Last week, the FAA issued its new pilot fatigue rules and I’ve expected airlines to decry the changes because there will be some impact to the productivity that many are taking advantage of based on the current rules.  The FAA recognized that no one rule would necessarily address the problem and therefore came up with a system to guide just how long a pilot may be on duty.

The system takes into account night flying, duty hours as a whole and, most importantly, the need to provide a real opportunity for a pilot to get a real 8 hours of sleep.  For example, under current rules a pilot rest time can be as little as 8 hours and it starts when he/she walks off the aircraft.  That doesn’t take into account the very real needs to A) transport oneself to a bed, eat, bath, and transport oneself back to the aircraft at duty reporting time.  In the real world and under the existing rules, a pilot’s real rest time could often be reduced to as little as 5 hours of sleep.

Now, a pilot gets a minimum of 10 hours of “rest” time and I think that’s a good thing. 

The impact to the airlines may be real but it also is level set among all the airlines.  Costs will likely go up some and, if they do, you can bet air fares will too.  The incremental increase in costs, however, should be fairly minimal. 

Cargo carriers are, apparently, being given the opportunity to opt out of these new rules.  On the surface, this may well seem like a bad idea since their flying is predominantly night flying.  However, the cargo carriers do have significantly different circumstances under which they fly.  In general, their flying is less stressful and less prone to delays and more straightforward.  Today, I can’t find a real objection to allowing a carrier to opt out of these although I suspect the unions for these carriers would disagree with me.

As with all new rules, it will take a while for the consequences to shake out and reveal themselves.  I honestly can’t fathom just how this may impact union contracts but I suspect there will be some things that will need to get renegotiated in the near future. 

Will this prevent incidents based on fatigue?  Yes, on the surface, it should help with the number of fatigue related incidents.  With that said, I should also point out that the fundamental responsibility for following these rules and managing fatigue continue to lie with both the airlines and the pilots.  In other words, there is much more opportunity here for pilots to manage their fatigue but it is also the pilots who must use that opportunity to actually get better rest and benefit from the rules.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Virgin America flight attendants have voted to remain a non-union shop with 223 voting for unionization and 324 voting no.  Under the both the new and old rules of the NMB, Virgin flight attendants would remain a non-union group.

It’s interesting to me that despite new airlines growth into larger and larger organizations and despite the perceived job protections and benefits afforded several labor groups at highly unionized airlines, these new airlines labor groups are generally all voting no to union leadership.

That makes me wonder if the perceived value of union leadership is just that diminished or are the airlines themselves simply doing a good and proper job in the way they treat these labor groups?  What is telling is that no one at these non-union airlines is suffering when it comes to work conditions and none are being fired arbitrarily either.  In fact, one could argue that at least one airline, Delta, treats its flight attendants generally better than most and particularly so for the most junior segment. 

These are curious times for unions as all have failed to gain ground and some have lost ground in these labor groups.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Before and after American Airlines bankruptcy filing, there has been a great deal of speculation on American merging with another airline.  Most often, US Airways is cited as the candidate.

The truth is, there isn’t a perfect candidate at this point.  Prior to the Delta / Northwest and United / Continental mergers, American Airlines was vastly larger in size by any measurement you would care to use.  Now there are 3 airlines roughly the same size in the United States and a larger number that are greatly inferior in size to those.

A merger should add value before anything else.  How it adds value is subject to debate.  American Airlines acquisitions never really added value so much as they eliminated nuisance competition.  American, in a sense, bought airlines more to pay off people from competing with them.  To be fair, Southwest Airlines has done this as well.

With the state American Airlines is in today, a merger doesn’t add value.  The first order of business is to get the house completely in order.  Unfortunately, this means quite a bit of pain for everyone involved and I include the executive management in this as well.  If anyone thinks they come out of this bankruptcy unscathed, they are kidding themselves.

US Airways might be a candidate for merger with American Airlines but where US Airways adds value is in conflict with the very people who are running AA today.   What I mean is that US Airways has the management team (and I do mean team, not just Doug Parker as CEO) that knows how to run a competitive, revenue positive airline in today’s marketplace.  Unfortunately, the current management team at American Airlines shows no evidence of knowing how to do so thus far.  They know how to manage money and an airline is a whole lot more than money. 

The only conceivable situation where US Airways adds value to American Airlines in a merger is if most of the executive team at AA is let go. 

