The Associated Press is reporting that US Airways pilots are asking for mediation in their contract negotiations, a step which is one of several on the path to going on a strike ultimately.   No, this doesn’t mean a strike is imminent.  I suspect that a federal mediator is going to be held off until the courts decide who actually represents the pilots. 

US Airways pilots have been in a dispute between the former America West pilots and the former US Air pilots since the merger of the two airlines.   Former US Air pilots refused to recognize a binding arbitration ruling that integrated the seniority lists and ultimately they held an election to de-certify their original union and create their own in the model of American Airlines pilots.   Originally, the two groups were represented by different branches of ALPA originally and the former America West pilots have refused to recognize the new union and have so far won court battles against the new union. 

Now each group is awaiting an appeal to be heard by the  9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the legacy US Air pilots are hoping to see the original ruling against them overturned.    The central issue at stake is that the legacy US Air pilots favor merging the pilots’ lists strictly on seniority.  This move would favor them because most of those pilots (legacy US Airways)  have considerably more seniority based on hire date than the former America West pilots.  The America West pilots favored a “blending” of the seniority lists with some jobs and opportunities fenced off for each group and that is basically what the binding arbitration ruled for.  Since that date, US Airways has been unable to completely merge their operations because each pilot group has been working under a different contract.

It’s my guess that the National Labor Relations Board will wait to assign a mediator until the 9th Circuit Court rules on who actually represents the pilots and under what conditions.  My suspicion is that the 9th Circuit Court will in fact rule in favor of the former America West pilots again mostly because the arbitration between the two groups was legal and binding and won’t want a precedent which allows for nullifying an agreement and changing unions if you don’t like the result.   In some ways, I’ve been surprised that US Airways hasn’t gotten involved in this dispute if only because it keeps their potential savings from fully integrating the two airlines from being fully exploited.  Given that this conflict has been going on for almost 4 years, I would think that the company would have lost patience by now.

Ordinarily, a company would not want to be involved in such conflicts because they’re a bit like getting in between husband and wife during a domestic dispute.  They’ll both turn on you.  However, enough time has passed that the company could legitimately advance the argument that they are being materially harmed by a group of employees who are advancing their own interests against both the companies as well as the other pilots.    There is no doubt that there is “economic harm” at this point. 

This situation is precisely why many airline executives view mergers unfavorably at this point.  Pilots’ unions hold the most power of any labor group and obviously  hold the power to severely impact a company’s ability to operate profitably to the detriment of every other  interested party.  A problem that has existed since the 1960’s really and a problem that should be solved if this industry is to find a way to thrive in competition.

Even if the 9th Circuit Court does find in favor of the former America West pilots, it is likely that the legacy US Air pilots will file an appeal with the Supreme Court.  However, that case is unlikely to be heard and most likely will get settled quicly with the Supreme Courts refusal.   Unfortunatley, the legacy US Air pilots have harmed their case at every turn with rash behavior.  First they rejected binding arbitration, then they filed suit against their national organization and when it appeared they may lose, they then de-certified their union and established a new one to represent their interests by holding a company wide vote in which they were the numerical majority in hopes that that would resolve the issue.   Courts don’t really like venue searches like that. 

What is certainly also sad is that both groups of pilots have been operating under old contracts and have had no opportunity to enter into contract discussions with management.  This has, so far, been to the management’s advantage in that if those discussions had been held 4 years ago and a contract in place 2 years ago, they would likely have seen raises and not had to negotiate under the cloud of the worst economic recession in decades.  No one won here and a pox on all three houses for not settling this 2 years ago. 

I’ll add a personal note by saying that I think the worse part about this is the US Air pilots refusal to even acknowledge that without the merger they would likely have gone bankrupt a third time.  So far, no airline has survived a 3rd bankruptcy and given the dire straits that US Airways was in prior to the merger, a third bankruptcy would have almost certainly meant liquidation and the loss of pensions and other benefits for all the employees.  It is never nice to admit that you were in a weak position to begin with but sometimes its necessary for succeeding in the future.   The only people in sympathy with them are themselves and their families.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

You did book your air travel a couple of months ago, right?   Don’t expect to find much available at this point for holiday travel because airlines are now either blocking their sale fares for those dates or adding a premium to them for certain days.   In short, they intend to maximize the income from peak demand days any way they can.

