You know it's the silly season when media reports - in the United States, where I live, anyway - are filled with reports about a man dressing in exposed women's underwear while flying, a college student with trousers hanging below his waist being taken into custody and escorted off a plane, and the Internet buzzing about a pilot who inadvertently complained into a radio frequency about the unattractiveness of female flight attendants and preponderence of gays at his airline.
Is there nothing better to talk about? Apparently not, at least not in the slow old summertime.
Critics charge - they're always charging something, have you noticed? - that the aforementioend pilot, an employee of Southwest Airlines, was inappropriate in his choice of comments. No doubt he was, though he didn't know anyone except his co-pilot was listening to remarks made in the cockpit that were in fact disseminated through parts of the U.S. aviation communications system. Said critics are now demanding the pilot undergo sensitivity training. Good luck with that. The opinions, which veer on the knuckle-dragging side, are nonetheless this fellow's personal opinions. As long as they don't interfere with safe and efficient operation of an aircraft, it's hard to image they constitute a truly serious offense.
The guy who flew in women's undies? A 65-year-old white guy with white hair, photographed on a smart phone in purple halter and bare midrift, a choker, long black stockings and tight purple underwear. He told the San Francisco Chronicle that he flies like this a lot, doesn't mean to offend anyone and does it for fun. He is apparently an elite level frequent flier on US Airways and describes himself as a business consultant.
As it happens, US Airways is the same airline that tossed the college student, an African American football player, off a flight before take-off after he allegedly refused to hitch up his pants when the flight crew asked him to, and then - in the airline's account - grew belligerent. The student says, no, he was cooperative and was sitting in his seat when approached and his underwear - described as skintight by several fellow passengers - couldn't be seen. The NAACP has gotten involved, claiming this is a clear case of racial profiling. The young man has a lawyer. In America, where racial animus has been boiling over for generations, playing the race card is always a possibility, as is litigation.
US Air compounds its public relations and customer relations problem by saying the airline has no dress code; people are free to fly as long as their private parts are concealed, according to the Phoenix-based carrier.
That still leaves a lot of territory for debate and disagreement. In the usual venting and rage-o-rama, common sense, whether by airline or passengers, seems to have gone missing. Yet, having some regard for the sensitivites of others, whether enforced by rule or not, doesn't seem like such a bad idea. Is keeping one's snarky opinions of fellow employees to oneself really that hard? How about covering up one's body? Hard? Really hard? We don't have to start issing burkas for passengers to put on in transit, just exercise a minimum amount of courtesy.
And so the battle rages, along with ongoing media coverage - and media commentary, like this post. And just think, it's only June. Wait till the really slow news months roll around. July and August should be doozies.
Showing posts with label Southwest Airlines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Southwest Airlines. Show all posts
Monday, June 27, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Can't Get No Satisfaction
It's not exactly a Stop the Presses moment, but a new survey of American consumers shows that U.S. commercial airlines are among the least-liked businesses in the United States. Business travelers, who spend a lot of time in the sky - and often have to pay high walk-up fares to go with added fees that airlines have tacked on to try to make a profit in a time of sky-high jet fuel - are especially disgruntled.
Every year, the American Customer Satisfaction Index records the results of a survey of selected U.S. consumers, and every year the section on air travel makes melancholy reading. Only 65 percent of fliers describe themselves as very satisfied or fairly satisfied.
Southwest Airlines, the perennial leader, ranks highest for the 18th consecutive year. It may not be entirely coincidental that Southwest is the major holdout in not charging fees for checked bags - a pet peeve of passengers. Continental Airlines, which merged with United Airlines - also known as Misery Air among regulars - saw its customer satisfaction score drop 10 points from last year.
Any good news? Yes. Most U.S. travelers are satisfied with U.S. hotels, giving the indstry as a whole a respectable score of 77 points.
Every year, the American Customer Satisfaction Index records the results of a survey of selected U.S. consumers, and every year the section on air travel makes melancholy reading. Only 65 percent of fliers describe themselves as very satisfied or fairly satisfied.
Southwest Airlines, the perennial leader, ranks highest for the 18th consecutive year. It may not be entirely coincidental that Southwest is the major holdout in not charging fees for checked bags - a pet peeve of passengers. Continental Airlines, which merged with United Airlines - also known as Misery Air among regulars - saw its customer satisfaction score drop 10 points from last year.
Any good news? Yes. Most U.S. travelers are satisfied with U.S. hotels, giving the indstry as a whole a respectable score of 77 points.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
The Shape of Things to Come
Are you ready for some air rage? How about ground rage?
Both are likely to intensify in the years ahead, thanks in large part to the proliferation of mobile personal electronic devices and the desire of travelers to use them anytime, anywhere - including commercial flights.
This thought suggested to me when I read today about a 68-year man who slugged a teenage boy who refused to turn off his iPhone on a Southwest Airlines flight; the airline had announced the time to turn off all electronic devices had arrived, just as the aircraft prepared to takeoff from Las Vegas. After the plane landed, in Boise, the slugger was arrested for resorting to violence and allegedly leaving a mark on the slugee. He facesa maximum sentence of six months in jail and a fine up to $1,000 USD.
This is exactly the type of thing many of us - led by flight attendants, who will inevitably have to adjudicate when someone wants to use a personal cell phone in flight and someone else wants to read or sleep - have been afraid of. The problem is only becoming more fraught as the number of devices grows and traditional reluctance to intrude on the privacy of others erodes under the need for constant stimulus and pressure to keep working and stay in touch with home and office.
Regardless of what laws eventually govern the use of personal devices, every airline - and every travel provider such as railroad lines and subways - has got to set policies for when such use is and isn't acceptable. And then stick to those policies.
The alternative is more tension, more blackguard oaths and maybe even more violence, both between passengers and between passengers and staff. Let's try to get this right now, while ground-rules are still being set.
Both are likely to intensify in the years ahead, thanks in large part to the proliferation of mobile personal electronic devices and the desire of travelers to use them anytime, anywhere - including commercial flights.
