Often when I’m at an airport, I wonder who it is that is going into that expensive luggage shop or fashion store at an airport and buying something so expensive they can afford to stay in business.  I also wonder if that really is the best use of space in an airport.  I suppose if someone is willing to pay for the space, it must be on some level.

One of the most frustrating parts of being inside a terminal is the prices at newstands.  It’s the land of the $1.50 candy bar and the $10 magazine.   Want a bottle of water? No problem, please pay $3.00.   Food isn’t much better and while it is a tad more expensive, it’s often much worse than that you can access from the same restaurant outside the airport.

Well, things should be more expensive at an airport.  Space for shops and restaurants is much more expensive than most places and the logistics of stocking them is much more difficult at most airports.  I’m OK with a bit more expensive for the real estate.

But why don’t we have better solutions to hold prices down a bit?  Ever seen a vending kiosk like what they have in Japan?  The things you can get in a vending machine in Japan are stunning.  I wouldn’t be surprised to learn one day that you can buy a Smart Car in a Japanese vending machine.   Why aren’t airports looking at solutions like this?  Do we really care if a person rings up our magazine or candy bar or sewing kit or sinus medicine?  I don’t.  To the contrary, let me slide my credit card through a swipe and get what I want and be on my way. 

You can stock vending machines more densely than what most newstands stock merchandise and, hey, you don’t have to pay for nearly as many staff to keep them stocked.   You can also warehouse much of your stock off property and have a person or person(s) re-stocking the machines even several times a day.

Restaurants and food in general are a different thing.  The problem here is that large companies bid for a multi-year contract to provide food services under a variety of brands.  For instance, ARAMark is one such company.  They license the brand but staff and operate the restaurants on their own.  In many cases, the quality control that one sees exercised at that brand’s restaurants away from the airport is far superior to what one encounters at the airport.

Visit a Starbucks at the airport and you’ll see what I mean.  That isn’t a Starbuck’s employee and he/she isn’t trained to the same standard and isn’t even necessarily kept in that position day in and day out so they learn the business properly.  Often it’s someone with cursory training making bad coffee beverages that cost 30% more than what you find at a typical Starbucks.

This old and archaic system is, in my opinion, due for an overhaul.  These contracts net the companies huge profits (almost guaranteed even) and those companies, in turn, fork over large chunks of cash to the airport agencies as well.   Why aren’t we allowing a variety of companies to bid for individual space to operate their brands with the same level of quality found elsewhere?

I don’t think food and beverage prices would drop.  Not at all, really.  However, I do think choice and quality would go up considerably.  Why should we believe that Starbucks or McDonald’s or anyone else would be so afraid of airport operations?  These companies have already dealt with difficult logistics and proven themselves more than capable of earning a profit. 

And if they don’t, they’ll go out of business and someone else may try their hand at operating a different business.  Choice is up at many airports and the offerings often far outnumber what we used to see in the 80’s and 90’s but quality is down, at least in my experience, and regional offerings have been squeezed out of airports altogether.   Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to get good regional BBQ in Atlanta at the airport?  Or how about a great hot dog at JFK?   Or Chicago deep dish pizza in O’Hare? 

Airports seem to be falling farther and farther behind and I think that has mostly to do with food service contracts that often last as long as 10 years.  Let’s get some more competitive bidding in place and break up the consortiums while inviting some regional diversity at these airports.

Filed under: Airports by ajax
2 Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the Federal Aviation Administration downgraded Mexico’s aviation safety from Category 1 to Category 2, people took notice and, no doubt, so did Mexico’s airlines.  Does this reflect on Mexico’s airlines?  Yes, I think so. 

Mexico has joined the ranks of countries such as Haiti, Congo and Serbia & Montenegro.  In fact, the only nation listed as Category 2 that surprises me is Israel and I suspect that has to do more with execution and very specific circumstances than it does with technical quality.  Nonetheless, when you join those ranks, it speaks poorly of your country *and* your airlines.

Is a nation’s aviation infrastructure always indicative of the airlines?  No, of course not.  There are plenty of Category 1 nations who have had airlines that had unsafe operations over the years including the United States.  However, I can’t think of a particularly outstanding airline coming from a Category 2 nation except El Al.   You don’t really hear of the operational excellence of airlines from Honduras, Paraguay or the Phillipines, do you? 

This is bad for both Mexico and Mexico’s airlines.  And with Mexicana trying desperately to leap off a cliff and kill itself, it looks even worse. 

Suddenly, Mexican airlines can no longer codeshare with US airlines because of this.  That means participation in alliances is going to mean very little in terms of revenue. That is going to hurt.  And, let’s face it, Mexico doesn’t have a great reputation for fixing its problems quickly.  The Mexican Way is to bicker about it for as much as a decade before doing something.

It would be in the best interest of airlines in Mexico to start safety audits with IATA immediately and to put political pressure on the government to fix this asap.  Sadly, I think this is going to get much worse before it gets much better. 

I am a huge fan of Mexico.  I genuinely enjoy its people and much of its culture and I want them to succeed every day.  That said, success isn’t going to happen until its current government and, more importantly, its businesses and citizens come together to insist on excellence.  They have, quite literally, a major conflict going on in their drug war and a crumbling financial infrastructure and waning exports to countries like the US and Canada.  This development in aviation puts them at a further disadvantage with its partner trading countries and it needs to get fixed fast.

Mexico needs to ask for help from the US and other countries fast.  Or they can contact Swaziland or the Ukraine and ask for advice on how to dig one’s grave even deeper.

Filed under: Air Traffic Control, Airline News, Airlines Alliances, Airports, security by ajax
No Comments »

Over the past year and particularly over the past 6 months we have heard a great deal about NextGen Air Traffic Control Systems using GPS for guidance.  GPS will allow aircraft to fly more precise routes and permit distances between aircraft to be reduced which should allow more “capacity” into our system.

Increased precision should permit a “redesign” of approaches to airports that will allow aircraft to enter a “pattern” earlier and perform continuous descent approaches that will save fuel and even reduce the workload on pilots.

On flights over oceans, aircraft could use GPS to precisely locate  themselves and then automatically report back their position(s) to traffic control centers which could then “tighten up” routes across those oceans and allow more aircraft to follow an optimal route. 

There is no doubt that GPS is overdue in this game but it isn’t necessarily the “no downside” solution to our problems either. 

GPS signals are provided by satellites and things can happen to those satellites to either block or severely degrade the signals.  Sunspot activity can affect their signals,  for instance.  It’s also not unheard of to suddenly find satellites decommissioned because they were hit by space debris or such intense solar storms.   Suddenly loss of those signals could result in a very intense situation where we find tightly space aircraft without the ability to precisely locate themselves.  The chances for this are, admittedly, statistically very low.  It’s worth an acceptable risk provided aircraft retain guidance redundancy with other systems not dependent on satellites.

Indeed, not all GPS signals are actually emitted from satellites.  There are ground based augmentation systems that permit a finer degree of precision in certain areas.  In fact, one such use is in Instrument Landing Systems being designed for the future.

But there is a security problem with GPS.  First, it is possible to “spoof” GPS signals.  In fact, it’s relatively easy to “spoof” these signals and a reason why the military doesn’t rely completely on GPS signals for guiding munitions and why they’re developing other systems that are not satellite based but which do provide accurate relative navigation.  

