United Airlines has ordered 30 E-175 Embraer jets to use in the United Express fleet.  The aircraft will have 76 seats and offers 10% savings in costs over their current 50 seat fleet.

It’s a good aircraft for the airline but it also points out something that, I think, might indicate a lack of competitiveness on the part of United.

10% improvement over the current 50 seat jets?  Really?  If that is the case and if demand is as good as people say it is, why would United not buy Embraer 190 aircraft instead?  It’s possible that its labor agreements don’t permit it to and, if true, that will hurt United badly in the coming years.

The Embraer E-175 is a fine airplane but it doesn’t offer the seat costs the E-190/195 offer and this isn’t a “new” aircraft family anymore.  It seems like it must be but it isn’t.  These aircraft came online in 2002 which makes their design originating from about 1999.  That’s 11 years or more in age for these airplanes and a lot has happened in the aircraft world since their rollout.

What United needs is the seat costs that American Airlines will enjoy in about 18 months as new aircraft come online and American is able to contract with airlines to obtain and operate bigger regional jets.

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

Alaska Airlines is adding flights to hubs of its major partners from Portland, Oregon and I think this is long overdue.

Seattle has been Alaska Airlines’ “hub” but Portland, Oregon has always contributed a major portion of traffic to Alaska.

Since Delta’s pull back from Dallas / Fort Worth, there have been no non-stop flights between Portland and Dallas / Fort Worth.  That is American Airlines’ domain.

In addition, Delta “owns” all the flights between Portland and Atlanta.

Alaska Airlines will be able to provide the Alaska Airlines experience both to its own passengers as well as both AA and DL who codeshare with Alaska Airlines.  It’s a good fit all around and Portland has missed having such flights for a long time.

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

Delta Airlines assumed the naming rights for the Milwaukee Wisconsin the “Wisconsin Center” currently known as Delta Center about a year ago in 2012.  Delta only just got its name on the Delta Center 2 months ago.

But that sign will be coming down on or after June 30th because Delta, who has 25% of the market in Milwaukee, wants to use its advertising dollars in cities where, you know, people will fly its airline.

Filed under: Trivia by ajax
No Comments »

It would appear that Rainn Wilson and several cast members of the TV show The Office (which I did know existed) got huffy when they arrived *late* to their flight from Philadelphia to Scranton.   Rainn Wilson decided to pitch a fit via Twitter, as actors are prone to do, and here is what he said:

• ‘So @USAirways just screwed me & half the cast of The Office. Conctng flight left BEFORE departure time. Sorry Scranton won’t see u til tom,’ 
• ‘The plane was a 20 seater, missing 7 people who had obviously just landed & it leaves 10 minutes EARLY!’
• ‘REALLY going to enjoy trying to cnvice’ his 3.5million followers ‘not to fly USAirWays to fly @USAirways b/c of their s****y service.’
• ‘Does the CEO of @USAirways want to join us? I will fondle him angrily,’
• ‘I’m going to take a dump on a @USAirways plane’s windshield. In the shape of the @Delta logo’

So, I am so relieved that Mr. Wilson was re-booked on another flight on US Airways because that massive delay and inconvenience due to he and his crew missing a flight scheduled for them by some nameless person who ought to have known better than to schedule a 40 minute connection in Philadelphia on a Friday night.

But, hey, how many times does Doug Parker get an offer to be fondled angrily?

• ‘Get out while you can. Go work at American,’

Filed under: Trivia by ajax
2 Comments »

In a Forbes online story, Southwest Airlines Chief Marketing Officer Kevin Krone finally tried to answer the question many of us have been wondering:

What’s up with the generic TV commercials?

Apparently it is about being Southwest Airlines but not the old Southwest Airlines but, actually, connected to the old Southwest Airlines while remembering that they’re different now but, in fact, they aren’t because they’re still being a disruptor even if they aren’t trying to win leisure passengers but, rather business passengers now despite that being their business model 40 years ago.

Yeah, I’m confused too.

I have seen this over and over and over again:  Change for change’s sake.

Southwest isn’t trying to win.  It’s newly minted Vice President Whiz Bangs are trying to find a way to make a name for themselves instead of being stewards in running one of the most successful airlines in aviation history.