This thought suggested to me when I read today about a 68-year man who slugged a teenage boy who refused to turn off his iPhone on a Southwest Airlines flight; the airline had announced the time to turn off all electronic devices had arrived, just as the aircraft prepared to takeoff from Las Vegas. After the plane landed, in Boise, the slugger was arrested for resorting to violence and allegedly leaving a mark on the slugee. He facesa maximum sentence of six months in jail and a fine up to $1,000 USD.
This is exactly the type of thing many of us - led by flight attendants, who will inevitably have to adjudicate when someone wants to use a personal cell phone in flight and someone else wants to read or sleep - have been afraid of. The problem is only becoming more fraught as the number of devices grows and traditional reluctance to intrude on the privacy of others erodes under the need for constant stimulus and pressure to keep working and stay in touch with home and office.
Regardless of what laws eventually govern the use of personal devices, every airline - and every travel provider such as railroad lines and subways - has got to set policies for when such use is and isn't acceptable. And then stick to those policies.
The alternative is more tension, more blackguard oaths and maybe even more violence, both between passengers and between passengers and staff. Let's try to get this right now, while ground-rules are still being set.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
906 Million Reasons
There are 964 million reasons why airlines in the United States - which pioneered added fees for everything from checking luggage, to changing reservations, to securing extra legroom - are unlikely to roll back those policies - or even, in some cases, fully disclose them in advance to air travelers.
That's how many dollars - $906.4 million to be more precise - the 20 leading U.S. carriers earned in revenue in the third quarter of 2010 just by charging for checked bags. Only Southwest Airlines, with its "Bags Fly Free'' policy, is bucking the trend.
In the first three quarters of this year, according to U.S. Bureau of Transportation statistics cited in the Los Angeles Times, "The top carriers pocketed $2.6 billion in baggage fees and $1.7 billion in fees to cancel or change reservations.''
Airlines are charging fees on top of basic air fares because most U.S. carrriers have lost money over most of the past decade, and consumers, accustomed to low fares from low-cost carriers, have resisted airlines' attempts to raise air fares, which once were all-inclusive. First-class, business-class and elite mileage plan members are typically exempt from such fees, but of course more people fly economy than travel at the front of the plane.
When we see the math, we also see it's highly unlikey that such lucrative fees will go away anytime soon.
Some air travel consumer groups are trying to get airlines to fully disclose all fees in advance - clearly and simply, not buried in the fine print of their contracts of carriage. The Business Travel Coalition, which represents corporate travel planners, says failure to do so makes it very tough to know the real cost of air travel till it's too late and the money has been spent.
This push received an unexpected boost from a respected airline veteran and aviation wise man, former American Airlines CEO Bob Crandall, last week. Speaking to the International Air Transport Association, which represents most of the world's airlines, Crandall put it this way:
''... the industry has objected to consumer efforts to display a complete list of ancillary charges in every distribution channel in which a carrier participates ... I think the industry courts unnecessary customer discontent and risks its good name and reputation by opposing a request entirely consistent with normal retail practice. We all need to recognise, I think, that operationally attractive positions that are inconsistent with customer welfare and satisfaction are, in the long run, likely to be detrimental to our individual and collective well-being.''
The title of Crandall's speech: "The Customer is the Focus of Everything.''
Sounds like common sense to me. If you have to charge fees to make a profit, charge fees. But at least let people know what they are, so they can plan their travel accordingly. This is Customer Service 101.
That's how many dollars - $906.4 million to be more precise - the 20 leading U.S. carriers earned in revenue in the third quarter of 2010 just by charging for checked bags. Only Southwest Airlines, with its "Bags Fly Free'' policy, is bucking the trend.
In the first three quarters of this year, according to U.S. Bureau of Transportation statistics cited in the Los Angeles Times, "The top carriers pocketed $2.6 billion in baggage fees and $1.7 billion in fees to cancel or change reservations.''
Airlines are charging fees on top of basic air fares because most U.S. carrriers have lost money over most of the past decade, and consumers, accustomed to low fares from low-cost carriers, have resisted airlines' attempts to raise air fares, which once were all-inclusive. First-class, business-class and elite mileage plan members are typically exempt from such fees, but of course more people fly economy than travel at the front of the plane.
When we see the math, we also see it's highly unlikey that such lucrative fees will go away anytime soon.
Some air travel consumer groups are trying to get airlines to fully disclose all fees in advance - clearly and simply, not buried in the fine print of their contracts of carriage. The Business Travel Coalition, which represents corporate travel planners, says failure to do so makes it very tough to know the real cost of air travel till it's too late and the money has been spent.
This push received an unexpected boost from a respected airline veteran and aviation wise man, former American Airlines CEO Bob Crandall, last week. Speaking to the International Air Transport Association, which represents most of the world's airlines, Crandall put it this way:
''... the industry has objected to consumer efforts to display a complete list of ancillary charges in every distribution channel in which a carrier participates ... I think the industry courts unnecessary customer discontent and risks its good name and reputation by opposing a request entirely consistent with normal retail practice. We all need to recognise, I think, that operationally attractive positions that are inconsistent with customer welfare and satisfaction are, in the long run, likely to be detrimental to our individual and collective well-being.''
The title of Crandall's speech: "The Customer is the Focus of Everything.''
Sounds like common sense to me. If you have to charge fees to make a profit, charge fees. But at least let people know what they are, so they can plan their travel accordingly. This is Customer Service 101.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Southwest Thinking of International Flights? Don't
Say it ain't so, Gary. Say it ain't so.
Southwest Airlines CEO Gary Kelly let drop in a discussion of resurgent earnings last Friday that the all-domestic airline is thinking about launching international service. One word: Don't. Or is that two words? Regardless, it would be a bad move for Dallas-based Southwest - the world's largest discount carrier and the only major U.S. airline that is consistently profitable - to tamper with the brilliantly simple business plan that got to where it is today.
From its first flights in 1971, Southwest has been a model of consistency: It is no-frills, it is folksy, it has low fares, it flies entirely within the United States, usually with short-haul flights. Because it is making money, even in the Great Recession, Southwest doesn't have to nickle and dime passengers with add-on fees; it is the only U.S. major that allows customers to check two bags free of charge, and its witty "Bags Fly Free'' ad campaign is great for winning friends and influencing people.
