About 24 hours after the Southwest Airlines / Airtran announcement, rampant speculation on who American Airlines should partner with started up.  The truth is, while I can make an argument for them to merge/acquire US Airways, I think they’ll shy away from a merger.  If they do go shopping for an acquisition, I don’t think it will be oriented towards a real “merger” a la Delta/Northwest or ContiUnited. 

There are a couple of targets left.  Alaska Airlines strikes me as one that should interest Southwest, American Airlines and Delta.  I think it’s pretty hard to get a deal done with Delta because of regulatory issues particularly in the Seattle area.  I think it’s pretty hard to for AA to get a deal done with Alaska because both parties have high labor costs and AA just won’t know what to do with the rather unusual operations Alaska performs in Alaska. 

I don’t think anyone is going to buy jetBlue at present and jetBlue’s CEO says they’re going to grow organically.  I would be happy to see jetBlue just get outside of its NY/Florida comfort zone and stop treating the midwest like it has the plague.

Frontier could be an interesting proposition for jetBlue, I think.  Sadly, I also think that Republic Airways is going to hold on to Frontier for dear life given what’s going on in the regional airline world.  Nevertheless, I do think that jetBlue could harmonize Frontier’s service and routes to the jetBlue way and make something of that airline. 

US Airways?  Well, they are the somewhat pretty girl who never gets asked out anywhere except to make some other guy jealous.  Until they get their labor house in order, I think it’s going to stay that way.  Their executive corps, however, ought to be attractive to someone.  Despite all of US Airways weakenesses and their “East/West” style of ops, those guys make money.  There is a lot to be said for that. 

I think they are more attractive for bringing into a new alliance.  Currently, US Airways belongs to Star Alliance but ContiUnited kind of makes them look superfluous.  SkyTeam just doesn’t need them either.  Oneworld aka American Airlines/British Airways,  on the other hand, could perhaps take advantage of them.  The deal would have to be a bit sweet because US Airways, if nothing else, is enjoying a nice “under the radar” ride on Star Alliance right now. 

I can’t think of anyone who could find a use for Virgin America at this point except, well, the Virgin Group.  Even the Virgin Group seems to have a hard time seeing a real value for working with Virgin America.  If they had any money, I would point them to Frontier but I think Republic Airways would just laugh out loud.

The truth is, I think there is suddenly some opportunity out there to start a new airline.  I would look for weak airlines who have major hubs and very little competition.  Some place where business customers and leisure travelers alike are dissatisfied with their current offerings and restrictions.  Some place that has a history of embracing the airline industry and where you can hire experienced people to kick that venture off.  That would be a great place to start something new.  I wonder where such a place might be?

Filed under: Airline News, Airlines Alliances by ajax
5 Comments »

There is a rumour that Sun Country Airlines may be in play for being purchased / merged with another airline.  Candidates suggested are Delta, Airtran and Southwest Airlines.

Delta?  Never gonna happen.  They don’t need Sun Country and they don’t need the regulatory headaches that a Sun Country purchase offers.

Airtran?  Kind of doubt it.  Airtran has been avoiding direct competition with legacies lately and they’ve got that area of the country covered with their operations in Milwaukee.  In addition, Aitran isn’t a 737-800 operator and doens’t need that headache at present.

Southwest?  Now that’s a marriage.  One that I suggested at the New Year in this post.  Mind you, I don’t think it will be for the weekly flights to London.  The fleet is compatible and despite concerns over it being entire leased, it’s a good fit and allows SWA to start 737-800 ops just that much sooner and on routes that are that much more lucrative. 

It also offers MSP gates and more opportunities to fly more places.  In fact, it offers just the right kind of opportunities:  international flying.  Southwest Airlines recognizes that international flying is something that they need to consider.  However, it involves an area of expertise that just isn’t at SWA and within their business model.

Sun Country offers that ready-made expertise and to a variety of destinations.  With that experience, SWA suddenly has the ability to go to Mexico and Canada which are already a part of its codeshare work (and where is that codeshare with Volaris, by the way?).  But the experience in the backend, reservations, visas, handling foreign currency, etc. is all offered with a Sun Country purchase. 

It’s a ready made solution for growth but it has one risk. Union agreements.  And Sun Country has a lof of employees who feel that Sun Country was never given an unfettered opportunity to grow.  Whether that’s true or not, it’s an obstacle.  If SWA can convince its unions to offer senior merging on a date of hire basis, it might work.  If SWA’s unions insist on a purchase being “stapled” to the back of the seniority list, it’s unlikely it will work.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

A few days ago, I was asked to help someone put together a multi-stop itinerary from Portland, OR to Chicago to NYC to Portland.  A quick check of travel sites revealed a pretty good price of $525 all in from Delta.  The problem was multiple stops at Delta hubs in Minneapolis, Detroit and/or Atlanta.  Each segment had a stop and each stop was a not too short layover, too.

So I started looking for alternatives.  Now, this person wanted to fly into Newark’s airport for the NYC part for convenience and that makes alternatives a bit more difficult.  But they were traveling into NYC on a Saturday night or Sunday morning and that makes La Guardia go from “ugh” to possible.

