As I suspected, the new focus on airline safety is all about bird strikes.  The Middle Seat Terminal Blog (a Wall Street Journal blog) has THIS post.  After the US Airways Flight 1549 ditching, I suspected that there would be lots of chatter about preventing bird strikes and there has been.

Some of this chatter is about putting screens in front of the engines, for instance.  No one stops to think just how strong and well engineered a screen would have to be to withstand the force of an 8 pound bird and well as how fine it would have to be to keep debris from entering the engine.  Nor does anyone consider that by putting such a screen in front of an engine, you are effectively disrupting the air flow into the engine and that will, at the least, reduce engine efficiency if not keep it from operating as designed.

Consider a goose that weighs about 4 kilograms being struck by an aircraft going about 250mph.  That is just about the exact scenario for Flight 1549.  Such an impact represents over 27,000 joules of energy.   In very rough terms, that is enough energy to move more than 3 tons of weight about 1 yard.  By the time you engineer a screen for that jet engine, you need a better, more powerful jet engine to carry all that extra weight. 

The truth is that bird strikes are not uncommon and almost always result in non-event.  In fact, engines and other parts of aircraft structure have to be engineered to withstand most bird strikes likely to be encountered.  Jet engine makers have to prove their engine can take a strike and not furiously disassemble itself and damage a wing or fuselage.  Cockpit windows have to be able to take a punch too. 

The truth is that commercial aircraft handle these events very well and what happened to that Airbus A320 was actually a statistical anomaly.  It is so rare for a commercial jet to encounter birds and lose both engines to the point that the aircraft cannot return to an airport that in my research, I cannot find another instance.  Oh, it may well have happened but it is exceedingly rare. 

Put another way, you have a far greater likelihood of experiencing an “incident” from turbulence than you do from a bird strike.  That doesn’t keep you from flying does it?   From my perspective, this incident proves that nothing more does need to be done to mitigate problems from bird strikes. 

First, it is rare for them to disable an engine but it does happen.  A jetBlue Airbus encountered a bird strike this past weekend and rejected its take off.  After returning to the terminal, evidence of a bird strike was found.  Any other week, this would not have made national news.  For birds to disable both engines is virtually unheard of and that is a good thing.  Any modern two-engine airliner is capable of taking off, losing an engine and maintaining climb power to go around and return to an airport. 

Airports do their part to prevent this problem.  Unfortunately, airports happen to be places that attract birds because of the wide, open areas that are flat and which generally contain a lot of what birds want.  Airports scare them away and do their best to make flight areas a very unattractive place for them to flock to.  And they are very successful at that in general. 

One of the other points that I think escapes what happened to US Airways is the altitude that they encountered these birds at.  It was at about 3000′ above the ground and how common do you think it is to find birds at that altitude?  Very rare.

The traveling public is quite safe when it comes to bird strikes.  This was an anomaly and you are just only now hearing about this “problem” because it just rarely happens to ever truly affect a flight. 

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

IN 1968, a JAL DC-8 was essentially “landed” into the San Francisco Bay in error and about 2.5 miles from the runway it was supposed to land on.  There was no declared emergency and there was no other reason to do this except that it was an accident.  Everyone survived and the DC-8 was actually returned to service eventually (although I’d wager that it wouldn’t be today).  The biggest difference between this incident and the US Airways incident is that the DC-8 wasn’t fully loaded and didn’t have a nearly full fuel load.  Weight makes a big difference. 

What particularly impresses me is the Captain’s explanation for this act when he testified in the investigation.  You can read that HERE.  I didn’t know about this statement until I was reminded of the ditching when reading an aviation forum last night. 

Filed under: Trivia by ajax
No Comments »

I received an email off line expressing wonder at how quickly everyone showed up to assist the passengers of Flight 1549.  The truth is, the captain couldn’t have picked a better place to put down.  That particular part of the Hudson River is rife with all kinds of water traffic including multiple ferries, barges, tug boats and even private water craft.  It’s a major commuter corridor between Manhattan and Hoboken. 

The FDNY and New Jersey State response was impressive because on both sides of the river there are many docks with old warehouses and older boats.  Sometimes they catch fire and you really do want to respond to that asap because those old docks, warehouse and boats go up like tissue paper in a bonfire.  So both the states and the cities along the Hudson are very well prepared to respond to emergencies on the waterfront in a moment’s notice.  Nonetheless, their response and professionalism is very praiseworthy.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

This incident with US Airways Flight 1549 has made me realize that we now have two incidences (at the least) on record where a superb landing was made in an emergency situation and was done so during moments that call for graceful aircraft handling. 

I feel certain that this US Airways incident is one.  It does take grace and experience to land an Airbus A320 gently enough in the Hudson River so as to avoid any breakup of the aircraft.  A fully loaded, fully fueled airplane is not easy to handle and keeping it from over-stressing itself and breaking apart is a genuine feat.    The pilot, Chesley Sullenberger, is a certified glider instructor. 

Another incident that many airliner fans certainly know about is the Gimli Glider episode.  An Air Canada Boeing 767 ran out of fuel and was glided to a safe landing at a decommissioned air force base.   A fueling mistake had  been made at its last stop and both pilots found themselves woefully out of fuel in the middle of a transcontinental flight.   The Captain of that flight, Bob Pearson, was also an experienced glider pilot and used some flight techniques from that experience to make a safe landing at Gimli.  You can read all about that incident HERE.  (It’s well worth the time.)

What strikes me about this incident, so far, is that the pilots had very little time to execute a plan and manage their situation when it happened.  The bird strike occured somewhere near or over the Bronx Zoo (based on the observed flight track from Passur.Com).  From that moment, they had just a hair over 3000 feet in altitude, two failing engines and a highly populated area underneath them.  With engines providing some forward thrust, they maintained control of the aircraft, executed a tight turn just north of Manhattan and made contact with air traffic control.

While attempting to manage the aircraft for an emergency landing at New Jersey’s Teterboro Airport, the pilots had enoug presence of mind to realize, quickly enough, that they had not enough altitude nor forward airspeed to make it there and quickly lined up on the Hudson River instead.  Gently landing an A320 that likely weighed in excess of 150,000 lbs and which had little airspeed to maneuver with  is a nightmare scenario for any pilot.  Captain Sullenberger managed to line the aircraft up with the river, lower it to just above the water’s surface and then stalled the aircraft just right so that it essentially dropped into the water with almost no forward motion.  He did it so good, most passengers have described the impact as no worse than a minor rear end car accident.

