It’s been rumored for some time that US Airways would be reducing the number of first class seats available on the A321. This aircraft is part of the old US Airways fleet (not America West) and primarily flies transcons (cross country flights) from Philly, Pittsburgh, and Charlotte to the West.

Yesterday, it was basically confirmed by US Airways when they ordered new ones. Instead of the current 26 in First and 143 in Coach, they’re ordering the new ones with 16 in First and 167 in Coach. It’s safe to assume that all of the A321s will be reconfigured like these.

Needless to say, the frequent fliers are spitting venom over this one. Head to FlyerTalk and it sounds like these people just lost their first born.

The reality is that all of these frequent fliers want as many F seats as they can so that they can upgrade for free. For US Airways, they just want to get more revenue on the plane and the way to do that is add more coach seating. Leaving those planes with 16 F seats is still plenty, but it’s never going to be enough for people who live for the free upgrades. Personally, I’d save my wrath for those 757s that have only 8 F seats. Now that’s definitely out of proportion with the rest of the fleet.

Back at the beginning of this year, United and Trans States decided to try a little experiment. United had been performing well at San Antonio. In fact, as recently as a couple years ago they only flew to Denver and Chicago, but they added LAX, SFO, and Washington/Dulles with successful results.

Seeing the opportunity for more growth, United started investigating. Since they are notoriously risk averse over there, they found the ideal setup. Trans States agreed to operate the flights at their own risk with 50 seat jets, and they would be marketed as United Express flights. These flights would operate regionally to places like Albuquerque, New Orleans, Kansas City, and more.

This grand experiment began at the beginning of this year, and by the end of September, it’ll be over. San Antonio’s newspaper had an article about the end yesterday. Last flights are on September 20.

There are probably a million reasons why this failed, the chief one being not enough demand (duh). I’d also argue that there is no United loyalty down in Texas, so it was difficult to move people off Southwest, American, and Continental. Those 50 seaters aren’t exactly the most comfortable rides either, even though they went nonstop.

I don’t know for sure, but I’d bet a lack of marketing commitment on United’s part played a role as well. It’s not easy to start a ton of service in thin markets in a city where nobody really knows you. This must have been barely a blip on United’s marketing radar screen.

On Monday, both Travelocity and Expedia announced that they’re going to be the first travel sites to save the world. Awwww, how sweeet.

Seriously, that’s very nice of them.

What they’re really doing is partnering with two different types of programs that are dedicated to reducing carbon emissions. Expedia has partnered with a company called TerraPass (TP) while Travelocity is working with The Conservation Fund on their Go Zero (GZ) project. For these companies, having Expedia and Travelocity partner with them just enhances their visibility. If you really like these programs, you can easily buy your travel anywhere and then pay TP or GZ directly for the same exact thing.

To sum up what these guys do, they both have the same basic goal of offsetting carbon emissions. In other words, when you take a flight, they say you are responsible for a certain portion of emissions that the plane is spewing forth. This program enables you to pay a nominal fee to fund a project to counter the pollution you’re said to be creating.

If we’re talking about who really should be paying for this, I’d say the stronger argument is to get the airlines and aircraft manufacturers to pony up here. It’s not like people have a choice if they’re going long distances, but let’s get beyond that. This specific product is aimed at the person who really does care about this, regardless of whether it’s ultimately their responsibility or not. It enables them to do something about it by helping reduce emissions.

It’s definitely a feel-good idea, and it works for me. I like the idea of being able to offset carbon production, especially since it’s not mandatory. If you care, you now have the option. Actually, you have at least two options, so let’s look at both of them.

Basic Premise
TP takes your money and funds projects to reduce emissions. For example, you could be funding wind-created electricity or a methane cultivation plan at a dairy farm. They also purchase emissions credits and retire them so that companies cannot purchase them to increase the amount of pollution they are allowed to produce. GZ, on the other hand, uses your money to plant trees which in turn absorb carbon dioxide.

Advantage: TerraPass

I like tangible results, and TP definitely offers that. The GZ program is too fluffy for me personally.

Company Structure
TP is a for-profit company while GZ is a non-profit. That means your purchases from GZ are tax deductible while the ones from TP are not.

Advantage: Go Zero

Duh. People will probably see this as more of a charitable donation, so I would expect people to be more accepting of a non-profit organization.

Types of Passes and Cost
TP ties this directly with the length of the flight. That means that on Expedia you can buy a TerraPass at one of three levels. For short haul flights (up to 2,200 miles roundtrip), you can buy a $5.99 pass per person. Cross-country flights (up to 6,500 miles roundtrip) will cost you $16.99 per person. Finally, international flights (up to 13,000 miles roundtrip) are $29.99 per person.