Why does Southwest think adding international routes - in this case, to Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean, not right away but maybe by 2013 - would be good? Plenty of carriers already have them, including other low-cost carriers such as JetBlue Airways. News accounts didn't make it clear what Kelly and cohorts are thinking, giving rise to the suspicion - at least for me - that they're thinking of going international because they can, and because the airline has stopped growing in the U.S. In 2009, Southwest trimmed capacity 5 percent - less than competitors who cut even more and took to parking unused planes in the desert. Growth, however, is very much part of the corporate culture in the company that Herb Kelleher built.
"We'll be looking for opportunities to grow, and we're still a growth company,'' Bloomberg quotes Kelly as saying. "It's just that, right now, we don't see the wisdom of doing that.''
It's hard to see the wisdom of flying internationally. Such routes are typically longer than the short hops Southwest is used to taking. Already, flying coast-to-coast on Southwest, with multiple stops and changes of planes, feels like taking a Conestoga wagon with wings. The no-frills thing works fine on short-hauls; typically, people on long-haul flights over oceans and continents want creature comforts. Maybe the shrewd executives at Southwest have some wisdom they're not sharing, but fixing something that doesn't seem broken is seldom a good idea.
In the meantime - gangway! -the juggernaut rolls on. Southwest earned a second-quarter 2010 profit that more than tripled - to $216 million USD from $59 million - over the weak second quarter in 2009. Earnings jumped to 29 cents a share from 8 cents a share a year earlier.
Southwest Airlines CEO Gary Kelly let drop in a discussion of resurgent earnings last Friday that the all-domestic airline is thinking about launching international service. One word: Don't. Or is that two words? Regardless, it would be a bad move for Dallas-based Southwest - the world's largest discount carrier and the only major U.S. airline that is consistently profitable - to tamper with the brilliantly simple business plan that got to where it is today.
From its first flights in 1971, Southwest has been a model of consistency: It is no-frills, it is folksy, it has low fares, it flies entirely within the United States, usually with short-haul flights. Because it is making money, even in the Great Recession, Southwest doesn't have to nickle and dime passengers with add-on fees; it is the only U.S. major that allows customers to check two bags free of charge, and its witty "Bags Fly Free'' ad campaign is great for winning friends and influencing people.
Why does Southwest think adding international routes - in this case, to Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean, not right away but maybe by 2013 - would be good? Plenty of carriers already have them, including other low-cost carriers such as JetBlue Airways. News accounts didn't make it clear what Kelly and cohorts are thinking, giving rise to the suspicion - at least for me - that they're thinking of going international because they can, and because the airline has stopped growing in the U.S. In 2009, Southwest trimmed capacity 5 percent - less than competitors who cut even more and took to parking unused planes in the desert. Growth, however, is very much part of the corporate culture in the company that Herb Kelleher built.
"We'll be looking for opportunities to grow, and we're still a growth company,'' Bloomberg quotes Kelly as saying. "It's just that, right now, we don't see the wisdom of doing that.''
It's hard to see the wisdom of flying internationally. Such routes are typically longer than the short hops Southwest is used to taking. Already, flying coast-to-coast on Southwest, with multiple stops and changes of planes, feels like taking a Conestoga wagon with wings. The no-frills thing works fine on short-hauls; typically, people on long-haul flights over oceans and continents want creature comforts. Maybe the shrewd executives at Southwest have some wisdom they're not sharing, but fixing something that doesn't seem broken is seldom a good idea.
In the meantime - gangway! -the juggernaut rolls on. Southwest earned a second-quarter 2010 profit that more than tripled - to $216 million USD from $59 million - over the weak second quarter in 2009. Earnings jumped to 29 cents a share from 8 cents a share a year earlier.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Fat Chance: What the Pilot Saw
If you follow travel news, you've probably heard about the angry online exchange between movie director/actor Kevin Smith, a self-described fat guy, and Southwest Airlines, which ejected Smith from a flight prior to takeoff when the captain saw Smith wasn't able to fit into a seat on a crowded plane.
Smith took exception to being ejected, sounded off on his Twitter page, and an embarrased Southwest gave him a $100 U.S. voucher, put him on a later flight, apologized on Twitter and called Smith on the phone to say how abjectly sorry they were for following their own rules.
According to Smith, he had bought and paid for two seats, to help him get comfortable, on a later flight from Oakland, California, to Burbank, but boarded the earlier flight on standby to reach his destination sooner, thus inadvertently setting off the crisis. Smith's fans voiced full-throated support for him in online chatter.
A clear case of discrimination, right?
Not necessarily.
Smith wrote "I'm way fat...But I'm not THERE just yet, '' in his initial complaint about Southwest. He is a person of girth. I was a movie critic and feature writer a decade back. When I was working that gig, I interviewed Smith just after his first hit movie, "Clerks,'' came out. (His new effort is the Bruce Willis star vehicle "Cop Out.'') Smith was a big guy then, and judging from recent photos, is a bigger guy now.
So, what to do at a time when travelers are growing larger and aircraft operated by cash-strapped commercial airlines are growing smaller and more crowded?
Airlines, considering the expanding waistlines of passengers, have to decide what to do when a person who is way overweight can't fit into a seat or raise and lower the armrest. Some carriers - United Airlines, Air France and, of course, Southwest, among them - require hefty travelers to pay for two seats, with the understanding that the second-seat fare will be refunded if the plane doesn't fill up. The issue, airlines say, is the safety and especially the comfort of smaller passengers, who feel themselves practically smothered by their seatmates.
One voice of reason amid the rants and the vents appeared in an Airwise.com story, attributed to David Margulies, a public-relations executive who specializes in crisis management.
According to the Airwise.com report, "Margulies questioned whether the airline was being too polite by apologizing to Smith when its policy was both fair and reasonable. He said too many companies backed down from reasonable policies beause they are scared of negative publicity...''
According to the report, Margulies issued a statement, saying in part "Southwest has taken a very reasonable and fair approach to dealing with the issue of overweight customers and should be applauded for their actions. This is the time that customers and employees should take to the Internet in defense of the company.''