Are the systems compatible?  Frankly, I think so.  Far more than I think many appreciate.  US Airways is in possession of a system that is fairly complementary to AA’s system.  US Airways has strengths in marketplaces where AA is weaker (the Southeast and Southwest) and in cities that are weaker in the American Airlines system (Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Phoenix come to mind.) 

Must the fleets be compatible?  To some degree, yes.  They need not be perfectly compatible.  Frankly, I think American Airlines could use the A330 in its system and I think US Airways could use the 777 in its system.  Both will have Airbus A320 series aircraft in a short time. 

The real challenge is labor.  Can you take one airline that has yet to see its pilots and flight attendants integrated into one system (US Airways) and merge the seniority lists with an airline’s employees that are viciously disappointed in its own company (American Airlines)?  I think that is a very, very tough job for anyone. 

In short, I think we won’t see a merger with AA and anyone else for the next 2 to 3 years.   Over that time, it is quite possible that circumstances will have evolved considerably and a candidate for merger with AA may appear.  It is entirely likely that US Airways may be that candidate.  But to expect those two to merger over inside the next two years is, I think, unreasonable.

Filed under: Airline Service, Airlines Alliances by ajax
No Comments »

I’ve had cognizance of the airline industry in one way or another for over 35 years and if there is one thing that stands out the most, it’s the inability of the industry around the world to manage their PR.  The truth is, airlines are PR challenged and most couldn’t put positive spin out there for themselves even if it involved a direct competitor failing. 

Airlines have done a terrible job when it comes to political lobbying and they mirror that performance with the flying public.  The industry is bullied and overtaxed on a regular basis but the airlines response is often to get boisterously defensive in the public arena.  If there is one thing I know, it’s that you will not beat a politician when it comes to a public argument. 

Politicians are very saavy at this game and they know how to throw an airline under the bus way better than airline knows how to load a piece of luggage.  It’s second nature to them and because of how the airlines handle themselves, they frequently become a target that politicians can use to score points. 

Airlines are the opposite of, say, defense contractors.  They do not know how to spend their money, make friends with politicians or how to make themselves important to a politicians consituents.  When they do try, it makes one cringe frequently.   As a result, airlines and their customers suffer greatly for it. 

What’s worse is how airlines handle themselves with their customers.  Airlines are always in a defensive crouch and certain that their customer is trying to one up them.  When accused of poor service, particularly in a public forum, their response to either go silent or to lash out in a manner that just seems mean.  The poor responses to public problems often stun me with their lack of empathy for the very people who ensure their business viability.

In one sense, airlines know that they sell a commodity in a fairly free marketplace and that passengers are overwhelmingly making their choices based on price first and schedule second.  Airlines know that many people will be abused for years before changing airlines and voting with their pocketbook.  Consumers are to blame here in their drive to save $10 instead of actually paying for what they say they want most:   service.

The recent Alec Baldwin incident on American Airlines and Leisha Haley incident on Southwest Airlines causes me to pause and ask a question of the airlines.  Do you not understand that employing some humour in these moments can greatly defuse the situation?

I’m always leery of these incidents because while I think there is always a grain of truth in what these celebrities are complaining about, I also think that their public behaviour is atrocious.  It is the behaviour of a 3 year old rather than an adult and I resent that out of people who gotten past the age of 30. 

Furthermore, I would argue to the airlines, you really do not have to be all things to all people.  If someone has truly acted up on your plane, defuse it publicly with humour and ask the person to not fly your airline again.  It is, after all, your house. 

There is a flip side to this, though.  I have noticed airlines adopting what I would call an interesting lean towards espousing “family values” in what they expect from their passengers.  This shows just how naive an airline can be.  We all like to think that we’re “average americans” in this world but the truth is, damn few of us really reflect that picture when it comes to the “family values” image. 

We’ve all got skeletons in the closet.  It truly is a diverse world that we live in.  It bothers me considerably that a Muslim doesn’t fit within that picture.  Nor does a gay or transgender person.  Nor do many other non-Northern European races. 

And that’s wrong.  When you ignore that reality, you are actually ignoring the *majority* of your potential customers, not some small minority.  It comes as no surprise to me that many minority groups travel by airline far less than that white male/female segment.  The problem is, when you tally up all those minority groups, they encompass a group of people that greatly outnumber that white male/female segment.

