A Q400 costs less to purchase than an E170/190, has almost as many seats and is just as comfortable for 90%+ of all routes. They’re also a little bit cheaper to maintain.
The modern turboprop can fly block times on routes of 500nm or less that are competitive with any jet. Oh, there might be 5 minutes difference in the block times between a Q400 and an E170 or B737 but it’s a competive block time. Why? The turboprops reach crusing altitude faster, can take off from more runways and can land quicker (reduced time to go from cruising to landing altitudes.)
I think we’ll see independent regional airlines explore more turboprop flying for the legacy airlines in the future. It is a niche that fits them well and, yes, goes back to basics. The regionals which are flying mainline routes with semi-regional jet equipment are going to be subsidiary companies of legacies in the future. The legacy airlines can use them to onboard new pilots and use them as places to keep pilots hired when furloughs are necessary from mainline flying. Unions like that and, as a result, are likely to embrace allowing more “scope” for flying the 70 to 100 seat aircraft on more mainline routes in the future.
Two days ago, Emirates announced an additional $11 Billion order for 32 more A380 aircraft. If all of its orders are delivered, this means a fleet of 90 A380 aircraft by 2017 or just 7 years from now. It’s an impressive order and no airline enthusiast can deny that such a fleet is kind of exciting. But it doesn’t make sense. for either Emirates or Airbus.
This certainly allows Airbus to plunge ahead for a while longer manufacturing the A380 but it really doesn’t put them any further ahead on earning any real profit from the airliner when you consider the deferrals and (potential) cancellations from other airlines. In addition, this adds risk to their orderbook rather than reduces it because this indicates a growing dependency on just one airline for this aircraft.
Several airlines have the A380 and most indications are that while they can make money with it, it isn’t a game changer for the airlines. As the world of airline routes continues to fracture due to aircraft like the A330, 777 and now the 787 and A350, more and more flying is becoming “point to point” in the international world. There are a relatively few routes that can support the A380.
Even the largest 747 fleet operators such as British Airways and JAL have made moves to start replacing their largest aircraft with Boeing 777 aircraft on most routes. Yes, British Airways has orders for the A380 but one has to question how many they can support even on their busiest routes such as London-NYC or London-Australia.
If British Airways (at one time they had over 50 747 aircraft) can’t support a large fleet of 747s anymore, how can Emirates do so? Emirates doesn’t have magic working for it. They don’t know something that others don’t. They do have some cost advantages on fuel and labor but as time goes by, even those advantages narrow considerably. So how does Emirates justify a fleet of 90 A380 aircraft?
They don’t. A fleet of 90 A380s means ownership of that aircraft for the next 30 years at minimum. 30 years of operating such aircraft is a long time and let’s not lose sight of the fact that there isn’t exactly hot demand for used jumbos these days. Even relatively new(ish) 747s are now being retired into a life as cargo aircraft as 777s replace them.
Further, Airbus and Boeing aren’t a bunch of huckleberries when it comes to forecasting their markets. In fact, their forecasts tend to agree in most areas except the concept of the super Jumbo. Boeing doesn’t see that market growing and has chosen to focus on serving the fat middle section of the widebody market (220 to 350 seats) with their 787/777 family.
Perhaps Emirates will prove me (and others) wrong. But I’d bet large money against them at this point.
Update 6/10/2010 at 11:00am CDT: I sent 2 emails yesterday afternoon to American Airlines’ Public Relations department and while I got several odd “out of office” emails back, no one yet has responded to my inquiry on whether or not they plan to comment or react to this video.
Original post:
So, I found this video this yesterday evening:
The real lesson in all of this is for American Airlines. You never know *who* is flying on your airline and *who* your employees are potentially harming or lying to on any one day. It might be some powerless schmo and it might be a powerful executive. Even worse, it might be someone with pretty good graphic skills and who knows how to both tell a story and edit a video that goes viral beyond an airline’s worst dreams.