That said, there are a few strategies you can employ for a less expensive trip.  Traveling with a family?  If so, see if you can send your family ahead of you on a non-peak day while you travel on a peak day later so you can finish your work week.   Look for early departures to your destination.  A 6:00am flight might not sound attractive but if you save $100 per ticket, that’s a tidy sum for a family of 4.   Look for connections through a non-traditional city that might take longer but cost less. 

What if you have a lot of air miles and you want to use them?  Again, you’re likely out of luck but there are some thing you can check into.  See if your frequent flier program has any partners that travel the route you want.  They may have availability.  The Star Alliance now has not 1, not 2 but 3 partner airlines in the US (United, Continental and US Airways) and Sky Team has the rather huge network of Delta/Northwest.  Oneworld, I’m afraid, is limited to American Airlines but if you’re traveling to an international destination, you may still have a chance.

International destinations require some creative thinking for a cheaper fare.   Perhaps if you are traveling to the UK you might ordinarily use American Airlines but they’re rather expensive for the dates you wish to travel.  It might be possible to fly via one of the Oneworld partners using a different hub.  You may make 1 or 2 connections instead of flying non-stop but, again, the savings may be worth it particularly if you have a family.  It might be possible to fly Iberia to Spain and connect via Madrid or Barcelona for instance.  Or if you ordinarily use Northwest Airlines, you may have better luck checking KLM or Air France’s schedules for connections via Paris or Amsterdam. 

Holiday travel is also the time when checking luggage is certainly more of a risk.  Try to send gifts ahead of you via UPS, FEDEX or the USPS.  Consider what you are taking along for clothes.  Maybe you need to wear nice, dressy clothes once on your trip.  If so, considering wearing them for the flight so you can pack an extra shirt and tie into a smaller suitcase that you can carry on instead of checking.   This is a good strategy for taking along a bulky sweater or coat too.  

Finally, consider where your flight(s) may be connecting through.  Try schedule your holiday travel connections through southern hubs such as Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Memphis, Charlotte or Phoenix.   This doesn’t completely eliminate the risk of bad weather but it does help mitigate it considerably.  Try to leave as early as possible in the day as delays only get worse through the day when weather is involved.   Check your flight status the day before your trip.  Is there weather affecting one of the cities you are traveling to or through?  If so and you find your schedule flexible, try calling the airline and seeing if you can change your schedule to something better without penalty. 

If you find yourself stuck at a connection, look for opportunities to fly to a nearby city instead.  For instance, if you’re traveling to Chicago and weather has massive delays being experienced, perhaps your airline also flies to Milwaukee.  If so, they may let you change your destination to Milwaukee where family can pick you up or you can rent a car to travel down there.   Even if your chosen airline doesn’t fly to someplace nearby, perhaps a partner airline of theirs does.  Suggest that as a option to the gate agent if you are trying to re-book.

Have a strategy.  See what your options are *before* you leave and have a couple of backup plans you can suggest to an airline agent in the event of a cancellation.  Yes, they are supposed to have more resources than you in that situation but they also have limited time to think a problem through.  If you have a suggestion or two they can try, you may make your life and theirs much easier since you are signaling some flexibility and trying to work with the system instead being in war with it. 

I’ll also suggest this service.  It’s Cranky Concierge found HERE.  It is a travel service offered by Brett Snyder of the Cranky Flier blog.  For a low price, you get an ultimate airline geek who will help you with all those strategies I named and more.    I think for holiday travelers, this could be a huge value in the event something goes wrong with your flight(s).    I myself do this kind of thing for friends and family but chances are you don’t have an airline geek in your circle.  The Cranky Concierge can be your own personal airline geek and help get you there more reliably.

Filed under: Travel Hints by ajax
No Comments »

In the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Continental President Jeff Smisek was quotes as saying that Continental may re-visit the idea of merging with United Airlines in the future.  The story can be read HERE.

Continental has experienced a rather rough dip in unit revenues over the past year even compared to other US legacy airlines.  The airline was much more devoted to the business traveler (particularly in the international segment) and the decline in business travel has hurt it more than some other airlines.   A merger with another airline could help Continental diversify its revenue sources and experience synergies much like the Delta/Northwest merger appears to be providing that mating.   To date, Delta / Northwest has not been profitable but it does appear to be weathering the economic recession in the airline industry quite well and its new found flexibility with both equipment and passengers seems to have benefited the airline.