Consider this post a defense. Discrimination against travelers on the basis of, say, race or ethnicity is wrong; race and ethnicity are not chosen. Poundage is; losing weight may not be easy, but it is do-able. Overweight people can choose to slim down or not.
Moreover: In an age when commercial flights are increasingly crowded and cramped, and medical experts are deeply concerned about an epidemic of health-threatening obesity, and airlines are trying to cut their considerable fuel costs and go green in part by taking excess weight off of their planes, devising policies for heavy passengers is not illogical or unfair.
Now, the airlines need to be consistent and courageous and stand by their policies.
Smith took exception to being ejected, sounded off on his Twitter page, and an embarrased Southwest gave him a $100 U.S. voucher, put him on a later flight, apologized on Twitter and called Smith on the phone to say how abjectly sorry they were for following their own rules.
According to Smith, he had bought and paid for two seats, to help him get comfortable, on a later flight from Oakland, California, to Burbank, but boarded the earlier flight on standby to reach his destination sooner, thus inadvertently setting off the crisis. Smith's fans voiced full-throated support for him in online chatter.
A clear case of discrimination, right?
Not necessarily.
Smith wrote "I'm way fat...But I'm not THERE just yet, '' in his initial complaint about Southwest. He is a person of girth. I was a movie critic and feature writer a decade back. When I was working that gig, I interviewed Smith just after his first hit movie, "Clerks,'' came out. (His new effort is the Bruce Willis star vehicle "Cop Out.'') Smith was a big guy then, and judging from recent photos, is a bigger guy now.
So, what to do at a time when travelers are growing larger and aircraft operated by cash-strapped commercial airlines are growing smaller and more crowded?
Airlines, considering the expanding waistlines of passengers, have to decide what to do when a person who is way overweight can't fit into a seat or raise and lower the armrest. Some carriers - United Airlines, Air France and, of course, Southwest, among them - require hefty travelers to pay for two seats, with the understanding that the second-seat fare will be refunded if the plane doesn't fill up. The issue, airlines say, is the safety and especially the comfort of smaller passengers, who feel themselves practically smothered by their seatmates.
One voice of reason amid the rants and the vents appeared in an Airwise.com story, attributed to David Margulies, a public-relations executive who specializes in crisis management.
According to the Airwise.com report, "Margulies questioned whether the airline was being too polite by apologizing to Smith when its policy was both fair and reasonable. He said too many companies backed down from reasonable policies beause they are scared of negative publicity...''
According to the report, Margulies issued a statement, saying in part "Southwest has taken a very reasonable and fair approach to dealing with the issue of overweight customers and should be applauded for their actions. This is the time that customers and employees should take to the Internet in defense of the company.''
Consider this post a defense. Discrimination against travelers on the basis of, say, race or ethnicity is wrong; race and ethnicity are not chosen. Poundage is; losing weight may not be easy, but it is do-able. Overweight people can choose to slim down or not.
Moreover: In an age when commercial flights are increasingly crowded and cramped, and medical experts are deeply concerned about an epidemic of health-threatening obesity, and airlines are trying to cut their considerable fuel costs and go green in part by taking excess weight off of their planes, devising policies for heavy passengers is not illogical or unfair.
Now, the airlines need to be consistent and courageous and stand by their policies.
Friday, January 29, 2010
More Travel Turbulence Ahead?
The United States economy grew by a healthy 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009, according to the first estimate by the U.S. Commerce Department. Well, we'll see. The Commerce Department twice lowered healthy-sounding reports of growth for the previous quarter, after more data came in. Will the same thing happen again?
Me, I am not yet convinced that we are seeing those much-touted green shoots of recovery. Virtually no one I talk to - not the operator of our local laundry, not the contractor who is doing work on our house, not the owner of a private school, not most people I know or companies I follow in the travel business - thinks we are emerging quickly from the worldwide economic free-fall that started in earnest in 2008.
The latest scary metric comes from the Geneva-based International Air Transport Association,whose member airlines carry 93 percent of the world's air travelers. The year 2009 saw the greatest decline in civil aviation since 1946, according to IATA statistics released this week. Students of history will recall that 1946 was the first year after the end of World War II.
Oh, the petrodollar-fueled Middle East aviation sector still grew (up 11.2 percent) in 2009, as did Latin American traffic (up 7.1 percent). But the much-larger markets of Asia-Pacific, Europe and North America fell - down 5.6 percent, 5.0 percent and 5.6 percent, respectively. Worldwide, passenger demand was down 3.5 percent, though there was some growth in December over the extremely weak month of December 2008.
"In terms of demand, 2009 goes into the history books as the worst year the industry has ever seen,'' says Giovanni Bisignani, the former Al Italia chief who heads IATA as its director general and CEO. "We have permanently lost 2.5 years of growth in passenger markets and 3.5 years of growth in the freight business.''
"Yields have started to improve with tighter supply-demand conditions in recent months, but they remained 5-10 percent down on 2008 levels,'' Bisignani said. "Airlines will lose an expected $5.6 billion USD in 2010.''
So, is the glass half-empty or half-full? I'd like to think it's half-full, but with the exception of unique travel companes such as Southwest Airlines - which, incredibly, declared its 134th consecutive quarterly dividend this past quarter - the major stakeholders in the travel biz such as airlines, hotels, tour operators and cruise lines continue to grapple with turbulent times. Fasten your seatbelts - there's a long way to go.
Me, I am not yet convinced that we are seeing those much-touted green shoots of recovery. Virtually no one I talk to - not the operator of our local laundry, not the contractor who is doing work on our house, not the owner of a private school, not most people I know or companies I follow in the travel business - thinks we are emerging quickly from the worldwide economic free-fall that started in earnest in 2008.
The latest scary metric comes from the Geneva-based International Air Transport Association,whose member airlines carry 93 percent of the world's air travelers. The year 2009 saw the greatest decline in civil aviation since 1946, according to IATA statistics released this week. Students of history will recall that 1946 was the first year after the end of World War II.