The guy will probably gets some satisfaction from this. Probably a new bike and based on what I saw, that’s probably a $2000+ bike. But the cost isn’t the bike. The cost is the PR nightmare that this will become over the next few days when this video truly goes viral worldwide. And it’s good enough to do so. The cost of everyone at AA now scrambling to deal with this will far exceed the cost of the bike and their efforts won’t fully repair the image problem.
You can read more about the author’s problems at NYC Aviation.
The Dallas Morning News Aviation Blog has this post HERE about analysts beginning to like the idea of a merger between American Airlines and US Airways. This marriage occurred to me back in April and you can read my post HERE. Eric Torbensen at the Dallas Morning News thinks it is a terrible idea and I disagree.
The real reason to perhaps not do a merger between these two airlines is that American Airlines is terrible at mergers. Their employees don’t embrace them and their executive corps approaches them like predators. As a result, mergers at AA tend to be plain “consumption” rather than growth or partnership.
Now, if they could embrace a merger, I believe one such as this could be good for them. First, a merger like this wouldn’t definitely not be sexy. The sexy merger partners are now fully occupied and, frankly, there was perhaps just one that really would have qualified as sexy and doable for AA and that was Northwest Airlines. They’re gone. But just because an AA / US Airways marriage isn’t the sexiest thing on the planet and just because it doesn’t necessarily bring the gains that another partner would have provided doesn’t mean that it doesn’t make financial sense.
This one could. Look at the route maps first. US Airways offers a hub presence in two areas of the United States where AA is actually a bit weak. Phoenix is a nice hub in the web and while it isn’t the strongest hub in the country, it does pretty well. Yes, Southwest is there but guess what? AA knows how to compete with Southwest.
Charlotte is a nice Southeastern US hub that pvovides coverage in area that AA hasn’t gotten much traction. AA tried having a hub in Raleigh (didn’t work) and has, from time to time, tried to expand Nashville. It has Miami but that really is more of an international gateway city than it is a domestic hub. So AA has presence in some weak(ish) focus cities for the SE that the Charlotte hub could change for them.
So, in terms of a domestic network, it works. It really is quite complementary to AA’s existing system.
There is some compatibility between the executive leadership of the two companies. Doug Parker is a former AA manager, for example (and his wife still is an AA flight attendant) and some of the other executive staff has roots in AA as well. Some that don’t are from Northwest and the cultures between Northwest and American Airlines aren’t dissimilar either.
But let’s talk about the romantic international part of this. No, US Airways doesn’t offer much to AA that it doesn’t already have. It’s US Airways weakest area. But it isn’t a money loser and there are some hidden benefits. American can probably either A) redirect feed for those flights to one of their existing gateway cities or B) bolster the US Airways international product and make the US Airways international flights a bit more of a competitor. The smart team would do both.
There is another benefit: A more diversified fleet. There is some overlap between the two companies (737, 757 and 767 equipment but the US Airways mainstay aircraft are Airbus aircraft now. The A320 series aircraft could be useful to redeploy onto AA routes currently being served by the MD-80 fleet. The Airbus A330 equipment could be redeployed to AA routes requiring a little more capacity than a 767 but which aren’t in need of a 777’s size or range.
Finally, such a merger would offer Oneworld domestic coverage in areas of the US where it is definitely weak. The Oneworld alliance leans on AA only in the US and the other two alliances were bolstered by at least 2 airlines domestically. This is a great opportunity to improve the Oneworld alliance.
There is value in such a marriage. The problem is, the people who know how to do this kind of marriage and make it work are at US Airways, not AA. Doug Parker and Company understand the value of a union like this and know that you embrace the partners strength and use it. Gerard Arpey and Company come from a school that is more about being a predator and consuming your competition without really embracing them as partners. Since AA is so much larger than US Airways, it’s Arpey who would lead such a merger and I don’t think he’s the right one.
Actually, I think Doug Parker could do fantastic things for AA. If he can succeed with US Airway’s assets and weaknesses, he very likely could do wonders for an airline like AA with its resources. But the AA board would have to want him and despite the recent flare ups against Arpey from analysts, Gerard Arpey still holds the full confidence of AA’s board of directos. He isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.