In short, it’s bad business to try to enforce those values onto your customers. 

By the way, inappropriate sexualized conduct on a plane is always inappropriate.  I think that any adult over the age of 16 really does know what is and isn’t appropriate for what is a public area albeit enclosed with a fuselage.  If you don’t. don’t be surprised when you get chastised for the behaviour. 

Furthermore, when the rules say you can’t do something, you can’t do it.  Not being able to play a game on your smart phone during takeoff isn’t an infringement on your “rights”.  It’s a rule and a rather smart one at this time.  If research and circumstances change, I’m sure the rules will to.  But the customer needs to quit acting like a know-it-all jackass in this area.

Airlines could stand to evaluate their policies more completely and in the context of the times.  All too often, they lag far behind of developments in the world and try to fit square pegs into round holes.  It’s an unsatisfying experience for all.  Every airline is guilty of this but some do behave better than others. 

In the end, I cannot fathom why airlines do not do a better job of distinguishing themselves with better responses to their customers and government in the public.  This isn’t an industry hidden from most of the public.  To the contrary, it’s one of the most visible service industries out there.  But airlines are ham-handed at best when it comes to dealing with PR challenges.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

Merry Christmas from FlyingColors.

If you are traveling today or later in this holiday season and you want to do a good turn for your flight crew, consider buying $5.00 Starbucks cards and handing them out.  Buy your crew a cup of coffee.  Most flight crews make use of Starbucks and if they’re on a multi-leg trip, it’s quite common for one of the crew to get designated as the “coffee gopher” during a stop.  Most airports have a Starbucks and they can use that card for a better cup of coffee.

If you are flying, keep in mind that the air crew you’re seeing are generally the lower seniority, lower paid crew who are likely missing quite a bit of the holidays.  Give them a break when you can.

Filed under: Travel Hints by ajax
No Comments »

 
Photo Credit: Fickr / Creative Billboards

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the gate
Not a creature was stirring, not even an FA
The stockings were hung by the air bridge with care,
In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there.

The passengers were nestled all snug in their cots,
While visions of ontime flights disturbed their thoughts.
And Momma in her ‘kerchief, and I in my cap,
Had just settled our luggage for a long winters nap.

 When out on the tarmac there arose such clatter,
I sprang from the cockpit to see what was the matter,
Away to the door I flew like a flash,
I lowered the airbridge and looked for the crash.

 The moon on the breast of the new fallen snow
Gave lustre to the fuselages below.
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But a quaint biplane and eight tiny reindeer.

 With a little old pilot, so lively and quick,
I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick.
More rapid than turboprops his coursers they came,
And he whistled and shouted and called them by name!

 “Now Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen!
On, Comet! On, Cupid! on, on Donner and Blitzen!
To the top of the gate! to the top of the terminal!
Now dash away! Dash away! Dash-8 away all!”

 As dry leaves that before the wild 757 fly,
When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky.
So up to the terminal the coursers they flew,
With the biplane full of Toys, and St Nicholas too.

 And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof
The prancing and pawing of each little hoof.
As I drew in my head, and was turning around,
Down the concourse St Nicholas came with a bound.

 He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot,
And his clothes were all tarnished with oil and soot.
A bundle of Toys he had flung on his back,
And he looked like a frequent flyer, just opening his pack.

 His eyes-how they twinkled! his dimples how merry!
His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!
His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,
And the beard of his chin was as white as the snow.

 The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth,
And the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath.
He had a broad face and a little round belly,
That shook when he laughed, like a bowlful of jelly!

 He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,
And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself!
A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,
Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread.

 He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
And filled all the stockings, then turned with a jerk.
And laying his finger aside of his nose,
And giving a nod, up the airbridge he rose!

 He sprang to his biplane, to his team gave a ring,
And away they all flew like the fastest of Boeings.
But I heard him exclaim, ‘ere he banked out of sight,
“Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night!”

Merry Christmas from the FlyingColors Blog.

Filed under: Trivia by ajax
No Comments »

A startup airline calling itself Odyssey Airlines has ordered 10 Bombardier CSeries aircraft to use on a startup venture providing business class service between London (London City Airport) and New York City (JFK) in direct competition with British Airways who currently provides such service with A318 aircraft.

The airline says that by using these aircraft, a stop in Ireland wouldn’t be necessary. 