Signals by which aircraft would navigate are encrypted but that encryption is somewhat out of date for this era.  While a terrorist wouldn’t necessarily be able to spoof the signal, a foreign country could conceivably do so.  And you can do such “spoofing” by sending a signal from the ground, air or space with equipment that isn’t very costly and not very hard to engineer. 

While aircraft aren’t necessarily going to experience their guidance being impacted by pranksters or terrorists, the risk for it being a target of a foreign nation who decides its at war with the United States or some other country does exist.   Any country capable of doing the math and engineering technology from the 1980’s can potentially engage in this.   That might include countries such as North Korea or Iran.

In addition and quite unfortunately, China has shown its willingness to strike at satellites with missiles.  Again, any country capable of building an intercontinental ballastic missile is now capable of striking at GPS satellites in space.  And don’t think that those won’t be targets in a conflict, they will be.

While we have some safeguards and the United States Air Force works very hard at securing and protecting the existing satellite system, we really need a global commercial navigation system that is secured by a larger, more redundant grid of satellites.  A system that is owned and maintained by responsible nations of the world and one that is designed for air and sea navigation.  A system that is encrypted with modern encryption and upgradeable for the future.   And a system that can be “turned off” selectively for certain regions or countries in times of conflict. 

I’m thrilled we seem to be moving forward with a new generation of navigation systems.  It’s long overdue but I do wish that we would consider the security risks inherent with these systems just a bit more.

Filed under: Air Traffic Control, Airports, security by ajax
1 Comment »

I found a column in the Philadelphia Inquirer today that discusses whether the airline should or should not be considered for heavier regulation.  You can read it in its entirety HERE. 

We regulate the airline industry on safety matters (but not without a lot of groaning from the industry at times) and we definitely have found that it is appropriate to regulate interstate commerce on some level.  However, a return to the days of pre-1978 deregulation would, in my opinion, be a mistake. 

People often long for those days in the perception that things were better all the way around and that really isn’t true.  Today, we really do have more choice in most cases when it comes to travel on a particular route.  In the so-called golden years, the CAB decided who got to fly what routes and at what price.  We often forget that those prices were regulated as well and an airlines profit was determined on their costs.  However, so was the price.  Airlines often made a justification for raising prices on routes based on their costs and an appropriate profit level.  Not unlike how many electrical utilities are still regulated today.

Airlines are, if anything, far more safe today than 30 years ago as well.  That’s despite the drum beating going on about airlines sacrificing safety for profit and it is a product of our regulation in that area and its influence on both manufacturers as well as airlines themselves.  I do also believe that safety remains a top concern with airlines today despite the competitive environment because of how much impact on profit there can be as a result of a crash or safety incident. 

But airlines do use a variety of public assets and as a result of that, they should, in my opinion, be subject to some regulation.  For instance, airports are a public asset and, yet, we allow airlines to dominate airports by leasing/purchasing terminal space and holding on to underutilized assets.  In a sense, we allow airlines to bully both airports and other airlines who would make use of those public assets.  I wouldn’t propose that we tightly regulate terminal space but I would propose that these assets should periodically be subject to some sort of competitive bid for them.  That shriek you just heard is the airlines.

The airways are a public asset as well.  How much traffic a particular part of our airspace can withstand is determined by our infrastructure and our airports both of which are public assets as well.  There is, in my opinion, a duty on the part of the government(s) to see that these assets are used as efficiently as possible.  Where airports are slot controlled, those slots should also be subject to a periodic competitive bid for use.  When airlines find it “profitable” in a competitive sense to hold on to those slots by using them for high frequency and/or small regional jet routes, they are potentially being underutilized. 

That means that when there are 20+ frequencies between two cities among 2 or more airlines, there is some indication that those assets (i.e. slots) are being underutilized and with just a few less frequencies, slots could be opened up to provide new or improved service to other destinations and also improve competition on routes being “dominated” by a couple of airlines who are controlling prices via frequency.  If you think this doesn’t happen, just look into how major airlines respond to new competition by “small” competitors on these and non-slot routes.  They add capacity via larger aircraft and or additional flights to “buy” the business.

But does the consumer really benefit from that?  In short term spurts, yes they may benefit.  In the long term, no, they don’t.  If you control the route, you have some influence on the price and losing control of that route could quite possibly mean it turns unprofitable very quickly. 

In pre-deregulation days, it was thought that the nation’s infrastructure couldn’t withstand the loss of a trunk airline via bankruptcy and/or strikes.   So the government regulated price on their behalf and assured a stable system.  During that time, that made sense since those trunk airlines held much more regional segments of the United States.  For instance, in those days Delta might have been perceived as “essential” to the south east and its removal from the system might have meant a major economic loss to the area. 

We think there are fewer airlines and to some extent that is true.  However, our system is also vastly more flexibile today than it was 30 years ago.  A loss of a major legacy airline doesn’t mean the nation’s airline infrastructure becomes paralyzed.  We have enough airlines who are already serving those routes and who already have the flexibility to either serve them with more frequency or more capacity or both.  A correction via the remaining airlines would take days in some cases and mere weeks in others.  Not months and years.   Deregulation has provided that flexibility.

One argument many legacy airlines make for being allowed more dominance at hubs is that they serve the public good with flights to small, outlying areas in regions that no one else would serve if they were gone.  In a few cases, they’re telling the truth.  In most cases, they serve those areas with very high prices and very low frequency and they do little to stimulate commerce in those areas.  This is because those airlines serve those areas inefficiently with the wrong aircraft and schedules so that they may “feed” their hub systems.  Hub systems have to grow to remain profitable.  They are the animal that simply grows hungrier every year.

Should a place like Abilene, Texas have 3 or 4 direct flights to hubs like Dallas or Houston?  I’d argue that it isn’t really justified.  However, you could justify it as a whistle stop on a multi-city route being served by a turboprop as opposed to a regional jet.   Does service suffer as a result of that?  In most cases, no.  Airlines would earn more profit, service the same number of passengers or possibly more due to lower prices and the cities themselves wouldn’t suffer any economic impact.  

Abilene, Texas is served by no less than 7 flights a day to DFW all on ERJ-140 aircraft.  2 pair of those flights have departure times that separate them by less than an hour.   Does an isolated city in West Texas with a population of 120, 000 really justify that kind of frequency?  Probably not.  There are larger city pairs that don’t have that kind of frequency.  Could the 5:50am and 6:35am departures be combined into a single 6:00am flight?  Absolutely.   Would those passengers be impacted if the flight originated in Midland-Odessa at 5:50am and made a simple whistle stop in Abilene on its way to DFW?  No, not at all.  Would the Midland-Odessa passengers be impacted by a flight that was, at best, 20 minutes longer?  No, they wouldn’t.

We hurt the public by not regulating the industry for more competition and by the public, I mean the greater good for all, not just the 2 bankers in Abilene who get in a snit if they don’t have 4 morning flight choices.  Promoting competition by regulating access to our public assets isn’t a bad thing and there are decades of evidence to show that this is an area where the government can regulate very successfully and profitably. 

Do I think the airlines service levels should be regulated?  Let’s take a look at that tomorrow.

Filed under: Air Traffic Control, Airline Service, Airports by ajax
No Comments »

It’s the cheap and easy thing to do, right?  Instead of parking, you save money and since you cannot accompany someone into the gate areas, why bother hanging around?

