USA Today’s Today in the Sky had THIS story about US and European airlines no longer being the biggest airlines.   The criteria is based on market capitalization and it said:

Citing the airlines’ market capitalization values, IATA says they are Air China ($20 billion), Singapore Airlines ($14 billion), Hong Kong’s Cathay Pacific ($12 billion), China Southern ($11 billion) and LATAM ($11 billion). LATAM is the holding group for the recently announced merger that would combine Chile’s LAN and Brazil’s TAM airlines.

Let’s take a look at this.  First, it’s notable that none of these airlines (with the possible exception of Singapore Airlines) plays in very competitive home markets and all (except for Singapore Airlines) receive forms of market protection and support from their home governments.  Further, each of these is able to buy aircraft and finance these purchases through low cost financing being provided by import-export banks.   Finally, all of them benefit from relatively inexpensive labor compared to other parts of the world. 

Market capitalization really doesn’t mean much in terms of size except for how people are valuing the company.  It is the value of a share of stock in the market place times the number of shares out standing and often market caps are distorted by individual owner perceptions of the company and the market it plays in.

Some like to measure airlines by fleet size or the number of markets it flies to but each of those measures can be distorted too.  Are we to equate a fleet of 250 regional jets with a fleet of 250 mainline aircraft?  Similarly, is an airline that flies to 50 markets with one flight a day going to be the same as an airline that flies to those same 50 markets 5 times a day?

A far better measure would be revenue passenger miles.  That is the number of passengers times the number of miles the airline flew those passengers.  In other parts of the world, the measure is revenue passenger kilometers but it is the same measurement. 

By that measurement, European and US airlines continue to dominate the world’s airlines.  They also enjoy a wider mix in their fleets and tend to travel to far many more markets as well.  They are airlines that are typically broad based in everything that they do. 

These airlines, however, don’t enjoy the same market caps because their governments have engineered open skies agreements with most other places or at least liberal travel treaties.  They see far more competition compared to these other airlines and most do not benefit from low cost financing for their fleets either. 

Do we really want to believe that Air China is capable of buying and operating Delta Airlines?  It isn’t.  Even Singapore Airlines would be challenged by owning and operating a US or European Airline.  It is a bad idea to compare airline size and speculate about the future on the basis of what an airline is being valued at in the marketplace.

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

Airlines had a lot of challenges 2 years ago but none more challenging than the volatility and high prices  of oil.  That got a lot easier to deal with as the economies of the world melted down but the price of a barrel of oil is slowly rising again.

Oil went over $90 a barrel this week and it’s likely to go up a bit more.  Why?  Well, it isn’t because demand for it is increasing.  It’s because it is a popular speculation in the markets since it is dollar denominated (priced in dollars) and the US dollar has been pretty weak.  If you got a stack of dollars that, in the world market, is eroding in value, speculating oil (rising in price) can be a smart hedge against that loss of value.

Will it rise again to $140+ soon?  That’s anybody’s guess.  My guess is that it won’t go that high but I don’t think it is going to sink to $50 or $60 a barrel either.  Our world economies have stabilized in their fall but they aren’t necessarily robustly growing either.  Lots of countries have bought US debt and have a lot of dollars or dollars invested in that debt and they need to mitigate against the low value of the dollar to preserve their money. 

Oil speculation is starting to resemble speculation in gold and while I do think that we need to stabilize that market in the future, it requires the cooperation of *all* the major oil producing countries and that’s a tough thing to get. 

Airlines are, hopefully, already engaged in strategies to mitigate against fluctuating fuel prices through hedging.  They’ve got some profits coming in now and they can rebuild their cash holdings and start planning their fuel strategies with a more long term view.  Or, at the least, most of them can. 

Ultimately, oil prices will stabilize when the US (and the rest of the western nations) have stabilized their economies, their currencies and have a more solid foundation on which people can plan their investments.  The more uncertain the economies are, the more uncertain oil prices are going to be. 

The United States has largely stemmed its economic free fall and has even enjoyed some very modest gains in growth and unemployment.  The current administration hasn’t received the credit it deserves for reacting quickly and forcefully and without reserve.  Had they not done that, oil would have been much cheaper but only because we would be in a great depression and experiencing deflation and double digit unemployment. 

But this problem isn’t going to go away for at least 5 to 7 years.  Oil will be unstable and fluctuating for some time to come and airlines would be wise to deploy a long term strategy to cope with that.  Fuel hedges and renewing fuel inefficient fleets are the best way to go and waiting even a short while could end up costing airlines all their profits.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Instead of engaging in analyst speak for the earnings results airlines are reporting this week and the next, let’s sum it up real quick:  Airlines are earning record profits this quarter (again) and American Airlines continues to appear the weak animal on the plains with not one but two lions starting to eye it. 