I’m scratching my head over this.  The CSeries is planned to offer as much as 2800nm of range and that route is about 3500nm in distance.  Granted, reducing the seat count makes for a lighter aircraft and stretches range but this still feels a touch pie in the sky at this moment.

In addition, how many seats can you fly and will it really make sense on a trip cost and per seat cost basis?  I’m going to guess that, at most, they’ll manage a 2-1 aisle configuration and no more rows than the BA A318 (8 rows) giving just 24 seats vs British Airways’ 32 seats.  That doesn’t feel warm and fuzzy either.  Yes, BA has to stop in Ireland on the way to NYC.  It also has the infrastructure there to do that with very small incremental costs. 

Furthermore, British Airways has a business class brand and the infrastructure in both London and New York to make the business class traveler feel pampered.  It’s a trusted service product and I don’t think you can pop up and attract travelers to your business without lowering prices substantially.  The truth is, these flights aren’t sold on price anyway.  They’re sold on service and if others can’t beat British Airways service, what makes Odyssey think they can?

This is a stinky plan, in my opinion, using the wrong aircraft (which *will* need ETOPS to do this by the way) and I don’t think it gets off the ground in the long run.  If the demand is actually there already, British Airways would serve it with more frequencies using more A318s.  They might not have anymore in the fleet but sourcing a long haul A318 isn’t exactly hard to do since anyone who owns one is generally looking to sell it.

I do not see this taking off, pun intended, and I think it’s more publicity related than anything else since you don’t need 10 aircraft to do the London-NYC run from London City Airport.  One wonders if there is another agenda going on with this startup that hasn’t been revealed yet.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

In November, I asked what had happened to Captain Doug Morris and his aviation blog in THIS POST.

What I didn’t bring up and will do so now is that another Canadian aviation blogger, Aviatrix, has also been missing in action since late September.  Her blog, Cockpit Conversation, has been a genuine treat to read over the years and she just kind of . . . disappeared.  Her last entry was somewhat enigmatic and did warn of an absence but it’s been 3 months now since I’ve seen her post.

So, does anyone know what happened to Aviatrix?  Or why Canadian bloggers are disappearing?

Filed under: Trivia by ajax
1 Comment »

Short of tarmac delays, lost luggage drives more hate of airlines than just about anything else I can think of.  I frequently hear stories from people about their bad experiences with lost, misplaced and stolen luggage and, to be honest, I generally discard them as data points to evaluate airlines by.

I’ve been flying since I was 2 years old and I have flown as many miles as any of today’s frequent flyers.  In that time, I’ve had luggage delayed or misplaced maybe as many times as can be counted on one hand.  I’ve had luggage completely lost once and, believe it or not, that was on a train, not an airline.

With a few exceptions, I check my luggage.  I have no interest in making my life more miserable navigating airports and flights with it. 

There are times when airlines not only get it wrong but get it wrong consistently.  US Airways wasn’t particularly good for quite a while in Philadelphia, for instance.  London Heathrow has handled such things very badly at times as well.

To the traveler, I say this:  planning for the event that has less than one percent chance of happening will only stress you out more than a single incident of it actually happening.   And if you can’t afford to check your bag, you can’t really afford to travel. 

Now, with all that said, I also think airlines do an atrocious job of handling these problems.  Airlines have never handled the problem well and they’ve only gotten worse at it by compounding the problem with luggage check fees. 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:  No airline should be charging a fee to check at least the first bag and as long as that bag is within some reasonable weight limit (50lbs domestic and 30lbs international strikes me as fair.)  The very nature of getting on an aircraft to go somewhere implies that a passenger is carrying luggage.  It’s silly and insulting to the traveler.

And to charge that fee regardless of whether or not you have delivered the bag with the traveler at the same time is also insulting.  If you want to charge fees, you need to be prepared to answer appropriate for not providing that service.  Airlines aren’t unique in that service sense.  Do we expect to pay for a meal that is 2 hours later at the table in a restaurant?

Furthermore, not doing your job in delivering the luggage with the person can impose an expensive, time consuming and challenging problem upon people.  Denying reasonable compensation in a timely manner is just wrong.  Plan for the expense and fix the problems causing the losses.

Writing complex and unfair clauses in your contracts of carriage is wrong.  I’m not sure the rules in place today are exactly fair to the airlines at times but they are the present rules.  Not following them or trying to sidestep them is wrong.  It’s bad business to cheat your customers.