After a few minutes, I found flights on Southwest Airlines for PDX to Chicago Midway (MDW) that were more than reasonable.  Then I found very reasonable flights from MDW to NYC (La Guardia) on Southwest too.  Finally, Continental offered a nice one-stop to Portland via Seattle for an extremely reasonable price.  All in, those tickets added up to about $530.  Best of all, only one connection was necessary and it was an easy one in Seattle. 

The traveler would also be able to take advantage of SWA’s no bag fee policy saving them about $50 as well.  In fact, by that accounting, suddenly the fare difference was $575 plus taxes for Delta and a bunch of bad flights on bad aircraft vs $530 on SWA and Continental on good flights with nice aircraft.  Their overall travel time was shortened by hours and their convenience and price went up.  It’s good to look for alternatives and it’s very wise to remember Southwest Airlines when you’re planning your trips.

One odd note:  I discovered that Delta really dominated flights from MDW to other destinations such as NYC-LGA and NYC-EWR but only as connections to their hub cities in Minneapolis, Detroit or Atlanta.  At least by price they did.  But the connections ranged from barely OK to “what the hell are they thinking”.  And suddenly it dawned on me why ContiUnited decided to give up those slots at EWR to Southwest. 

ContiUnited doesn’t fly from EWR to MDW non-stop.  In fact, I couldn’t find a connection on either airline to that airport.  They do, however, have a strong schedule to Chicago’s O’Hare airport.  By giving those slots up, they virtually assured that SWA would fly in competition with Delta to Chicago rather than ContiUnited and do it very competitively.  In other words, they got the attack dog to go after their biggest competitor in the NYC area. 

Is there some potential for competition on ContiUnited routes?  Sure but it is pretty limited since SWA flies to secondary airports where they (ContiUnited) are (mostly) strongest.  They’ve already seen that SWA has a limited effect on their pricing under those circumstances.  And, as I’ve already said in an earlier post, they already know how to compete with SWA in the circumstances where they might directly compete.  Best of all, they made the DoT very happy to offering a big chunk of slots to SWA instead of trying to pull a Delta and parcel them out to tiny players.

And that makes me wonder why Airtran never used its EWR slots to fly to Chicago where they already had a presence.  Their business class product would have fit nicely with the value oriented, entrepreneur flier between those two cities and offered great convenience between downtown Chicago and Manhattan.

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

The Department of Transportation has decided to recommend against anti-trust immunity between Delta Airlines and Virgin Blue airlines Virgin Blue and V Australia.   This decision caught many by surprise and I’ll confess to being somewhat suirprised but pleased as well.

The DoT seems to say that they don’t think Delta has worked to establish itself in the trans-oceanic market and hasn’t done a very good job of showing the benefits to the consumer.  There is some truth to that.  Delta and V Australia are both new entrants to the US-Australia routes and neither has really done that well so far but neither has seemed to have invested in developing that business all that well either.  The efforts made seem more pro forma than with enthusiasm. 

I also think that both parties felt that with two very established carriers between the two countries, an alliance between two new entries would just be automatically supported.  An assumption that I would have said is likely just a day ago. 

I think everyone could stand to take a moment and breath on these alliances.  Yes, they grow the network and they offer greater potential for profit but is an oligopoly of 3 really better than an oligopoly of 2?   The public good isn’t just served by profitable airlines.  The public good includes what is generally good for the consumer such as competition that offers varying levels of service and price. 

If you want an alliance across the ocean, prove you can be a player on that same set of routes first.  Better yet:  be creative and open up some new business rather than just continuing to try to compete on the ubiquitous California – Australia routes. 

Alliances are fine but let’s not forget the purpose of business and competition and what it has to offer.  If you want to be in business on a particular route, the preferred pathway should be making a long term investment and working for the traffic.  We should desire to start seeing *more* competition between these alliances, not a continued effort to stake out their “just share” of business in a particular market.  Carving things up into 3 equal shares serves no one’s interests at all.

Good on the DoT for doing the unexpected as well as doing it for a good reason.  I would like to see a bit more of that attitude in other future decisions.

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

When Delta decided to sell off several subsidiary regional airlines recently, we all noticed that Comair didn’t receive any takers.  It’s costs are higher and its equipment is more dated and now Comair is slimming down to reduce costs in the hope that it might become attractive enough to find a suitor.  Just the reduction in the CRJ100/200 fleet alone will save the airline considerable money but the workforce will be reduced as well.

Comair is unattractive because of its divergence from what legacy airlines need in a regional airline partner:  It isn’t so cheap anymore.  Comair is pretty old when you consider its life and various forms.  It’s had enough time to add on a senior workforce and its found itself boxed in with its equipment (partially because of what it invested in and partially because of scope clause limitations.)  It really tends to be more “legacy” than “regional” in its airline DNA these days.

And that sounds a lot like American Eagle.  American Eagle has an aging fleet, increasing labor costs and a workforce that is aging and gaining seniority rapidly.  So far, it remains profitable on some level but only because of its contract carriage on behalf of American Airlines.

What happens if American Airlines sells this airline and pursues contracts with other regional airline partners to lower its costs?  Suddenly American Eagle doesn’t look at all attractive given the kind of aircraft it is burdened with as well as its labor obligations.  Would American Eagle find a suitor?  Maybe but I somewhat doubt it at this point.  Regional airlines are consolidating and attempting to move upstream.  American Eagle doesn’t bring very much to the table and without those revenue guarantees from various airlines, it doesn’t look all that profitable either.