However, I didn’t like the idea of Continental merging with United in 2008 and I don’t like it now.  United is saddled with a lot of debt, an angry labor pool and aging aircraft.  Continental, on the other hand, is much the opposite.   While Continental has a well trained management corps and their own employees are much happier, I don’t see what United brings to the table that they can’t already develop on their own over time.   The Denver hub would be of little value to Continental and is already a battleground between two LCC carriers and United.   United does have the better system over the Pacific but lacks the aircraft to modernize it while Continental has the better product for Pacific travel, it doesn’t have the spare equipment to spruce up those routes to compete against the likes of Delta/Northwest. 

To me, it seems that Continental would benefit more from smaller, more tactical mergers that dovetail more closely with their service and aircraft fleet.  Alaska Airlines is one partner that, in my opinion, would be an excellent fit for Continental.  It would give them an West Coast route structure, a fleet that meshes (mostly) with Continental’s, an employee group already accustomed to be treated well and a management corps that is doing remarkably well and which could augment Continental’s own management leadership nicely.    Even more important, Alaska Airlines is profitable at present.

The next best strategy for Continental is to start planning for the future.  They have a number of new long haul aircraft due over the next 4 years and despite how everyone feels in the airline world, this recession will be over someday in the future.  Continental could capitalize on their strengths and aircraft fleet by targeting United Airlines and its Pacific destinations for 2011 or 2012.  By selectively targeting United and US Airways, Continental could fair very well without taking on all the baggage any other legacy airline has to offer it. 

Joining up with United Airlines really doesn’t offer Continental much that it can’t already achieve except the Chicago hub for both domestic and international flying.  Continental’s Cleveland hub is a very distant second to United’s Chicago but I wonder if having that kind of market dominance in Chicago is worth the trouble of bad labor relations, old aircraft fleets and a group of executives that have shown themselves to be mediocre in everything they execute.   In fact, by joining the Star Alliance, I suspect that Continental will reap almost as much benefit with little trouble.

Continental’s new home in the Star Alliance is interesting to me in that Continental’s product seems to much more closely match that of other Star Alliance partners (Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, Thai, Air Canada, Air New Zealand) than either existing US based Star Alliance member aka United Airlines and US Airways.   I suspect that member airlines will be quite willing to book more traffic on Continental for US domestic destinations than on United or US Airways.   If anything, US Airways becomes the odd man out and should begin considering finding a new home.  I’d suggest OneWorld.   Nonetheless, I’ll be monitoring Continental’s experiences in the Star Alliance for the next year as I do think it’ll make a positive difference in their fortunes.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

The Detroit Free Press reports that the Northwest Airlines logos have been disappearing throughout Detroit Metro Airport this week.  Monday, employees began wearing the Delta Airlines uniform as well. 

The change at the Detroit hub for Northwest signals that Delta is proceeding according to plan in its merger with Northwest Airlines which was consummated just 5 months ago.  There are now 33 Northwest airplanes painted in Delta colors and Delta expects to have more than 250 repainted by the end of 2010.

For the time being, Northwest Airlines remains a wholly owned subsidiary of Delta Airlines until the two airlines’ Certificates of Operations are merged.  This typically can take from 1 to 2 years to accomplish at it involves harmonizing a vast amount of policy and procedure when it comes to flight operations and maintenance.  So far, Delta has made quick progress with bringing the two operations together on a pace that is notably quicker than that of America West and US Airways.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

In some ways, it was almost inevitable that Mr. Sullenbeger would damage his image, at least in my eyes.   Fox News has this story where the US Airways captain claims he has to work a 2nd job and 7 days a week to maintain a “middle class” lifestyle. 

Now, it is well known that US Airways (East) pilots have taken several cuts in pay and a hit on their pension over the past several years.  There is no argument that being a captain at US Airways no longer is quite the lucrative job it once was.  However, a senior pilot, a senior captain such as Chesley Sullenberger is only struggling to be “middle class” if he’s a fool with his money. 

Let’s take a look at the pay for a senior (such as Captain Sullenberger) captain at US Airways under the “EAST” (or original US Air) contract.  Captain Sullenberger is earning well in excess of $120 / hour as an A320 captain.  Taking a look at United Airlines, their compensation is just over $130 / hour for the same senior captain flying the same aircraft. 