There should be a time limit to how long an airline has to find your luggage and return it to you.  That should be something like 48 hours for domestic losses and no more than 5 days for international losses.  After that, you pay reasonable claims. 

I don’t think it particularly fair for a person to be able to pack $10,000 worth of items in a suitcase and then claim their loss entirely either.  But my solution would be to suggest to airlines that you charge insurance for any luggage exceeding $1000 in value.  There, I just gave you a new revenue stream and an opportunity to keep passengers happier and more secure.  Want to pack your Apple laptop in your luggage?  Go ahead but take out $1500 in insurance at, say, $10 per trip against this loss. 

And prove you actually put the expensive items in your suitcase. 

The dirty secret in this business is that you, the customer, have a long history of inflating the value of your possessions during a claim.  Suddenly a $200 Canon point and shoot camera becomes a $1000 Nikon in a claim.  That wrong and it’s fraud.

I also think airports and the TSA have a *strong* duty to keep luggage secure while transiting airports.  I know of already too many incidents where luggage secured with TSA approved locks were pillaged for their expensive items and then RELOCKED AND PUT ON THE PLANE.   That’s theft and only people with TSA lock *keys* are able to get into those bags. 

More transparency, fairness and insurance is required on all sides.  Everyone needs to quit addressing the problem with greed and most could stand to quit taking it personally.  Even airlines have a bad problem of acting as if they are victims over any lost luggage and they aren’t.

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

Wow.  So far, I’ve heard nothing but crickets chirping on my solicitatioin for suggestions on Airline of the Year choices.  You can read that post HERE.

There is still time.  Make you best suggesetions!

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
2 Comments »

By now, most of you have heard of the choice little asset listed in American Airlines’ bankruptcy that is a house in London potentially worth $30 million or more.  The townhouse has been used over the years as a place to stay for executives and has occasionally hosted AMR events as well. 

To say that most found it objectionable would be an understatement.  American points out that it bought the place for considerably less and many years ago.   All very true but considerably less was apparently $13 million and it does point out a disease that many companies and especially airlines often get.

There has been a growing opinion that airline executives are underpaid compared to other industries and that is quite true.  What doesn’t get spoken very often is that one could argue that those other industry executives are likely *overpaid*.   It’s thought that talent follows the money and while I think there is a grain of truth there, I would argue that talent chases the challenges far more than the money.  Airlines present a set of challenges that are addicting for the management executive.

Here is my objection.  No company, airline or otherwise, needs to own a townhouse in London for occasional use costing millions.  Just as no company really needs to own Gulfstream jets.  $13 million can pay for a lot of nice hotel suites for executives and for a lot of hotel banquet area for events.  To have continued to own that property prior to bankruptcy or even prior to 2002, really is insulting to both shareholders and employees. 

What’s more, it makes one wonder what other dirty little secrets there are about extravagance with company funds.  I’ll point out that $30 million can almost pay for a 737-800 at the prices American was paying.   Furthermore, it lends credence to labor unions and their claims of executives lining their pockets.  Where that is true, or not, isn’t the point. 

Owning that property wasn’t very transparent or responsible on American’s part.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Delta Airlines, not unexpectedly, made a big announcement last Friday about its plans for New York City upon consummation of its slot swap deal with US Airways.  That announcement included a number of bold statements including Richard Anderson offering that Delta intended to build a hub.  So far, no surprises.

Where it gets interesting is Delta announced plans to introduce multiple daily round trip flights to other airline’s hubs.  American Airlines gets to defend against them on routes from New York La Guardia to Dallas / Fort Worth and Miami.  These are major cornerstone routes for American and its cornerstone strategy for its existing hubs.

United Airlines sees encroachment on routes to Houston and Denver.  Both cities are fortress hubs for United and both will be defended strongly.  US Airways gets to fight off Delta on routes to and from Charlotte although generally only with smaller Bombardier 70+ seat jets. 

From a personal point of view, I’m glad to see Delta enter the DFW-NYC market.  I’m glad to see American Airlines get the competition it should have on those routes because the prices on those routes are exorbitant.  Frankly, I had hoped that we would see Virgin America or JetBlue run the route but I’ll take Delta.   The timing is good for adding those routes because it will be 2 more years before Southwest can run that route non-stop and American Airlines now has to pay attention to reorganization under bankruptcy for the next 18 to 24 months.  Delta has a rare window of opportunity to exploit those vulnerabilities.