Oh, the petrodollar-fueled Middle East aviation sector still grew (up 11.2 percent) in 2009, as did Latin American traffic (up 7.1 percent). But the much-larger markets of Asia-Pacific, Europe and North America fell - down 5.6 percent, 5.0 percent and 5.6 percent, respectively. Worldwide, passenger demand was down 3.5 percent, though there was some growth in December over the extremely weak month of December 2008.
"In terms of demand, 2009 goes into the history books as the worst year the industry has ever seen,'' says Giovanni Bisignani, the former Al Italia chief who heads IATA as its director general and CEO. "We have permanently lost 2.5 years of growth in passenger markets and 3.5 years of growth in the freight business.''
"Yields have started to improve with tighter supply-demand conditions in recent months, but they remained 5-10 percent down on 2008 levels,'' Bisignani said. "Airlines will lose an expected $5.6 billion USD in 2010.''
So, is the glass half-empty or half-full? I'd like to think it's half-full, but with the exception of unique travel companes such as Southwest Airlines - which, incredibly, declared its 134th consecutive quarterly dividend this past quarter - the major stakeholders in the travel biz such as airlines, hotels, tour operators and cruise lines continue to grapple with turbulent times. Fasten your seatbelts - there's a long way to go.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
What's Good for Southwest Airlines...
Is what's good for Southwest Airlines good for the traveling public?
You would think so, given Wednesday's decision by the Federal Aviation Administration not to ground dozens of Southwest aircraft until unapproved airplane parts can be replaced.
This potentially dangerous decision is good for Southwest, which lobbied Washington to allow it to continue flying the planes. Southwest argued that taking 86 (the number reported by the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 31) of its Boeing 737s out of service would cause flight delays to ripple through the U.S. air travel system. The FAA, concluding that giving the low-fare pioneer until Dec. 24 to install new, approved parts would not pose a safety risk, agreed with the airline.
This is a mind-boggling decision for the same agency that fined Southwest $7.5 million last year for operating 60,000 flights by aircraft that were out of compliance with FAA rules.
Just this summer, a Southwest plane was forced to make an unscheduled landing after a foot-wide hole opened up in the body of the aircraft.
Last year on Capitol Hill, members of Congress accused FAA inspectors of being too palsy with Southwest, an airline they were supposed to be regulating. How does this decision look in light of that history? Should the millions of people who fly Southwest every year be reassured?
Southwest is, of course, pleased that the FAA (www.faa.gov) sees things its way. In a statement Wednesday, the carrier assured its customers that they are in no danger. Said Mike Van de Ven, Southwest's chief operating officer, "The parts have been inspected, and the FAA agrees that they meet the requirements of the aircraft manufacturer, Boeing.''
The unauthorized parts were installed by a subcontractor to whom Southwest (www.southwest.com) has - like many major carriers - outsourced work. More and more, airlines are outsourcing maintenance, sometimes to overseas stations that receive visits from FAA inspectors but not enough; concerns have been raised by U.S. labor unions and industry observers that there are not enough traveling FAA inspectors to conduct effective international safety inspections.
Now this.
The nearly always sensible Business Travel Coalition has weighed in with a critique, raising a number of thought-provoking questions. The answers should interest everyone who flies.
"If there are no safety implications associated with this part, why have a certification process that disallows flying with unapproved parts in the first place?'' the BTC asks, rather logically. "Are not such protocols in place to guard against subjective FAA judgments? What is the difference between this case and when American Airlines was forced to ground over half its fleet in 2008 over wire shields?''
Further, BTC (http://btcweb.biz) asks the agency "Will FAA investigate Southwest's overall policies, practices and processes for overseeing aircraft maintenance outsourcing now that a deep flaw in the airline's program has been discovered?''
Separately, Southwest announced on Wednesday that it will allow customers to check-in for flights up to 25 hours before departure - for a new $10 fee. That's after business-class fliers and frequent-flier program members board the aircraft. This new move erodes the long-standing practice of allowing passengers to board without seat assignments. It has always been a dubiously efficient system, but if Southwest is going to keep it, why allow so many exceptions?
Personally, this frequent flier thinks Southwest should can the canned humor of the cabin crews, just assign seats to everyone and, above all, inspect their planes, fully and promptly, every time.
You would think so, given Wednesday's decision by the Federal Aviation Administration not to ground dozens of Southwest aircraft until unapproved airplane parts can be replaced.
This potentially dangerous decision is good for Southwest, which lobbied Washington to allow it to continue flying the planes. Southwest argued that taking 86 (the number reported by the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 31) of its Boeing 737s out of service would cause flight delays to ripple through the U.S. air travel system. The FAA, concluding that giving the low-fare pioneer until Dec. 24 to install new, approved parts would not pose a safety risk, agreed with the airline.
This is a mind-boggling decision for the same agency that fined Southwest $7.5 million last year for operating 60,000 flights by aircraft that were out of compliance with FAA rules.
Just this summer, a Southwest plane was forced to make an unscheduled landing after a foot-wide hole opened up in the body of the aircraft.
Last year on Capitol Hill, members of Congress accused FAA inspectors of being too palsy with Southwest, an airline they were supposed to be regulating. How does this decision look in light of that history? Should the millions of people who fly Southwest every year be reassured?
Southwest is, of course, pleased that the FAA (www.faa.gov) sees things its way. In a statement Wednesday, the carrier assured its customers that they are in no danger. Said Mike Van de Ven, Southwest's chief operating officer, "The parts have been inspected, and the FAA agrees that they meet the requirements of the aircraft manufacturer, Boeing.''
The unauthorized parts were installed by a subcontractor to whom Southwest (www.southwest.com) has - like many major carriers - outsourced work. More and more, airlines are outsourcing maintenance, sometimes to overseas stations that receive visits from FAA inspectors but not enough; concerns have been raised by U.S. labor unions and industry observers that there are not enough traveling FAA inspectors to conduct effective international safety inspections.
Now this.
The nearly always sensible Business Travel Coalition has weighed in with a critique, raising a number of thought-provoking questions. The answers should interest everyone who flies.