Well, it might still be easy but now two airports in Europe are charging fees for dropping off a passenger.  Both Belfast and Edinburgh airports are instituting a fee to drop someone off.  Not park quickly and let them out.  The mere act of dropping someone off at a terminal will now cost £1 at both of these airports. 

You can read the BBC stories HERE and HERE. 

Both airports are justifying the fee as a “service” and offering that the fee helps them pay for improvements to attract more business. 

In other words:   We want you to pay us to invest in the infrastructure that your taxes are already supposed to pay for. 

Let me offer that this comes dangerously close to being as insulting as a fee based lavatory on an aircraft. 

The air travel industry is grossly overtaxed and overcharged with fees.  An airport is a public asset and benefits the public and is supported already by taxes paid by the public. 

To act as if it is a nuisance to have passengers actually drop off people is more than one step over the line.

Filed under: Airports by ajax
1 Comment »

After 4 months of furious construction, JFK airport in New York City hs re-opened its longest runway, 31L/13R, for business again. 

The asphalt surface was replaced with concrete projected to last 40 years.   Since its closing, JFK has operated under heavier than usual movement restrictions to keep congestion and delays down and with great success on most day.   This runway is important to the airport since most days the prevailing winds align with it and its parallel cousin on the other side of the airport.  In addition, its additional length (14,000+ feet long) provides an extra margin of safety for the heavy, widebody international flights that usually take-off from it.

Notably, the project was delivered on time and on budget and improves the airport infrastruture for the future.  A credit to airport management, the FAA, the airlines and, most notably, the air traffic controller’s working at the airport.

Filed under: Airports by ajax
No Comments »

Now that more than a week has passed, I want to revisit my first post about the Virgin Atlantic flight diversion to Bradley International Airport last week.  You can read my original post HERE.

First, I think both Congressional and administration officials have grossly overreacted to this event.  This was not a 6 or 7 hour event.  It was a 4 hour event.   And the primary cause of keeping people contained on the aircraft was weather and then no available customs and immigrations officers to process passengers.  You see, it might be called Bradley *International* Airport but it’s “international” aspect derives from relatively short flights to Canada.

Now we have Senators and Secretaries demanding that we impose a 3 Hour rule on international carriers and decrying the inhumanity of what those poor people experienced.   Indeed, the more these people pound desktops, the more they reveal their ignorance.

Folks, I’ve sat in an aircraft waiting 4 hours to take off a number of times.  It’s boring.  It’s tedious but it isn’t inhumane.  The same is true of a flight that likely took about 7 hours from London to the NYC area.  

The real issue here is what we allow when it comes to a diversion and the reason for that diversion.  I said it in my first post and I’ll say it again:  Virgin Atlantic’s chief mistake was in putting themselves into a position to have to use Bradley or choosing Bradley for its relatively low cost to land, refuel and take-off again.  There were plenty of better alternatives and VA didn’t choose one. 

If we presume a 200 nautical mile diversion capability, let’s look at what was in range from Newark (EWR).  Click THIS MAP to see what was available.

This flight could have made Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, any of the NYC airports, Washington Dulles and maybe even Pittsburg.  Short of a real fuel emergency, this flight should have made for one of those major airports that has full facilities for a widebody jet carry international passengers. 

The fact that we don’t distinguish what is and isn’t a legal diversion in a non-emergency event is a bigger part of the problem for international flights.  We make any airport that has the ability to land the aircraft a legal airport for diversion and I’m not so sure we should.  Perhaps a better rule would be to insist on the ability to divert (for non-emergency reasons and weather ain’t an emergency in most cases) to a *capable* airport designated as such for an international flight. 

Regardless, one of the reasons given for the delays was lack of customs officials.  The airport would not dis-embark the passengers until they had staff.  I may be wrong but I believe they could have allowed them off the aircraft *if* they were kept in a sterile area until customs officials arrived.  Whether or not they had a sterile area large enough is another question but also reinforces the need for diverting to airports that are properly equipped for these events. 

Who is at fault?  Virgin!  Bradley!  The FAA!  The passengers! No one!

The better question is how do we fix this so that passengers can reasonable expect reasonable treatment in a reasonable time period in non-emergency diversions.  And reasonable really is probably some amount of time between 3 and 4 hours.  

Look, no reasonable passenger is going to be outraged by many hours of delay when the aircraft engine shuts down and the flight has to divert to the first and best available airport during a real emergency.   Sure, there is always the chance of a crank or arrogant passenger being outraged no matter what but in those events, they just don’t count and virtually all passengers understand the nature of a real emergency.

The real failures are in events like these where the pilots gambled (on circling and hoping they could land too long), the airline and pilots choosing a poor airport, the FAA not distinguishing what is and isn’t an appropriate diversion airport in an event like this (and the FAA has no right to be “outraged” at VA since they themselves make an airport like Bradley legal for this kind of diversion) and where airlines continue to be ill prepared to respond to passenger needs during such events.  Might I point out that I would find it extremely hard to believe that someone couldn’t deliver a little food or attach ground air conditioning (if that airport has it) or a ground power unit (which I’m sure they have) to help provide power for air conditioning?

Filed under: Air Traffic Control, Airline News, Airline Service, Airports, security by ajax
No Comments »

Continental Airlines has announced the second 787 route that it will initiate with the arrival of the Boeing 787.  The first was from Houston to Auckland, NZ.  This time, it’s Houston to Lagos, Nigeria and I’m seeing a trend here. 

Continental is clearly intending to make Houston much more of a international gateway city and that makes some sense to me.  Houston Intercontinental Airport isn’t overcrowded, has excellent feed to it domestically and the new 787 makes a lot of long, thin routes not only possible but profitable. 

It doesn’t hurt that there is a fair bit of oil business in Nigeria too. 

This flight will be subject to a fair bit of regulatory approval and planning on the part of ContiUnited but it is both sensible and doable.  It’s clear that the 787 will be used to expand opportunities rather than simply replace existing aircraft, at least by ContiUnited anyways. 

It’s also further proof that very large aircraft flying hub to hub (hello A380 and B747) as a model for international travel is going to be reduced as these new, next generation widebody aircraft come online.

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

It’s being reported that EasyJet will be testing a new volcanic ash detector that will be mounted in the tail wings of its aircraft.  Reported similar to weather radar, this uses infrared cameras to detect ash.  It’s being called the “silver bullet” to Europe’s volcanic ash problem and reportedly is supported by the CAA.

And I think this is a big mistake.  I would be very surprised that this could be invented and then installed for test on aircraft in this short of a period and be effective enough to be a “silver bullet” for anything.  It’s this kind of reaction to the kind of problem ash has caused in Europe that leads to false confidence.

And that false confidence can lead to crashes and fatalities.  There has been too much effort on the part of Europe’s airlines to diminish the risk and denigrate the aviation authorities.  We are, after all, talking about something that has been known to shut down multiple engines on large aircraft although, so far, we haven’t lost a modern airframe to it. 

Nonetheless, something that takes out 4 modern jet engines almost simultaneously is nothing to be trifled with.  I agree that the  wholesale shutdowns in Europe were likely overdone.  However, acting as if ash can be detected (when it never really has been before and world authorities were really unable to do so as recently as 2 months ago) and avoided with a simple system conceived of and installed on test aircraft in just 2 months is silly. 

I really do fear consequences from this hubris.

Filed under: Air Traffic Control, Airline News, Airports by ajax
2 Comments »

I was asked today why so often one has to connect flights between two gates so far apart at most airports.  To me, the answer seemed simple until I realized that, to the average passenger, it probably seems intentionally capricious. 

