Americas: January 2009 Archives

If you want to have a giggle and reminisce about what it was like to take a flight 75 years ago, check out this article from a 1934 issue of Airline Business sister publication, Flight International.

Pointing to a United Airlines flight he took between New York and Chicago, a Mr Gordon England makes the point that "we in Great Britain have something to learn from the other side of the Atlantic concerning the running of air lines".

Mr England was particularly impressed by the "hostesses, their very attractive green uniform, and the fact that they were always ready to do everything for the convenience and comfort of passengers". Read into that what you will.

Cigarettes were also handed out to passengers "free of charge" to smoke during the flight.

Fast forward 75 years and you can read a very different review of the differences between US carriers and their counterparts on the other side of the Atlantic.

In this blog, Brendan Sobie describes United Airlines' new business class as "still one step behind" its rivals in Europe, the Middle East and England. How times have changed!    

So embarrassed was Aeromexico about a string of circumstances "beyond the airline's control" that occurred during one of its flights from Mexico City to Seattle last week that it felt compelled to put out an apologetic media statement.

And it does sound like it was a nightmare flight. To cut a long story short, Flight 670 on 20 January left the Mexican capital for Seattle but had to divert to Portland due to heavy fog. Once on the ground at Portland, it was discovered that there were no customs officials present to process the passengers.

After a four hour wait on the aircraft, the decision was taken to fly the passengers all the way back to Mexico City. I'm so glad I wasn't on that flight.

Needless to say, Aeromexico, which "prides itself on service to its passengers", is carrying out a review to "determine if the circumstances could have been handled in a more effective way".

I've an idea - how about contacting Portland before landing there to make sure there'd be some customs officials available to stamp people's passports? Just a simple thought.

Here's Aeromexico's statement in full:

AeroMexico statement about Flight # 670,

08:45 AM PST on Thursday, January 22, 2009

Media Statement About Flight # 670, 1-20-09

AeroMexico deeply regrets that our passengers on flight #670, bound from Mexico City to Seattle-Tacoma, were inconvenienced by an unfortunate set of circumstances on Tuesday, January 20, that were beyond the airline's control.

Before the flight departed from Mexico City, the pilots had received authorization from Seattle to proceed. Heavy fog conditions developed later in the Seattle-Tacoma area, which forced Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to close its operations for all arrivals and departures. Due to these circumstances which were outside the airline's control, the plane had to divert and went to Portland, which was the closest international airport. Passenger safety is AeroMexico's number one priority and diverting the flight was both the required and prudent action to take in this situation.

When the plane landed in Portland, there were no U.S. Customs and Immigration agents available to handle the passengers so they were required to remain on the plane, which was also outside the airline's control. Federal regulations do not allow international flights to be completed unless all passengers go through U.S. customs.

The plane was parked at the airport for approximately four hours. When it became apparent there would be no customs agents available in Portland to process the passengers and the weather in Seattle-Tacoma was not improving, it was decided that the best alternative that would minimize additional time for passengers was to return to Mexico City.

On the flight back to Mexico City, the pilots and crew members were operating within the legal limits for hours on duty at all times. Food was brought on board in Portland for this return flight.

In Mexico City, new crew members boarded the plane for its flight back to Seattle-Tacoma on Wednesday, January 21. The flight reached its final destination without further incident.

AeroMexico is reviewing the incident on January 20 to determine if the circumstances could have been handled in a more effective way. We will seek an explanation about why the customs agents were not available to assist the plane and its passengers in Portland.

Our airline prides itself on service to its passengers. While the airline was dealing with several circumstances beyond its control, we intend to take all steps necessary to help avoid an incident of this nature in the future. We will also take appropriate steps to thank the passengers who were inconvenienced by this situation for their patience and understanding.

To read our earlier cover interview with Aeromexico chief executive Andres Conesa, click here.

Mexicana has flown its first service to London, marking the carrier's first foray into transatlantic operations (see picture).

The carrier now operates two flights a week between Mexico City and London Gatwick, but this will increase to four flights a week on 17 February.

Here's what Mexicana chief executive Manuel Borja had to say about the new service in a press release:

"The decision to fly to London reaffirms our commitment to our passengers and illustrates how Mexicana is taking steps to address the challenges posed by the airline industry. It also positions us as an innovative international airline, concerned about the development and consolidation of the commercial aviation industry."

As I wrote here, Mexicana also plans to launch flights to Madrid in February, taking on rival Aeromexico head-to-head. As Mexicana announces additional flights to Europe - and I'm told by the carrier's senior vice-president customer service and communications, Adolfo Crespo, that this is the plan - it will be interesting to see how Aeromexico responds.

Airline Business has been following the Latin American market closely - if you haven't already seen the daily newspapers we published at the Latin American Airline Leaders' Forum in November, check them out here. 

This past weekend I flew through Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport twice and I struggled to find any signs of DFW's recent double-digit drop in traffic. In fact, two things occurred which would normally point to growth rather than contraction.

Yesterday we had to wait 15 minutes for a gate to open up after my American Airlines flight landed from Austin. And we were not alone - a couple of Boeing MD-80s were directed to taxi to some out of the way holding point until a gate opened up at one of American's concourses.