"If there are no safety implications associated with this part, why have a certification process that disallows flying with unapproved parts in the first place?'' the BTC asks, rather logically. "Are not such protocols in place to guard against subjective FAA judgments? What is the difference between this case and when American Airlines was forced to ground over half its fleet in 2008 over wire shields?''
Further, BTC (http://btcweb.biz) asks the agency "Will FAA investigate Southwest's overall policies, practices and processes for overseeing aircraft maintenance outsourcing now that a deep flaw in the airline's program has been discovered?''
Separately, Southwest announced on Wednesday that it will allow customers to check-in for flights up to 25 hours before departure - for a new $10 fee. That's after business-class fliers and frequent-flier program members board the aircraft. This new move erodes the long-standing practice of allowing passengers to board without seat assignments. It has always been a dubiously efficient system, but if Southwest is going to keep it, why allow so many exceptions?
Personally, this frequent flier thinks Southwest should can the canned humor of the cabin crews, just assign seats to everyone and, above all, inspect their planes, fully and promptly, every time.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Green Shoots of Recovery?
After housing and automobile manufacturing, travel has been hit about as hard as any industry in America by the Great Recession. Airlines in particular are hurting, hammered by weak consumer demand, volatile oil prices and fears of a surge of swine flu come fall.
The most recent financial results, taken from the second quarter of 2009, show what might be - in the current phrase - the green shoots of recovery. That is to say some airlines actually made money in the generally dismal second quarter; not many, and they didn't make much, but any profit is cause for cautious optimism at this point.
Two of the six U.S. majors made money: US Airways, with a modest $58 million profit, and discount leader Southwest Airlines, with just a nudge more: $59 million. There were also money-makers among the smaller U.S. carriers: Alaska Airlines made $29.1 million, JetBlue Airways recorded a profit of $76 million and AirTran eked out a $78.4 million profit.
True, these gains were more than outweighed by losses at four of the six U.S. majors: Minus $213 million at Continental Airways, $257 million in losses at Delta Air Lines, a whopping $323 million shortfall at chronically ill United Airlines and an even more whopping $390 million loss at American Airlines, which announced nearly simultaneously that it will raise fees for checking bags for most economy class fliers on domestic routes.
Starting Aug. 14, travelers on American will pay $20 for the first checked bag, up from $15, and $30 for their second checked bag, up from $25. First-class, business-class, full-fare economy and frequent flier club members won't be charged. This fee rise is no coincidence, as loss-making airlines are finding adds-ons like these to be reliable revenue streams at a time when carriers can't raise fares as much as they'd like to for fear of further alienating customers.
What to make of this decidedly mixed-bag of financial results? Just this: Airlines have a long way to go to return to solid profits, but a start, however tentative, has been made. Air travelers have got to hope a recovery sets in and quickly accelerates, so airlines have money to restore slashed frequencies and routes, buy new aircraft and go back to bigger planes. Until they do, fewer, more crowded planes, fewer non-stop flights and ever-tinier aircraft with worrisome safety records will continue to be the new normal, with all the discomfort that implies for travelers.
The most recent financial results, taken from the second quarter of 2009, show what might be - in the current phrase - the green shoots of recovery. That is to say some airlines actually made money in the generally dismal second quarter; not many, and they didn't make much, but any profit is cause for cautious optimism at this point.
Two of the six U.S. majors made money: US Airways, with a modest $58 million profit, and discount leader Southwest Airlines, with just a nudge more: $59 million. There were also money-makers among the smaller U.S. carriers: Alaska Airlines made $29.1 million, JetBlue Airways recorded a profit of $76 million and AirTran eked out a $78.4 million profit.
True, these gains were more than outweighed by losses at four of the six U.S. majors: Minus $213 million at Continental Airways, $257 million in losses at Delta Air Lines, a whopping $323 million shortfall at chronically ill United Airlines and an even more whopping $390 million loss at American Airlines, which announced nearly simultaneously that it will raise fees for checking bags for most economy class fliers on domestic routes.
Starting Aug. 14, travelers on American will pay $20 for the first checked bag, up from $15, and $30 for their second checked bag, up from $25. First-class, business-class, full-fare economy and frequent flier club members won't be charged. This fee rise is no coincidence, as loss-making airlines are finding adds-ons like these to be reliable revenue streams at a time when carriers can't raise fares as much as they'd like to for fear of further alienating customers.
What to make of this decidedly mixed-bag of financial results? Just this: Airlines have a long way to go to return to solid profits, but a start, however tentative, has been made. Air travelers have got to hope a recovery sets in and quickly accelerates, so airlines have money to restore slashed frequencies and routes, buy new aircraft and go back to bigger planes. Until they do, fewer, more crowded planes, fewer non-stop flights and ever-tinier aircraft with worrisome safety records will continue to be the new normal, with all the discomfort that implies for travelers.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
New Travel Deals for Summer and Fall
Consumer demand for travel is still lagging, so travel-industry providers are still offering deals for late summer and into the fall in hopes of fattening their bottom line. Details on deals are changing all the time, so if you book airfare, a hotel room, a tour or cruise, you should definitely read the fine print and make sure you're up to date.
At this writing, there are some enticing deals out there. I post these with the usual proviso: I am a journalist, not a travel agent; I don't sell anything and I don't have any business connections to travel providers. I'm passing on this information in case you find it useful:
* If you move fast - by midnight Eastern Daylight Time, tomorrow, Monday, July 20 - you can save up to 50 percent off rooms at a number of U.S. and international hotels and resorts operated by Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide Inc. If you don't know Starwood, you know their brands; St. Regis, Sheraton, W, Westin and Le Meridien among them. Deals are valid for travel till Oct. 12. Go to www.starwood.com.
* The stylish boutique-hotel operator Kimpton Group continues with a three-tiered sale, offering rooms at their properties in two dozen North American cities from $129 a night, $159 per or $179 per, pending on the city, plus a choice of $30 dining credit or free parking. The deal is valid for Thursdays through Sundays and runs till Sept. 7. (www.kimptonhotels.com).