A sharp reversal in the fortunes of worldwide airlines is being predicted now, most notably by IATA. More than $2.5 Billion (with a “B”) in profit is now the target for the world’s airlines. That sounds great to a lot of people and I think that number is soft.
Yes, load factors are up and business travel is up for now. That’s great and I love that several US legacy airlines are projected to earn a profit for 2010. However, I look to our east at Europe and its economic troubles and wonder if the recovery really is there.
The aptly named PIGS of the European Union (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain) as well as a number of much smaller nations that are members of either the EU or NATO or both are all suffering badly. Badly enough that the world’s financial markets are now betting against them and that means a lack of confidence. A number of people are suddenly decrying the fall in the value of the Euro because that means European companies and countries suddenly have far less purchasing power relative to the dollar. Short term, that’s a problem. Long term, the Euro was vastly overvalued largely due to a lack of transparency on the part of EU member nations and how their central banks were operating as well as regulating their financial industries.
Sadly, the EU can’t depend on very much assistance from the United States. Oh, we will try to help quite a bit but we went all in at the table many months ago and there just isn’t much resources left on our part. The thing is, we at least acknowledged our exposure, however painful and bitter that was, up front and went to work on getting things fixed. At this point, the financial markets know there really aren’t any bad chickens that could come home to roost in our farm. That isn’t the case in Europe.
Europe has the potential to be a drag on our economy for another 2 years and a bigger influence on Southeast Asian countries as well as China and India. Suddenly, I’m talking about North America, Europe, and half of Asia. That’s a pretty big marketplace and I think that to declare an airline recovery all but certain is a bit premature.
I think US airlines, even North American airlines, will do reasonably well domestically and regionally. I think the lucrative and profitable international arenas are soft at best and it would be wise to continue to play this as conservatively as possible.
We still don’t have a clear picture of just how much jeopardy Europe is in. We don’t even have a clear picture of how much flexibility they have to deal with a moderate case of the doldrums much less a worst case scenario. What’s more, Europe reacts more slowly than the US does because it requires the coordination of tens of governments vs one. And some of the larger EU economies are feeling resentful of being obligated to “help out” their smaller, less well managed brothers. This is a region that remains fractured by national interests.
I ferverently hope things do recover in this industry. I don’t think the outlook is nearly as rosy as it appears. I believe there is 2 to 3 years of real pain to be felt in Europe and I believe a lot of that pain is going to be in the form of a further sharp decline in the value of the Euro. That means less money to spend on traveling to other places, less money to purchase capital equipment and greatly reduced budgets in the European governments for defense/aerospace purchases.
It would be unsurprising to me to see the Euro valued at $0.90 to $1.00 by early next year. The one piece of good news is that this should keep oil prices relatively low (and by relative, I mean relative to 2 years ago.) That will help airlines on the cost side some but it isn’t a source of profit. Profit comes from people traveling on your aircraft in strong numbers day in and day out.
It’s being reported that EasyJet will be testing a new volcanic ash detector that will be mounted in the tail wings of its aircraft. Reported similar to weather radar, this uses infrared cameras to detect ash. It’s being called the “silver bullet” to Europe’s volcanic ash problem and reportedly is supported by the CAA.
And I think this is a big mistake. I would be very surprised that this could be invented and then installed for test on aircraft in this short of a period and be effective enough to be a “silver bullet” for anything. It’s this kind of reaction to the kind of problem ash has caused in Europe that leads to false confidence.
And that false confidence can lead to crashes and fatalities. There has been too much effort on the part of Europe’s airlines to diminish the risk and denigrate the aviation authorities. We are, after all, talking about something that has been known to shut down multiple engines on large aircraft although, so far, we haven’t lost a modern airframe to it.
Nonetheless, something that takes out 4 modern jet engines almost simultaneously is nothing to be trifled with. I agree that the wholesale shutdowns in Europe were likely overdone. However, acting as if ash can be detected (when it never really has been before and world authorities were really unable to do so as recently as 2 months ago) and avoided with a simple system conceived of and installed on test aircraft in just 2 months is silly.