The “records” being set with these profits are a bit deceiving.  Delta has had record profits.  It’s also roughly twice the size it was before the economic crash.  United has record profits, ditto.  US Airways has record profits and, yes, they’re roughly twice the size they used to be too.  When Southwest adds Airtran to their company, we’ll likely see new record profits there too. 

What’s driving these profits?  Well, certainly some synergies from the mergers although I suspect they aren’t as great as they are touted to be when these airlines were lobbying for approval of their mergers.  US Airways doesn’t have all those synergies in their flight crews and they’re still performing impressively. 

Network?  Well, again, I think it certainly helps a bit.  I believe the larger networks are improving load factors somewhat and that’s good.  On the other hand, is it all about the network?  No, not really.  I refer you to the fact that US Airways has a lousy network and, again, they’re doing very, very well.

I think the continuing restraint on capacity growth is driving these profits.  That’s great and I am very impressed that the airlines have held themselves in check as well as they have.  It’s nice to see profits in this industry and there are a whole lot of people who need to be paid back for their investments.  This will help do that. 

The question is . . . Will it last?  I’m skeptical.  Very skeptical.  First, some of the load factors we are seeing as “averages” are astronomically high when considered against the past 30 year history of the business.  Even Southwest is enjoying exceptionally high load factors and their business model isn’t based on high load factors at all.  I don’t think such load factors are sustainable.  In fact, I think they are too high as an average for these legacy/SuperLegacy carriers. 

I think branded regional airlines and LCC carriers are going to see a lot of opportunity over the next few quarters to start whittling away at these profits.  Someone will blink and they will add capacity.  When one starts to grow their capacity, many will follow, at least on competitive routes, because self-restraint in this business is dependent upon everyone exercising some. 

If we do continue to see these profits for another year or two, I also think we’ll see new entrants into the market place.  The Sirens will be calling to investors and it will be an irrestible call. 

You can bet that each airline is analyzing their competitors right now and you can also bet that the question being asked is how can we grow or add capacity through better utilization of our fleet right now.  Tomorrow, the question will be about what they can add to their fleet to grow that capacity.  Those questions are being asked internally right now and I do think we’re looking at least a couple more financial quarters of self-discipline.  I also think someone will likely blink when they begin to plan and announce intentions for next year’s summer season.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Let’s talk about taxes and fees a little bit.  I’m not going to spend too much time on baggage fees and such because it’s a subject that has been already flogged enough for now.

What I want to talk about is how we, as a nation, have decided to treat the aviation industry and even the travel industry.  Currently, we treat them like chain smokers wanting to go to a bar in New York City.  In other words, we don’t welcome or foster either the travel industry or aviation industry.  We really don’t. 

It’s become popular to view certain industries as pariahs that should bear an ever increasing burden because at the end of the day, those same industries can’t fight that treatment and remain in business.  In the airline business, lawmakers realize that airlines have very few alternatives available to them when it comes to flying to a destination.  Yes, on occasion, there are 2 or more airports to choose from but those are generally controlled by the same government agencies. 

So what am I talking about?  Landing fees.  Because airlines recognizeably can’t avoid paying these fees and because they are incremental to adding costs to an airline fare, it’s popular to fund projects by simply raising these fees.   Occasionally these become so high that airlines go looking elsewhere for their revenue but it’s really quite unlikely to happen in most major cities that trunk routes are based upon.   Example:  Look at just how expensive it is to fly into Toronto.  It’s agregious in price but airlines continue to fly those routes although the rather high air fares that result certainly must contstrict the markets for those routes.

Airlines use airports and airports really are public assets and, yes, they should pay a reasonable fee to use those assets.  However, often airports are built and upgraded with these fees without ever asking the airlines if they’re interested in paying those increased fees for what are often very marginal improvements they get to experience.  Occasionally a really large airline strong arms an airport into funding improvements and new construction and that results in increased landing fees that negatively impact smaller airlines serving the airport with less frequency and who get to experience really none of the benefits.

The thing is . . . airports are economic engines that cities both need and should really want.  Artificially constricting service or growth at these airports has a severe impact on cities and metroplex areas.  Who wants to locate a corporate headquarters in a city that raises airfares through vanity projects that are funded via fees and taxes?  That has a real impact on a company’s travel budget.

In addition, it has become popular to add visitor taxes to things like hotels and car rentals that are insanely over the top in price.  In some cities, we now see taxes and fees making up as much as 40% of the cost to rent a room or a car.   That is abusing the good will of visitors to a city who are already injecting economic value with their visit.  Just because they don’t live in that area and can’t vote against such things doesn’t mean that we should get away with it either.