A very well done job for all the flight crew and it was a genuine touch of class that Captain Sullenberger was able to walk the aircraft and ensure all his passengers were off and manage to be the “last one off the ship” as well.  For a really bad situation, it was the best of all outcomes.

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

James Wallace of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is reporting today on Airbus and notes a Wall Street Journal report that quotes Tom Enders of Airbus saying:

 

He disclosed that the A380 superjumbo program remains troubled by teething problems in its industrial phase, and that the company now expects just 18 deliveries of the world’s largest passenger aircraft this year, down from a previous target of 21 that was revised from 24 last year.

I optimistically forecast that Airbus would *increase* its deliveries over their projected schedule in this post. 

That’s a significant reduction in deliveries for Airbus and the A380.  What it means is that Airbus will suffer financially on that program even more now that they will be unable to receive the forecasted revenue for 3 of the A380 deliveries.  The list price fo the A380 is about $320 million for each aircraft.  Even with significant discounts, that 3 aircraft reduction in the schedule means reduced revenue of nearly $1billion. 

It would seem that, this time, the problems are that the computer models for production of the aircraft did not take into account the effects of gravity on the aircraft structure itself and, accordingly, some assemblies and parts won’t fit correctly on production aircraft. 

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

I’ve made an animated gif of the US Airways Flight 1549 flight track from when it took off from New York City’s La Guardia Airport until it landed in the Hudson River. I was able to follow the aircraft using Passur’s AirportMonitor website and taking screen shots. Notice that in the middle of it, another aircraft was flying northwards up the Hudson River and, at very close point, the vertical separation was just 500 feet with the other aircraft turning hard over Manhattan.

You can see this animated gif HERE. (Note: This is a large file)

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Here is an image of the area where US Airways Flt 1549 went down. It landed somewhere in the middle of the river just a hair south of where the Hoboken label is. It has since floated to near the Battery Park Pier shown in the lower right of the image.

CLICK HERE FOR IMAGE.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Update:  The Dallas Morning News Airline Biz Blog has THIS post about the pilot of US Airways Flight 1549.  He’s Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger and I suspect he will be cheered by many for his cool head while landing the aircraft and his conscientious handling of passengers.

Update: Here is another photo from CNN’s I-Report showing passengers on both wings evacuating the aircraft.

Update:  The aircraft is still floating and now approaching Battery Park.  HEREis a photograph shown on CNN’s i-Report.

Update:  After speaking with my brother, I’ve learned that this aircraft landed in the water of the Hudson River between Hoboken and Manhatttan.   He is a resident of Hoboken.

Update:  This certainly will change my mind about the real possibilities of surviving an aircraft ditching into water. 

Update:  According to Today in the Sky, ABC has reported that the pilot may have been attempting to fly and land at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey.

Update:  Bloomberg News is reporting that pilots reported the loss or partial loss of both engines on the aircraft.  Flying into a flock of geese would certainly be a reasonable explanation for that.

Update:  For information on bird strikes, The Fort Worth Star Telegram Sky Talk Blog has THIS post.

Update:  Flightblogger, Jon Ostrower, has THIS image of the flight’s track through New York and along the Hudson River.

Update:  Courtesy of the Dallas Morning news, very good photos of this accident can be found HERE and HERE.

Update: A very striking photo of passengers evacuating the aircraft and getting into rafts and standing on the wing.

Update:  Flightaware.Com has this URL for the flight showing it to be, in fact, an A320 and having a flight duration of 6 minutes.

Update: There are now credible reports that the airplane’s captain reported a bird strike and subsequent engine failure to air traffic control. All passengers have survived. Remarkably, the aircraft remained afloat and passengers were able to exit in an orderly manner.

CNN is now reporting that US Airways Flight 1549, a flight from NYC (La Guardia) to Charlotte, North Carolina, went down in the Hudson River after just taking off.  There is a report that a flock of geese may have been the cause of the crash. 

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

Runway Girl has THIS STORY on some newly available flight tracking websites for the hard core traveler. 

For those of you who prefer to use your Blackberry or iPhone or Treo or other PDA-type mobile phone, there is a new service you can use to track your flight online.

http://mobile.flightview.com/

And there is another new service being offered that will permit you to track both your flight and the flights just before it that are using the same aircracft.  The advantage?  You can see how weather or other system delays are affecting your flight long before anyone begins updating the status for you flight.   The downside?  They charge for their service.  $8 per month or $88 per year or you can buy “packs” of flight tracking (10 flight tracks for $15 or 50 flight tracks for $75).  This is for the serious road warrior who is traveling from or through highly congested hubs.  Here is their website:

http://fltadvisor.com/fltadvisor/home.jsf

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

American Airlines has a contest titled One Big Million offering one million frequent flier points to those who are AAdvantage Members, register for the contest and purchase one ticket between now and March 5th, 2009. 

http://www.aa.com/onebigmillion/

Look for other contests and bonuses for other frequent flier programs and do register.  Why?  Because it quite literally costs you nothing and could well offer you more points.  Many airlines offer “bonuses” for traveling on certain routes or to certain destinations but you must register for the bonuses BEFORE booking the trip.  One coach trip to Belgium once netted me 21,000 miles total.  Another to Baltimore earned me 7,000 miles total. 

Ordinarily I no longer believe in hunting miles but if airlines offer these kind of bonuses, it really is quite possible to get yourself a domestic ticket in short time even if you are the casual flier.  The trick is, don’t horde the miles, use them instead.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

We often hear the claim from airlines, particularly legacy airlines, that it is the business class passenger who pays for the bulk of a flight but is that true?  Well, maybe. 

The frequent business flyer does provide much of the profit that an airline might earn but the business class passenger on today’s domestic flight is often a frequent flier who paid for a coach ticket and who received enough upgrade points to move to Business Class.   But that passenger doesn’t necessarily make for a profitable flight either. 

If the full fare business traveler was the most profitable passenger on an aircraft, then all of those business class airlines formed over the years would still be around, wouldn’t they?  Over the years airlines like Legend (a business class airline that flew from Dallas to major trunk destinations in the 1990’s) and like EOS and MAXJet (who flew the NYC to London trunk routes) tried the all business class model and it never worked. 

Some would say it was because there just aren’t enough business class travelers any one day for a  particular flight.  Others would say it was because the legacy airlines fought back with greater frequency, frequent flier awards and unprofitable fares that put them under.  The truth is, it was probably a bit of both but if an all business class airline made sense, it would have succeeded by now.