Since when is Southwest not interested in that incremental passenger called the leisure traveler?  It’s those incremental passengers that often earn the profit on a flight.

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

100 points if you know the title reference.

Southwest Airlines is making incremental progress towards going international with steps like instituting flights to San Juan, Puerto Rico and rebuilding Houston Hobby Airport into an international gateway.

Some think that San Juan is international travel.  Not so much.  It’s a US Territory but, hey, it’s in the Caribbean and many of its residents speak Spanish.

Southwest will embark on travel to Caribbean and Mexican destinations over the next 2 years as it replaces Airtran flights with its own.  To add density to those destinations, Southwest is eyeing other destinations in Central and South America that are within range of its 737-800 ETOPS aircraft and which could be served well from Houston, TX.

It’s got some things to do before that happens.  First, it needs to build that international terminal fast.  Second, it needs to build an international reservations system and it’s got Amadeus working on that part.  Sabre is working with SWA on its domestic system and while many think that Amadeus might take over SWA, I do not.

The bottleneck isn’t going to be that terminal, however.  It will be the IT systems . . . again.  Southwest still hasn’t gotten things kicked into a gear with a Big Boy reservations system that will permit it to interface with other airlines or travel systems.

More importantly, it’s time SWA rework its own website which certainly met the needs of its travelers in 1999 but it really does not now.  It’s time to build a travel site that shows the opportunities for travelers instead of being a place that continues to look “temporary” when it comes to booking a flight.

Filed under: Airline Service, Airports, Mergers and Bankruptcy by ajax
No Comments »

Delta and American Airlines have matched US Airways and United Airlines with $200 domestic change fees for those who want to change their tickets.

We think this is a mistake on the part of all these airlines and an opportunity for non-traditional, non-network carriers.  What’s the opportunity?  The chance to court some business travelers.

We tend to think of the business traveler as this road warrior who is traveling by airline 4 days per week and . . . not so much.  The real business traveler travels barely enough to get real status in a frequent flier program and usually their status is so long that they do not get the upgrades they hope and pray for.

In fact, for most of those business travelers, it’s a back of the bus experience over and over again.

Southwest and JetBlue and others such as Alaska Airlines now have a greater opportunity to court businesses and their traveling employees by pointing out a lower “all in” cost to get where they need to go.

Filed under: Airline Fees by ajax
No Comments »

This blog is primarily a commentary on the airline industry and my intent is to offer opinion and analysis on what is going on with airlines today.  From time to time, I take a walk back in time with airline history and it’s always enjoyable to do so.  Many come here originally because of the somewhat obvious ties to Braniff International in the name of this blog but I suspect many are also disappointed to see that I rarely speak of Braniff.

Today will be different.  I want to talk about an oral history project being done by two people who reside here in Texas and who originally became interested in the airline because of the fashion it set.  You might be tempted to dismiss them, I wasn’t.  The fashion that Braniff brought to the airline industry was revolutionary and it was entirely emblematic of the revolution it brought in many other ways as well.

Abra Schnur and Jacob Flores both have connections to Braniff history and both became much more interested in the airline over time.  Now they want to do something with that love they have built for an airline we lost more than 30 years ago.

This is a work of passion and one they have taken on to do at their own expense and even with a cost to their families.

Both have the right background to do the job right.

There is very little real history collected on Braniff.  There is no Robert Serling book on this airline and there won’t be.  Robert Serling is dead.  I don’t think there is anyone who can write such a book about Braniff anymore.  Those authors are gone.

I think these folks want to preserve a little of what made Braniff International great.  I think they want to be honest brokers and I think that they have an opportunity to succeed.

So, whether you are a fan of the entire airline industry or just Braniff, I would like to ask you to do a few things and none of them cost you much at all.

1. Go to their Facebook page called Flying Voices and “like” them.  They need some love.
   Seriously.  Go do it now.  I’ll wait while you click the link above.
2. Go to their website and read more about their project and form an opinion of what they want to do.  Their website is, oddly enough, FlyingVoices.Org.
3. Go to their crowd funding website on Indiegogo.com and give them some money.  You can find the second round of their appeal here.