It’s also notable that Delta isn’t just investing in La Guardia but intends to transform its JFK operations into a focus on trans-continental and international long haul flights.  This, too, is an attack at the heart of American Airlines’ operations.

The greater picture is more interesting.  I’ve long felt that the SuperLegacy airlines would eventually arrive at the conclusion that to grow, they would have to start exploiting each other’s weaknesses at other hubs.  To me, it seemed inevitable but I also thought that the airline that would really get picked on would be American Airlines because of its higher cost structure.  It the lowest hanging fruit from that perspective.

I wasn’t wrong.  In a way, American Airlines isn’t just getting picked on with respect to two routes.  Those two routes represent a war cry of sorts.  However, the major expansion that Delta is about to engage in at La Guardia.  Delta makes it clear that it intends to own that market and owning a good portion of New York City is a profitable thing.

The problem for American Airlines is that, right now, it has higher labor costs, less efficient aircraft and little maneuvering room to fight off competition.  They’ll be fixing that and they are likely to come out with similar labor costs to Delta and United.  However, they are still a long way away from having the benefits of a relatively efficient fleet.

Another problem is that Delta (and other airlines) now have probably at least 18 months to attack American Airlines on its home turf secure in the knowledge that they can do so without too many consequences. 

It’s also interesting to me that Delta felt it was possible to encroach on two airlines’ (US Airways and United) mainstay routes with success.  That’s where the hub mentality comes into play.  To be a hub, one must have those mainstay routes.  Typically, New York City generally doesn’t serve as a hub in the form that we see in Atlanta, Chicago and DFW.  Delta wants to make it more like that and it’s clearly willing to invest heavily to make it happen.  It’s notable that Delta is *able* to invest heavily to do that.  It’s the only airline that can right now.

I’m pretty sure we’re seeing the dawn of a new form of competition among US airlines and I’m pretty sure it gets pretty bloody in, perhaps, 5 years or so.  I think the smaller airlines and the low cost carriers are going to be shocked at the vicious nature of the competition that is about to take place.  The cost structures are far more similar than ever before in the US airline market and the advantages are slim.  But the war chests to fight will be big among the largest airlines.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

I thought it would be interesting to name an Airline of the Year much in the manner of Time Magazine’s Person of the Year.  That meant criteria would be needed.

Keeping things simple, here is what I came up with.

1) The airline chosen would be a newsmaker and this award would not be chosen based on positives or negatives achieved in the news over the last year.  It’s notoriety in the news period would be the determining factor.  For example, that means a bankrupt airline could be the chosen airline or the airline who managed an industry coup with an acquisition might be a good choice.

2)  Nominees who were in the news simply because of their own PR efforts would be excluded.  Henceforth, we’ll call this the Ryanair Rule.  Sorry Michael but announcing Porn on a Plane won’t qualify your airline for consideration.  Spirit Airlines should note that their PR efforts are also excluded.

3)  Because I’m US based and US focused, I will choose a US Airline of the Year and an International Airline of the Year.

Now, I would like to make this choice on or before January 1.  Actually, I would like to make this choice and announce it sooner than that.  With that in mind, I would like to ask you, The Reader, to make suggestions based on the above criteria via the comment section of this post. 

Here is what I want:

1)  Your nominee(s) for US Airline of the Year and/or International Airline of the Year.

2)  A reason why you think the airline was a worthy nominee based on its notoriety in the news

If I don’t hear from you, I’ll just make my own choices but I would like this to be driven by readers as I think some input will remind us more of what was going on in the airline industry in the first half of the year as opposed to the airplay airlines have seen in the past few months.

I invite you to encourage others to visit the site and offer their own suggestions.  The greater the participation, the more interesting this gets.

I’ll ask for you comments to be in by midnight CST Friday, December 23.

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

The epitome of romance when it comes to overseas travel in the “Golden Era” of airlines was the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser.  With two decks, fairly low fuel consumption and the ability to cruiser at 30,000 feet, this airliner represented the finest in travel.  It was slower than some airliners but none really equaled its luxury either.  Pan American Airways was the prime customer for this airliner and used it on both trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic routes.

Question:  What other airline purchased these aircraft new and flew them on trans-Atlantic routes?