Everyone pays the the way for a flight in reality.  Most often, it’s those last 5 to 10 passengers on a flight that provide any real profit for an airline and those last 5 to 10 passengers are often passengers who wouldn’t have flown but for a discounted fare being available.  Airline revenue management dictates that an airline has to sell as many of those seats on a particular flight for a price that people are willing to pay.   Some people are willing to pay $1000 for a seat that others only value at $200.  Airlines manage this demand by offering unrestricted fares for a high price and discount fares with a string of restrictions that most business travelers can’t accept.  These different fares create enough demand for a flight and if it is done the right way, that flight earns a profit. 

If those low discount fares didn’t make sense and add profit to the bottom line, the airlines wouldn’t offer them.  You, the consumer, wouldn’t benefit from those low fares if there weren’t a certain number of people willing to compete for them at a low price by conforming to the restrictions placed on them. 

When the airlines reduced their capacity in the latter half of 2008, they essentially bet that there would be increased competition for those last few seats and that the competition would raise fares for those same seats.  Now it appears that that theory had a fault.  Once more airlines have realized that at a certain higher price, those last 10 passengers will either forgo that airline trip or find another means to make the trip.   When they start declining those opportunities, airlines have to reverse course and make a concerted effort to win them back by offering fare sales through expensive advertising. 

Why would airlines routinely engage this activity?  Because that is what competition is about.  It’s a natural part of any business cycle and it means that the market is constantly adjusting to its present circumstances. 

With the rather dramatic fall-off of demand, we are, once again, seeing low fares blossom again.  It isn’t because fuel is cheaper.   Cheaper fuel makes a fare sale a bit more possible but what happens if an airline sells a ticket for late April and finds itself paying twice the cost of fuel in January?  They lose money.  No, low fares show up because filling those airplanes is critical.  If they take off with an empty seat, it is giving up a revenue opportunity forever. 

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

The Cranky Flier made this post to his blog last week. In short, CF decried a woman’s New York Times Op-Ed on the demise of the glory days of travel which she apparently experienced as a flight attendant for TWA.   The Cranky Flier reckons that the changes that deregulation has brought on are what has made air travel affordable and to bring back the high service given in the 50’s, 60’s and early 70’s would deny that access to most of us.   Quite honestly, I do agree with him but I think a point was missed in Ann Hood’s Op Ed as well.

I’m pretty sure that Ms. Hood was decrying the loss of the great meals, comforting flight attendants and more correct behaviour but I think what prompted her Op Ed was actually a perceived lack of service on *any* level by airlines today.  I don’t think anyone realistically expects air travel to include 3 choices of meals, pillows and blankets and free cocktails anymore.  However, what causes people to continue to get upset is the generally poor nature of any service provided by most airlines.

I experienced that service as an airline brat from the late 1960’s to the early 1980’s and it really was pretty remarkable in many respects.  However, I don’t miss the Chateau Briand on Braniff flights between Dallas and Portland and I really don’t seem to miss the first class seat or the pillows or drinks.  OK, I do miss the seats but that is because I’m a 6’2″ man weighing 260lbs with long legs. 

What drives this perceived lack of service is airlines not keeping promises made when you buy a ticket.  Those promises are outlined by airline advertising which is quite good at showing a relaxing customer on an airplane enjoying a drink as he or she flies to their destination with the expectation that the airplane will be kept at comfortable temperature and will arrive on time.

Let’s look at what an airline passenger might enjoy from the time they decide to book a flight to the time they arrive back home from their trip.   First, they must book their flight online.  Most people not only don’t mind this, they prefer it these days.  However, none of us are amused when we attempt to book a flight online only to find the website overloaded from a fare sale or network disruption caused by weather.   If the customer tries to phone the airline to book they’ll be faced with long phone queues, surly reservations agents and the threat that their airline ticket is now going to cost them a bit more for booking via phone.

The customer is gratified at being able to check in early through the web but when they arrive at the airport they discover that checking in their suitcase requires them to stand in another long line in order that they might essentially check-in a second time so they can check a bag.  Even if they only have one bag, they’ll have to pay a fee to check it unless they are a road warrior with some sort of privileged status with the airlines’ frequent flier clubs.   Then they get to stand in yet another line while watching those same privileged fliers go through an express line with the TSA. 

Once at the gate, they’ll have to work to find an open seat to sit in while waiting for boarding call because aircraft are flying much more full these days and most gates at most airports aren’t designed to accommodate the loads that many airlines serve on their narrowbody aircraft.   At the boarding call, they get to watch those same privileged fliers board first onto the aircraft (even if they aren’t flying first class that day with their free upgrades they still get to board first) and then wait for their group to be called while some fellow passengers cheat and just board early anyway.  Since most customer service agents at the gate are unwilling to enforce the rules in many cases, these cheaters get away with that move.

If the passenger has a boarding call in the last 1 or 2 groups, they get to discover that all the other passengers have apparently carried their life’s possessions with them and occupied all the overhead luggage space.  If they say anything about the lack of space, some flight attendant will inform them that they might have to gate check their bag or put it under the seat in front of them.  Putting a bag under the seat in front of you hasn’t really been possible for adults since the early 80’s when airlines reduced seat pitch in coach from an accommodating 34 to 38 inches of space down to a tight 30 to 32 inches of space.   So, they put their coat in a crammed overhead bin and hand over their luggage to a surly flight attendant who is annoyed that they now have to catch the attention of ground personnel so the bag can be loaded in the luggage compartment.

Once seated, the passenger waits and waits for departure from the gate which is delayed a few minutes.  Finally after watching their watch for an additional 13 minutes, someone hurriedly closes the door and the pilots get a pushback.  Technically, the flight has left on time at this point.  Only the pushback results in them taxiiing slowly towards the runway where they run into a traffic jam of aircraft waiting to take off because most airports are woefully lacking in the infrastructure to accomodate the number of flights trying to depart at the same time. 

After another delay of 20 minutes, the aircraft takes off.  As it levels off, the surly flight attendants go to work immediately to serve their one beverage service during the 2 hour flight.  Now, the passenger knows that soft drinks (and virtually any other beverage) now costs money so they ask for water when it is their turn and find a surly flight attendant telling them that will be $3 for the half litre bottle of water they offer.   The passengers declines the water and tries to recline their seat only to discover that while the seat may recline, it reclines right into the knees of the passenger behind them who objects loudly. 