Go find out what these people are doing and see what you can do to help them out.  If you can’t spare money but you can spare time or materials, ask them how you can help.

Are you a former Braniff employee or Braniff family member?  Then get in touch with them and see if you can participate in their project.

I’ll issue a challenge to my readers and other airline bloggers:  I’ve just given Flying Voices another donation and this time I’ve made it $50.  I challenge all of you to give at least $10 to a project that I think will result in something pretty special.

Wouldn’t it be fun to preserve a legend as a group?

Filed under: Airline History by ajax
1 Comment »

The wife of a September 11th United Flight 175 Captain Saracini is campaigning for a second barrier to the cockpit and reportedly is gaining some traction with congress.

I think this is security theater.  Since the September 11th tragedies, there seems to be this belief that we must be safe at all costs.  Particularly in an airliner.  I couldn’t disagree more.

The reality is that there is no such thing as 100% safe from hijackings and there never will be.  Safety comes from vigilance and proper screening.  If a hijacker has gained entry to the aircraft and has a weapon good enough to penetrate the cockpit door in flight, you’re security has already utterly failed.  More barriers aren’t going to stop that attack or effectively slow it.

I think the 2nd barrier idea looks great as an issue and I’m sure that everyone is attracted to it because at the end of the day, it scores points against airline management.

But airline management is the one who is right on this issue.

It’s not lost on me that this all surrounds United Airlines and appears to be related to both United Airlines pilots’ union maneuverings.  I feel the union is maneuvering the captain’s wife in this effort to jab at United Airlines for not doing enough.  It’s a way to gain the public eye, discredit management and seemingly get the upper hand.

But what upper hand is really gained?  Scoring points on this subject is silly.  It’s not a poltiical issue and, frankly, the more security is turned into a political issue, the more it will certainly be deficient.

I would ask the question:  Do you want to be secure or do you want to enjoy the illusion of security?

The former means you’ve got to listen to security professionals and properly evaluate your risks and mitigate against them.

The latter means that the wife of a lost pilot from a tragedy that occured 12 years ago and which will be highly unlikely to happen in that manner ever again drives the perception of security.

This isn’t disrespect for the feelings of this wife.  She deserves sympathy and empathy for her losses.  She also is not a security expert and has no business advocating for security on an airliner against those really do know better.  More importantly, the issue here is not “safe at all costs”.  It’s an unrealistic requirement in which the only answer is to never leave your home.

Filed under: security by ajax
No Comments »

United Airlines has reported a 1st quarter loss of $417 million which is almost 60% of United Airlines’ 2012 total year loss of $723 million.

Yes, in the first quarter of 2013, United Airlines has lost 57% of the total losses for 2012.  For those keeping score, we have still got 3 more quarters to go.

There is runway for United Airlines to make this up.  I don’t think they will.  Not this year.  United isn’t running on all cylinders, not yet anyway and I see nothing to signal a dramatic change in their approach to earning money.  CEO Jeff Smisek points to a slightly improved operational record and while it is true, it isn’t the answer.

United has lost a lot of high paying customers and it isn’t earning enough revenue and it needs a strategy that reverses that course.

I’m now in the position of wondering if Jeff Smisek was the right CEO for this integration.  One thing that stands out:  Smisek isn’t very prominent in leading this airline.  Other Continental leaders were far more prominent and stood out in front with their employees.  I get the sense that Smisek is more like United leaders who hide in a tall building hoping problems might go away.  It’s his perception to change.

Maybe they should interview Tom Horton.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

US Airways has announced it will match United Airlines’ increase of $50 on ticket change fees. I find this unsurprising since US Airways tends to be very opportunistic with fees.  In fact, I would regard US Airways as the leader in developing fees and arguably one of the most successful airlines in implementing them.

Will this mean that American Airlines will adopt such a thing?  No, not necessarily.  Once the two airlines blend together, the analysis will ultimately be based on what’s best given the combined customers the new airline has.

Filed under: Airline Fees by ajax
No Comments »

US airways has announced a $55 million profit (excluding special items, etc) vs American Airlines’ $8 million profit (excluding special items) and that’s coming from an inferior network and an airline that is roughly 1/3 the size of American Airlines.