* The airline that practically invented low-fare flying - combined with folksy humor, laid on thick - is offering getaway packages to Las Vegas. Southwest Airlines is the carrier, and fares and rooms are bookable through its unit Southwest Vacations (www.southwestvacations.com). Three-night packages at participating Vegas hotels - among them Bally's, New York New York, Luxor and MGM Grand - start at $55 per night. Added inducements include a free flight for a second person when you book a flight and hotel. If you stay three nights or more, you get one free night. The catch: Your stay can't include Fridays or Saturdays, and there are some blackout dates. The offer covers travel from Aug. 17 till Jan. 7, 2010, and must be booked by Aug. 10.
As always with big sales, only a limited number of airplane seats and hotel rooms are covered by the sale prices. That being the case, being as flexible as possible - about where you stay and when you travel - will help you land a good deal.
At this writing, there are some enticing deals out there. I post these with the usual proviso: I am a journalist, not a travel agent; I don't sell anything and I don't have any business connections to travel providers. I'm passing on this information in case you find it useful:
* If you move fast - by midnight Eastern Daylight Time, tomorrow, Monday, July 20 - you can save up to 50 percent off rooms at a number of U.S. and international hotels and resorts operated by Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide Inc. If you don't know Starwood, you know their brands; St. Regis, Sheraton, W, Westin and Le Meridien among them. Deals are valid for travel till Oct. 12. Go to www.starwood.com.
* The stylish boutique-hotel operator Kimpton Group continues with a three-tiered sale, offering rooms at their properties in two dozen North American cities from $129 a night, $159 per or $179 per, pending on the city, plus a choice of $30 dining credit or free parking. The deal is valid for Thursdays through Sundays and runs till Sept. 7. (www.kimptonhotels.com).
* The airline that practically invented low-fare flying - combined with folksy humor, laid on thick - is offering getaway packages to Las Vegas. Southwest Airlines is the carrier, and fares and rooms are bookable through its unit Southwest Vacations (www.southwestvacations.com). Three-night packages at participating Vegas hotels - among them Bally's, New York New York, Luxor and MGM Grand - start at $55 per night. Added inducements include a free flight for a second person when you book a flight and hotel. If you stay three nights or more, you get one free night. The catch: Your stay can't include Fridays or Saturdays, and there are some blackout dates. The offer covers travel from Aug. 17 till Jan. 7, 2010, and must be booked by Aug. 10.
As always with big sales, only a limited number of airplane seats and hotel rooms are covered by the sale prices. That being the case, being as flexible as possible - about where you stay and when you travel - will help you land a good deal.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Newest Travel Deals for Summer and Beyond
Because travel consumers - that's us - aren't buying enough plane tickets or booking enough hotel rooms or taking enough tours, travel-biz providers are continuing to offer good summer deals - and some companies, anticipating a weak fall season, when things typically slow down anyway - are discounting for later this year, too.
Here are some interesting new travel sales. Bear in mind that I am a journalist, not a travel agent. I don't sell or book anything and I don't own stocks in travel companies. This travel news is strictly FYI, in case you find it useful:
* Starwood Hotels and Resorts - which operates well-known brands such as Sheraton, Westin, W and St. Regis - is discounting as much as 50 percent off regular room rates at 600 of its properties in the Americas and Asia. You must book by July 20 - Monday - for travel from July 16 through Oct. 12.
* Southwest Airlines is launching another airfare sale, on the heels of a previous sale just over a week ago. Cheap rates are available for travel from Aug. 18 to Nov. 18 and are good for flying on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Saturdays. There are some blackout dates. Purchases must be made by July 30.
* Fellow discounter AirTran has a good fare sale, too. For example: Atlanta to Los Angeles for as little as $119 one-way before taxes and fees, and Baltimore-Washington International Airport to Orlando for as little as $69, also one-way and before taxes and fees. Tickets must be purchased by July 28 and there some blackout dates. Cheapest fares are on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Saturdays.
* The Kimpton Group's chain of stylish boutique hotels, which operates in nearly two-dozen U.S. and Canadian cities, is offering online rates at www.kimptonhotels.com on three tiers: $129 per night (at Hotel Palomar, Arlington, Va., to cite one example); $159 (Hotel George, Washington, D.C., among others); and $179 (Hotel Monaco Seattle, among others).
* The travel-deal search company Travelzoo has flagged a new deal from tour company Friendly Planet (tel. 800-555-5765) for Vietnam, stopping in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) and Hanoi. Friendly Planet says the six-day deal includes air from Los Angeles on China Airlines, as well as hotels and city tours. Listed price is $999 per person, before additional taxes of $95 per. I don't know the company, but Travelzoo pegs the worth of this trip at about $2,000 per person. The tour is good for travel from Sept. 15 and must be booked by July 28.
If you tap any of these deals, and have feedback about them, I'd be interested in hearing it: david@wishyouwereheretravel.net.
Here are some interesting new travel sales. Bear in mind that I am a journalist, not a travel agent. I don't sell or book anything and I don't own stocks in travel companies. This travel news is strictly FYI, in case you find it useful:
* Starwood Hotels and Resorts - which operates well-known brands such as Sheraton, Westin, W and St. Regis - is discounting as much as 50 percent off regular room rates at 600 of its properties in the Americas and Asia. You must book by July 20 - Monday - for travel from July 16 through Oct. 12.
* Southwest Airlines is launching another airfare sale, on the heels of a previous sale just over a week ago. Cheap rates are available for travel from Aug. 18 to Nov. 18 and are good for flying on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Saturdays. There are some blackout dates. Purchases must be made by July 30.
* Fellow discounter AirTran has a good fare sale, too. For example: Atlanta to Los Angeles for as little as $119 one-way before taxes and fees, and Baltimore-Washington International Airport to Orlando for as little as $69, also one-way and before taxes and fees. Tickets must be purchased by July 28 and there some blackout dates. Cheapest fares are on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Saturdays.
* The Kimpton Group's chain of stylish boutique hotels, which operates in nearly two-dozen U.S. and Canadian cities, is offering online rates at www.kimptonhotels.com on three tiers: $129 per night (at Hotel Palomar, Arlington, Va., to cite one example); $159 (Hotel George, Washington, D.C., among others); and $179 (Hotel Monaco Seattle, among others).