The captain would argue that while that hourly seems high, there are many hours worked for which they don’t get paid.  And I agree.  Let’s say Captain Sullenberger has 6 flight hours on a particular day.  That works out to $750 for that day’s work.  If he flew 6 flight hours, he probably has about 10 hours of what we would consider real work time.  So, $750 / 10 is equal to $75 / hour in “real” pay.  If Captain Sullenberger is working 85 flight hours per month (and about 120 hours of “real” time per month), then he’s earning a base annual salary of about $127, 500 not including health and other benefits.   The truth is, Captain Sullenberger is probably earning a bit more than that annually if he schedules himself for good trips.  Call it about $140,000 / year not including health and other benefits.

So, Captain Sullenberger is probably flying about 1080 flight hours per year and  experiencing about 1512 “real work hours” per year.  The average full time employee in the United States works about 2000 hours per year and has a medium income of less than half of Captain Sullenberger’s salary, enjoys no pension although perhaps a 401(k) and medical insurance that wouldn’t approach Captain Sullenberger’s medical benefits. 

Somehow, I don’t feel sorry for Captain Sullenberger’s misery in maintaining his “middle class” lifestyle.   We all have been hurt in our retirements.  We all make investments in our education and career and few of us experience the kind of job security that a senior US Airways captain enjoys even today.   And to portray oneself as “struggling” with such pay and a need to have a 2nd job is a bit insulting to a great majority of Americans who are truly struggling to maintain any lifestyle.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
26 Comments »

CNN is reporting that US Airways has dropped its beverage (non-alcoholic) charge for coach passengers citing negative perceptions of its brand. While i did think it reflected negatively on US Airways, I am, to some degree, surprised that they dropped the charge. 

This charge has been in place for quite a long time and while other airlines declined to adopt it, it had been reported that US Airways’ a la carte pricing was working well and that presumably included the beverage charge.  It was a bit of an extreme in the airline world to charge for things such as soda, water and coffee but there had been numerous reports that it was also working acceptably well.   Some reports portrayed it as reducing workload for US Airways flight crew and that most passengers had accepted it with little reaction.

I can only conclude that US Airways has made this decision as a result of evidence that it was affecting their bookings in some way.  Indeed, for those business travelers now relegated to traveling in economy, it may well have been responsible for driving decisions on who to fly when a choice presented itself. 

However, I don’t think this spells the end of a la carte pricing among the airlines.  A way to manage revenue and improve profitability has revealed itself and airlines will continue to avail themselves of it in the future.  Airlines will probably adjust their pricing according to market conditions but expect things like luggage fees and blankets for sale to continue.

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

Passur, a company that does aircraft and airport real time tracking, has created a simulation of US Airways Flight 1549.  It really is stunning.  You can see it HERE.

Filed under: Airline News, Trivia 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 »

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 »

American Airlines has just announced its intention to drop minimum mileage accruals for non-elite AAdvantage members.  Here is the emailed announcement:

Dear ,

Effective January 1, 2009, we are discontinuing the minimum mileage guarantee for non-elite status members for flights on American Airlines, American Eagle^®, AmericanConnection^®, oneworld^® member airlines, AAdvantage^® participating airlines as well as rail service and codeshare service booked under an AA flight number.

With this change, customers will earn AAdvantage miles equal to the actual distance flown or the applicable percentage* of the miles flown, and any associated bonuses will be calculated accordingly. Similarly, elite status qualifying miles and points earned for travel on eligible flights will also be based on the actual miles earned. AAdvantage Executive Platinum^®, AAdvantage Platinum^® and AAdvantage Gold^® members are exempt from this change.

The new policy will apply to non-elite status members traveling on or after January 1, 2009, regardless of when the ticket was booked or purchased. Flights flown on or before December 31, 2008, will continue to accrue AAdvantage miles under the current policy. For more information, visit AA.com/AAdvantage.

Thank you for your business. We look forward to seeing you onboard soon.

Sincerely,

Rob Friedman
President
AAdvantage Marketing Programs

What does it mean?  Not a whole lot for most people.  Most flights are more than 500 miles and therefore accrue actual mileage.  For Texas based fliers to regional cities, it means you accrue actual mileage instead of a minimum.  However, most people who might be annoyed by this are actually Elite AAdvantage members and therefore *will* accrue the minimum. 

 

All in all, it’s just another mild erosion of another frequent flier program.  Some airlines have already implemented this program (US Airways for instance) and some have done so in a modified form. 

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

A number of airlines have been asking for permission to delay the start of flights to China from the United States.  The Dallas Morning News reported that American Airlines now has filed for such permission on their Chicago-Beijing route authority. Both US Airways and United Airlines have also asked for the same thing on their recent route authorities.