This is great for US Airways, great affirmation for the team that will run the new American Airlines and I do wonder when these folks will get this merger done.  My best guess is October but they’ll suitably impress me if they get it consummated by September.

This merger integration will be fascinating to watch in comparison to the Delta/Northwest and Continental/United mergers.  US Airways CEO Doug Parker and his team all have merger integration experience but none have experience with the scale that the new airline will possess.  It will be hard for them to balance the pull of the AA insitutionalization with the attraction to adopting the US Airways Way.

What I most look forward to is seeing the new airline about 18 months after the merger deal is closed.  I want to see how the AA network is reorganized and made to work by the US Airways team and Robert Isom in particular.

Filed under: Airline News, Mergers and Bankruptcy by ajax
No Comments »

There is quite a bit of talk about United’s sudden increase in change fees which see a rise from $150 to $200 for domestic flights.  Most see this as overreaching and they’re not wrong.

If we accept that we’ve entered the Era of the Fee in the airline industry (and I do), then we have to accept that fees will be charged for a variety of things.  To a degree, I see fees as being something that can be OK but which the airline industry does very poorly.

Watching airlines implement fees for services is one of the most painful things I can do as an observer to this industry.

Change fees, like baggage fees, are inconsistently implemented and the rationale behind those implementations seems . . . without real reason.  United is now charging $200 to change a ticket.  Let’s be clear, if you have a $300 ticket, you can change it for $200 plus the difference in fares.  This essentially renders your ticket useless in all but extreme cases.

My question would be is a $200 change fee a revenue driver or a behavior driver?  I suspect the latter.  It’s there to drive people to not change and not create chaos.  Sometimes I wonder if airlines wouldn’t be happiest in taking people’s money and just not having them travel.  Often it seems as if the objective isn’t to deliver a service but, rather, part people from their money without delivering  value.

If we’re going to go to fee based systems, I’ll buy in on a change fee.  But why not simply have that fee cover the cost of the transaction plus some small penalty?  $50 for a domestic ticket change seesms both reasonable and appropriate.  $100 for international trips.  Make that change easy, not hard.  Let’s these changes happen fluidly and everything will work out in the end.

These change fees are, in my opinion, drive by overly complex fare structures among airlines.  Airline fares are so complex and so diverse that they make the airline believe that the opportunity costs of a seat are hundreds of dollars more than they really are.

People say that those change fees help defer the money that the airline lost in not being able to sell that seat in advance to someone else.  Well, did they lost that opportunity?  Part of that opportunity presupposes that all airplanes are full when they depart.  They are not.  They are nearly full and I’ll grant that it can be hard to fit standby people on but as for paying passengers who want to buy a ticket, you can almost buy that seat if you want it.  It just might cost you a small fortune when you buy it at the last minute.

The airline also doesn’t notice that the person who buys a ticket 2 months in advance has given money to the airline that it can benefit from economically for 2 months before it incurs the bulk of the costs associated with that purchase.

Why do airlines want to drive behavior with fees?  Because they hate saying no to a customer.  With an exorbitant fee, they can say yes but charge a fee.  The problem with that is it is assumed that the customer loves this and they don’t.

In fact, I believe its fees like change fees and baggage fees that breed some of the biggest contempt felt towards airlines.  Customers aren’t stupid and they do know when they’re being gouged.  They may not have a choice on that flight but they know they can exercise choice the next time and they will.  Think I’m wrong?  Just look at how things have gone for United Airlines when they inconvenienced their customers and abused their good will.  Bookings went down, revenues evaporated and everyone noticed real quick.

United’s fee is exorbitant and insulting.  Unfortunately, United also cannot measure the ill will generated by this and compared it to the revenue it gains.

If you don’t like it, then vote with your money.  And for what it is worth, more and more I think that American Airlines’ decision to allow a customer to “insure” themselves against change fees with . . . a fee is pretty smart.  I don’t hand out compliments to them very often but I think they are trying to package real value for the customer on that front and that is better than most airlines right now on the subject of change fees.

Filed under: Airline Fees by ajax
4 Comments »

The FAA has approved the design change made by Boeing to address lithium ion battery risks on the 787.  The FAA will make a directive on how the fix should be made and it will make FAA inspectors available to expedite the repairs.  Boeing has had kits and staff ready to deploy to customers for making these fixes and I would imagine that Boeing has told them “go”.