What I am beginning to wonder is whether or not we’re seeing the end of the first real cycle for regional airlines in the deregulated US market?  In other words, have regional airlines that have their roots in the 19080’s become marginalized by their growth in labor costs and fleet irrelevance much as the legacies found themselves suddenly experiencing in the late 80’s / early 90’s?  If so, that would indicate that new players will find it potentially profitable to enter the market with a young crew and a more modern and relevant fleet. 

If there are new entries, their barrier to entry will end up being scope clauses governing the size of jet that can be flown by a regional.  Some airlines have pretty restrictive scope clauses and some not so much.  Some of those restrictive scope clauses got amended as a result of bankruptcies and, notably, those that didn’t go through bankruptcy in the 2000’s (AA and Continental) have some of the most restrictive clauses.  

At the end of the day, it would appear that AA and Delta are unlikely to realize very much value from their “old” regional airline companies in a sale.  Any buyer with any experience at all is liable to realize that without some sort of guarantee of a revenue stream from the seller, these airlines (American Eagle and Comair) are unlikely to be positioned to earn very much profit going forward.  And who wants to buy a lame duck?

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

The merger between TAM of Brazil and LAN of Chile offers some interesting possibilities for the new airline group that will be operating under separate names in South America.  One big question is which alliance will the group adopt.  Currently, TAM belongs to the Star Alliance and LAN is a member of Oneworld.  

This new airline will have a bit more bargaining power when it comes to alliances and they have a few choices to make going forward.  The first is to participate in both under the respective brands just as before.  I’m extremely doubtful that that will happen. 

The second is to pick an alliance between Star Alliance and Oneworld.  In this scenario, I would give Oneworld the upper hand simply because in this merger, LAN will control more and it is the Oneworld partner.  American Airlines won’t want to let them go since they fit nicely into the AA system.  In addition, TAM might offer Oneworld quite a bit of access to other parts of South America it really doesn’t have at this point.  However, the Star Alliance has a lot to lose and a lot to gain.  Especially with the Continental United merger going forward.  One could see the Star Alliance attempting to bring the LAN system over to the Star Alliance with some incentives.

Finally, there is SkyTeam who has a lousy representation in South America presently.  SkyTeam a la Delta lost a big fight on the trans-Pacific side when it failed to win over JAL.  A TAM/LAN entry into SkyTeam would be a huge win for that alliance and I suspect we might just see this dark horse try to bring them over to their side.  This is exactly the right time for SkyTeam to woo such a company because there will already be integration efforts going on between the two as they consumate their merger. 

In now way does this new merged company go ignored as a participant in an alliance.  I do think it will be a fight and I do think all 3 alliances will be offering significant incentives to win LATAM over.

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

American Airlines is in discussions with its transatlantic Oneworld partners, British Airways and Iberia, to consolidate in Terminal 8 at JFK airport.   This would be a good counter-move to Delta’s intention to renovate and expand at the same airport.

It’s about market share in New York and now we find the SuperLegacy airlines moving to own the most they can in that market.  AA (Oneworld) and Delta (SkyTeam) at JFK and ContiUnited at Newark.  It’s a fight that is sure to get bloody over the next few years.

If AA can move to bring its partners under the same banner and make things even more convenient for connections, it may have a grip on JFK that resembles British Airways’ at Heathrow Airport in London. 

It also makes me wonder what ContiUnited might do at Newark.  While Continental plainly dominates at Newark Airport, it also presently stands to have the least pleasant facilities and since it’s new to the Star Alliance, it may take quite some time to bring its Star Alliance partners under its umbrella at Newark. 

While a number of Star Alliance carriers to have flights to Newark, a number don’t.  And things aren’t well organized at Newark for Star Alliance.  Will they be?  I don’t see how ContiUnited can afford *not* to get their act together at Newark to compete. 

Newark is actually a bit more convenient to Manhattan and that is, after all, where the high dollar traveler is going to or coming from.  It makes sense for the Star Alliance to cooperate and consolidate and ensure good feed to those international flights but they’re going to have to get some airlines to move over, I think.  Airlines such as ANA.  

Others, such as Lufthansa and SWISS and Singapore Airlines are all in Terminal B.  Continental has Terminals A and C.  What ContiUnited really needs is a revised Terminal C and/or a portion of B while giving up A to others. 

But will the other airlines cooperate?  Don’t bet on it.  Keeping Newark in disarray would be a good thing.

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

Coming out of the latest financial reports from Delta, several news outlets noticed that Delta has plans to continue to acquire used MD-90’s for their fleet.  Unlike almost any other airline, Delta has found a use for these aircraft that beats the economics of the 737-800. 

Surely the low acquisition costs and high reliability of these aircraft make a good case for their purchase.  The MD-90 is a half generation newer than the MD-80 aircraft flying out there and since most were produced in the mid to late 1990’s, they have plenty of life left in them to be used for an economical period of time.   It’s clear that Delta prefers to bridge the gap between the current offerings of Boeing and Airbus and what future aircraft that may come along late in the next decade.

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

Continental Airlines and US Airways have gone from red to black in their latest 2nd quarter earnings reports and it’s a remarkable performance for both airlines.  Continental wobbled a bit in the 1st quarter but came back with a strong report of $233 million report and when you combine that with United Airlines earnings, you see a potential competitor to Delta that is the equal if not superior. 