A federal appeals court overturned a federal district court ruling granting an injunction to the America West pilots who were dis-enfranchised when former US Airways pilots balked at an abritration ruling during the America West / US Airways merger that integrated seniority in a manner that more “blended” the seniority lists.
US Airways pilots wanted a “date of hire” integration whereas the America West pilots favored a “blending” of the two lists. Since seniority is everything at an airline, the US Airways pilots felt they had a lot to lose.
This has been going on now for 4 years and, frankly, I believe the US Airways pilots have not only done the America West pilots a disservice, they’ve hurt themselves as well.
The original arbitration was done “in house” by ALPA between the two unions for each airline. It was to be binding and while it didn’t settle everything to everyone’s satisfaction, it was as about as fair as one could get in such a situation.
America West pilots shouldn’t be materially harmed by a merger when it was, after all, their company taking over US Airways. Likewise, US Airways pilots shouldn’t be “stapled” to the bottom of the list at America West. The original ruling did neither. America West pilots weren’t significantly harmed by the initial ruling and, hey, US Airways pilots got to keep their jobs.
It is arguable that without the merger, US Airways would have likely gone into their third bankruptcy and they would not have survived. Further, America West management corps has done quite a credible job of managing an airline that, among legacy airlines, is probably at a material disadvantage.
US Airways pilots didn’t like the initial ruling and decided to form a new union for all pilots. Since they had a slightly larger number of pilots between the two groups, they got a new union (US Allied Pilots Association) certified and America West pilots rightfully didn’t like that and sued. Using larger numbers like that was dirty pool.
This new ruling basically says that USAPA hasn’t materially harmed the America West pilots yet and, therefore, should be allowed to negotiate on behalf of all pilots until there is harm. In essence, they (the court) said “Hey, this is a bit premature.”
I couldn’t disagree more. Intent on the part of USAPA has been clear from the beginning. They want a date of hire seniority list and now they have the ability to go negotiate such a deal. Those negotiations with US Airways are liable to take 2 to 4 years before an agreement is in place. In other words, it could be 2 to 4 years before these America West pilots can “prove” harm.
The rationale being used is, in my mind, flawed with respect to timeline, etc. There was already a union (the same union for both airlines) certified at the time. There was binding arbitration. If arbitration isn’t binding, then what is it? Allowing the original agreement to be nullified by establishing a new union with a slight majority of votes is just plain wrong.
Who wins? US Airways, of course. They get to continue to pay pilots according to agreements that have been amendable for a long time at lower pay rates than much of the industry and a dollar saved today is worth 2 dollars tomorrow.
Who loses? Both parties to this disagreement. They are looking at another 2 to 4 years before an agreement is in place and if that new agreement is based on date of hire, there will be another court battle that is likely to overturn that agreement. Then you can tack on another 3 to 4 years to resolve that dispute.
When everything is done, these pilots are looking at as much as 12+ years to settle this.
The fair settlement is a blending and everyone gets together and negotiates a new contract and gets that done in 2 or 3 years. Then everyone earns more.
A 12 year timeline potentially devestates senior pilots at both airlines who will retire before that conclusion.
The best conclusion would be for pilots on both sides to get together, toss out the existing leadership in favor of a blending and then get to work on getting that new agreement asap. Sadly, I don’t think that will happen. The intransigence on the part of US Airways pilots is just to fixed for them to be moved into a real compromise.
It’s rare for me to comment on in flight entertainment and internet access on aircraft because A) it doesn’t interest me that much and B) these developments seem fractured at best.
There isn’t much harmony between IFE offerings between various airlines. Everyone has their own system and their own content and controls it in their own way. The differences range from portable media players to LiveTV to offerings that approach what you might be able to get on cable TV. Some airlines charge a lot for it, some charge a little and some don’t charge for it depending the fare you’re traveling on. It’s terribly mixed up and in the United States, you never know what you might be able to access from one flight to another. Who wants to make plans for that?