It isn’t.  Our airports are old and even if they’ve been renovated over time, most were renovated and/or re-planned prior to September 11, 2001.  Almost all of our major airports were designed and built in an era when there was little perceived risk of danger, attacks or other mayhem.  They were also designed predominantly in an era when hub flying was, quite literally, non-existent.   Even the most recent modern airport built, DIA or Denver, was designed at the cusp of hub to hub flying and built as hub to hub flying developed.  It was designed a little bit to accomodate this but not a lot.

 Being built or renovated prior to September 11th 2001 means that little consideration was given to the need for accomodating large groups of people for security.  Overnight we went from short and timely waits through security to egregiously long waits in security.  Yes, over time, we have improved those waits considerably but the bottlenecks still exist and they will continue to exist until we rebuild to accomodate their flow. 

 That means that when you are connecting at many major airports, you have to exit one terminal and re-enter through security to get into another terminal.   It exacerbates the time to connect between gates and seems almost malicious in its design.   Some airports have lessened the impact of this by building connectors between terminals, some haven’t.  Some have the funds for re-designing flow between terminals, most don’t. 

 The real problem is the hub to hub flying.  For the majority of flyers, we know that they will now connect through at least one airport to get to their destination.  It will be rare that the flight they’re on will merely stop and continue on to their destination.  At least on legacy airlines.  Most airports were planned, designed and built in an era where such flying just didn’t exist.  Almost every one of our major airports in this country was built in the pre-deregulation era and have since experienced so much growth and encroachment, they lack the room to reconfigure in many cases (Think JFK or Chicago O’Hare airports.) 

It was rare in the pre-deregulation era to ever “connect” through a city.  Connections were “line” connections or you were interlining between two airlines.  There were far fewer flights (frequency) between destinations as well.  It didn’t seem reasonable to accomodate connections when they were only possible in many cities once or twice a day. 

Then came hub flying pioneered by TWA and built upon by Braniff, American Airlines, Eastern and Delta.  These airlines built fortress strength in cities such as St. Louis, Kansas City, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami and Chicago.  Consider this:  the most modern airport in that group is Dallas and it dates back to the early 1970’s.  It predates hub flying altogether. 

 DFW airport is a prime example of an airport built perfectly . . . for point to point flying.  Conceived as an airport capable of hosting as many as 6 massive terminals with as many as 20+ gates each, this airport was built for an airline to dominate a terminal each.  That lasted for just a few years, too.  Braniff had 2W, American had 2E, Delta had 4E and other airlines “shared” 3E.   If any of those airlines “shared” their terminals, it was with one or two minor international partners.  For instance, Braniff accomodated Mexicana in those days but we are literally talking about 1 flight a day.

A people moving system was built (and it never did its job properly and only very recently in the last few years got replaced) for the occasional “connecting” people but it wasn’t presumed to be something that was built to accomodate high numbers of passengers connecting between gates, airlines or terminals. 

 Today, DFW is hub to one airline who is spread across 4 terminals.  American Airlines holds the gates in three entire terminals and in part of the newest international terminal.  They do attempt to rationalize some of their services by having the “commuter” flights from DFW to cities such as Chicago, LA and New York depart and arrive regularly in the same place.  However, it is impossible for them to design a system that allows connecting passengers some assurance of being able to only have to walk or transports themselves to a nearby gate.  The design of the airport doesn’t allow it and it really can’t even be reconfigured or redesigned to do it. 

The next best solution is an “airside” people moving system.  It’s called SkyLink and it connects people on the “secure” side of terminals.  It now takes just 9 minutes to go between the two farthest points (a trip that on the old Airtran system took as long as 30 minutes) and its trains run every 2 minutes.  It’s a sensible solution.  The problem is, most people remain completely unaware of the system.  In the last 2 or 3 times I’ve been there, I’ve been asked at least once where the old Airtrans train went (the old stations are gutted and most you cannot enter anymore.)  Airports could do a great deal more communicating how to get from point A to point B at their airports.

Detroit is a great example of that.  In 2007, at the NW terminal, I never could really figure out how their people movers worked.  Actually, let’s say it seemed like more work to figure it out than it was to just walk.   So I walked.  Communicating how to travel within an airport is the problem in many cases and airports are pretty stingy with providing human resources or maps or interactive guides on how to accomplish it. 

We do need better and newer airports in the future.  We need better terminal designs and we need better traffic flows between terminals.  Unfortunately, I honestly don’t think this will take place in most cities for another 40 or 50 years.  Maybe more.  I’m serious.   Most airports are encroached upon on all sides by urban development.  They don’t have room to build a new terminal system and that means building a new airport at a new location.   Consider that that hasn’t been successfully done since Denver was “transitioned” 15 years ago and there are no real plans for such a thing to happen in another city at the present.  Airports can take decades to plan, design and build. 

It will happen but it probably won’t happen until I’m literally a very elderly man.

Filed under: Airports by ajax
No Comments »

The 3 hour rule officially starts on April 29th, this Thursday.  The media is starting to bubble with lots of quotes from spokespeople at various Airlines and many of those quotes are about cancelled flights.  There appear to be about 3 levels of fury in these quotes.  Level 1 isn’t really fury more than it is resigned acceptance and is represented mostly by Southwest and American Airlines (which kind of surprises me). 

 

Level 2 is what I’ve started thinking of as the “Happy Threat”.   These airlines are announcing in cheery PR tones that they’ll “try hard” but it is likely that lots of flights might get cancelled.  Then there is Level 3 which really isn’t from the PR department so much as the CEO (Can you say Jeff Smisek) who are basically attempting to make it out to be the FAA evil plan to wreak havoc on the airline system.

 

Here is what I think you’ll see happen on Thursday and Friday.  The sounds of crickets chirping.  This rule is only going to affect a small portion of flights over the course of a year and is likely to only affect a small-ish portion of flights on a day of catastrophic weather.  It is notable that despite a pretty bad winter in the Northeast, the airlines dealt with it much better with proactive measures that, yes, included some cancellations but also included things like encouraging people to rebook and leave earlier and later or postponing their trips.  The airlines did a great job of handling the weather delays this winter and let’s give them a small round of applause. 

 

Should you be worried?  Nope.  Not right now.  There is no sense in worrying about something that, statistically, is less likely to happen to you than a traffic accident.  Worry when you’re approaching your travel date.  Look at the weather expected from about 3 days out.  If it looks a bit catastrophic in its potential, start looking into your options such as leaving a bit earlier (your airline may be happy to waive change fees to do so), leaving a bit later (why not book on a flight the day after the weather and be the first to have re-scheduled instead of the last?) and monitor the situation a couple of times a day until departure. 

 

Even if you have no options, don’t panic.  Just because the 3 hour rule is in effect doesn’t mean your flight is getting cancelled.  It DOES NOT MEAN THIS.   The overwhelming chances are that your flight will leave.  This isn’t a rule that governs when you must board and take off.  This rule governs the time it might be taking to transit from the gate to the runway and then takeoff.  3 hours is a *long* time to make that transit. 

 

In addition, just because you are out there and about to take off but approaching the 3 hour limit doesn’t mean your flight is getting cancelled.  If it is unsafe to return to the gate and disembark people, pilots can continue on.  If air traffic control determines that it is unsafe for your aircraft to leave the line or that it will impact other aircraft too much, they can give a waiver for the 3 hour rule too.  There are plenty of outs. 