There’s something fishy here though. According to the site, “Expedia believes so strongly in supporting the environment and sustainable tourism, we are offering TerraPass to you at our cost.” Well, if you go to TP’s site, you can find a pass for up to 6,000 miles roundtrip at a mere $9.95. I’m not sure if TP is overcharging Expedia or if Expedia is overcharging us.

Update on 8/31 (245p): I did neglect to mention that with Expedia, you get a decal at the lowest level and a luggage tag for the two higher levels. That at least partially explains the cost difference. So if you really like luggage tags, then stick with Expedia. Otherwise, just do it on your own. (See comments below for more info.)

Meanwhile, Travelocity only gives you the opportunity to buy for entire trips. You won’t even be asked if you’re only buying a flight. They offer a $10 pass for air, one night’s hotel, and a rental car for one person; a $25 pass for air, 4 nights hotel, and a rental car for two people; or a $40 pass for air, 4 nights hotel, and a rental car for four people. If you go to the GZ site directly, you can calculate your personal output for the whole year and just pay for it all at the same time.

Advantage: TerraPass

It’s much easier to tie this directly to your flight. When you include the whole vacation package it gets confusing. What if there are two people staying 2 nights but no rental car? The harder you make it to use, the less likely people will be to use it.

Integration
TP and GZ are both sold as a part of the purchase process. TP will show up any time someone purchases a flight like this:

GZ only shows up if you purchase a vacation package. They also have a clunky interface as you can see. . . . It shows up as an activity, so you have to choose your “Dates & Times.”

Advantage: TerraPass

It’s easier to find on the page and the different amounts are explained right there. The same can’t be said for GZ.

As I said before, I really like this idea personally. As an airline dork, I’m bummed that they use such generic metrics though. For example, let’s say you’re on one of Northwest’s gas-guzzling DC-9s vs. a United 777 for a flight of the same distance (it could happen). You’d be polluting far less on the 777, so you should get to pay less. Practically though, I do understand how that it’s probably way too specific for most of the traveling public.

For more info on TerraPass

For more info on GoZero

A little bit of love for our friends north of the border . . .

Canada’s Globe and Mail is reporting that Westjet is looking to join the oneworld alliance anchored by American and British Airways. This is a pretty interesting move.

First things first. I’m neither a fan of oneworld nor of WestJet. For oneworld, it’s not that I don’t like the airlines in the alliance or the benefits involved. No. It’s that they are one of the many targets in my crusade against improper capitalization (or lack thereof). That’s the same exact reason WestJet has incurred my wrath. They have a great product, but that capital “J” just stares at me menacingly. This could be a match made in heaven.

With that off my chest, let’s talk about the actual news here.

Oneworld has lacked a Canadian partner since Air Canada swallowed up Canadian several years ago. With Air Canada in Star, there aren’t too many other options for a partner up north. It’s not a huge aviation market, but there is certainly a big hole without a Canadian partner. So for oneWORLD, going after wESTjET is a no-brainer.

On the westjet side, it’s a little more confusing. There is most certainly a great deal of traffic that can be routed to the airline through a global alliance. Also, the frequent flier program instantly becomes more attractive as a loyalty tool for Canadians who are looking for a solid alternative to Air Canada. But there are costs involved with joining an alliance, and that has generally kept low cost carriers out of them. The only low cost carrier in an alliance is US Airways, and they joined before they became a low cost carrier. Most LCCs have found that the increased costs and complexity of joining an alliance aren’t worth it.

So is WESTJET straying the wrong way or is this a great new idea? My initial thought is that it might work. If they really want to compete with AC, this is the way to do it. I’m just not sure that’s what their goal should be.

German supermarket Lidl will be running a promotion with Air Berlin at all their UK stores. For the week beginning September 5, customers will be able to buy £19 vouchers that can be turned in for a one way ticket on Air Berlin.

It’s a pretty interesting promotion, I think. According to The Guardian, there is a code on each voucher, and you can just enter it on the website or over the phone and it acts as the form of payment for the flight. It of course depends upon availability of the low fares on that flight, but I think everyone expects that.

They’ve tried this type of promotion with complete success before, so I wonder if it’s a matter of time before it becomes permanent.

It’s a great competitive advantage. The legacy carriers have fare structures that are too complicated for handing out free one way tickets. That’s why you see gift cards becoming popular over here. You can go to any Vons/Safeway/Dominick’s and many other places and buy a gift card for a variety of airlines.

But it’s not much fun to give someone a credit toward a flight. It’s a lot cooler if you can give someone two vouchers and say, “Here’s your trip to Spain.” Only low cost carriers with simple pricing structures can pull off something like that.