The answer after the fold: (more…)

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

In light of American Airlines bankruptcy filing and its status as a founding member of Oneworld, I thought about alliances in general and wondered if Oneworld isn’t in real trouble at this point. 

American Airlines won’t be engaging in any serious growth or aggressive strategies for some time to come now.  Every real move they make will be under the scrutiny of bankruptcy stakeholders and their attention will be focused on re-scaling the airline to fit the new realities for success. 

To me, that means that AA won’t have much to offer its partners in Oneworld.  It doesn’t mean they won’t benefit from AA but it does mean that working in concert with these partners to achieve a more aggressive growth for the alliance is probably off the table for now.

Furthermore, QANTAS isn’t exactly shining with success these days either.  They cannot use their A380s as they want and they have as serious labor problems as American Airlines does.   More and more, QANTAS seems at real risk to serious competition from both within Australia as well in the South Pacific/South Asia markets.  I’ll point out that QANTAS is also a founding member of Oneworld.

So, two of the Big 3 in Oneworld are currently hampered by their problems.  That’s kind of serious, I would think.  How does one make a strong business case to LANTAM for their alliance when that situation exists today?

In the meantime, SkyTeam and Star Alliance are racking up new partners and, more importantly, they are planning strong growth with a strategy that continues to seem far more coherent than Oneworld.  They question I ask is this:  Is there some scenario under which existing Oneworld partners start scattering to other alliances?  If one bolts, will others follow?

I don’t see British Airways / Iberia leaving anytime soon but what about the lesser partners such as Cathay Pacific or JAL or LAN says “Buh Bye”?  I think we would see several others looking for new relationships.  (It’s notable that Oneworld is so clueless as to still have Mexicana’s name on their website.)

The other scenario is that both Oneworld and other alliance partners separate and form a new alliance that displaces Oneworld.  More possible than one might think since Star and SkyTeam are clear dominated by just a handful of airlines.   Some partners in those alliances may be chafing to play a bigger role in an alliance and with enough world partners, creating a new alliance may well be not only possible but smart.

Filed under: Airlines Alliances by ajax
No Comments »

The FAA has just given approval to American Airlines to use iPads in the cockpit at all times including during take-offs and landings.  This would be the same device that just got Alec Baldwin into hot water on American Airlines for use during time at the gate and/or taxi.

I’m not defending Baldwin.  To the contrary, I think that, once more, a celebrity has gone too far in their denouncement of an airline.

Use of these devices probably should be limited during those times.  On the other hand, if there is good reason for their limits for passengers, I can’t fathom a reason why it is OK for pilots.  Particularly since pilots happen to be at the pointy end of the airplane where all the electronics are located.  

disclaimer:  I work for a major aerospace company and I *know* that interference from electronic devices has been experienced and is a risk albeit a very minor one.   There is a reason why we take extra precautious during take-offs and landings.  Those are the two very critical moments for danger when it comes to airliners.  They are more at their limits than at any other time.  Something causing even a minor problem can be a real risk at those moments.

And it’s a risk that can be easily mitigated.  Do we really need to have our devices on at *all* times during our trip?  No, really don’t.  And acting like children because you were asked to shut them off just makes you look silly.

But granting the authority to use them in those very same situations to pilots makes the FAA look awfully silly too.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
2 Comments »

Southwest is clearly positioning itself to operate a family of aircraft.  They also clearly see a strong need for the -800 (5 more aircraft ordered) and I think they recognize a need to enjoy all the fuel efficiency benefits available to them at this point in the company’s life.

SWA has made its intentions to compete in major markets and at major airports throughout the country.   Those airports require more capacity per flight in order to grow and enjoy health profits.  In light of their challenges in getting slots to operate from NYC airports as well as slots for Washington (National), I suddenly wonder if the -900 and MAX9 won’t enter into the picture.  If they can get enough frequencies in and out of those airports to operate an accomodating daily schedule, they can at least benefit from larger and larger aircraft.

The question is what to do about their traditional smaller markets that have enjoyed a lot of Southwest service.  Many of those markets get served with 737-500 aircraft or they enjoy the -700 by being a part of follow on service to another destination.  For example, my mother flew to the DFW area last week on SWA by going nonstop to ABQ and then onwards (on the same aircraft) to Dallas. 

