Kieran Daly: September 2005 Archives

Well, it finally happened. Passengers on the JetBlue A320 that landed with a cocked nosewheel in America yesterday were able to watch live TV coverage of themselves during virtually the whole incident. Fittingly enough this quintessentially 21st century event took place in the entertainment capital of the world - Los Angeles.

For sheer in-flight weirdness this probably exceeds even the September 1995 incident in which passengers on a Northwest Airlines DC-10 watched in bemusement on seatback maps as the aircraft flew to Brussels and landed instead of Frankfurt as planned, with the pilots, who had no access to the seatback system, essentially lost.

On JetBlue, passengers were watching themselves courtesy of the seatback LiveTV service - a satellited-based system which the airline itself operates through a wholly-owned subsidiary that it was forced to acquire to prevent its probable commercial failure three years ago.

Staff of NBC television who happened to be on the aircraft reported that the system was switched off only 3-4 minutes before landing, along with other electrical systems. So it seems that JetBlue doesn't share the concerns of other airlines who have long insisted that news progamming provided on board aircraft is doctored to remove anxiety-inducing coverage of aviation safety.

In Europe, BMI of the UK and TAP of Portugal are about to trial on-board mobile phone access, which will also enable Blackberrys and similar devices to function, and will mean that precious little happens on aircraft that isn't reported in near realtime to the rest of the world. And Connexion by Boeing already gives users full internet functionality - including the ability to post public messages and operate blogs like this one - from in the air. Camera-enabled phones and digital cameras complete the link - it's seems only a matter of time before on-board images of a catastrophe end up on the web.

Leaving aside the philosophical implications of this, it means business has changed forever for the airlines. I'm giving a presentation to airline PR officials in a couple of weeks and I'm really looking forward to discussing this turn of events. They're going to need all the help they can get working out their disaster management strategies for the future. 

I absolutely support European Commission moves to protect the rights of passengers - it's good for the passengers and good for the airlines. The fact is that entry hurdles to the airline industry are amazingly low, which is why so many go bust. It's true that the constant flow of new entries keeps fares down, but financially insecure airlines do not make for a sound air transport system, and I have no doubt that overall they reduce safety levels.

Furthermore, airlines frankly don't offer a great service to the travelling public, and they're not getting better. If you love aviation then you'll put up with a lot because, at least sometimes, you like to go flying. If you just want to get from A to B then air travel is a lousy experience and the contractual terms hugely favour the airlines. That needs fixing.

But that said, the Commission does some stupid things too - and it's the regional airlines that have most cause to complain. The Commission has got it wrong in applying the customer-rights rules on cancellations and delays to the regionals in the way it does. The regionals really are exposed to the risk of ludicrous compensation claims under the current legislation - and, unsurprisingly, they're off to court to fight that. Good luck to them.

This week the Commission has got it wrong again. It's proposing legislation that would let passengers demand not to fly if an airline wet-leases in an aircraft to operate a flight - particularly if it does so at the last minute. It's worrying enough that the Commission staff has sufficient time on its hands to be fiddling around in this sort of micro-detail, but the idea is daft anyway.

It primarily affects the regionals again, as they are much less likely to have their own back-up aircraft, and so much more likely to hire in extra lift. And why not? If the substitute aircraft is certificated and the crew legal then that's the airline's right. Indulging some know-all who's got strong opinions about flying on ATR 42s rather than Dash 8s (or vice versa my Canadian friends) at the gate is just ridiculous.

There are very sound operators that provide these wet-leased aircraft - pretty much as their core business in some cases - and do a good job without which the mainline industry really would be in difficulties. There is no justification for hurting their business.

I hope the proposal dies, but it's perilously close to the parliamentary stage and may still sneak through. Too bad.