Upon arrival at their destination, the passenger collects their things and moves slowly towards the door.  In some cases, they now must wait on the airbridge for their gate checked luggage to be brought up to them and in other instances they must now trudge off to find the baggage carousel to collect their things.  Because these aircraft are flying so full, this amounts to another delay of 20 minutes or more. 

Once they have their baggage, they make their way to the curbside and take out their cell phone to call the person picking them up to tell them they are at the curbside now.  They have to do this because security no longer allows anyone inside the terminal and the airport management is now charging $7 to park in the parking structure for less than an hour to pick up their party.  

Go through that kind of experience each way and it is no wonder that passengers are decrying service from airlines left and right.  If you only experienced half of what I’ve described just now, you’ll loathe and hate the airline you just flew.  Not because you weren’t served a 3 course meal but because the airline who implicitly promised you a safe, relatively pleasant and on time experience didn’t even really pretend to try to deliver that promise. 

What people want is for an airline to be honest in what they’ll provide and to honestly deliver it with the possible exception of extraordinary circumstances.  Oh, there are a few airlines who do deliver on such things and they quite rightly also make a profit.  Southwest, jetBlue and Continental all come to mind as airlines that really do delivery almost every time.  However, for much of the US traveling public, those three airlines aren’t an option nearly as often as they would like. 

Indeed, the situation I just described is almost precisely what I experienced flying Airtran last year from Dallas to New York City.   It’s disappointing at the least and offensive in most respects.   Did I like the ticket price?  Sure.  But if you accurately described the more likely service scenario and then asked if I wanted to pay $50 more to just get where I wanted to go without that scene playing out, I’d happily dive into my wallet and hand over the cash.  

The problem isn’t that we’re addicted to the lowest fares possible.  We’re not.  We, the passengers, are too stupid to realize that the airlines aren’t really going to deliver on those implicit promises.  Like the co-dependent wife who keeps taking back her alcoholic husband, we keep going back to the airlines and expecting a different experience.  The truth is, if we would examine our last service experiences with various airlines and seek a different choice until we found an airline that treated us well, airlines would pay attention. 

Why?  Because it quite literally costs nothing extra to deliver what an airline generally promises today.  jetBlue, in particular, gets that concept and that is the biggest reason why they have succeeded flying from JFK airport in spite of all the known obstacles to flying from that airport.  So does Continental as they have huge hubs at weather delayed airports too but they understand that giving the customer the implicitly promised service leads to greater success on their part.  Southwest promises less service than either of those two airlines but has some of the highest customer satisfaction of any airline because they DO DELIVER ON WHAT THEY DO PROMISE. 

It isn’t the glory days of service that we miss.  It’s the constant disappointment we experience on airlines today that causes us to lament a lack of service.  It simply doesn’t exist for most passengers.  We are treated better, on average, at an inexpensive restaurant where we spend about $9 for for a meal than we are on an airline where we spend $200 or more for a flight.  Most airlines’ attitude is to chastise the passenger for complaining.  That’s the motivator for the glory days.   In the glory days, airlines didn’t act like you should be grateful just to have a seat on their aircraft.  They acted grateful that you chose them to make you trip on.

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

Maybe.  News media yesterday and today have been full of stories about various airline fare sales.  A friend of mine managed to book a business class fare from Raleigh/Durham to NYC for just over $100.  He also booked two round trip tickets on Airtran to Las Vegas (for travel in May) for just $198 / ticket.  American Airlines has sent me not one but two emails in the last 24 hours advertising fares as low as $39 / each way.

Reading over the AA email, that low price of $39 each way is to fly from DFW to Tulsa.  I’m pretty sure that is a fairly small market but let’s give them credit for drawing us in to read the email.   Here is a sample of some of there other teasers:

• Chicago to Detroit:  $43
• San Jose to San Diego:  $49
• Boston to NYC (LGA): $59
• Chicago to Kansas City:  $63
• Dallas to New Orleans:  $64
• Chicago to Orlando:  $78
• Washington D.C. to Miami:  $101
• Atlanta to Dallas:  $104

Now, all of these fares are one-way based on round-trip purchase.  I’m sure that most of the other airlines are advertising similar fares on similar routes with similar restrictions.   The part that interests me is that some of those fares AA is advertising are primarily business routes (DFW to TUL, ORD to DET, ORD to MCI) and those aren’t customarily the routes you discount that much.  Some of the others are to leisure destinations and that makes a bit more sense. 

When there is a fare sale, I like to price DFW to PDX (Portland) because American Airlines dominates this route with non-stops and has exceptionally high fares for those flights.  If those prices have dropped, then I know they’re hurting.  I did so today and AA is proud to offer me a $278 roundtrip (with taxes, $320) which is actually pretty good.  A year ago that fare was being offered for over $400.  But there is a catch.  AA wants me to fly from DFW to LAX,  change planes to either Alaska Airlines or Horizon Airlines, and fly to Portland.  Transit times range from 7 hours to more than 9 hours.   Would I do it for the fare?  Perhaps.  I’d certainly think about it. 

A quick check with Travelocity.Com shows fares for that route at $327 and up and AA advertises the non-stop routing for $378.  The $327 fares on Travelocity are those same AA fares I found at AA.Com so the next non-American Airlines best price is actually Continental Airlines for $356 changing planes in Houston and with approximately the same transit times that AA has through LAX.

Would I go?  Probably not.  Why?  Because the cost to me in vacation time, actual flight costs (more than $40 more than the advertised price once I pay taxes) and the sheer agony of spending about 8 hours making the trip just isn’t worth it.  What would be worth it?  A fare of about $200 to $250 (taxes included) I suspect. 

The point of my analysis is that while those fare teasers are interesting and very attractive, they really aren’t all that good for where most of us want to fly in the next 3 to 4 months.  If you want to fly from DFW to TUL, you’re set.  If you want to fly from DFW to just about anywhere else, the prices really haven’t come down much if at all.  These sales are, I suspect, airlines scrambling around and yelling “Look At Me” but without much substance.  If I were going to shop for a mid to late spring flight, I’d probably wait a few weeks.  The reality of spring / early summer bookings will be more clear to the airlines and then I think you’ll see some real discounting. 

Filed under: Airline News, Travel Hints by ajax
No Comments »

Pilots and flight attendants are perceived as having jobs that are easy and financially secure.  This is largely due to the fact that flight crews commonly have several days in a row off each month where they are able to enjoy a different schedule and life.  Flight crews, in fact, have just as much stress, fatigue and constraints as any other job. 