Given all the capacity cuts implemented at American last year, how is it possible that there aren't enough gates available? In November, the most recent month in which statistics are available, American's traffic at DFW was down 12%. As American has a whopping 86% share of the DFW market (pictured below is an American aircraft near one of DFW's three control towers), total traffic has been down a similar amount in recent months.

You would think one silver lining of the downturn is airlines don't have to worry anymore about gate crunches at their hubs. Having more flights than available gates is costly as more fuel is burned and crews have to be paid while an aircraft waits for a gate to open up. It also has a ripple effect on an entire operation, causing delays to escalate.

Another silver lining of the downturn you would think would be an increased availability of spare aircraft. US majors last year removed hundreds of narrowbodies from their active fleets as they cut capacity by about 10% in response to rising fuel prices and a slowing economy.

This should have given airlines an opportunity to improve their reliability by utilising aircraft less and having more spares on hand. But on Friday my flight from DFW to Austin was cancelled after one of the engines wouldn't start and a spare aircraft could not be found.

The flight was being operated by an MD-80, the most common aircraft at American and at DFW. In fact DFW, which is one of the world's 10 busiest airports, is by far the largest MD-80 base in the world. It is also the largest hub for American (which until the Delta-Northwest merger was the largest airline in the world). So how come American couldn't find a single spare MD-80?

I asked the pilots and they said while American removed about 30 MD-80s from the schedule last year (about 12% of the total MD-80 fleet) all the extra aircraft have been moved to the desert. So it seems American didn't take the opportunity to increase the pool of spare aircraft and therefore improve their reliability.

In fact, according to the US DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, American cancelled 1.08% of their flights at DFW in November 2008. In November 2007 the cancellation rate was 0.98%, which indicates the roughly 12% fleet and capacity cut implemented over the last year has had no positive effect on American's reliability at its main hub.

On Friday a spare aircraft would have really come in handy as the flight was full and most of the roughly 150 passengers ended up in DFW for six hours waiting for the next available flight to Austin. DFW, which is the host for our annual Network conference in six weeks time, is a relatively pleasant airport. But no one wants to spend six hours in any airport waiting for a 30-minute flight covering a distance which could easily be driven in less time.

US majors are slowly closing the gap with their overseas rivals when it comes to business class products but don't expect them to win any awards.      

Last week I flew in the new United Airlines business class (pictured), which was put in service just over one year ago and is now on eight inter-continental routes.

While the new United business class seat is several steps above the old United seat it is still one step behind the leaders in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. And by the time the last United widebody gets the new seat United could be an entire generation or two behind.

United's lie-flat seat and large video screen (15.4 inches) finally matches the recline and IFE on leading Asian and European carriers. The old United business class seat, which as of today is still on three-quarters of the carrier's widebodies, doesn't recline fully and doesn't even have on-demand video.

But the new seat isn't as wide or as long as the new seat offered by some Asian, European and Middle Eastern carriers. I also noticed United's headphones fall way short of the state-of-the-art noise cancellation headphones provided by many other carriers.

The service overall is also way below European or Asian standards. Little things, like the thinness of the hot towels handed out before meals and the lack of snacks offered in the galley between meals, show United is still skimping on business class.

Over the last few weeks I also had the opportunity to fly the long-haul business class products of Lufthansa, Swiss and Singapore Airlines and the service overall was clearly better than United. And I wasn't even on the new Singapore business class, which features the widest business class seat in the industry today, but had a product that is several years old.

Of course the fact US carriers still lag behind their Asian and European counterparts is no surprise. In late 2007 I had the opportunity to fly the new American Airlines international business class product and made similar comments on this blog. Last year Delta introduced a similar lie-flat business class seat and I expect the new seats that will be introduced by Continental later this year will be on par with Americana and United rather than meet the standards of leading foreign carriers.

With that said, US majors should be applauded for investing in new business class products during difficult times. While United hasn't found money to buy any new aircraft in a decade (and they clearly can use new generation widebodies to replace their ageing 767 and 747 fleets) and aren't investing in upgrading economy (which is in as much need of a facelift as business), at least they are doing something to improve their business and first offering.

Now only if United would accelerate the project and be more reliable in sticking to their published schedule. Washington Dulles-Zurich is one of eight routes United has introduced the new seat on but on the outbound flight I got onboard to find the old product. Clearly this is not a way to please smart business class travellers who select their flights based on the product.

A colleague has send me this amusing take on the trend from airlines to exploit every ancillary revenue opportunity under the sun from US satirical website The Onion.

These are some of the best lines from the piece:

Arpey went on to note that some additional charges would also apply, including a $15 fee for every piece of luggage customers have inside their bedroom closet, and a one-time payment of $40 for any American whose name is Greg.

JetBlue, a commercial carrier known for its thrifty rates, has come out ahead of the pack, however, and is being lauded for its decision not to charge non-passengers not to fly.

Here at AB we're keen on reporting about ancillaries seeing as they are so important.

We've reported about rock concerts on board, and how US carriers are jumping on the ancillary bandwagon, albeit not as much as The Onion suggests!

But remember ancillaries are hardly new. I wrote this up in AB in 2005.