A couple of observations:

1)  Boeing will destroy its reputation for many years to come with both the public and airlines if this fix proves to be inadequate.  I would want to be very, very sure and very certain that those batteries are contained against everything short of an act of god.  Spin and damage control will not fix that problem.

2)  Nothing that I can so far find has any guidance on what kind of ETOPS the FAA will permit with the 787.  There was, originally, speculation that the FAA and other agencies would be inclined to not grant enough ETOPS time to be useful to 787 users.   If this fix works, then it should not have an impact on ETOPS.  If the original ETOPS granted is amended to be something considerably less, then I think that reflects a lack of confidence on the part of the FAA.

I would expect a practical return to service for the airlines being some time at the end of May or the first of June.

Filed under: Aircraft Development, Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

US Airways is, supposedly, being sued by two people who were flying as non-revenue passengers in first class for being asked to remove their hoodies and dress according to a dress code.

Why?  Because paying first class passengers were allowed to fly in hoodies.

It has long been common practice for airlines to enforce a dress code for those flying as non-revenue passengers.  Those dress codes are no longer nearly as strict as they used to be.  Today, “nice casual” or “business casual” is generally accepted even in First Class.

When I flew as non-revenue First Class passenger in the 1970’s, you wore a suit.  Period.  End of story.

The idea behind the dress code is not hard to understand.  You are expected to dress well to represent the company among paying passengers and so that you do not run the risk of drawing attention to yourself as a non-revenue passenger.  Paying passengers tend to resent people getting for free what they paid for.

Airlines vary some on what they’ll allow but I do not believe any US airline would permit hoodies and bluejeans in First Class by a non-revenue passenger.  (And if any airline would permit it, I would suggest they shouldn’t.)

Are dress codes wrong or class driven?

No, they’re not.  If you are flying as a non-revenue passenger, you are doing so on the courtesy of the airline.  They airline makes this privilege available to certain people as a benefit and a courtesy.  It is not a mandatory thing for them to supply and it really is a privilege.

So in return for not paying hundreds of dollars for your ticket, the airlines want you to dress appropriate, blend in well and represent the company appropriately.

They also want you to shut up about flying as a non-revenue passenger.  That is not for public consumption . . . ever.

And since these two jokers were on “buddy passes” which are tickets supplied by an employee of the airline, I can assure you that the employee who supplied them is mortified and no doubt started distancing themselves from these two creeps as soon as possible.  This is the kind of thing that gets one’s flight privileges lifted or suspended.

I feel bad for the US Airways employee who did these two jerks a favor and I hope this person is able to make it right with the company and their managers and retain their good name within the company.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
1 Comment »

Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane has disallowed the $20 million kiss for American Airlines CEO Tom Horton.  Horton was to receive roughly half in cash, half in stock as severance upon his departure from the new company (to be called American Airlines Group) formed after the merger.  His departure was scheduled for the first annual meeting to be held after the merger which most believed would be in May as has been tradition for American Airlines.

I vociferously disagreed with this severance payment.  So did a US bankruptcy trustee who argued that it violated federal governing such things in bankruptcies.  After review, Judge Lane offered that the idea that this was taking place post bankruptcy and therefore not entirely within purview of the court was a legal fiction.  I couldn’t agree more.

When you get a severance of that size, it should be for accomplishing something.  Based upon all that has come to light so far on the journey of both US Airways and American Airlines, Tom Horton didn’t have much to do with the success of this agreement.  In fact, if anyone really had much to do with getting the company into alignment with markets, it was Beverly Goulet, AA’s Chief Restructuring Officer.

Horton sought to delay, obfuscate and sabotage the merger at most every point.  He has made public arguments that he’s the superior CEO to Doug Parker in semi-veiled statements made to the press.  The problem with that is there is actually no evidence of what value Tom Horton has brought to the process in approximately 16 months.

Is it the atrocious livery that has been perpetrated on those aircraft?

Judge Lane has pointed out that when the new company is formed and has exited from bankruptcy, the new Board of Directors can vote on this severance.

I have long felt the current American Airlines Board of Directors has not governed the airline well for many years.  Like so many boards recently, it has seemingly given blanket endorsements to the CEOs without regard to assessing what leadership of the company has achieved and without determining if the course set by the leadership is a sound one.

But, man, they sure can vote bonuses well.

$20 million is too much for Tom Horton and what he brought to the table.  But if everyone truly thinks it is necessary, then I would suggest that the new Board vote on it and give it to him.

I would point out that Horton not only isn’t needed to make this new airline work, he’s not wanted.  This deal doesn’t need him.

Filed under: Mergers and Bankruptcy by ajax
No Comments »

Frontier Airlines has been trying some rather weird destinations over the last year.  Weird for this airline and weird for any airline.

The airline has started flights into Trenton, NJ for instance.  Now it’s just announced Wilmington, Delaware as an alternative to Philadelphia and Baltimore’s main airports.

When a company is running around and trying very hard to go head to head with competitors, there is a problem.  Frontier has been killed in Milwaukee and has been roughed up badly in Denver, it’s home base.  Other focus cities have been discontinued but there is something more going on here.

I don’t know what this airline does anymore.

I don’t know what service level it offers, I can’t identify a market it has aligned itself with and it is getting hard to figure out where the airline flies to.  These airport choices defy explanation to me.  Wilmington, DE might seem like a decent alternative to Philadelphia until you realize that those 30 miles separating the two airports represents a significant inconvenience to most in the Philadelphia area.  It’s a matter of traffic and logistcs.  30 miles isn’t 30 minutes of travel.  It’s not even 60 minutes of travel in many cases.  It’s considerably more and people in that city don’t need more complications.

More importantly, the people of Philadelphia aren’t screaming for low fares either.  Nor is Baltimore.

How this airline is hanging on at this point defies my imagination.  The fact that Republic can’t even sell this airline says something.

I honestly believe that if David Neeleman were still running JetBlue, he would have bought both Frontier and Virgin America and merged them into a national domestic airline.  But Neeleman isn’t around and no other airline executive exists with enough vision and courage to make something like that work.

As much as I want regional mainline airlines to exist, I can’t find a good argument for Frontier at this point.  Who flies them and why do they bother?

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

I like how Turkish Airlines has operated its business.  Over the past decade, the airline has transformed itself from a primarily government owned entity to a primarily private owned entity that is earning an impressive profit. Turkey has focused itself on supporting its airline business by promoting growth through the development of new airports that could serve as “Middle Eastern Hubs”.

The Turkish government has managed itself well in these economic times and considering their strong desire to enter the European Union, you have to give them credit for being aggressive.  It’s notable that they are not suffering economic crisis despite the fact that their mediterranean neighbors largely are bankrupt and in smoking heaps presently.

Turkey committed itself to modernizing how it interacted with its airlines and realized that by making themselves an attractive country for international hub operations, it would attract investment into other segments of the nation’s economy.

Contrast that to how Italy has behaved with Alitalia or Ireland with Aer Lingus.  Both of these supposedly more modern, more liberal and more free nations have worked exclusively towards protecting the employees of those airlines by propping up those airlines with support.

As a consequence, the airlines operate poorly (Aer Lingus is OK on the long haul front but that amounts to 7 aircraft presently) and are shoved around by their own unionized employees.  If someone suggests selling the airline, particularly to an aggressive company, or doing anything to improve productivity, the unions call a strike to teach the government and airline managers a lesson.

Why would anyone do business within such a framework?  The answer is that no one does.  Many may have disapproved of Ryanair taking over Aer Lingus but there would have been some pretty strong benefits to Ireland.

Alitalia is simply once again on the path to a merger with a larger, better run European airline.  Unless the Italian parliament can find a way to preserve domestic ownership without running afoul of EU regulations.

I can’t think of a government run airline or airline industry today that is running successfully.  I can think of many which are jobs programs but that’s it.  What’s crazy about this is that the countries suffer massively as a result.

Countries like Ireland, Italy, India or Argentina all suffer far worse economic impacts overall from a failure to address the “airline problem” within their countries than they benefit from providing a jobs program.  Those jobs programs are heavy concrete shoes for those nations economies and they signal that those countries aren’t prepared to do business in a fair and equitable manner.