 

Seriously, this isn’t anything to get worked up about as a traveler for 99.5% of the time.  It simply isn’t.  And even if you are in the that 0.5% period, you still have a very small chance of seeing your flight outright cancelled.  If you’re traveling on critical business and you really do need to get out, then watch the weather, check your options and, frankly, I’d suggest consider using the Cranky Concierge as a lifeline in the event you do get a cancellation.

 

Should you be worried with respect to the NYC area?  Well, JFK does have that runway under construction and just about everyone thought the plans for mitigating against delays were a bit optimistic.  Essentially, the two big players (American and jetBlue) agreed to retain a winter schedule until mid-summer.   A better plan would have been to cut everyone’s slots by some percentage and then tell the airlines to plan a schedule around that.   Adding a bit of safety margin into that by extending it to the end of July or first of August would be smarter still. 

 

Are there going to be some extra delays and/or cancellations here?  Yes, I think so.  However, I don’t think the primary “cause” of those is going to be the 3 Hour rule.  The primary cause will be an overscheduled airport missing a critical runway and airlines without a plan to realistically deal with that.  The secondary cause may be the 3 hour rule. 

 

Bottom line:  Avoid departing JFK if you can.  If you can’t, try scheduling for non-peak time departures (such as the morning instead of the afternoon or evening.  Monitor the weather, have a backup plan, set up an account with the Cranky Concierge.  Personally, I find it difficult to believe that the NYC traveler *must* go through JFK to go somewhere.  I suppose there are a few limited circumstances requiring it but I’d look strongly at traveling via La Guardia or Newark instead of JFK when making plans.  

 

This is *not* a time to be married to the idea of traveling on an airline because you like accruing their miles.   Seriously, are miles that are worth probably no more than $20 for a trip of 1000 miles so important that it takes precedence over everything else?  Is it not better to avoid incurring the expenses that a delay brings such as food, lodging, potentially lost baggage, etc?

Filed under: Air Traffic Control, Airline News, Airports by ajax
No Comments »

According to USA Today / AP in this story HERE, a resident of Brooklyn, NY recently photographed a TSA agent sleeping on the job at New York City’s La Guardia Airport and posted it online.   You can see the photo at this LINK.

 

A spokesperson for the TSA said the guard was put on desk duty while the TSA investigated and speculated that she might have been on “break”.    And judging from the photo, that chance exists . . . barely.

 

This is what I mean about the TSA having no appearance at all of being professional.  It doesn’t matter if that woman sleeping was innocent or not, it does not come off as professional conduct.  Furthermore, if she really is that sleepy, how good is she doing her job being on the alert for suspicious items and people?  Probably not good. 

 

It takes a long time to repair an image in the public’s eye.   With this latest story as well as the antics I wrote about HERE as well as the poorly organized reaction to events on Christmas and afterwards, this leads to no confidence on the part of passengers.  A lack of confidence makes the passengers rebellious and less willing to cooperate with security needs. 

 

You know who is professional?  The National Park Service.  The FBI is professional.

 

The TSA is no more impressive than a knock knock joke.

Filed under: Airports by ajax
No Comments »

No, seriously, they do.  This column by Daniel Rubin on Philly.Com HERE has all the details but I’ll summarize.

 

It would seem that some TSA guard decided to search a woman’s luggage and then pulled out a small, clear plastic white baggie filled with white powder and then asked “OK, where did you get it?”  He kept her going for a bit of time and then confessed it was a joke.  The woman, a young college student, was, in the meantime, picturing her entire life crumbling around here and wondering just how someone got to her luggage.  She was, quite literally, in tears as she walked away.

 

Yeah, the TSA investigated and then fired the guard.  So what. 

 

Seriously, so what.  Firing that employee isn’t going to fix an endemic problem.  It isn’t going to send the right message to the other poorly trained guards.  So, so what?  It doesn’t fix a thing. 

 

This kind of behaviour, this lack of professional conduct is seen by travelers every day of the year.  I have watched TSA guards verbally abuse passengers, shout at kids, act with retribution towards passengers who had the courage to question an behaviour and even attempt to steal from people.  Yeah, that last item is something I personally experienced several years ago in the airport in Atlanta. 

 

That’s the problem.  We don’t have a well trained, professional group of agents capable of protecting us.  We have an extremely irregular set of people who apparently are more interested in money, jokes or abuse than doing their job which is, quite literally, to prevent an air catastrophe. 

 

And people wonder why we don’t feel safe in the air.

Filed under: Airports by ajax
1 Comment »

It has been 2 weeks since the Underwear Bomber made his attempt to take down a Northwest Airlines A330 en-route from Amsterdam to Detroit.  In that time, we have seen all manner of posturing by the public, government officials and pundits as to this serious security lapse.   My last comments on this are HERE.

 

Since my last comments, I’ve been appalled by a number of people’s statements on this issue.  I’ve been appalled by former Vice President Dick Cheney making political hay out of this.  I’m deeply disappointed at the criticisms and obstruction on the part of Senators Jim DeMint and John McCain with respect to the TSA and its nominated leader, Erroll Southers.  I’m deeply disappointed by President Obama’s administration in describing this as a terrible failure in our security. 

 

The most sensible writing I’ve found on this topic is by Bruce Schneier (which can be read HERE)  and probably because, yes, it agrees with me.  That doesn’t necessarily come easy from me because while I’ve respected Mr. Schneier’s opinions and while I do feel he is dead on right about these security issues (and has been for a long time), I also think he oftens shouts about these issues too loudly. 

 

But he’s right.  This wasn’t a failure in security.  Certainly the terrorists didn’t win either.   Mr. Schneier is correct in pointing out that our security reduced this attempt to a near certain failure. 

 

For the past week, all I’ve heard and read about this issue is that we’re enacting measures to counter an attempt like this in the future.  Well, in some respects, yes, we should do that.  However, many people, including me, Mr. Schneier and others, have pointed out that terrorists, in particular Al Qaeda, *rarely* if ever make the same kind attempt twice.  So, looking for a Nigerian with PETN sewed into his underwear while carrying a syringe on his person is almost certainly going to fail us.

 

Yes, the public does expect something to be done.  And it should.  It is even entitled to see something being done.  Doing something doesn’t mean doing anything.  It means doing something that really does improve both the real and perceived level of security we might experience when traveling.  The biggest part of the problem in this whole debate is that despite excellent security already going on, the public does *not* feel that it either good, real or substantive. 

 

The public is right, too.  At the ground level, we observe too many Keystone Kop events taking place.  Just a few days ago, we shut down one of the largest airports in our country and inconvenienced thousands and thousands of people because a TSA security guard left their post.  Just walked away and allowed a man to enter the sterile gate area unchallenged.  Read about the most recent developments in that HERE and HERE.

 

The TSA says it takes responsibility.  Really?  Frankly, I don’t care.  The TSA and its guards should be one hell of a lot more responsible and professional than that at any time.

 

What is appalling is that TSA video cameras weren’t recording and it took 80+ minutes for the TSA to notify the NYNJ Port Authority (who runs the airports) of the breach and then they had to rely on Continental Airlines’ cameras to try to figure out what happened.   Spokeswoman Ann Davis of the TSA said:

 

Davis said Monday that although the TSA was unable to locate the man, any threat he may have presented was eliminated “by rescreening everyone and re-combing the airport to make sure he didn’t introduce anything to the environment or hand anything off to anyone.”