Transportation, tourism and particularly aviation are strong economic pumps for regions.  It is wrong to overly tax these just because you can get away with it.  It is akin to continually raising taxes on cigarettes just because users are largely addicted and they’ll pay almost any incremental increase in price to meet that addiction.  It would be far better to look upon these areas as opportunities to invest for the local and regional economies rather than an opportunity to rape and pillage visitors in support of the local and regional economies.

Filed under: Airports by ajax
No Comments »

It was just shy of 8:15am and I was pulling into the parking lot of my company.  A company where I, as a senior manager, was in charge of our all our daily operations.  I was actually a bit annoyed because I was arriving 15 minutes late that day and I strongly believed in showing up exactly on time.

Each day, on the way to work, I was in the habit of listening to the National Public Radio news broadcast on our local public radio station.  Those who know me, know just how important it is, to me,  to get to listen to that twice a day. 

Moments before I was about to get out of the car, the news broadcaster, Carl Kasell,  who read the news on NPR suddenly stopped speaking, struggled for a brief moment and then said he had news just put in front of him that a small aircraft had just hit the World Trade Center in New York City.  When Carl Kasell hesitates and stutters, you stop and listen.  He is a consummate professional in his job.

I’m somewhat sad to admit that my first reaction was “It finally happened.  All that air traffic in the NYC area and now a commuter aircraft has run into a building.”  In fact, I assumed it must have been foggy or a day of low clouds and someone had made a bad mistake.

I went inside to my office, said hello to everyone and then shut my door to make business phone calls and read email in privacy.  Oblivious to what was unfolding in New York City and Washington D.C.

About 45 minutes later, my head buyer burst into my office and asked if I was aware that the world was crashing down and on fire.  She used those words and since she was ordinarily my most stable employee, that got my attention and I asked my friend who stood accusingly in my doorway what was going on.

“Planes just hit the World Trade Center and now it’s falling down.  And the Pentagon is on fire.”

That struck me like a 5lbs hammer. 

I came out of my office and we all turned on radios and even a TV (the benefits of working for a company that did direct sales of consumer electronics) to get news.  It was hard to get, actually.  Our phones were silent but you couldn’t get a phone line to call out either. 

I had had a new T-1 data line put into our office just a month earlier and when I couldn’t get any news websites to come up on my computer, I assumed the connection was bad until I realized I was still getting email.  All the news websites were flooded with traffic.

It took us a good 2 hours to settle down.  Unlike some companies, I kept our staff at the office and kept us together.  We really didn’t get any work done.  I pretended to attempt to merchandise for our Christmas catalog but I was just listening to radio and searching websites for any news I could.  Our phones were quiet and no customers were emailing us to ask where their new telephone was.  I thought it was important for us to stay together.  It seemed like if I sent everyone home, we would be weaker and more susceptible to what was going on. 

We did finally leave around 4pm.  I went home, made dinner and watched the news.  After a couple of hours, I went outside on my patio to sit and reflect without the news in my ear.  After about 5 minutes, I realized that it was silent outside. There was no aircraft traffic, there was no car traffic.  Ordinarily, even a quiet evening in my neighborhood is filled with noise from cars and other activities.  That night it was just silent. 

My phone rang after about an hour.  It was a friend from Australia calling to see if I was OK.  I pointed out that what was happening was in New York and Washington, not Dallas.  They explained that they knew I traveled on the spur of the moment frequently and they were worried I was up there or even on one of the aircraft.  Strangely, I got several more phone calls from friends outside the country that evening asking the same questions.  Friends from Russia and the UK and Canada. 

By that evening, I had already told several friends that hijackings will never be treated the same again.  I said things like “The rules have changed” and “The gloves are off”.  I knew air travel would never be quite the same and it isn’t.  Today, an attempted hijacking would be met with resistance by any and everyone.  Back then, the standard operating procedure was to cooperate and get the plane on the ground.  But hours later, I knew that wouldn’t be the case ever again.

Those moments that cause us to know them by where we were when they happened seem to come only once in a generation at most.   That was my generation’s “Kennedy moment”, if you will.  It was for anybody in the United States that day.   Now you’ve heard my story.

One of the most compelling parts about the events of September 11, 2001 is that there are so many different and interesting stories to hear.  I would like to hear yours.  Please comment to this blog entry and tell me where you were on September 11, 2001 and what your impressions were.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
4 Comments »

We often read stories about companies and businesses going green and being happier for it.  We see governmental regulations aimed at being cleaner “emitters” and taxes and credits being structured to force people to be pollute less.   A few years ago, the airline industry was being targeted by various “green” groups for being big polluters and being particularly damaging to the atmosphere.

So, is going green really good? 