Many in the flight crew start out augmenting their income with 2nd and even 3rd jobs they work during their off-duty hours because they earn so little money at the start of their careers.  A fully trained and qualified pilot starting out on his career can expect to make as little as $20,000 / year and flight attendants often earn less than $16,000 / year to start.  So in order to pay their rent and other living expenses, they take on flexible 2nd and 3rd jobs.  Later, when they are earning living wages, they tend to keep those jobs because their needs and wants have continued to grow in proportion to their total income.  In other words, they become a bit financially addicted to the supplemental income those 2nd and 3rd jobs provide.

Airlines pay so little to start because the lifetime costs to employ that flight crew members can be very expensive when they enter the last half of their career.  Unions have negotiated contracts that are first and foremost dependent on date of hire seniority and flight crew turnover is therefore very small compared to other industries.   There is no incentive to look for another job with another airline unless your present employer goes through a significant contraction or bankruptcy and has to lay you off.  Even then a flight crew member may well have incentives to earn supplemental income and wait for a callback rather than seek employment with a new airline. 

But it is airline management that has created this problem because they’ve failed to redefine the job positions to fit a new economic reality.  They exacerbate their situation by treating their employees (and unions) as hostile entities to be fought at every turn rather than finding new, more efficient ways to employee people. 

Airline management needs to first realize that the lifetime earnings of flight crew are unlikely to go significantly down or up.  But there is a way to distribute that income during the flight crew career in a way that provides better job security, more productivity and in a way that provides the stability employees want. 

First, stop paying flight crews horribly low salaries in their early years.  These people are trained and qualified professionals and deserve to be paid a wage that is more commensurate with the job skills they must possess to perform in those roles.  In other words, it’s time to pay a living wage right from the beginning.  Pilot’s should earn from $40K to $50K to start, for instance,   And pilots should recognize that in return for a living wage right from the start, they have to offer more flexibility in work rules.  They need to be willing to work on a more daily basis but for fewer hours per day so that airlines can begin scheduling them in a more rational manner.

Second, airlines should pay salaries that are roughly equivalent to engineers.   A senior engineer (not manager but engineer) can earn as much as $100K / year at the zenith of their career but not $300K.  For that kind of wage, an engineer must enter management and exhibit performance that justifies that wage.   Pilots should have retirement plans that are also commensurate with engineers.  Not pensions that pay out by the years of service but, rather, modern investment plans such as 401k plans that allow them to manage their futures and have some opportunity for portability.  Pensions are tied to seniority.  401k retirement investment plans are tied to the person and smart choices. 

Why is such a system better for a pilot?  For one, it reduces their dependency on one airline.  They are far less tied to the fortunes of their employers and have more opportunity to leave a badly managed airline in favor of a better managed airline.  Let’s face it, who wouldn’t want to work for a better managed airline in favor or a badly managed one?  Making that possible industry wide would provide more opportunity for pilots to manage their stress and the demands their job makes on their personal lives. 

Unions should focus less on maximizing wages and more on improving the quality of life for their members.  Unions have the power to negotiate better work rules that alleviate horrific fatigue and stress and which provide a more humane way of living.   Happiness really doesn’t come from a top wage.  It comes from a living wage and having a real life.  Unions should seek more security for their members by negotiating flexible work rules that might allow flight crews to fly part time or job share with someone else.  That kind of flexibility would allow airlines to schedule flights more rationally and earn more profit  and be better positioned to offer wage increases more regularly rather than fight them at every contract negotiation. 

Airline management must recognize that the largest variable controlling their financial success is their flight crew.  Flight crew represents the largest part of their costs and the biggest factor in determining the service product they offer.   Treat them humanely and pay them a living wage and airlines can begin to experience more profit which will only make their investors happy. 

Unions have to recognize that the work rules in place now were only fitting for airline up to the late 1970’s.  It’s time for them to define how to best serve their members by identifying all the variables involved in a prosperous career rather than simply wages.   They should push for company financed training, better scheduling and work rules that permit both parties to profit from extra effort put forth serving a flight.

The go! Airlines pilots mentioned in yesterday’s post were fatigued because they were flying 8 leg segments for multiple days in a row.  Why?  Because under the present system of compensation and work rules, airlines must schedule pilots intensively in order to get the most for each dollar spent.  Airlines would actually be more flexible with hours worked if pilot’s earned a salary and had a negotiated minimum and maximum of hours to be worked each month.  

Under a new system such as I described above, pilots (and other flight crew) would no longer feel tied to working for an airline that punished them with a grueling schedule week after week.  They could seek better employment elsewhere without necessarily taking an enormous pay cut to do so.  Airlines would have more predictable labor costs, greater productivity and an incentive to take better care of their crew. 

It would also solve another looming problem for airlines.  A shortage of pilots.  Presently, the barriers to entering a career as a pilot are huge.  Airlines require new hires to obtain their minimum qualifications for hire at the employees expense and then pay them near poverty level salaries for the first several years of employment.  Fewer and fewer people can afford the $100K to $150K price tag to obtain those initial qualifications and certainly find the idea of earning a poverty wage after being hired unappealing. 

Under a new system of training the pilots and paying a living wage initially, airlines can attract new people to the jobs and ensure a steady, well trained and stable work force that wants to come to work and offer an efficient service product.  Potential pilots (and other flight crew) have better opportunities to enter the profession and a career that is more stable in the early years and entirely profitable throughout the lifetime of the employee.

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

I want you to imagine waking up at 5:00am on a Monday morning and then being at work by 6:30am.  Once at work, you’ll be climbing into another car and driving 1 hour trips across a busy metropolitan area such as Chicago or Dallas or Los Angeles.  At each stop you’ll have about 5 to 10 minutes to go to the bathroom or to get something to drink or munch on through the day.  You do this from 7:30am until 7:30pm at night. 

Once finished, because you are far away from your home, you get a motel room and go someplace to eat like Chili’s.  You do get to sleep by 10pm (and mind you I just gave you only 2.5 hours to find a motel, get something to eat and then get yourself prepared to sleep which sounds like a lot but really isn’t) but you are in a strange, hard bed and your sleep is disturbed somewhat. 