US Airways lacks the aircraft type for making the trip from Philadelphia and United Airlines, who does have the equipment, simply doesn’t want to fly to their new destination in the current economic climate.  These kind of routes cost a tremendous amount of money to operate and without some certainty that they’ll make money, the risk doesn’t seem worth it right now.  To the winners of these authorities at least.

The airline industry has played the “save us” card on these routes by making the argument that just because their economic situation changed, they should be given a second or third chance to find a more convenient time to operate these routes.  Yes, the entire industry has experienced a lot of challenges and, yes, the cost of fuel is certainly the biggest. 

However, we are not without other airlines who I suspect would be happy to operate these routes.  Why wait for an airline to decide its ready to fly them when we can identify other airlines that are willing to fly them right now.  I suspect that both Delta and Continental Airlines would give serious consideration to even removing equipment from a different route in order to be able to fly these routes.  Northwest, who already operates a large number of Asian routes, might well be tickled to death to offer more service.

It is time to go back to a “use it or lose it” model.  Giving airlines 2nd and 3rd chances only removes the incentive to figure out how to operate in today’s climate.  An airline should have no more than 12 months to operate a route authority from the date it is awarded.  If it cannot or will not, then its time to seek other “bids” for these routes.   When you deny such routes to Delta (who asked for ATL-Beijing) and give the to American Airlines (who wanted DFW-Beijing but ultimately asked for and got Chicago-Beijing) who then asks to defer their operation, you are putting Delta at a competitive disadvantage and American Airlines gains. 

Let the airlines who can and will operate these routes, have the routes.  Don’t permit large legacy airlines operating in fear the opportunity to “sit” on the routes and prevent that economic growth to someone else. 

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
1 Comment »

United Airlines, an airline that has offered spotty-at-best service for more than 10 years, seems to have the 9 lives of a cat to most people.  Unfortunately, of all the legacy airlines, it is the one that should have melted away some time ago.   It emerged from bankruptcy in 2006 after spending 3 years and over $300 million reorganizaing itself to operate in a world with $50 / barrel oil without a realistic plan to deal with contingencies.

The problem is, oil was already at $60 / barrel when it started fresh.  Since 2006, United has been the one airline that always manages to arrive to the party in rumpled clothes and only a $5 bill to pay the door charge.   Those rumpled clothes are an aging fleet (although all of the truly old Boeing 737s are now being withdrawn from service to cut capacity) of aircraft that do not match the interior quality or service level of most of its competitors. 

The management team, most importantly CEO Glenn Tilton, has spent more than 2 years maneuvering to merge this airline with another and, yet, has been rebuffed by all potential candidates such as Continental, Delta and US Airways.  Indeed, they took a particularly condescending attitude towards US Airways’ offer to explore mergers when Glenn Tilton implied that he and his team would remain in place and “mentor” the US Airways management team including Doug Parker. 

Say what you will about US Airways but it isn’t the company we knew in the 90’s or even 3 years ago.  Doug Parker and team are really America West and they’ve been better at executing to plan than virtually any other management team at a legacy airline.  If anything, Mr. Tilton would be well served by Mr. Parker’s mentorship. 

Now the marriage dance in airline mergers is essentially over.  Delta and Northwest are walking down the aisle, Continental has chosen to stand alone (wisely in my opinion) and American Airlines has decided to pursue trans-atlantic partnerships with British Airways and Iberia Airlines.  There is no one else left for United to pursue a merger of equals and they lack the cash and operating plan to purchase a smaller airline as well.  Indeed, Continental Airlines is joining the Star Alliance (of which United is a founding member) and that may benefit United but if they think they will remain the shining star in the US market for that alliance, they are sadly mistaken.

Continental’s management team is stable, smart and agile in this market.  They are uniformly the choice of airline among business travelers (and that is who pays the bills) and possess a young, modern, harmonized fleet of aircraft that serve the routes efficiently.  Continental has hubs that will serve that alliance well in both NYC, Houston and Cleveland and offer Star Alliance members excellent codeshare options throughout the United States.