Internet access is a bit different in that most airlines are adopting the GoGo system (although Southwest has adopted Row44’s offering) but even though the system is (mostly) consistent, you still don’t know what aircraft it will be on in many cases and it certainly isn’t something one plans on having available.
The recent conversation about JetStar offering iPad units for rental and IFE got me to thinking about what’s wrong with IFE and internet access on aircraft in the US.
Value.
The pricing for many of these options doesn’t really strike me as being of real value. Most often, content is priced on a per flight basis and while that seems like value, it really isn’t. I wonder if more revenue could be generated if airlines would get over their fears of earning money and change the value proposition. Charge by the show instead.
In other words, follow an iTunes model instead of an “all in model”. Allow people to buy a movie for viewing for $2.99 or a TV show for $0.99. Give them a rational a la carte option and I suspect on shorter duration flights, you’ll earn more revenue from people wanting a diversion for a price that is appropriate for the time they are on the aircraft. Those a la carte pricings will also make “all in” package seem like more of a value the longer the flight is. In other words, concentrate on the “take” per flight and less on recovering fixed “costs” per flight. The truth is, the more people use it, the more they will use it in the future.
Internet access seems like a “value” at first glance on most aircraft. Originally priced from $10 to $12 per flight, GoGo InFlight is now offering packages that range from $4.95 per 1.5 hour flight to $12.95 for flights over 3 hours in duration. That’s a step in the right direction but what I want (and what I suspect people want) is the option to just buy “time” no matter what the length of the flight is. Few people plan to use their “service” for 3 or more hours on aircraft. Offer them the ability to do “business” for 1.5 hours for $5.00 and I think you’ll see the use rates skyrocket.
The thing is, anytime someone doesn’t use these services on a flight, you’ve lost a revenue opportunity you’ll never get back. More flexibility in both access and price means a more attractive set of options for what is a widely varied group of people traveling any one day.
When iTunes began as a store for music, music labels were horrified at sellings songs for just $0.99 a song. Until they saw the revenue streams that developed. Once they saw the use rate go up, they actually argued with Apple to offer more diverse pricing opportunities. Bargain rates for slow selling items and premium rates for hits. This is a model that I think will work better on aircraft because it fits more needs and because it is a model people have become comfortable with.
The DoT has proposed new consumer protections on Wednesday and most aren’t unreasonable. First, they’re proposing to require airlines to post complete information on baggage fees and offer refunds and/or reimbursement(s) for delayed baggage. I couldn’t agree more. When airlines began charging these fees, their attitude was the fee was for “transporting” the luggage and I believed that no matter what their stance, if you charge a fee for it, then you should also be prepared to offer minimum guarantees for that fee. Alaska Airlines sort of did this. No one else has and that’s wrong. In fact, the stories of people trying to get refunds of their baggage fees when their baggage went missing or became delayed are just horrid.
If you charge a fee for it, be prepared to be held to a standard. The argument that it is a free market out there isn’t true anyway.
Second, the Feds want better and more fair fare advertising. Again, I couldn’t agree more. One of the best things that happened for airlines in the past 3 years was a la carte pricing. Except those a la carte prices never showed you your “all in” price until you were inputting your credit card for payment. Customers should be able to see what they’re buying up front and they should know their options *before* their purchase is complete.
Third, they want to ban price increases after a ticket is purchased. Now, I’m not sure what they mean about this. If they mean once you buy a ticket, it should cost more to change that ticket to another date, I’m not sure I agree. I’ll be working to learn more about the intent here before I pass final judgement.
Fourth, they want to require timely notice of flight status. Mmmm, I’m not sure what their standard is but in my experience, this isn’t an area that airlines are doing a bad job in. Yes, sometimes status is a bit tardy but I wouldn’t say it is impossible to get information on flight status or even see it updated regularly. Again, I want to learn more about the intent here but I suspect this isn’t an area where we need much protection.