Yet the supposedly backward and inferior Turkey and its airline get out front and decide to make something of itself.  The contrast is remarkable.

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

Several weeks ago, the TSA decided to revise its position and allow knives, among a few other things, to be carried onto an airplane.  These knives couldn’t be more than what would be described as a common pocket knife.

Since then, quite a few people have weighed in on this decision publicly and I had decided to leave it alone because I felt the decision was really immaterial to any debate on security.

But I read Bob Greene’s opinion piece on CNN and I’ve changed my mind.  I want to weigh in.

Bob Greene is an idiot.

I say that because Bob Greene essentially calls Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security and the TSA idiots.   Let’s be clear here:  Bob Greene, a journalist and columnist with many years of experience, has decided that he has better judgement than the experts who have exposure to all the facts.

Here is an example of Bob Greene’s good judgement:  Bob Greene Wiki

He also makes a specious argument in his piece when he says that the tragedies of September 11, 2001 were caused by knives.

Well, they weren’t.  Knives were the instrument used by terrorists to take over multiple aircraft and were used to assault and kill flight crew.

Curiously, those terrorists didn’t succeed because they had knives.  In fact, if the tragedy wasn’t so tragic, the reason for their success is nearly comical.  They succeeded because we had spent more than 3 decades telling people to cooperate with hijackers.

Globally, we had told people that their best chances for survival when their transportation was hijacked was to cooperate.  More specifically, to shut up, do as told and to not try to interfere with the hijackers.  We, as a global community, couldn’t have been more of one voice on the subject.

Every airline (with the exception of El Al) told its crews to cooperate fully, get the aircraft on the ground and do your best to provide an opportunity for someone outside the aircraft to solve the problem.

And it was an incredibly successful strategy.  Few people got hurt, there were very few violent episodes and it worked very, very well in getting innocents away from danger.

The terrorists used our policies against us.  It wasn’t the box cutters they carried that killed people on those aircraft.  It was the “cooperate” policies that did this.

It’s actually extremely difficult to kill someone with a box cutter who actively resists.

When we found out what the hijackers did on those aircraft, I made the statement to several friends the first night that we’ll never see another successful hijacking in all likelihood.  I speculated that we may well see aircraft bombed or hit with missiles but that I didn’t think we would see one successfully hijacked.

And so far, we really haven’t.

Passengers immediately began actively responding to threats in the cabin and restraining people who intend harm on an aircraft.  It works, too.  In fact, those passengers have never gotten seriously injured either.

Our cockpits are now guarded with very strong doors that can withstand human force very well.  Our pilots won’t be acting passively either.  In fact, I fully agree with the idea of pilots being allowed to carry weapons in the cockpit and I think it should be encouraged.  Pilots should be trained to use them as a defense if that door is penetrated.

Knives aren’t a threat on aircraft.  No more so than many items that are already on that aircraft.  There are countless items that exist on airplane that could be turned into cutting weapons that are at least as good as a pocket knife.

Now, in a rare exhibition of sanity, the TSA has rightly realized that it needs to focus on real threats in security lines and eliminate some aspects of the security theater that have been going on.  And for their trouble, they get the likes of Bob Greene attacking them.

I have not approved of most of our security theater for the past several years in this blog.  There have been a number of steps taken to drive the perception of security while not providing any enhanced security at all.  I have vocally criticized those moves many times.

If you think you’re safer flying on an airplane in which pocket knives are banned, I have request:

Don’t fly.  You’re really too ignorant to be allowed on an aircraft and, frankly, I cannot trust you to do the right thing should there be a real emergency.  Take a car, please.  Or a train.

And if you think Bob Greene is qualified to call a entire security department of the United States idiots, then I would ask that you definitely not travel at all.  You’re a risk to too many people.

Personally, I would like to urge Bob Greene to go back to what he arguably does extremely well:  Personal interest stories about real people.

Filed under: Airports, security by ajax
1 Comment »

This is just a fun commercial that was a vision of how Braniff saw the future in 1968.

 
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y2Hn1HuXc4&hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0]

Filed under: Trivia by ajax
No Comments »