 

I have an answer.   Having to clear a terminal and re-screen thousands of people and delay untold numbers of flights does not lend credence to the idea that the TSA has a handle on these issues.  It just doesn’t.  Don’t take responsibility for it, do something about it.  Do something real and tangible.  The TSA should be deeply ashamed and shunned for such a lack of professionalism.  Right now, they look like a pack of huckleberries and that is not good.  It gives terrorists the idea that something *is* breachable.

 

Lack of professionalism, good judgement or proper perspective is missing from other quarters as well.  Take this opinion piece by Steve Danyluk on CNN which can be read HERE.  

 

Pilot Danyluk (A first officer for a major US airline) reckons that an emergency alert should have been sent out and a major effort should have been put into action upon this act taking place.  He’s outraged that he learned of the event on his iPhone after flying a 6 hour flight and landing. 

 

That is absurd.  First, there was no evidence whatsoever that this was a coordinated attack.  You should respond in Danyluk’s desired manner if there is such evidence but there was absolute zero evidence that this was a coordinated attack.  None.  Too those who say you can never be too safe, I respond, yes, you can.   To have responded in such a way would have been like presuming an entire neighborhood was under attack after one house experienced a burglary.

 

Second, I wonder what Pilot Danyluk would have done if he had been alerted.  Neither he nor his captain can leave the cockpit and wander among the aircraft searching for suspicious people.  His cockpit door is hardened in such a way that it would probably take more than a fire axe to breach it.  His cabin crew are not the best trained security staff to identify and secure a suspicious person (and I have plenty of that evidence coming up.)   The best thing he could have done was fly his airplane to its destination.  He did that. 

 

Third, an alert would have prepared him no more for an explosion.  Even if he had experienced an explosion, he certainly couldn’t do anything about it any earlier.  And if he had experienced an explosion, he would have been very busy getting that aircraft under control and pointed to a safe landing location.  

 

The truth is, it takes a pretty big bomb to take out a commercial airliner.   Oh, it could have severely damaged the aircraft and possibly hurt or killed someone but the likelihood of someone having enough explosive and a good enough detonator to wipe an aircraft from the sky with our current security in place is extremely statistically insignificant. 

 

Take the example of the DHL Airbus A300 being hit in Baghdad in 2003 by a surface to air missile.  You can read an account HERE.   A large, twin engined, wide body aircraft that had just taken off from Baghdad executing a special rapid climb procedure and fully loaded with fuel was hit by a surface to air missile that was *designed* to take out aircraft and  they still made it to the ground.  Yes, the recovery was due to the professionalism of the pilots and some prior knowledge of how to use differential engine thrust to “steer” the airplane (as a result of the THIS incident) but this aircraft was hit by a flying bomb traveling more than twice the speed of sound with a 6lbs  warhead with a high explosive impact fuse designed to fragment upon impact and survived relatively in tact.  You can’t carry that kind of thing in your underwear. 

 

I understand why Pilot Danyluk is “furious”.  He’s a type A pilot and type A pilots think they can always do something about something.   It’s a nice thought but there really wasn’t anything for him to do that he wasn’t already doing  provided he was following standard security procedures while in flight.   He can stomp his feet and write opinions on CNN all he wants but it does NOT mean that security failed him or anyone else.

 

It isn’t just pilots.  Well, it is pilots (still) but it is also flight crew, ATC and even NORAD. 

 

It would appear that a man became “unruly” on a Hawaiian Airlines flight from Portland, Oregon to Hawaii on Wednesday.   The captain decided to turn back to Portland (probably because it was just as easy to go there as anywhere else) and suddenly the flight is being “escorted” by F-15 fighters scrambled up by NORAD. 

 

You can not make this stuff up.  Read about this incident HERE. 

 

Can’t be too safe, right?  Wrong.   What is notable about this news story is that this aircraft returned to Portland, dropped the passenger off into the waiting hands of the FBI who, after a short while later, determined that no laws had been broken and released him.    This is very suspicious and sounds much more like a flightcrew having a hissy fit over a grumpy passenger rather than someone who was acting in a manner that justified a 90 minute diversion and meeting the aircraft with FBI. 

 

Certainly it would appear that sending F-15 fighters (and spending thousands of dollars) to escort this diversion was a bit foolish and wasteful. 

 

The best security in any situation including on an aircraft is using good judgement.  Good judgement is not “better safe than sorry” but, rather, assessing a situation for what it is rather than what it isn’t.  

 

The pubic will begin to perceive that we have good security not when things like these events don’t happen but when how we handle them becomes professional, efficient and proactive.  We have a decent defensive security process but what we don’t have is a uniform, professional example of it in the most public of representatives, the TSA. 

 

Leaving all good sense and judgement in the closet and overreacting to events like this serve absolutely no good purpose and even weaken security in the long run. 

 

I welcome comments on this post.

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

Now that a few days have passed since a Nigerian attempted to set off an explosive device ( I won’t call it a bomb because it wasn’t) on Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit, I’ll make a few final comments on the reactions to this event. 

 

The response by the TSA (and other security organizations in other countries), once again, seems mostly aimed as a placebo rather than an in-depth examination on how airline security should be handled.  

 

For instance, this time, airlines are supposed to keep people ignorant of where they are.  For long haul, international flights, I can only imagine how the airlines are dealing with their moving map displays.   I’d bet that at least in most cases, they’re simply turning off the in-flight entertainment systems.    But keeping people ignorant of where they doesn’t stop a damn thing.  You see, there are these things called windows on airliners.  If someone wants to attempt to blow up an airplane near its destination or just near a population center, it remains quite easy to to figure out a good time.  Furthermore, do we really believe that ignorance of location will be any kind of deterrent for a terrorist act?

 

Second, everyone now must remain seated in the last hour of a flight.  Mmm, OK, so, what prevents a terrorist from organizing their device a half hour before that restricted period?  And despite that rules against nominally having something that would conceal such an assembly, why are we to believe that having such cover is absolutely necessary.   This does absolutely nothing to improve security or provide a deterrent to a determined terrorist wanting to explode a device on aircraft. 

 

Third, you’re no longer allowed to have something covering your lap or in your lap.  No blankets, pillows, laptops, etc.   The idea being that no one can conceal the assembly of a device.  Well, what about large coats, sweaters, etc. that a terrorist might wear?  Again, this rule is absurd and does nothing to increase security or provide a deterrent to a terrorist determined to do something on an aircraft.

 

People are also undergoing more rigorous searches and at multiple points.  On the surface, this may provide a small increased measure of security.  But the main problem here is the woeful understaffing of security points particularly in the United States.  At some point, this heightened security will have to be reduced because of a lack of staff to sustain it. 

 

I’m not a security expert and I didn’t sleep at a Holiday Inn yesterday.  However, it would seem to me that we are not addressing the correct positions for better, more extensive security measures.    Surely we could do a much better job of coordinating secondary security against people who are on a list of people of interest?   We have had 8 years to find a system of vetting people scheduled to fly who are on such lists.  We also possess the technology to create a near real-time system for such checks.

 

Second, it would appear that one weakness that has been exacerbated by airlines’ new policies of charging for checked luggage is that a much larger percentage of people are trying to carry-on items capable of carrying liquids and gels (and other substances) that could be assembled into an explosive device.  The fewer of these items that have to be scrutinized during the primary security check, the more time and attention can be paid to those items.  Sadly, I feel the airlines will fight this approach tooth and nail given the revenue streams they are earning from the checked baggage fees.

 

We need to look long and hard at the staff employed to perform security checks.  As a traveler who has flown since 2 years old (more than 40 years), I cannot discern that the quality of staff doing these security checks (at least in the United States) has really improved at all.  Even after the events of September 11th, 2001.   I’d far rather pay a $5 or $10 fee for improved security and see a dramatic improvement in the quality of security both in staff as well as servicing the number of people having to go through security.  It’s a fee I could pay in good conscience and sense real value from.

 

I also wonder if we couldn’t do a much better job of closing gaps in security at airports when it comes to airline and other service staff at those locations.  All too often, I myself see these gaps as I walk through an airport.   Background checks at hiring and occasionally afterwards are important, yes.  However, I’ve observed no great increase in security at the non-public points of entry into airport infrastructure. 

 

Finally, it is time we realized that there is some inherent risk involved in traveling by aircraft no matter what.  Airplanes are (and have been) popular targets for terrorist attacks because, by definition, success results in horrific results.   However, as inherent that risk is, let’s also realize that the probabilities for being on an airliner attacked are so small that they are nearly insignificant. 

 

Terrorists are not lined up by the thousands just looking for an opportunity.  In fact, terrorists willing to (almost) certainly kill themselves in an attack are very few in number and rather hard to coordinate.  Yes, they exist and they will continue to exist and should be considered the risk that they are.   However, the notion that armies of terrorists are ready to board aircraft and create multi-airliner havoc is rather silly.   Fly in peace because you are probably *more* likely to experience a non-terrorist event on an airliner than anything else. 

 

It is time that governments get their act together on real security  and its time for airlines to cooperate with each other and governments rather than act against those measures that may impede their ability to earn yet another dollar.   It is against our interests to have private contractors provide security at $10 / hr.  What we want (and need) is trained law enforcement officers performing this role.  What we want ( and need) is real security measures designed to address the issue before a terrorist passes that security line and which provides a real deterrent in the form of detection.

 

Update 01:  It would appear I’m not the only one who finds these latest measures silly.  Read the CrankyFlier or The Middle Seat Terminal.

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

I  have a funny feeling that safety and getting those Delta/Northwest ops combined is about to become a big focus at the airline. 

 

Incident 1: NTSB INVESTIGATING LANDING OF COMMERCIAL JETLINER ON TAXIWAY IN ATLANTA
——————————————————————————–

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the landing of a Delta B-767 on an active taxiway at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport (ATL).

According to preliminary information received from several sources, on Monday, October 19, 2009, at 6:05 a.m. EDT, a Boeing B767-332ER (N185DN) operating as Delta Air Lines flight 60 from Rio de Janeiro to Atlanta landed on taxiway M at ATL after being cleared to land on runway 27R. No injuries to any of the 182 passengers or 11 crewmembers were reported.

A check airman was on the flight deck along with the captain and first officer. During cruise flight, the check airman became ill and was relocated to the cabin for the remainder of the flight. A medical emergency was declared and the company was notified by the crew. A determination was made to land at the scheduled destination of ATL.

The flight was cleared to land on runway 27R but instead landed on taxiway M, which is situated immediately to the north and parallel to runway 27R. The runway lights for 27R were illuminated; the localizer and approach lights for 27R were not turned on. Taxiway M was active but was clear of aircraft and ground vehicles at the time the aircraft landed. The wind was calm with 10 miles visibility. Night/dark conditions prevailed; twilight conditions began at about 7:20 a.m. EDT and the official sunrise was at 7:46 a.m. EDT.

A team of four from the NTSB, led by David Helson, is investigating the incident.

The issue of runway safety has been on the NTSB’s Most Wanted List of Safety Improvements since its inception in 1990. Information on the NTSB’s work on runway safety is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/mostwanted/runways.htm
Incident 2: NTSB INVESTIGATING FLIGHT THAT OVERFLEW INTENDED MINNEAPOLIS AIRPORT
——————————————————————————–

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating an incident where an Airbus A320 overflew the Minneapolis-St Paul International/Wold-Chamberlain Airport (MSP).

On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, at 5:56 pm mountain daylight time, an Airbus A320, N03274, operating as Northwest Airlines (NWA) flight 188, became a NORDO (no radio communications) flight at 37,000 feet. The flight was operating as a Part 121 flight from San Diego International Airport, San Diego, California (SAN) to MSP with 147 passengers and unknown number of crew.

At 7:58 pm central daylight time (CDT), the aircraft flew over the destination airport and continued northeast for approximately 150 miles. The MSP center controller reestablished communications with the crew at 8:14 pm and reportedly stated that the crew had become distracted and had overflown MSP, and requested to return to MSP.

According to the Federal Administration (FAA) the crew was interviewed by the FBI and airport police. The crew stated they were in a heated discussion over airline policy and they lost situational awareness. The Safety Board is scheduling an interview with the crew.

The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) have been secured and are being sent to the NTSB laboratory in Washington, DC.

David Lawrence, the Investigator-in-Charge, is leading the team of 3 in investigating the incident.

Parties to the investigation are the FAA and Northwest Airlines.

 

It would appear that pilots at the combined companies are allowing themselves to be a bit distracted these days.  I particularly hope that the CVR transcripts for that second incident become available one day.  Something tells me that policy talk wasn’t the problem.

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

There is a push to get more and more people to bring carry-on baggage only on most airlines here in the US.  The trend actually started in Europe with airlines such as Ryanair leading the charge but what works there doesn’t necessarily work here.  And the best reasons for it over there are not necessarily the best reasons over here.

 

The duration of trips and even the habits of dressing in Europe are very different from the US / North American markets and lend themselves much more readily to using a carry-on only strategy.   For the LCC carriers of Europe, infrastructure is very different as well.  The secondary airports they often serve have far inferior baggage handling capability than our secondary airports do.  In fact, our secondary airports are often just as busy (proportionately) as they international/hub airports in the same area.  Our secondary airports have to have handling facilities that are commensurate with the traffic. 

 

Boarding and disembarkation is also very different between the two countries.  In Europe, LCC carriers frequently use both entrances to the aircraft (front and back) to disembark passengers while at the same time boarding new ones.  Or they use both entryways to the aircraft at the same time for each function.  Either way, it helps with their turnaround and it’s a model Europeans are accustomed to cooperating with.

 

Not so here.  We board people via one jetway and disembark via one jetway.  Our airport infrastructure was designed and implemented decades ago and is poorly designed to handle thousands of people carrying their life’s possessions.  Our check-in desks are “owned” by airlines and not shared assets.  Our baggage handling is done (primarily) by airline employees instead of shared services provided by ground handling companies.   Our security apparatus wasn’t provided for in the design of airport terminals and, as a result, find us dealing with huge lines that are often bogged down by travelers carrying all their luggage.  Our aircraft fleets are equipped with overhead bins that were really placed there as purse/coat/hat/briefcase storage rather than for heavy carry-on luggage. 

 

And then there is the passenger.   The frequent US traveler is often found carrying more “stuff” such as 2 suits where 1 would do.   This person is often traveling for a longer duration too, requiring more “stuff” as well.  The inexperienced travelers are trying hard to avoid those bag fees but don’t know how to quite do it properly because they learned how to travel in a different time.   How many times have we been behind someone in security who had their cosmetics/shampoo/toothpaste wrongly packaged and packed and holding up the line?  Very few airports have room enough to establish multiple lanes for security and that means we all bottleneck at the least disruption.