Fifth, they want to require special notice of bag fee increases and notification of baggage fees when a consumer purchases a ticket. Again, I agree. If the airlines want to charge these fees, then there should be prominent disclosure of these fees and they should be disclosed well in advance of the final purchase.
Sixth, they want to increase the limits to be paid for being bumped. Again, I agree with this. The existing limits were created in an era when a hundred dollars was real money. Bumping is at an all time high with the increased load factors on various airlines. The consequences for overbooking and then inconveniencing a traveler should rise with the times.
Finally, it’s my understanding that they want to tighten up and/or close loop-holes in the 3 hour rule. Personally, I would wait 12 months before going any further down this road. I’m in agreement with the 3 hour rule but I also think that it’s wise to make sure there are no severe unintended consequences as a result of the current rule. One area I do think could be improved is preventing airlines from acting punitively towards passengers who do want to disembark from an aircraft. The Feds should have required re-booking on another flight with no additional fees in the original rule or, at the least, set a maximum change fee for re-booking.
All in all, airlines asked for this, in my opinion. They’ve often abused customers in ways that we don’t see in virtually any other industry. In fact, their ability to abuse customers points out that the airline industry is not a free market place. It really is more of an oligopoly and one that even many LCC airlines happily participate in. I look forward to reading more comments from others on these proposals and when I have more firm information on the exact nature of these changes, I’ll be commenting again.
4 days of vacation and not reviewing anything to do with the airlines (or defense industry or the oil leak in the gulf) and it was quite relaxing.
Right. Well, I see British Airways and Unite still haven’t got their act together. These two desperately need binding arbitration. British Airways needs it in order to bring back a degree of certainty to their operations. Unite needs it to, well, preserve some semblance of the idea that they “won” something. British Airways is winning this conflict now. They’re winning it in public opinion and they’re winning it when it comes to employee viewpoints. For Unite to continue without a deal only weakens them week by week.
I see that all kinds of politicians are questioning details of the Continental / United merger. Oddly enough, many of them are from Texas and those folks are questioning the wisdom of Houston losing the Continental HQ. Well, so do I but for vastly different reasons. Houston is not going to be dimished as a hub nor is it going to lose many jobs. In fact, I suspect they won’t lose any jobs in terms of “count” but I do think there will be transitions and changes. This is a prestige objection on the part of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. She lost the race for the Republican nomination for Governor in Texas and she desperately needs to appear to be looking out after “the people” in Texas if she expects to keep her seat in the Senate.
I simply think it is stupid to move HQ to Chicago because it is fantastically more expensive there. That’s all.
I saw a few stories about Australian airline JetStar adopting the iPad for inflight entertainment. And, unlike most bloggers on the airline industry, I don’t care really. I don’t see it as an industry trend, I don’t see it as unwise and I don’t think it’ll be but a blip on the airline horizon. iPads are cool and probably cheap to deploy. Oh, and you can deploy them quickly too. Will it be a trend? I doubt it but I don’t care. I really don’t.
Boeing refuses to say whether or not they’ll bring a 787 to the annual flightshow in England this year in Farnborough. They say they’ll make that decision closer to the show. I say they would be insane not to give their customers a taste. If they’re refusing to say, it may only be because they don’t know if their GE equipped test planes will fly their first flights on time. Still, if I were to be money on an outcome, I’d be betting that ZA001, the first to fly, will be there all shiny and spiffy. Maybe they’ll bring ZA003 which has seats. One way or another, I’m betting there is a 787 at Farnborough.
I refuse to talk about the person(s) who were left on United aircraft over the past few weeks.
It’s been over a month since the new “tarmac rules” have been in place. Am I the only one to notice only the soft sounds of crickets so far? We’re 1 month into the thunderstorm season and nary a peep from anyone except Kate Hanni of FlyerRights.Org who wants rules in place to keep airlines from being punitive against people who want off an aircraft. Actually, I somewhat support the notion but I think Kate Hanni is the wrong supporter for such a measure. She’s got too much mud on her.