As matter of fact, it is.  At least for the airline industry.  One reason you see a variety of airlines embracing the idea of being “green” and becoming involved in a variety of experiments is that, for the airline industry, almost every “green” effort translates into cost savings for the airline.

American Airlines discovered several years ago that by being just a little bit more proactive in their engine maintenance, they could extract a 1 to 2% gain in fuel efficiency.  Less fuel burned translates into less emissions in the atmosphere. 

Several airlines have participated in experimental flights using various “bio” fuels to see what does work and how well it works.  Interestingly enough, several of those experiments have revealed that the “bio” fuels often are *more* efficient than the petroleum based fuels.  They have more “energy” and therefore an aircraft burns less fuel per mile using the bio fuel.   We only lack the technology to mass produce some of these fuels at a cost effective price. 

Other airlines have been experimenting with continuous descent approaches to airports.  In the simplest sense, this is an airliner “gliding” from the top of its cruise altitude all the way to the runway.  Currently, airlines have to make “step” approaches to airports where they lose a few thousand feet of altitude and wait.  Then they are cleared to another lower level and when they reach that, they wait.  This results in a lot of throttle “jockeying” that wastes fuel.  Continuous descent approaches have been shown to reduce emissions by *tons* on a long haul flight.  And they are one reason why airlines are embracing the idea and pushing on the FAA hard to find ways to employ these at airports. 

Every time an engine manufacturer manages to eek out another 1 to 3% fuel efficiency these days, the gains aren’t just in reduced fuel burn but also in reduced toxic emissions.  Essentially, these gains come from burning fuel more completely and the more completely the fuel is burned, the fewer toxic emissions that result. 

Some airlines have discovered that just by washing their aircraft a little bit more results in a little less drag and that results in a little less fuel burn which then results in fewer emissions.  Others have figured out that aircraft sitting at gates running their APU (Auxiliary Power Unit aka a small jet fuel engine producing electrical and hydraulic power) units is wasteful.  Now they hook up ground power and ground airconditioning to the aircraft and that means fewer emissions.  Running a jet fuel engine to produce power on the ground results in lots of dirty emissions and its wasteful of fuel. 

Every “green” movement in the airline industry yields costs savings.  In this industry, even tiny savings on a per mile basis can result in millions of dollars saved every year.  That’s why you don’t hear about airlines protesting about being pushed towards being more efficient and less polluting.  The same is true for aircraft manufacturers and engine makers:  every effort made in this area means their customers save money.  A customer that can save just a few dollars per flight using your equipment potentially saves millions of dollars each year and that’s a huge sale advantage.

At the end of the day, being “green” has literally no downside for the airline and it’s a model industry for looking at ways to embrace it further.

Filed under: Trivia by ajax
No Comments »

In a story on Money Magazine’s website HERE, we find out that airlines wouldn’t mind seeing more regulation. 

 More regulation of derivatives trading in the oil markets that is.  Most airlines buy and sell futures in the markets to offset the costs of their fuel.  That is, in order to stabilize their costs in fuel, they trade in fuel futures to make their costs more predictable.   For more info, you can read these posts HERE and HERE. 

 One thing that has hurt airlines over the past 3 years is how volatile the oil markets have been.  Wild swings in prices have occured because traders are “betting” on the prices being really high or really low.  Because the capital in the markets has few places to be used right now, that capital is attracted to things that are more “sure bets” like oil.  The truth is, oil will not collapse like mortgage derivatives did.   There has been more and more speculation in oil because there are fewer and fewer places to speculate.

 Airlines have resented this because it made what was a very sensible thing for them to do a very volatile thing for them to do.  It’s brought less control to their equation now.   And they would like to see that changed with a bit more regulation involved in the trading of derivatives. 

 Trading in derivatives is a complex business that very few people can engage in reliably.  Lots of people think they get it and they really don’t.  I have a degree in economics and finance and the most I would profess to knowing is the basic structure of that kind of trading.  Airlines have pretty good traders but they don’t trade in oil or jet fuel.  They trade in derivatives based on fuel oil which tracks closely to the pump price of jet fuel. 

 What can they do?  They can either find another commodity to hedge with that tracks closely to the price of their fuel in a stable manner or they can wait for capital to seek profits elsewhere.  The latter is probably not going to happen for some time. 

 Should there be better regulation in derivatives trading?  Yes, there certainly should be more transparency in the transactions.  People are now trading in the oil markets to simply make money rather than ever take delivery of an oil future.  We don’t know their needs, liquidity or who they’re answerable to when these trades are going on.  It would probably be more appropriate for this to be more exposed in the marketplace.  Why?  Because people won’t take “bets” from sketchy or insolvent entities.  Just like a bookie won’t take a bet from someone who doesn’t have the cash to back it up.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »