When Delta announced new nonstop flights between New York/JFK and US Airways’ hometown of Phoenix the day after US Airways announced its takeover intentions, it seemed like a coincidence to me. After today’s events though, I’m starting to get suspicious.

This evening, shortly after the US Airways team made their formal presentation to Delta management, Delta turned around and said “I don’t wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!” Translation for the non-Monty Python fans out there . . . “You might be able to take us over, but we can make vain, money-losing, and futile attempts to tell you that we don’t like you.”

I think futile really is the right word here, but hopefully I’m wrong. The airline announced new nonstop service from its hub in Salt Lake City to the major US Airways hub of Charlotte. A single daily flight starts on March 1.

Can the timing of these announcements really be coincidental? At this point, I doubt it. Delta employees are really not happy that US Airways is trying to take over their airline, and apparently the best they can do is start filing schedules (SSIM files) for flights to US Airways hubs.

I do hope this is just a coincidence for Delta’s sake, and that they really have determined that this is the best use of that aircraft time. If it’s not, then US Airways has an even stronger case supporting its ability to create additional value in a takeover. An airline has a responsibility to make the best business decisions possible at all times. There is no room for someone at Delta to be making a statement by placing an airplane somewhere when it could be making more money elsewhere. I really hope that’s not what’s happening here.

Today was the big day for US Airways. Delta let them come on in and make their presentation in front of management and creditors. So how did it go?

Well, according to the US Airways press release, CEO Doug Parker said, “We were pleased to have made a presentation to both Delta and its creditors about what we believe are the compelling and unique benefits of our plan. . . . ” blah blah blah. Well what do you expect him to say?

And how about the response from Delta?

Well the PR from that camp was hardly as gracious.

Consistent with our obligation to review US Airways’ unsolicited proposal,
today we, along with representatives of our Creditors’ Committee, met to listen
to US Airways’ presentation concerning US Airways’ proposal to merge with
Delta.

While we will fulfill this obligation, we will, as we have stated,
continue to progress toward filing our stand-alone plan by the end of the
year, which would have us emerge from bankruptcy as a highly competitive,
independent and financially sound airline by mid-2007. Our plan is working and
we have tremendous, hard-won confidence in it.’

In other words . . . you suck, go away.

They have to say they’re reviewing the proposal or there would be plenty of shareholder lawsuits saying that they aren’t exploring all possible options. But this is pretty clear that they don’t care how good the offer is, they still think they have a better plan.

Personally, I’m not so sure about that. Let’s see how the creditors feel.

I’ve actually been meaning to write about this for awhile, but for some reason it kept getting pushed into the corner and I’m just dusting it off now.

After a short period of beta testing, United has now integrated the new version of its booking engine onto its site. This has been a long time in the making, and it’s really way overdue. If you’ve heard frequent users talk about United’s website in the past, you’ve probably heard it called United.bomb. Of course, you can scan FlyerTalk today and hear all the complaints about the new site as well, but in reality it’s a nice improvement.

The first thing you’ll notice on the home page is that it’s no longer just search by price and schedule. You can now also search by flex dates but only for roundtrip itineraries. One way and multi-city don’t have that functionality.

If you do a search by price, it still just lists possible itineraries from lowest to highest price, but now there’s a grid at the top that looks like this:

So now you can see nonstop vs. one stop as well as different fares for different classes of service. Really, it’s a good improvement over the lack of info before, but it’s not really anything revolutionary. Unfortunately, the results below the grid still only show the lowest fare, so there is no way to see how much different classes cost on a specific itinerary unless you keep clicking between all the links and then searching for the itinerary you want.

The best news here is that you can now click to see the seat map right from the results instead of having to pretend like you’re making a reservation for a couple screens. Nice work there.

Another nice feature is you can now click over to see the search by schedule or flex dates from this page fairly quickly. The schedule search is the same as it was when it was introduced over a year ago, but this is still by far my favorite way to search for United flights. If gives you a choice of outbound and return flights side by side. As you change which flights are highlighted, it dynamically updates the price for you on the right. The interface is slightly improved, but other than that, no changes (not that they were needed).

Then there’s the flex dates option which is pretty basic. The results still show just as they do in the search by price option, but now the grid is changed to show you multiple date options as follows:

As you can see, it shows you the lowest available fare two days before and after the dates you’ve chosen. I suppose that is helpful to know if you can be flexible in your timing, but it would be nice if you could break it down further by time of day.

Overall, it’s a good improvement for United, and I’m glad to see they’ve finally upgraded the booking engine. They are definitely due for a full site overhaul though, so hopefully that’s coming soon as well.

It probably won’t come as a shock to anyone that people have grown wider in the last 50 years. Now there’s research to prove it, but is it really that big of a deal for the airline industry?

I don’t know if you’ve been following the Russian spy saga that has been unfolding in the UK, but it has been fascinating. Now there’s an aviation angle that makes this even more James Bond-like.

The backstory here is that Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian KGB agent, was poisoned with the radioactive substance polonium-210 in London during the last couple weeks. He died last week but not before blaming the Russian government for his murder in relation to some investigations he had been conducting.

Now, it turns out that British Airways has identified 3 767 aircraft that might have been involved. They have found that 2 of the 767s have very low level traces of a radioactive substance onboard while the third is currently in Moscow and had yet to be tested. Those three aircraft have obviously been removed from service.

The airline stresses that the public health risk is extremely low, but they are contacting passengers who flew on those aircraft in the last few weeks. According to their statement, the planes have flown between London and Barcelona, Dusseldorf, Athens, Larnaca, Stockholm, Vienna, Frankfurt, Istanbul, Madrid, and . . . Moscow over the last month. Click on this link to see a full list of flights operated.

This is truly an incredible development. How did the radioactive substance get on all three of these aircraft? It seems highly likely that transit of the substance between Moscow and London occurred but how would it have spread beyond one aircraft? Were multiple people involved? Who was on the manifest of all those flights? I’m sure Scotland Yard is busily sifting through all this information.

It seems to be a no-brainer in the airline industry to have some sort of frequent flier program. In fact, people have come to expect it. JetBlue, for example, tried to go without it, but after 2 1/2 years of flying, they started their own program as well.

But a research paper released back in July called “Do Frequency Reward Programs Create Switching Costs” by Wesley Hartmann and Brian Viard at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business questions whether it’s a good idea at all. (Read a summary here.)

To be fair, the main research in this wasn’t directly related to airlines, they used a golf course that offered a “Buy 10, Get 1 Free” program, but the results are worth reviewing. In this study, they were looking to see if the program encouraged people to accelerate their playing behavior as they got closer to the reward.

They found that frequent users of the course thought the program to be very important, but their playing behavior did not accelerate as they closed in on the reward. Sure the effective discount did get them to play more, but it was because the cost was lower. A 10% decrease in price would have had the same effect without incurring the administrative costs of the program.

On the other hand, infrequent golfers did show some accelerated behavior as they got closer to the reward, but very few of the infrequent golfers played enough for that to even matter. So was it worth it?

In short, no. It is argued that the increase in play from the infrequent golfers wasn’t enough to offset the cost of giving away free games to the frequent golfers, so the program was not very successful.

They argue that the only way a frequent user program is really successful is if your most frequent users are extremely price sensitive. In that case, the loyalty program would make sense, because you would be increasing your returns from the majority of your users instead of a small minority.

Does this relate to the airlines? Sure.

In fact, the golf course admitted that they modeled their program off of Southwest Airlines’ famous Rapid Rewards program. It’s also probably safe to say that many of Southwest’s customers are price sensitive, so this might not be a bad program for them.

On the other hand, some of the bigger airlines generate the bulk of their revenue from people who are less price sensitive, so the program may not make much sense at its base level.

The difference is that those airlines have turned their frequent flier programs into more than just a free flight scheme. It would actually surprise me if most frequent fliers in those programs even cared about the miles. In those programs, it’s the elite status that matters - the product differentiators. If you’re an elite member, you get upgrades and special treatment that make it even more difficult for people to switch you.

So with that, you might consider removing miles from the program altogether, but in the world of airline economics, that doesn’t make sense either. See, airlines have found a way to turn miles into a profit center. Do you have that United Mileage Plus Visa? Maybe you’re a Delta SkyMiles Amex fan? Well, each time you earn a mile, those credit card companies pay the airlines, so the airlines can recoup the costs of handing those miles out in the first place.

In short, while the basic reward program might not make sense, airlines have evolved the programs to the point where I think intuitively they make sense but further research would certainly be required before coming to any conclusions.

Some people love open seating on aircraft while others hate it. It’s truly a polarizing issue.

Look at Southwest, for example. The granddaddy of open seating has stuck with their strategy for over 30 years. Many airlines have seen it as a negative, so they’ve tried to exploit it. In what was probably America West’s best commercial, the airline tried to say that flying Southwest was like being in a mosh pit. Click here to watch (.wmv file).

But through all of this, Southwest never budged until this summer when they decided to run some assigned seating tests to see if it was worth switching from their time-honored tradition. While many people bemoaned the open seating concept, the backlash from loyal customers was truly amazing. Look at this blog post by Southwest CEO Gary Kelly. There were 605 comments on it, most of which appear to be against changing to assigned seating. The issue appears to have quietly disappeared for now.