Delta Airlines, American Airlines and the proposed ContiUnited merger all will result in airlines with revenues between $23 billion and $28 billion and it just strikese a yellow highlighter across American that it had a gap of over $400 million in profit this past quarter.

US Airways’ result, however, is even more impressive.  In fact, US Airways in general is becoming more and more impressive.  Operationally, they’re hitting high numbers on completing flights on time, losing baggage and just generally making people feel good about their choice.  This is not the airline you saw even 2 years ago and if I were asked about flying them today, I would highly recommend them at this point. 

US Airways came in with a net profit of $257 million this quarter and they did this with the least relevant hubs in the industry.  They did it despite the fact that after nearly 5 years their pilots still haven’t decided upon a union and negotiated a contract.  They did it despite becoming the third wheel among the Star Alliance’s US based partners.  They did it despite making Las Vegas, at best, a focus city instead of a hub. 

I would love to see some of that DNA move over to American and get things sorted for once.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Last Tuesday, the regular Delta Airlines flight from Portland, OR to Amsterdam experienced  a bit of mechanical trouble with cabin pressurization.  The Airbus A330 had to be diverted when it had already started out over the Atlantic and chose Goose Bay as its diversion, the closest airport available.

After landing in heavy rain, the passengers were house in the military base housing and fed in the military base cafeteria and generally killed time on base by doing things like playing tag in the parking lot.  It was an idyllic vacation.

A substitute aircraft didn’t arrive until Wednesday and, when it did, the crew for that aircraft timed out and couldn’t make the remaining 5 hour trip to Amsterdam.

Several passengers whose purpose in Europe had already passed were unable to simply turn around and go home but, instead, had to finish their trip to Amsterdam instead.  The original crew flew the now repaired original aircraft with passengers late Wednesday evening.

Delta gets you there.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

As an owner of an iPhone, I’ve become very interested in web sites developed specifically for the smart phone users and even more interested in travel related apps as well as travel specific mobile websites.  As much as social networking is becoming important for airlines, I think having a mobile website is even more important.  

It’s kind of cool to be able to complain by Twitter or some other social networking media but the busy traveler is even better served by being able to access his airline of choice via a mobile website.  I may be wrong but I believe that Continental Airlines had one of the first mobile websites available and that comes as little surprise to me given their popularity with the business traveler.  

I wrote about that Continental website more than a year ago.  Since then, a number of airlines and travel related websites have now also gone mobile.  Now that we have a quorum of companies participating, I’ve added a new section of links titled, oddly enough, Mobile Sites. 

It isn’t comprehensive but it is a good slice of what we in the United States would use.  Interestingly enough, I think many of these sites were rolled out with little or no fanfare and that seems strange to me. 

Midwest Airlines has a site but Frontier, it’s sister airline under Republic Airways, does not.  That doesn’t surprise me as I think Midwest Airlines was doing a much better job than many when it comes to technology and social networking.  I do hope that that feature will be adopted over to Frontier in the near future. 

Virgin America doesn’t have one either and I think I know why.  Those folks have used an excessive amount of Flash programming on their sites and that won’t fly on many mobiles including the iPhone.  For a company that has positioned itself in the way Virgin America has, I think this is bad for the airline.  (Just like I think opening new routes to leisure destinations is bad, too.)  Virgin was an early adopter of GoGo Wireless and has its “Red” system onboard for entertainment and food/beverage ordering.  They don’t, however, appear to be embracing social networking or mobile apps yet.   It is an area that a young, agile airline should be leading in.

Are you listening Mr. Cush?  You need someone working on this as of last year!

The various sites available are robust in some cases and some offer pretty limited capability.  I expect that that playing field will level out over time and result in a reasonably consistent group of offerings. 

Quite a few airlines have offered iPhone apps and I do hope to talk about those in the future sometimes but they’re only relevant to the iPhone and while it is an amazingly popular phone, the Blackberry is the businesman’s mobile phone still. 

Web sites that are mobile capable are the way to go both because it serves the busy person with a smart phone but also because it delivers a consistent look and feel to customers who may move from, say, a Blackberry to an iPhone or an Android based smartphone to a Blackberry.   Apps, on the other hand, are either phone or phone OS specific and that means maintaining a growing collection of software. 

I’ve added a couple of flight services mobile sites as well.  Each works from OK to good and, again, I think these will be updated to offer more functionality over time.  They’re all linked on the FlyingColors blog but fair warning:  a few don’t launch to the mobile site unless you’re browsing from a mobile smartphone. 

Got an app you like or another mobile site I haven’t found?  Offer it up in the comments section and I’ll add it along with the others.

Update:  Virgin America has dumped Flash from its site and is apparently working on a mobile site to be rolled out this year.  See this PC World story.  That’s good but they’re still behind the curve on mobile sites and, from what I can tell, social networking as well.  So much for being a hip airline.

Filed under: Airline Service, Travel Hints by ajax
1 Comment »

For the past 3 years or more, we’ve heard virtually every airline CEO talk about the need for consolidation and the problem of too many seats chasing too many passengers.  Now we have Northwest Airlines fully consolidated into Delta and we’re about to see United and Continetal merge together as well.  But does that really solve the long term problems in this industry?

One the one hand, I admire how the airlines are using their dire straits to argue for greater dominance in their industry.  It’s the legacies doing this and their “poor me” story is working very well among the public as well as among their own employees. 

I would argue that, if anything, we need even stronger competiton in the industry for the long term.  The greater dominance we allow isn’t necessarily going to raise prices all that much but what it will do is make it ever more cost prohibitive for new entrants into the market.  That’s the ultimate goal of consolidation:  keep the new guys out and keep the current competition neutralized as much as possible.

Quite honestly, what we really need is for a legacy airline to go out of business and liquidate.  I had long hoped it would be United who had to do this but, sadly, they scrapped by and made it to the other side.  US Airways is often pointed to as a candidate and while I’ll agree they are potentially the most vulnerable, I’m not sure I want to see them go.

I’d like to see one of our behemoths leave. 

Yes, it would put a lot of people out of work for while.  It would lead higher fares in the short term.  It would also allow room for new entrants who’ll bring fresher ideas, staff, aircraft and, wait for it . . . , lower fares.

It will help break the stranglehold that unionization has on this industry. 

What I’m really proposing is that we need a revolution in the US airline indudstry rather than an evolution of the legacy carriers one more time. 

We need airports to have room for new airlines to enter their markets and establish footholds that result in lower fares.  That means someone has to go.

This country needs to quite looking at each individual airline as an essential industry to our economy.  They aren’t.  Not anymore.  If one legacy went out of business and liquidated, the other airlines would move so fast to establish new business in those markets that it would make our head spin. 

In other words, they would grow the old fashioned way:  through competition.

It’s interesting to me that the airlines who have managed to weather the economic recession so well also happen to be the airlines who didn’t contract but, rather, grew themselves as legacies withdrew from unprofitable routes. 

It is often claimed that we need the legacies because they serve the small communities.  I wonder how the small communities feel about paying a disproportionately high fare in the current systems.  The truth is, there are lot of markets that I question the need for air service in many areas.

Does Waco, TX really need flights from Dallas and Houston?  Probably not.  Those residents should probably be driving to Dallas or Houston for their flights.  It costs about $30 to drive to Dallas from Waco.  Air fares between those two cities are currently advertised from $130 to $600 one way at present.  It’s economically wasteful to take that flight.

We, as a country, should be looking to create more opportunities for new airlines as well as existing LCC carriers who want to enter markets but are bullied away from them at present by the established legacy carriers dominance.

Filed under: Airline Service, Death Watch, Deregulation by ajax
1 Comment »

And, no, jetBlue isn’t buying the 737.  I’ve found three interesting items to comment on involving the 737 and jetBlue and New York city separately.

First, Southwest Airlines COO and Exec VP Mike Van de Ven has made a statement that re-engined aircraft whether they are a 737 or A320 won’t offer enough improved performance to be attractive to Southwest.   And I think there is a message here, particularly to Boeing, about what SWA wants and may be willing to buy.  Southwest is a huge customer  for Boeing on the 737 and Southwest is just the kind of customer Boeing wants to kick-off with.  

I think Southwest wants a new 737 replacement from Boeing and I think they’re signaling that they would be willing to become the launch customer for the right aircraft.  COO Van de Ven said: 

“I believe that a new narrowbody aircraft will produce one of the single most significant steps toward meeting our economic challenges.”

If nothing else, it’s a message to Boeing saying “please don’t re-warm the 737 again, we need you to work on a new replacement and deliver that as soon as possible.”

The Fort Worth Star Telegram Sky Talk blog has THIS story about the DFW Airport Board and its recent retreat.  It’s notable that they mention that they’re trying to use incentives to get jetBlue to start service between DFW and Boston.  Currently, American Airlines is the only non-stop airline on that route and, no, the fares are not cheap.  Frankly, I don’t think jetBlue will cooperate given their recently announced interline agreement and slot swap with AA.

However, this points up my chief rant about my home town area.  We do not have enough competition at DFW airport and I believe that AA is challengeable on both  fares and service.   Delta has begun challenging American on the Chicago – NYC (La Guardia) route and American is responding, currently, with triple air miles awards to retain its customers. 

More significant is that Delta has decided to go head to head with American on a route that American has *owned* for decades.  The big worry is about mergers and reduced competition they might create in the US market.  To the contrary, I think the latest round of mergers is going to lead to 4 legacy carriers who are going to start looking at each other’s dominance at various airports and, in particular, who isn’t making money and cannot afford to indefinitely “buy” routes with low fares.

That would be American Airlines.  US Airways is a bit weak in its route system but they earn profits.  AA doesn’t and hasn’t in a long time.  Delta’s incursion on the NYC-Chicago route is novel and it may or may not work but Delta has enough financial staying power to sit on that effort for a long time in hopes of building the business.   What happens when someone like ContiUnited comes along decides that AA shouldn’t own DFW-LAX?  I think we’re going to see plenty of competition in the airline world.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

A close friend of mine is with a touring Broadway show (crew) and has been for over 2 years. As a result, he’s flown some major miles week by week and many of those were on Delta or Northwest Airlines.  Nonetheless, he’s a mid-miles accumulator with them and he decided to use some of those miles to fly his girlfriend from Lansing, Michigan to Los Angeles to visit. 

It was a bad day for that flight from Detroit to LAX.  Held on the ground for over 45 minutes in Detroit, the pilot managed to make up some time on the 4 hour flight but when they arrived, they were held on the ground again for about an hour.  It is notable that weather wasn’t the source for these delays.  In fact, the hold in LAX was because there were no gates available. 

Personally, lack of gates when there is no weather delay and late at night to boot is just bad, bad, bad.  The airline knows the flight is coming in and knows it is a 767-300 and knows they need gate space to accomodate it.  No gate is just one of the worst reasons to be delayed short of really bad weather.

Now, because this friend is crew on this Broadway show, he works every night and a good portion of the weekends on these shows and because of that, he couldn’t pick up his girlfriend at LAX.  So he arranged for a SuperShuttle trip.  The problem is, because of the delays she missed *her* SuperShuttle and had to take one that was much later (way past 12 midnight arrival in the Hollyweird area) and that was the final straw for him.

So he wrote them an email.  He first said:

” I booked passage for my girlfriend on DAL1819 from DTW to LAX on June 10, 2010.  The flight was 46 minutes late leaving DTW, and then once it had landed in Los Angeles, it was detained on the tarmac for *fifty minutes* at LAX, due to lack of an open gate. This, I’m afraid, is totally unacceptable after a four-plus hour trans-continental flight.”

and

” Need I remind you that you are in a SERVICE industry.  I suggest you re-evaluate your definition of the word “service.”  And quickly, if you want any more business from me.  In this economic climate, I am not required to pay money to companies who do not provide adequate SERVICE.”

I’ll be honest.  If he had asked me in advance, I would have advised him to complain because I don’t think things ever get fixed until people do complain but I also would have advised him not to expect any real response either.  In fact, I would have predicted a canned response only tangentially relevant and not much else.

Well, Delta, you surprised me.  Not only did you respond promptly, you responded in a way that left no doubt that you actually read the complaint, followed up on it (possibly even escalated it to the station manager in LAX) and then delivered a flight credit for the inconvenience and delivered it very promptly.   It doesn’t get better than that.  I’m impressed with the context of the response, the speed and, frankly, I’m impressed that it was a responsed that was neither an under nor an over reaction to the customer complaint.  Here is their response (with names redacted):

Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding irregular flight operations while your girlfriend traveling with us.  On behalf of everyone at Delta Air Lines, I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience
 caused to your girlfriend due to delay of our flight #### on June 10, 2010.

 I am truly sorry for the inconvenience caused when our flight #### was delayed on the tarmac waiting for an available gate.  Be assured I will be sharing your comments with our Operations Control Center and Airport Customer Service leadership teams for their internal follow up.  We want to make every effort to deplane all passengers in a timely manner,especially those passengers with a connecting flight.

 To demonstrate our commitment to customer service and as a gesture of apology for the irregular flight operations, I have issued an Electronic Transportation Credit Voucher (eTCV) in the amount of $75.00 for Ms. <name redacted>.  Please note the voucher number and associated Terms and Conditions will be arriving in a separate email.  Please keep the voucher number and the Terms and Conditions since the number is required for redemption.  It is also important for me to mention that no charge is assessed for reservations confirmed online at delta.com.

 As a loyal SkyMiles member since August 30, 2008, you are an integral part of our customer base and we are always interested in your feedback. I hope I have been able to resolve any concerns you have about irregular flight operations.  Your business is important to us and given the opportunity of serving you in the future, I am confident Delta will not only meet but exceed your expectations.

 Sincerely,

 Yousef M. Sequeira
 Coordinator, Customer Care
 Delta Air Lines/KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Mr. Sequeira, your response was the epitome of what good airline service should be with respect to a legitimate complaint.  You were responsive without being a doormat. 

Everyone should hear the good as well as the bad.  This is another good story and let’s hope I keep hearing about more good ones.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
1 Comment »

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the two pilots of the Northwest Airlines jet who allowed their flight to fly past its destination last year will not get their jobs back.  You can read the story HERE.  Captain Timothy Cheney has chosen to retire in lieu of fighting for his job and First Officer Richard Cole is reported as “no longer with the company”.  Northwest Airlines is now owned by Delta.

Both pilots had their licenses revoked after the incident but reached an agreement with the FAA a few months ago that would conceivably allow them to have their licenses reinstated after certain requirements were met. 

Apparently those requirements won’t be met while working for Delta and I couldn’t be happier.  There was agregious negligence involved in what happened and neither pilot has satisfactorily explained the event.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
1 Comment »

Continental has announced that 15 of about 150 pilots furloughed in 2008 will be recalled back to the company.  Another 100 who took voluntary leave will also be coming back.  Supposedly this is because of some planned growth on Continental’s part including the addition of 2 new Boeing 777 aircraft in the near future. 

 It’s a good piece of news both for these pilots and the industry.  Delta has announced it will be hiring some additional pilots as well. 

But the Continental news has me wondering even more about how Continental and United pilots will integrate their seniority.  If I were a betting man, I would bet that United pilots have a higher average seniority and that means a seniority merge could result in a lot of Continental pilots getting bumped back down.  Seniority determines pay so it will be a contentious issue.  Sadly, neither group has someone like Delta ALPA leader Lee Moak to guide them through in a reasonable way.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

One very noticeable development with the announced United Airlines / Continental Airlines merger is that 2 of the 3 major airline alliances (SkyTeam, Star Alliance and Oneworld) now have Super-Legacy airlines participating in it.  SkyTeam has Air France/KLM and Delta (Delta/Northwest).  Star Alliance will have United/Continental and, so far, will continue to have US Airways in the US market. 

Oneworld has American Airlines.  A lone airline ever increasingly burdened with debt and who shows little sign of recovering in a market that several airlines have shown improvement in.  Oneworld has the fewest airline partners although it arguably maintains global coverage.  I see some opportunity for a few of its partners, too. 

QANTAS has long had ties to both British Airways and American Airlines but I wonder if they aren’t looking around and realizing that there may be better opportunities with Star or SkyTeam.  They compete with British Airways on many international routes so I wonder how much love they feel on that side.  It’s true that AA provides them with lots of feed in the US but several other partners could do the same in the same cities.  In fact, I suspect SkyTeam would love to have them on board.  United (Star) already flies US/Australia routes.   In addition, Air New Zealand is a Star member and doing nicely on trans-pacific routes too. 

Oneworld doesn’t directly access Canada and has mediocre ties to Africa (via European partners) and Latin America is perhaps a bit underserved in that LAN is the only partner there and their concentration is on the west coast of South America.   The Far East remains well served by Cathay and JAL but India is conspicuously missing.  That’s a country of 1 billion (with a “B”) people.  You would think that having a regional partner in India would be a priority.   Southeast Asia is weak as it is basically served with flights to and from that region but not within.  There is another 1 billion people located in that region. 

There are several European partners but I do notice that there are two primary hubs:  London and Madrid.  Not the hubs most people want to fly in and out of.  London is congested and prone to delays and Madrid is served by Iberia, not an airline with a great reputation.  It also doesn’t “feel” like a convenient hub. 

What is more noticeable is that the founding partners of Oneworld were mainstay legacy airlines.  Airlines that have not seen any revolution to date and who often are burdened with some of the highest costs to operate in their regions. 

With the ever growing size of both Star and SkyTeam, I do wonder if there will be any room for Oneworld.  Could the Oneworld alliance be absorbed by the other two?

Filed under: Airlines Alliances by ajax
No Comments »

One story coming out this week is about comments from WestJet executive John McCleod stating that WestJet would still like to get a deal done with Southwest on codesharing.  Southwest terminated their original agreement a few weeks ago after WestJet supposedly asked for modifications that were untenable to Southwest and after WestJet’s new CEO, Greg Saretsky, indicated his preference for doing a codeshare with Delta.   What muddied the waters even more was a comment last week from Richard Andersen of Delta during a financial analyst call about how they had executed a codeshare agreement with WestJet which was then “clarified” by Delta PR people.  Delta PR people said they did not, in fact, have an agreement in place.

This sounds like a romance drama my 15 year old daughter would get caught up in.

I never thought WestJet’s moves over the past month made sense.  It felt like WestJet considered itself bigger than it was and more of a player than it was.  Let’s remember that WestJet is a Canadian airline operating in the Southwest LCC model.  And even though it is Canada’s second largest airline, that ain’t saying much when you consider the population of Canada and the size of Air Canada as compared to airlines in the US.   Canada is a country of 34 million people or roughly 1/10th of the population of the United States. 

Southwest’s home state of Texas has a population of 24 million people. 

Southwest, on the other hand, would be considered a major player on any continent.  They carry a lot of people every day and they do it with high marks for service, reliability and value.  And they’ve done it for nearly 40 years.  They are also not complete strangers to codeshares and we have already seen what a life-giving experience it is for Southwest to participate in a codeshare with an airline.  As an airline, they are definitely not participating in their first rodeo.  They make their mistakes but they are definitely a world class competitor too.

I can only imagine that Delta (and the rest of SkyTeam) look at WestJet and wonder when it will grow up enough to have the training wheels removed from its bicycle.  They play Texas Hold ‘Em poker for high stakes in the airline world and it’s kind of hard to believe that WestJet really thought they would be taken seriously by the likes of Delta, the world’s largest airline by any metric.

Could Southwest do a deal with them still?  Yes, I think so.  Southwest is friendly, a great place to work and it treats its staff well.  It doesn’t like to be taken advantage of but the people running Southwest are businessmen and businesswomen at the end of the day.  A deal still provides both partners with something good.  But WestJet is going to have to decide who it wants to be a bride to and stick with it.  I’d say the signal was sent but it wasn’t exactly loud enough or specific enough.  I expect another overture by WestJet before Southwest turns its attention back to WestJet.

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

American Airlines is a pretty conservative organization.  It doesn’t hire from outside the airline very often and it manages itself pretty closely.  It is, in many ways, the IBM of the US Airline industry.   Well, the IBM of the 1970’s anyway. 

Mergers and acquisitions haven’t been a very successful pathway for American.  One look at the TWA “merger” which was really a purchase and you’ll understand why.  They tend to focus on their core strengths and it is particularly difficult for them to adopt new staff and destinations.  Purchases, for them, seem to be more about keeping dominance in a particular area rather than growing their business. 

When Delta and Northwest started off on their merger, it was easy to understand why AA was unruffled by the development.  There was no assurance of success on any level be it financial or operational.  Being the biggest isn’t AA’s game nearly as much as being the strongest and I’m sure their management corps looked at that merger and decided it wasn’t something to worry too much about. 

But Delta has had better financial success than AA and it seems to be “right sizing” aircraft to routes and enjoying better yield and that has got to be attention getting on some level.  It got Continental’s attention apparently.  If the Continental / United deal does go through, I have to wonder who AA starts to look at.   It’s one thing to have an aberration in Delta but it is a whole other bag of bananas to have Delta/Northwest and United/Continental next door to you.

So, is it US Airways?  They aren’t just the logical choice because they’re the only legacy airline left.  There is a certain sensibility to the idea.  AA has no hubs out west (just a large presence at LA) and, in fact, has no dominance in any of the areas where US Airways does operate.  Well, Philadelphia is close to Washington DC and NYC but it isn’t the DC or NYC market either.    AA has no southeastern presence either.  Miami is a hub but it isn’t an regional hub like Atlanta or Charlotte. 

There isn’t much fleet compatibility there and I’m not sure there needs to be.  Delta has shown that as long as you have an economy of scale in the aircraft type, you can have it in the fleet and use it to your advantage by rightsizing your aircraft to the route. 

Labor problems?  Well, AA is kind of used to labor problems and their labor unions are so strong that I kind of wonder if they wouldn’t smack all those US Airways EAST/WEST conflicts into shape.  If nothing else, it would give the EAST/WEST unions something to unify over. 

Say, did you know that US Airways CEO Doug Parker used to work for AA?  His wife still does.  Guess who US Airways’ President Scott Kirby used to work for?  Sabre when it was a division of AMR, the holding company for AA.   Two more of the executive team come from Northwest Airlines from an era when they really weren’t that different from AA culturally speaking. 

Both airlines have a lot of debt.  The US Airways team has actually proven itself to be pretty scrappy in many areas.  They cleaned up the Philly problem from US Airways EAST, managed their finances carefully and have continued to be a player despite unresolved challenges.   Neither has really made money though. 

However, a real merger, not just a purchase and dissolution but a merger, has some potential even if AA’s team retains most of the control.  It has some of the same potential that Delta / Northwest had and fewer of the risks that a United/Continental merger has.  It helps the Oneworld alliance as well. 

While I think AA could do it, I also think the chances for them to screw up a real merger are far higher than I would give many other airlines.   I think they would approach it as a takeover and attempt to dominante everything.  And as a result, I think we would see the hubs in Phoenix, Philadelphia and Charlotte slowly fade away over time with nothing much to show for its effort after 10 years.

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

During American Airlines earnings call yesterday, one financial analyst got a little rough with AA and, more specifically, Gerard Arpey and Tom Horton.  By rough, I mean the question posed was “Is that all you got?”  The Dallas Morning News Aviation Blog has a good description of the exchange HERE. 

They make a good point.  American Airlines has really been a disappointment for a decade and the leadership has frequently leaned on multi-year plans and talks of how well things are going and what can be expected from new deals and new alliances.  Sometimes it is talk of how one time expenses got in the way of a profit, etc.  At the end of the day, you really should deliver something now and then.  I would point you to Continental as an excellent example of this.

American Airlines didn’t file bankruptcy.  Everyone talks about how they did the right thing and didn’t file bankruptcy.   The employees gave back 30% or more of their salary instead.   Problem is, when your competition (United, US Airways, Northwest, Delta) does file bankruptcy and does lower its costs and does streamline its operations and does reinvigorate its workforce, they’ve got you boxed in.   All the airlines in that list gained a permanent advantage over AA and regardless of the talk of “doing the right thing”, AA has a big disadvantage. 

What’s really frustrating isn’t that disadvantage.  What really irritates people is the leadership’s habit of deferring and delaying to another day many of the problems that do, at some point, need to be solved.  It’s the risk created by ignoring, deferring or delaying the resolutions of these problems that makes one so irritated and, dare I say, now a bit unconfident about AA’s long term future? 

They have an old, fuel inefficient, passenger inefficient fleet.  Much of that renewal has been deferred resulting in a fleet of aircraft that is more maintenance intensive, which carries fewer passengers per segment and which burns more fuel doing it.   

There isn’t a labor group at AA that isn’t spoiling for a fight at this point.  The risk of one or another getting their way and having a strike is increasing month by month.  For 4 years, we’ve seen AA labor groups have their contracts become amendable, negotiations begin and then . . . nothing.  There is no sense of urgency on AA management’s part to have this settled.

These issues and more make it appear as if no one is really solving problems.  They’re deferring them, delaying their resolution or, in some cases, just ignoring them but no one is showing up, raising their hand and saying “We solved this problem.  It won’t be on our plate anymore going forward.” 

The thing is, bankruptcy would have done that for them.  There would have been final solutions and the airline would be coping with immediate problems instead of being bogged down with what is really nearly 20 years of baggage.   My point is, I’m not sure bankruptcy *was* doing the right thing. 

It’s OK to describe problem resolutions as ongoing for a year or two or maybe even three.  It’s been going on a lot longer than that at AA and JP Morgan analyst Jamie Baker has noticed.  And I think this is just the beginning.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
4 Comments »