* The travel-deal search company Travelzoo has flagged a new deal from tour company Friendly Planet (tel. 800-555-5765) for Vietnam, stopping in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) and Hanoi. Friendly Planet says the six-day deal includes air from Los Angeles on China Airlines, as well as hotels and city tours. Listed price is $999 per person, before additional taxes of $95 per. I don't know the company, but Travelzoo pegs the worth of this trip at about $2,000 per person. The tour is good for travel from Sept. 15 and must be booked by July 28.
If you tap any of these deals, and have feedback about them, I'd be interested in hearing it: david@wishyouwereheretravel.net.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Safety First
What 24/7 attention is for Sarah Palin, what money is to Bernie Madoff, what hemoglobin is for blood transfusions, safety is for airlines: The essential ingredient.
On the heels of Monday's scary, football-sized hole in the body of a 15-year-old Boeing 737 Southwest Airlines plane, frequent fliers can be excused for asking: What's going on in the sky?
Southwest inspected all of its nearly 200 of its Boeing 737-300s overnight, clearing them for take-off. But this incident can't be reassuring after Southwest and American Airlines were instructed in April 2008 to re-inspect hundreds of their aircraft for potential safety violations and Southwest was fined $7.5 million by the Federal Aviation Administration. In fairness, many industry observers thought that last year's crackdown was at least in part motivated by the FAA's desire to get Congress off its back when the bill to reauthorize and fund the FAA was pending - in other words, the agency wanted to look tough - but it's still a tad unsettling.
Just a few years ago, the world's commercial airlines went an entire year without a single fatality, a remarkable achievement. Compared to other modes of travel, flying is very safe.
Still, this has been a troubling year, with a FedEx cargo plane crashing at Tokyo Narita airport, killing two people; a commuter plane crashing and killing more people in Buffalo, N.Y.; and most mysterious of all, an Air France jetliner going down over the Atlantic Ocean on its way to Europe from Brazil. Authorities recently said they are scaling back the frustrating search for the underwater site of the Air France aircraft's data-rich black boxes, so we may never know what happened. That crash killed all 228 people on-board.
Then, too, a Yemeni airliner crashed last month over the Indian Ocean, killing 153.
On July 15, things got worse: A Russian-made Caspian Air passenger plane bound for Armenia crashed in Iran. The toll this time: 168 people gone, according to Iranian state media.
The causes of the crashes vary widely, including at various times, human error, faulty and antiquated eqipment and bad weather.
According to a report moved July 10 by Reuters, there have been 12 crashes this year involving fatalities, compared with 16 for all of last year. Still, this is on track to be an average year, according to the Wall Street Journal, which cited on June 30 statistics on crashes compiled by a London aviation consulting company called Ascend. Ascend uses as its leading metric the number of hull losses - "planes that end up totalled after an accident,'' according to the Journal.
This may be a useful technical measure, but it overlooks the sheer terror of falling from the sky, and ignores the measure that most people use to judge the severity of an accident: namely, the number of human beings who perish in an accident.
Plane crashes hold a special place in the topography of fear. Auto accidents kill many more people - tens of thousands every year in the United States alone. My wife and I just last year fortunately walked away from an auto accident that nearly totalled our car, and I can attest that auto accidents can be very frightening.
And yet, despite the fact that car crashes result in far more injuries and fatalities, plane crashes command our attention even more. Statistics on hull-losses that are meant to be reassuring are cold comfort.
On the heels of Monday's scary, football-sized hole in the body of a 15-year-old Boeing 737 Southwest Airlines plane, frequent fliers can be excused for asking: What's going on in the sky?
Southwest inspected all of its nearly 200 of its Boeing 737-300s overnight, clearing them for take-off. But this incident can't be reassuring after Southwest and American Airlines were instructed in April 2008 to re-inspect hundreds of their aircraft for potential safety violations and Southwest was fined $7.5 million by the Federal Aviation Administration. In fairness, many industry observers thought that last year's crackdown was at least in part motivated by the FAA's desire to get Congress off its back when the bill to reauthorize and fund the FAA was pending - in other words, the agency wanted to look tough - but it's still a tad unsettling.
Just a few years ago, the world's commercial airlines went an entire year without a single fatality, a remarkable achievement. Compared to other modes of travel, flying is very safe.
Still, this has been a troubling year, with a FedEx cargo plane crashing at Tokyo Narita airport, killing two people; a commuter plane crashing and killing more people in Buffalo, N.Y.; and most mysterious of all, an Air France jetliner going down over the Atlantic Ocean on its way to Europe from Brazil. Authorities recently said they are scaling back the frustrating search for the underwater site of the Air France aircraft's data-rich black boxes, so we may never know what happened. That crash killed all 228 people on-board.
Then, too, a Yemeni airliner crashed last month over the Indian Ocean, killing 153.
On July 15, things got worse: A Russian-made Caspian Air passenger plane bound for Armenia crashed in Iran. The toll this time: 168 people gone, according to Iranian state media.
The causes of the crashes vary widely, including at various times, human error, faulty and antiquated eqipment and bad weather.
According to a report moved July 10 by Reuters, there have been 12 crashes this year involving fatalities, compared with 16 for all of last year. Still, this is on track to be an average year, according to the Wall Street Journal, which cited on June 30 statistics on crashes compiled by a London aviation consulting company called Ascend. Ascend uses as its leading metric the number of hull losses - "planes that end up totalled after an accident,'' according to the Journal.
This may be a useful technical measure, but it overlooks the sheer terror of falling from the sky, and ignores the measure that most people use to judge the severity of an accident: namely, the number of human beings who perish in an accident.
Plane crashes hold a special place in the topography of fear. Auto accidents kill many more people - tens of thousands every year in the United States alone. My wife and I just last year fortunately walked away from an auto accident that nearly totalled our car, and I can attest that auto accidents can be very frightening.
And yet, despite the fact that car crashes result in far more injuries and fatalities, plane crashes command our attention even more. Statistics on hull-losses that are meant to be reassuring are cold comfort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)