You get up at 5:00am again, shower and pack and get a ride back to your duty station and climb back into a car to drive from 7:30am to 7:30pm again under the same conditions described above.  Once done, you do get to go home and sleep and arrive home at around 9pm.  You have to eat, get to sleep and, once more, get up at 5:00am to do this routine one more time all day.

How tired are you going to be on that third day of duty?  Almost anyone, physically fit or not, is going to be pretty exhausted.  He or she will be prone to make mistakes in their daily work and will find it difficult to stay awake at the wheel at certain points of the day.  That’s the life of a domestic airline pilot.  It’s really not any different for flight attendants, by the way.   Oh and before we go on, I want to point out that that pilot working those duty hours will actually only be paid for about 8 or 9 of the 12 hours they’ll be working on such a schedule. 

Now, some people might be tempted to say they could or did handle such a schedule and it wasn’t any big deal.  Really?  No big deal?  Well, I’ll agree that many of us have had to work such a fatiguing schedule (including myself during my courier driver days 20 years ago) but let’s not act like it isn’t a big deal.  It is.  Under such situations, most people will make bad mistakes, act irritable towards fellow workers or even customers, they’ll eat poorly and they’ll be prone to falling into micro-sleeps (nodding off for brief moments) during their work. 

Is that who you want flying you from Chicago to Cedar Rapids?  Well, you have probably a 2 in 3 chance that your pilot on such a flight will be just that fatigued.   Think about that for a few moments.

 Earlier in 2008, two pilots (an experienced captain and first officer) fell asleep while flying a go! Airlines (a subsidiary of Mesa Airlines) commuter flight in Hawaii.  The NTSB has released a final report on that incident which can be found HERE.  In short, both the captain and first officer had flown schedules not unsimilar to the scenario I described at the start of this post and both fell victim to fatigue.  While there was no harm suffered from their falling asleep, it is a disturbing development.   Mesa fired both pilots as a result of this incident which, in part, ultimately came to light from their self reporting the problem (as well as the problem being originally identified by ATC when they tried to clear them to their destination.)

It highlights a problem that is growing among pilots over the past 20 years.  Fatigue and work rules to mitigate it are a major subject of many, if not most, union contract negotiations.   Airlines are fighting new work rules as proposed by the FAA in court now.  Pilot unions are refusing to cooperate with work rule variances on many new ultra-long haul routes that have the potential to be major money makers for airlines.   Two years ago, American Airlines bid to fly a route from DFW airport to China and ultimately had to amend their proposal because the pilot’s union refused to give a work rule variance for the 18+ hour flight.  American Airlines lost the bid as a result. 

In Part 2, I’ll discuss the opportunities to make a real change in this problem that could benefit both pilots and airlines. 

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

Last week an extended family of Muslim Indians were removed from an Airtran flight from Washington D.C. to Orlando.  It made the news in several places but here is an LA Times / Associated Press version of the events.  Scroll down to read the story.

I take issue with several details of this story actually.  First, this happened to US born US Citizens of this country.  That in itself is highly objectionable to me because it is clear that this issue formed as a function of their appearance and the assumed religious identification of these folks.  That is xenophobia. 

Second, the conversation they had which prompted the reaction by passengers was a conversation that I have personally heard  spoken on many flights and that includes a conversation between myself and my wife the last time we flew together to New York state.  It’s a conversation that many people have because the infrequent traveler wants to feel safe on an airplane.  Now, when my wife asked me about the “safest” part of an airplane to sit in, my own response was that I couldn’t imagine a “safe” place to sit on an airplane traveling hundreds of miles an hour about to hit the ground.  I also said that it’s foolish, in my opinion, to believe such a place exists on airplane that is going to crash.  No one objected to that conversation or many of the others I’ve overheard on airplanes since 2001.

Third, even if I concede it might have been something worth checking out, at the least, the FBI cleared this family to travel after speaking with them and the TSA cleared *all* of the luggage traveling on the airplane.   The FBI actually encouraged Airtran to carry on and, still, they were kept back.  Why?  Because airlines have decided to leave such a decision in the hands of the captain of an airplane and, at the same time, encourage pilots to *always* take the path that is most “sure” in such situations.  In other words, captains are simply encouraged to deny boarding to the suspect passengers on that immediate flight because it keeps everyone settled.

I take objection to that.  I would like to see a captain and his crew show some moral courage and simply indicate that such passengers, after being fully checked out, were OK to fly and they therefore were going to continue on the flight as every other paying passenger would expect to do so if it were them.   There was absolutely nothing to be afraid of whatsoever. 

Terrorists come in all shapes, sizes, religious denominations and physical appearances.  For us to accept that it is morally correct to seize upon someone as a potential terrorist simply because they are of the same race or religion as those terrorists of September 11, 2001 is stupid and ignorant of the way the world works. 

Want more proof?  The two people who initiated this concern with the flight crew were teenage girls.  I have a teenage girl of my own and I assure you that teenagers are *not* capable of making a credible judgement about someone who might be strange to them.  They are still kids, not adults and they certainly do not possess the life experience necessary to make such judgements.  That is why they are under the custody of adults, their parents. 

Airtran has most likely lost this Muslim Indian family as a set of customers for life.  By my count, that probably cost them about nine airfares to a destination that many families repeatedly visit.   All in favor of two teenage girls.   That was a foolish business decision. 

I have said it before and I will say it here.  The likelihood that a group of terrorists could take over an airplane, pilot it to a city such as New York City and crash one or more aircraft into a building after the tragedy of September 11, 2001 is so small that you have a far bigger risk of getting killed by lightening.   Do you wander out everyday wondering if this is your day to be killed by lightening?  The reason that attack was successful was because airlines have for years trained their staff to cooperate with a hijacker to get the plane to the ground where almost always the situation is resolved without deaths.  It was, until September 11, 2001, a very rational and very reasonable strategy.

Now it isn’t.  No plane will ever let someone or a group hijack an airplane in that manner ever again.  Not the passengers and not the flight crew.  Think I’m wrong?  Take a long look at how every other incident of someone losing control on an airplane or of someone attempting to breach a cockpit door has ended since flying began again in the post September 11 world.  Every person has been met with overwhelming force from passengers and flight crew and ultimately restrained. 

No, the next big attack won’t be by airplane.  It will be by another strategy that someone will use to take advantage of a security weakness either in another transportation mode (did you know that trains didn’t screen passengers and luggage like the airlines until the last year) or through a delivery method that is simply unpredictable at this time.  And it won’t necessarily be by Muslim terrorist either.  If you think I’m wrong, let me point you to the Oklahoma City bombing by a white Irish Catholic man named Timothy McVeigh.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

And now we come full circle back to the United States and Europe.  Both have highly developed, highly competitive airline markets.  Each has both LCC type carriers and legacy carriers (and Europe’s legacy carriers are the former national flag carriers in many respects.) 