 

My own pet peeve is the established frequent flier.  They’ve learned a lot in their time on the road but also engage in practices that inhibit anyone but them.   I’m speaking of the guy in the dark grey suit on my last Airtran flight who boarded, loaded his carry-on into a bin at the front and then walked to the back half of the aircraft to his seat.  Jerk.  He took up space that  others sitting in that area could have used and forced *those* people to put their bags farther back than desired.   This meant that when the plane landed, 4 people attempted to get down the aisle against the flow to gather their own luggage holding the vast majority of people up.  In addition, I had to watch no less than 4 Airtran staff find locations for those bags before we could close the aircraft and depart resulting in a nearly 20 minute delay.

 

My own anecdotal observation is that aircraft aren’t leaving quicker.  The airlines aren’t using fewer people and the flight crew is now taxed with another duty:  policing baggage.   There may be some savings in fuel as a function of less baggage but that could be achieved with stricter checked baggage limits.  Want to bring the weight down?  Set a 30lbs limit per bag instead of 50 lbs.  That will improve things quickly.   Still want a fee for checked baggage and those incremental revenues?  Set that limit at 30lbs for the 1st bag checked and make it free (Set a size limit too!).  Charge $20 for the next bag up to 50lbs.  You’ll still get your incremental revenue but your flows on and off the airplane and inside your own terminal will improve greatly.  Your aircraft turnaround will improve slightly and you should still see some savings on fuel costs as a function of reduced weight. 

 

If you are one of the people that are convinced that airlines lose baggage all the time and for every flight, get over it.  It is an apocryphal story that few have ever experienced.  I’ve been flying for over 20 years and had my luggage “lost” once and twice more it was delayed 2 hours (came in on the next flight.)  I’m not luckier than anyone else.  Does it happen?  Sure.  In most cases, people are reunited with their luggage hours after their arrival in their destination city.  In a few more extreme cases, they see it the next day.  The number of people left after that are so small as a function of the number of flights each day that they aren’t even statistically significant.

 

You can’t add fees without looking to also increase or improve service or you will get extreme backlash in the form of complaints that result mostly from higher expectations.  You can add fees if you change those expectations with reasonable limits and improve the overall perceived service value. 

 

Just because everyone hates most every airline presently doesn’t mean that will always be the case.  Some airlines are already discovering that improving the perceived value is as important as any incremental revenue from fees.  Those are the airlines that will continue to thrive.

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

The Cranky Flier had a post today discussing Continental’s new moves in LAX which include new flights to Hawaii.   Continental will have an all 737 base in the Los Angeles area with two 737’s serving new flights from Orange County to Hawaii.  It made me think.

 

Back in the pre-regulatory days, flights from the mainland US to Hawaii were served by large aircraft such as the 707, DC-8 and, later, the 747, DC-10, L-1011 and even the 767.  The routes allowed airlines to serve huge numbers of customers with large aircraft and make money.  Braniff International had the franchise for Dallas to Honolulu in the 1970’s and served it with a 747 and an amazing 16 hours per day utilization.  

 

Then deregulation came and airlines slowly began to develop new routes.  It was no longer necessary to fly to a “gateway” city to catch a flight to Hawaii.  More and more cities found themselves being served with those routes to Hawaii.  Again, Braniff International, at one time, had a 747 flight from Portland, OR to Hawaii.  (It carried little traffic, however.)

 

There was some consolidation after airlines learned that not everyone in a particular city was dying to fly to Hawaii.  But the big change for Hawaii has been ETOPS or twin engine flights overseas.   This allowed airlines to serve smaller markets with aircraft both capable of the loads as well as the distance.  The truth is, when the airlines don’t have to feed 150 passengers a day to a gateway city but can fly them directly, they make more money.    20 years ago, I would have chuckled if someone told me that 737-700 aircraft would fly to Hawaii from the mainland. 

 

Boeing and Airbus have different views for the roles of widebody, large capacity aircraft.  10 years ago, Boeing forecast that the market would continue to fracture with more and more direct routes being employed as opposed to large capacity hub to hub flying.   Airbus, however, believed that the crowded skies would force more large capacity hub to hub flying onto the airlines.   It turns out that Boeing was more right. 

 

The markets drive these changes and when an airlines can make more pure profit using right sized aircraft flying direct, they will.  Yes, the legacy airlines of the US (and other parts of the world) continue to follow a hub and spoke model primarily but they’re all learning that more direct flying where the loads fully justify it is a good and profitable thing.

 

Accordingly, this is where I think Boeing continues to have a winning strategy with its 787/777 product line.  Yes, there are a few airlines capable of filling an A-380 and those airlines will make money from using that aircraft.  But as more and more nations open up their skies to more competition, that is going to change.   Having the right aircraft for the right route will be key to a manufacturer’s success and Boeing seems to have a better feel for the world market whereas Airbus seems more plugged into the Euro/Middle East markets they already do so well in. 

 

I’m no longer sure there is a real place for the new 747-8 aircraft.  Boeing’s 777-300 is just as capable in almost every case and carries a massive number of passengers without being so big that it adds risk during seasonal low periods.  The same is true for the 777-200. 

 

And what happens when aircraft such as the 787 family begin flying?  This family is roughly 767-sized in capacity but its range is far greater and that means even more markets can be accessed via long haul direct flying.   An international airline can probably make more money (through passengers *and* cargo) using the 787 and 777 families for more direct flying with aircraft that are “right sized” for the markets than they can using much of the Airbus family.

 

Airbus has one aircraft model suitable for this right now.  The A-330.  the A-340 is essentially dead since it under performs against the 777 in virtually any mission.  The A-330 is right sized for a number of the current markets and many more of the future markets.   The A-380 is suitable for only a few markets and those are already dwindling for some airlines.  For instance, QANTAS has introduced the A-380 on their routes to the US.  However, with a new Open Skies treaty between the two countries, there are also new entrants to the market like V Australia and Delta who are vying for customers with United and QANTAS very competively.  Those airlines understand that it will take a while to develop their routes and build relationships with airlines in both countries to feed traffic but it will happen.  As that traffic shifts from what was originally two airlines (QANTAS and United) to four airlines (QANTAS, United plus V Australia and Delta), what happens to each airlines’ loads? 

 

It’s notable that QANTAS flies the 747 and A380 to the US and United flies the 747 exclusively.  The new entrants are using the 777-300 and 777-200 for their flights.    The 787 and it’s longer range capabilities will quite possibly fracture that market even more by making it possible to fly from the interior of the US to Australia instead of having to use a west coast gateway city.  At that point, I don’t know that QANTAS has a use for very many A380s or 747s and, additionally, they don’t have any right sized aircraft for the route(s) until they start receiving their 787s which are late and somewhat deferred. 

 

The Airbus A350 is capable of competing on many 777 routes and while it does have slightly lower trip costs vs the 777, it also has less revenue capabilty because it can’t haul as much cargo on the same missions. 

 

The world’s airline routes are going to continue to expand internationally and at a far greater rate than traffic grows between any two nations.  Having the right equipment for the right moment is going to be key for any international airlines survival.  Those who don’t plan for it now and have it arriving in the next 5 to 10 years are going to wither to a slow death.

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