This is how Midland, Lubbock, Amarillo, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Little Rock enjoy more frequent service with mainline aircraft.  In fact, each of those cities enjoys 5 daily round trips each except Little Rock which has 6.  That is on Southwest alone and does not include service provided to the DFW area by American Airlines/American Eagle who offer as many or more frequencies using primarily ERJ-140 aircraft and a few MD-80s.  But once Love Field in Dallas becomes available for non-stop flights to destinations within the 48 states, those cities suddenly don’t look so good for the mainline aircraft they have today.  I don’t think they’ll lose that kind of service entirely but I do think that such cities will see reduced service or they’ll need smaller aircraft.

In light of Southwest’s order, I no longer think they are necessarily going to embrace the CSeries.   The truth is, more and more, the turbo-prop offers the right economics for those flights.  And, yet, I’m not sure SWA wants to be a turbo-prop operator.  So I wonder if we’ll see Southwest morph into a larger, more mainline airline that starts to ignore those smaller cities it has so successfully served for decades.

I also notice that while they’ve made their orders today work for a stable fleet count, they can also change their minds and grow if opportunities present themselves.  It’s a flexible plan and I like that.  Southwest *will* order more MAX airplanes but the follow on orders will be in single digits mostly and very incremental over time.  Southwest will likey obtain more options as time passes but mostly it will use the ones it has today strategically. 

Finally, time for another prediction.  I think we are going to next see Ryanair jump on the bandwagon for new aircraft.  Odd favor the MAX and I’ll predict that their goal will be a 250 aircraft order that focuses more on the MAX than it does on replacing existing aircraft in their fleet.    When?  If it’s Boeing they really want, it will be very soon.  I would expect it to happen in the next 30 to 40 days.  If they truly want to evaluate Airbus against Boeing, then I’ll guess that we’ll see an order announcement somewhere in March or April.

Filed under: Airline Fleets by ajax
No Comments »

Well, it’s 150 firm orders for the MAX and another 58 for the 737NG.   Close enough to my own predictions that I’ll gloat for a moment.

I’m done.

Southwest becomes the launch customer for the 737MAX and this becomes Boeing’s biggest order ever.  More importantly, it’s the ring of legitimacy that Boeing hears in its ears now.

Filed under: Airline Fleets by ajax
No Comments »

Southwest Airlines is legendary for its use of the 737 and it could even be claimed that they made the 737 what it is today.  The exclusivity of the 737 to their fleet is also legendary although they have owned subsidiary companies that flew other aircraft.

TransStar Airlines used the DC-9 and MD-80.  Now, as owners of Airtran, they have the 717 (which is really a DC-9) as well.  But all of those aircraft were flown in the subsidiary airline’s livery.

Question:  Can you name the other aircraft that Southwest has flown in their own livery?

The answer after the fold: (more…)

Filed under: Trivia by ajax
No Comments »

Well, it’s starting to bubble out in the media that Southwest is close to making an initial order for the 737MAX.  Rumours say it will be a 100 aircraft order.  If negotiations are beginning to finalize, I think it will be for far more aircraft than that.

Southwest currently has 550+ aircraft in its fleet.  Of those, 195 are not Next Generation 737s (-700s).  Those aircraft need to go sooner than later but Southwest only has 133 orders for 737s and of those, 20 are for the -800.  (Southwest also holds 37 options and 98 purchase rights.)

Of the next generation fleet, 370 are -700s and while those seem awfully new, quite a few are getting rather old as well.  Southwest was the launch customer for that aircraft and owns the first one built.  They don’t need replacement in the next 3 to 5 years but they will need replacement in latter part of the decade.

My prediction is an order for 200 and another 200 to 300 options.  I think they’ll choose the CFM Leap56 engine and I think the mix will be weighted towards the 737 MAX 8.   I don’t think the MAX 7 will be ignored but Southwest is growing and it is able to fill the MAX 8 but it will still have a healthy and relatively new fleet of -700 aircraft for its short haul and long/thin routes to use. 

Southwest actually doesn’t generally order “big”.  Typically, they order a few aircraft at a time.  But if they choose the MAX (and they will), there is no reason to not take advantage of Boeing’s desire to get a major airline into the order list.  American Airlines was a hail mary pass and now Boeing needs a credible 737 user to endorse the aircraft.  (Lion Air wasn’t it.)

Filed under: Airline Fleets by ajax
3 Comments »