This won’t be a rebuilding year.  To the contrary, both markets really need one large airline to be removed from the market.  In the case of the United States, I firmly think that should be United Airlines but in Europe that is a harder guess.  If I had to pick an large airline in Europe for the surprise of the year, it would be Lufthansa.  They are, by all accounts, a great airline but I smell trouble in that group.  First, they have been buying into airlines that have been unable to survive on their own.  That lack of survival, in many cases, isn’t because of poor management but just a lack of market share being available to them. 

Lufthansa has bought SWISS, for instance.  I’m not sure why and I’m not sure if they can tell us why.  They could have just as easily taken SWISS’ business  and left them in a heap.  Further, Lufthansa has a lot of Airbus A340 aircraft.  Those airplanes just don’t compete on high capacity, long haul routes anymore.  What’s more, they also have orders in for the Boeing 747-8, another large capacity, four engine aircraft.  Their competitors, Air France/KLM and British Airways, have seen the light in buying more and more Boeing 777 aircraft for their long haul, high capacity routes.  It costs less to operate them and they make more money as a consequence.  So, going out on a limb here, I say we’ll discover that Lufthansa is nearly insolvent some time by the end of 2009. 

Both markets in Europe and the US will continue to face challenges in costs (fuel and more particularly labor) and LCC competition will continue to press air fares downwards.  The real solution for large legacy carriers won’t be found this year.  Expect more losses (with some exceptions such as SWA and jetBlue) and more merger talk in general.

Here are a few more random predictions:

• United Airlines will ask Glenn Tilton to resign and hire an experienced airline executive.  One possibility will be Doug Steenland, most recently Northwest Airlines CEO and now Vice-Chairman of Delta.
• Southwest Airlines will, for the first time, examine adding another aircraft type to their fleet.  My guess is it will be the Embraer 170/190 series.
• Airbus will land a major order for aircraft from a traditional Boeing customer in the United States.  My bet is that Delta orders more Airbus A330 aircraft.
• China and Japan will drop their regional jet programs or, at the least, defer them for up to 5 years.
• Bombardier will announce a major order (more than 20 aircraft) for the Q400 Turbo-Prop from a US Airline.
• If fuel prices remain steady, Airtran will seek to form a small mid-western hub.
• Last but not least, one LCC type carrier such as jetBlue or Virgin America will attempt to fly to DFW Airport (wishful thinking on my part.)

Happy New Year Everyone.

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

In keeping with the theme set with yesterday’s post, let’s continue on with some predictions.

The MIddle East

Emirates, Qatar and Etihad:  All airlines that have aggressive growth plans (both in fleet size and the capacity of their aircraft) that don’t seem to be based in reality.  While each of those airlines has successfully developed themselves into eastern hemisphere global airlines, what’s next?  There are few opportunities to grow to the United States or the Far East (both range and regional prejudices apply there) and that leaves Europe (somewhat saturated already) and Africa (not a real place to grow due to low demand).   But they have to fill an amazing number of widebody aircraft they’ve ordered.  We won’t see a merger or a bankruptcy here but I do believe we’ll see these airlines start to reconsider the orders they have on the books and they will slow their growth by deferring these orders.

China

China’s airlines have been on a buying binge as well but, again, with a weakening domestic economy as well as a weakening international economy, they have no place to go.  Like the Middle East contenders, they are likely going to start deferring orders as well. 

The Far East

Airlines based in Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Thailand, Indonesia and Singapore will all maintain their status quo more or less.  There is some possibility that some orders may be deferred but I will bet that some airlines will actually make new orders for new aircraft although not for growth but for greater operating efficiency.

Australia

QANTAS and its affiliate Jetstar have made major investments in new aircraft and major plans in new market development.  However, development of new routes in the Far East and Southeast Asia will slow or even contract as reduced demand continues.  What’s worse is the new competition they’ll experience on their routes to both Europe and the United States.  I expect some order deferrals (probably for the 787) and growth plans will be slowed or deferred altogether as they retrench in the face of competition.

Virgin Blue / V Australia will be challenged in several ways.   They’ll likely continue to do well in the Australian domestic market but now they face competition in the Australia / United States market not only from QANTAS, Air New Zealand and United Airlines but also from Delta.  There will be too many airlines chasing too few seats in this market and the two most vulnerable airlines, in my opinion, are United and V Australia.  United because its service product pales in comparison to any of the other airlines and V Australia because their business model is based more on economy travel than business and first class.

South America

We’ll not see any real growth (with one exception) and we’ll likely not see any real failures here either.  The governments of South American countries tend to jump in and save their national airlines when doom is near. 

Aerolineas Argentinas should be Argentina’s Alitalia but I suspect a takeover of this airline from Grupo Marsans (a Spanish conglomerate) by the Argentine government will happen sometime this year.   Aerlineas Argentinas will continue to muddle through with a incoherent fleet of Airbus aircraft funded by the government and Argentina will see no growth and possibly some severe contraction in their markets because of a failed air traffic system and a very weak economy.

Brazil will continue to be stable more or less but existing Brazilian airlines will have to now contend with David Neeleman’s new airline, Azul.  Neeleman (who holds dual citizenship in Brazil and the United States) understands Brazil and will be offering a highly competitive, high service airline founded with Embraer E-190 aircraft that are very well suited to the Brazilian market.  It will be jetBlue all over again in Brazil for the next 5 years.  However, I expect this new Neeleman airline will one day become an international airline flying both in South America as well as to Europe and the United States.  I’ll go ahead and predict this development for 2014 and they will use Airbus equipment.

Africa

Not much to say here.  African airlines come and go with stunning frequency and usually without much notice.  Delta will continue to develop routes to Africa but this will be aimed towards the very few, relatively stable, major cities Africa has.  South African Airways will find someway to continue to exist but I expect a switch from Airbus aircraft in their long haul services (A340 aircraft currently) to a Boeing fleet using the 777-200LR and 777-300ER and GE engines.  This switch alone could make them profitable.   My prediction is that we’ll hear about a Request For Information (RFI) or a Request For Proposal (RFP) by the end of the year but more likely at this year’s summer airshow in Paris.  It will be a small order, at first, and quite possibly contingent upon Boeing finding new owners for the A340 aircraft they already own.

India

With their new, highly competitive market, India has become a rather intense version of the US market.   With a weakening economy here as well, I look for consolidation and liquidation as the answer.  Look for Kingfisher to merge with someone else such as Jet Airways with Jet Airways being the name retained by the end of 2009.  Another possibility will be forced mergers and/or liquidations by the Indian government particularly if the current party loses power.  The rather laissez faire experiment in airline deregulation in India has left a bad taste in many people’s mouths, most particularly in the opposition parties not currently in power.  India’s current Prime Minister Singh holds degrees in economics and is widely credited with economic reforms in India but the fractured and unsuccessful airline industry is something for the opposition to make a point of.

Stay Tuned for Part III

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

It’s always fun to make predictions about the coming year, right?  Of course, I may well review my predictions in December of 2009 and decide against doing it again.

Boeing 787:

This aircraft will finally experience its first flight and I believe it will occur on or about its new scheduled time (early April).  For Boeing, credibility is now at stake and they really do have to begin meeting deadlines.  Financial analysts are becoming too skeptical of the company for comfort and airlines want their airliners.  Boeing does have a reputation for being able to pull itself together and get something done in a crisis and that should serve them here. 

I also believe we’ll see both static airframes begin their tests and new build airframes begin to flow from Boeing in about 6 months.  My prediction?  The 787 will prove to be a very capable aircraft and will meet or exceed its performance promises.

Airbus A380:

Airbus met its revised schedule of delivering 12 A380 airliners in 2008 . . . barely.  Originally it was scheduled to deliver 13 in 2008 and 25 in 2009.  Now Airbus says it will deliver 21 in 2009.  However, it is becoming clear that Airbus is now quickly learning how to build these aircraft and turn them out.  I predict they’ll exceed their 21 goal in 2009 by at least one aircraft.

Boeing and Airbus:

Both aircraft makers will begin to speak about the future of short to medium haul aircraft again.  With milestones for the 787 and A380 being met, I suspect they’ll become more comfortable in speaking of the future of their aircraft lines.  Look for discussions on both the 737 and A320 aircraft families and what interim technologies might be employed to improve their performance.  I suspect we’ll hear about both weight saving materials being adopted as well as the potential of new incremental improvements on existing engines.  Particularly the CFM-56 engines used by both makers. 

US Airlines:

First, let’s take a look at my deathwatch candidates.  The sudden and precipitous drop of oil prices allowed each of them to take a breather.  Midwest Airlines, however, continues to speak little, fly only a little and its investors have got to be running out of patience.  I still believe that they’ll ultimately go away.  How they do it is the question.  Rather than bankruptcy, I believe it will either be a sale or as a subsidiary airline of Delta/Northwest with the latter being most unlikely.  Who will they be sold to?  Good question.   Perhaps Airtran will get what they wished for and develop indigestion.

Frontier continues to muddle along but faces rather intense labor strife still.  I think their situation improved not only because oil prices dropped but because United continues to offer some of the worst product in the industry and because Southwest slowed its growth and took a breather.  While I firmly believe United will do nothing to improve its product, I do think Southwest will return to its goal of killing Frontier as a Denver competitor some time in the late spring.   I suspect Frontier will emerge from bankruptcy this year but I also firmly expect them to be out of business or acquired by December of 2009.  Who buys them?  I’ll bet on Jet Blue.  The aircraft fleets are compatible and Jet Blue has to start building a hub somewhere else in order to continue to experience strong growth.  Frontier gives them that chance.  The long shot?  American Airlines.  Why?  Because Frontier is working with AMR’s Sabre Reservations system now. 

United Airlines, my favorite airline to hate.  The Cranky Flier loves to rag on Alitalia and I love to rag on United.  United has lost a tremendous amount of value over the last year and continues to have some of the highest hourly costs of any US airline.   They’ve done nothing to improve labor relations, their service product or their fleet efficiency.  Glenn Tilton is hated by airline pilots but I predict he is goint to be hated by investors before the end of summer.   What happens?  I’m really not sure.  The best thing that could happen is for them to liquidate.  However, I think some airline will see some value there and attempt to buy United and make use of its assets.  Who?  The logical choice is Continental but I believe they’ll hold on to their independent streak.  So my next guess is a US Air / United V 2.0 merger will come about.  Could it work?  I doubt it but Doug Parker (CEO of US Air) wants another merger and United offers hubs he doesn’t have and some aircraft fleet compatibility.   I’ll go “all in” and bet that we see a US Air / United Airlines merger announcement by December of 2009.

Moving on from the death watch, let’s look at other US Airlines for a few minutes.

American Airlines will maintain its status quo but will begin to feel pressure to conclude some union contract negotiations this year as financial analysts begin to view their lack of progress less and less favorably.  CEO Gerard Arpey will begin to feel the heat but barring a large mistake on his part, will retain his position as CEO.  One possibility, however, will be bringing on a potential successor as President of the airline.

Southwest Airlines will also mostly maintain its status quo but I will predict that by late summer its new CEO Gary Kelly will be under fire from both employees and investors for his shotgun approach to growth.  It is beginning to look like it is unplanned and what people most value in Southwest is its ability to form and execute a coherent plan.   There will be no mergers, no real growth and a sinking stock price by December but I think Mr. Kelly will hold onto his position until 2010 barring a major unforeseen development. 

Continental, the best kept secret.  Continental will maintain its status quo with, perhaps, very moderate growth in the international sector while it waits to see what happens domestically.  They’ll enter the Star Alliance (exiting from SkyTeam) but discover it offers little value to them as well.   I don’t think they’ll seek to merge with anyone in the next year but if they did, I’d pick them for going after someone like Alaska Airlines rather than United or US Air. 

Stay tuned for Part II.

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline Service, Airports, Death Watch by ajax
2 Comments »

It’s 2009 and I still think putting this statue at the viewing center (or anywhere else on airport property) was stupid.   And the candy cane is just plane dumb.  It shows a lakc of sensitivity to travelers with other beliefs and thoughts.

I’m sure that the city of Dallas (which owns the Dallas Museum of Art and is a co-owner of DFW airport) wanted to promote the King Tut exhibit currently on display but airport managers didn’t really want such a statue on the premises so it was given a spot at Founder’s Plaza.  However, sometimes you just say no.

Filed under: Airplane Spotting, Airports by ajax
No Comments »