Kerry Ezard: January 2009 Archives

"I know it looks like a baaji but it's in custard Richard, custard."

This is just one of the priceless lines in a complaint letter sent to Virgin Atlantic chairman Sir Richard Branson from a disgruntled passenger who was far from impressed with the culinary fare that was put in front of him on a Virgin flight from Mumbai to London.

The letter makes for hilarious reading, and is accompanied by photographic evidence to show the bearded one exactly what the dishes referred to in the letter actually looked like.

Along with the custard, which actually turned out to be "a sour gel with a clear oil on top", the passenger was served mashed potato, which he/she describes in the following way: "The potato masher had obviously broken and so it was decided the next best thing would be to pass the potatoes through the digestive tract of a bird."

UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph, which published the letter, took the trouble of calling Virgin's director of corporate communications, Paul Charles, who confirmed that Branson had read the letter.

He then went on to say that while he was sorry the passenger had not enjoyed the food, it was "award-winning food, which is very popular on our Indian routes".

And this is why I don't work in PR - can you imagine saying that with a straight face after reading that letter?

I've had some pretty abysmal airline food in my time, but nothing that's prompted me to write a letter of complaint, let alone one as good as the one from the Virgin passenger.

Has anyone else had airline food that was as bad as the food described in the letter sounds?  

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.

Ooh bitchy - Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary has once again sharpened his talons to have another stab at Aer Lingus (which he was yesterday prevented from acquiring by the Irish government).

O'Leary's comments about Aer Lingus have been getting more and more scathing, and this press release put out by Ryanair yesterday is definitely worth a read for a bit of Friday entertainment.

Referring to yesterday's announcement that Aer Lingus has extended its transatlantic partnership with United Airlines, in a press release entitled "Ryanair congratulates Aer Lingus on finding a partner which is even weaker and in worse shape than Aer Lingus" O'Leary spits out: "After months of trawling around looking for partners, it is a sad reflection on Aer Lingus that the best they could come up with is one of the weakest and biggest loss makers in the US airline industry."

He goes on: "This so-called 'partnership' with another 'loser' like United shows that Aer Lingus has no independent strategy, and no prospect of remaining independent."

That's fightin' talk where I come from. I'm planning to speak to Aer Lingus later today, so I'll see if they've got any equally scathing rebuttals.

Now that Ryanair has been prevented from acquiring Aer Lingus, surely it would make more sense to stop telling the world how rubbish they think the Irish carrier is. If I had shares in a company, I probably wouldn't go round telling the whole world that the company I had invested in was hopeless and dreadful in case I some day wanted to sell my shares.

Isn't it kind of like trying to sell your house and saying things to interested buyers like "it's got a terrible damp problem", and "the neighbours are really noisy and unpleasant"...? 

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. 

Here's something you don't see very often - an airline chief executive speaking out against plans to build a third runway at London Heathrow.

In an interview with UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph, Monarch Airlines managing director Tim Jeans says the decision to expand Heathrow "will affect countless people living under the flight path".

He adds that "environmental concerns must be taken seriously and decisions that may seem unpalatable for business need to be taken".

But before you start to see Jeans as some kind of environmentalist who happens to work in the aviation industry, I should point out that later in the interview he says expansion at London Gatwick (one of Monarch's bases) would be preferable.

This sounds like the opposite of nimbyism - while many anti-Heathrow expansion lobbyists are against the third runway because it will quite literally be in their backyards, Jeans seems to be saying airport expansion is OK as long as it is in Monarch's backyard. (Lets out exasperated sigh.)

EasyJet chief executive Andy Harrison has bravely, or stupidly, gone head-to-head with UK newspaper The Guardian's environmental warrior George Monbiot in a web video interview. And by the look on Harrison's face by the end of the interview, I think he might have regretted it!

For those of you unfamiliar with Monbiot, he's a regular contributor to The Guardian website's "Comment is free" section and his focus is man's impact on climate change. Yesterday he was railing against the evil of Agas and today he is challenging Harrison about easyJet's environmental record - in particular the viability of the Ecojet design it unveiled last year and its carbon offset scheme.

I couldn't help thinking that Harrison looked more than a little uncomfortable with the line of questioning, and could perhaps have been better prepared. After all, you only have to read some of Monbiot's opinion pieces to see what his agenda is and what line his questioning will take.

But kudos to Harrison for going ahead with it anyway. I'd pay to see a similar interview between Monbiot and Ryanair's Michael O'Leary! And as for Monbiot, I admire his passion for a cause but can't help being turned off by his earnest pomposity. 

Interesting piece on the BBC's website today if you haven't already seen it - apparently a Greenpeace coalition has bought some of the land earmarked for the construction of London Heathrow's third runway.

The coalition, which includes UK actress Emma Thompson, is hoping that buying up the land will throw a "massive spanner" in the works, should the proposed third runway get the go-ahead.

This is a great example of the phrase "putting your money where your mouth is", and whatever your feelings about the controversial third runway, you have to respect the obvious strength of people's feelings towards this proposal.

It's going to be a hell of a battle!

If the reports in today's newspapers are correct, the UK government will give the proposed third runway at London Heathrow the go-ahead any day now.

This debate has been rumbling on for a long time and it finally looks set to be decided, although this will not be without a fight. Protestors who are against the third runway are reported to be planning more demonstrations at Heathrow, so be prepared for yet more delays if you're flying out of the airport in the coming days.

My colleague David Learmount has written a good blog on the whole will they/won't they build a third runway saga - you can read it here if you haven't already done so.

Happy New Year everyone. It seems that Virgin Atlantic's New Year's resolution is to re-establish itself as the glamorous airline with the red hot cabin crew.

If you haven't seen the new ad campaign, have a look here and let me know what you think.

It seems to hark back to a bygone age when air travel was deemed sexy and glamorous, rather than the delay-prone, overcrowded means of getting from A to B that it has become today.

The brick-sized 1980s mobile phone in the ad is amusing - did people really did used to think they looked anything other than ridiculous with such clunky, oversized pieces of plastic clamped to their ears?

But will the ad have its desired effect? Will a bunch of attractive women in red stilettoes encourage people to forget their money worries and fly Virgin in these difficult economic times?

I'd be more interested in finding out what Virgin's plans are for this year in terms of being a standalone carrier in the midst of a frenzy of consolidation activity. Will the carrier end up in some kind of deal with Lufthansa over bmi? And if not, will some smart red uniforms be enough to help it navigate the choppy seas ahead?