United Airlines has a fleet of 747s that are some of the oldest -400 models and by all passenger accounts they are in desperate need of refurbishment (unplanned for 3 years and not recognized for another 2 years while United showed its legs to potential suitors).  They possess a large 777 fleet which, on the surface, would imply some modernity there.  However, about half of that fleet are early model “A” market 777s powered by the less powerful and efficient Pratt & Whitney engines.  No lip gloss found there.  The other half are 777-200ER models that would at first glance appear to be more modern intercontinental aircraft.  They aren’t, really.  They’re what Boeing originally referred to as “B” market 777s and, once again, they are powered by the less reliable and efficient Pratt & Whitney PW4000 series engines.  I would point out that every other operator of this aircraft in the US is using the more powerful and efficient Rolls Royce Trent or GE90 engines (American Airlines, Delta Airlines and Continental Airlines.)

Their 767 fleet, a large one comprised of 767-300ER models, shows the same flaws as their 777 fleet.  While some were built as recently as 2001, they are all powered, once again, by the less fuel efficient Pratt & Whitney engines.  I’m sure a theme is beginning to reveal itself here. 

The same also remains true for their 757 fleet in that they are powered by the lesser Pratt & Whitney engines while other airlines are utilizing the real rocket of that type, the Rolls Royce RB211 powered 757 that, with winglets, is capable of ETOPS trans-atlantic operations.

Ignoring the soon to be gone 737 fleet (which is old and dingy but not powered by Pratt & Whitney for once), the remaining aircraft are various Airbus A320 types.  While they are not old by airline standard, most are more than 10 years old and some are approaching 15 year of age now. 

An old airplane is not an unsafe one but, in United’s case, it is an uncomfortable one.  While other airlines have paid attention to maintenance, comfort and even tuning engines, United has spent its time navigating bankruptcy and its management team has bet their golden parachutes on a merger.  With no other really suitable partners, they are now faced with operating an airline that by most standards, is not competitive.  What’s worse, they have lost 2 years time that could have been spent executing a service plan that might work.

If the cost pressures airlines are facing continue for another year, they (United) will be faced with another potential bankruptcy and, this time, it should be a liquidation.  There is no argument for this airline continuing its operations under the present regime nor is there an argument for it continuing to operate simply to support air transportation in the United States or abroad.  There are plenty of air carriers that can take up the slack and operate more coherently than United.   In fact, the only part of United ceasingly to exist that I find distasteful is that it potentially offers American Airlines an even greater lock on Chicago’s O’Hare airport.  Since I experience that kind of fortress here in the DFW area, I know just how expensive that can be for a consumer.

Successful airlines share a few qualities that I’ve noticed over the years.  They generally possess a young, fuel efficient and harmonized fleet.  They buy the airplanes configured for performance on a variety of routes.  They have leadership rather than just executive management.  They focus on a clean, comfortable flight experienced that is defined by the service provided by its employees.  Such an airline also carefully watches its money and nurtures its finances to avoid running cash short on the wrong day.  It takes care of its employees not by offering the best salaries but by offering a living wage, a hospitable workplace and with fair treatment in both hard times and good.

That is the antithesis of United Airlines and, so, they go on the Death Watch.

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

The Dallas Morning News reported that American Airlines will be both accelerating 737 deliveries as well as taking up new orders for the Boeing product.

As they replace MD-80 aircraft (The Boeing 737-800 is as much as 20% to 25% more fuel efficient than the equivalent MD-82/83), your chances of a middle seat go from 1 in 5 to 1 in 3.  That said, I still find the prospect of flying newer 737s more attractive than the alternative.

I remain completely puzzled that American Airlines and United Airlines have not ordered 787 aircraft.  The 787 fits into their fleet and routes very well and offers just that kind of gain in fuel and maintenance efficiency that both airlines desperately need.  Currently, only Northwest Airlines and Continental Airlines have the B787 on order among the legacy carriers although US Airways does have some A350 aircraft ordered.  Indeed, the A350 ordered by US Airways seems a bit too large for their needs even when the purchase is justified with the cross-cockpit qualifications that the Airbus product offers with US Airways existing A320/A330 products.

The new DeltaNorthWest Airlines will have Northwest’s B787 orders and will continue to take deliveries on the B777-200LR it already has ordered.  Those two aircraft come very close to each other in performance and seat-mile costs in the ultra-long haul market but the 777 has the advantage when it comes to cargo-carrying capabilities.

I cannot believe that for the foreseeable future, there will be no true 757/767 replacement and it is even more difficult to believe that airlines continue to make plans to retain most of those aircraft for the foreseeable future.  Both the 757 and 767 have AviationPartnersBoeing winglet programs in place now resulting in fuel efficiency gains as much as 6% on the 767 but they still remain older aircraft with ever increasing maintenance needs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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