In Europe, many of the low frills guys have followed in Southwest’s footsteps in having open seating on board. But while Southwest has shied away from charging for every individual piece of the flight experience separately, European LCCs have embraced it. And that’s why it’s surprising that it’s taken so long for them to charge for better seating.

Now, Easyjet has announced the introduction of Speedy Boarding. Now when you buy your ticket, you will be given the option to pay between GBP2.50 and GBP7.50 to head to the front of the line for pre-boarding. It appears that this will be offered until twenty people have taken them up on it. There won’t be assigned seating, but with only 20 other people boarding in that group, you’ll have your pick of seats.

Why the range in price? Well, longer flights will cost more, of course. In addition, some flights are boarded by busses to remote stands. There is no way to guarantee that those twenty will be the first off the bus, so it’s not guaranteed. That’s why those flights will be cheaper.

It makes sense to me for the Easyjet model. The idea is to make as much ancillary revenue as possible. At least 20 people on each flight will be happy to pay more just to have piece of mind in knowing they’ll get a good seat.

I’ve let up on posting so often about new route announcements, because usually they just aren’t that interesting. But every so often an airline announces a new city and it seems to be worth mentioning.

• Remember AirTran’s promotion to let customers vote on their next city? Well, the results are in, and it looks like Phoenix is the big winner. AirTran says that service from Atlanta starts on Feb 15 with one daily flight. A second flight will begin on Feb 22 and a third flight on Mar 6. As the Arizona Republic notes, both US Airways and Delta fly the route five times a day currently.
• Frontier is also adding a new city to its route map with daily service from Denver to Hartford starting Mar 2. It’s an eastbound redeye with an early morning westbound return, so this appears to be utilization flying for the airline.
• Technically this is a new route, but in reality it’s an entirely new airline. As if MAXjet and Eos don’t provide enough premium-only service between New York and London, now Silverjet is going to join the mix on Jan 25. While MAXjet and Eos fly from New York/JFK to London/Stansted, this UK-based operation will go between Newark and London/Luton. They say they’ll have 100 flat beds on a 767-200, but considering MAXjet has 102 seats that don’t go flat on the same aircraft, I’m not sure how they’re going to pull it off. No pictures are available. You can see their website here.

I’m not quite sure why it is that Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa thinks that Palmdale is the answer to LA’s aviation needs. One quick look at a map will show you why it’s not going to work:

That line snaking from downtown LA to Palmdale is 70 miles long, and that’s really the only way to get out there. Any more direct route takes you through some pretty large mountains, and that’s why you don’t see much development the further north you go. Even measuring from San Fernando, just a few miles before the route turns toward the east again, you’re still 50 miles away from the airport. As a comparison, O’Hare and JFK are less than 20 miles from downtown Chicago and New York respectively while “far out” Denver airport is still only 25 miles away.

So who in their right mind would think that Palmdale would work as a good feeder airport for the Los Angeles area?

No airlines think that way. That’s why the airport has no current commercial flights. The last attempt involved Scenic Airlines props to North Las Vegas, but of course that failed miserably. In the past United Express has served Los Angeles and America West Express served Phoenix, but both have long since pulled out.

To be fair, the area is growing quickly, so I would venture a guess that it could support some regional flights to Phoenix, Salt Lake, or another western hub, but that’s going to be the extent of its success.

Unfortunately, the city of LA continues to focus on this airport as a viable alternative. Last week, the city approved a plan to request proposals for service to Palmdale. The plan includes up to $5m in incentives, including some hard cash costs that could be put to better use.

Mayor Villaraigosa said “Developing new and expanded service at Southland regional airports will go a long way toward relieving congestion at Los Angeles International Airport.” Well, the proposed regional jet flights to western hubs aren’t going to do much at all to relieve LAX. A handful of daily flights is a joke, and it’s not going to solve anything. Nobody in Los Angeles wants to fly out of Palmdale.

It’s time the city’s leaders create a plan that will expand LAX to fulfill the region’s needs in the future. Though neighbors will complain, the airport has been there much longer than they have. They should have expected airport expansion and the fact that they can prevent the region’s aviation infrastructure from expanding is mind-boggling.

I’m not sure how many of you are following the aviation scene in Brazil these days, but there have been plenty of developments related to the Gol 737 crash that are enough to frighten anyone.

For those who don’t remember, back on September 29, a Embraer business jet clipped a Gol 737 at 37,000 ft over the Amazon. The Gol aircraft crashed into the jungle while the Embraer jet was able to land safely. On that Embraer jet was New York Times journalist Joe Sharkey, who has been obviously covering this story very carefully.

Initially, the government suggested that the Embraer was doing acrobatic moves in the sky and that its reckless behavior was responsible for the accident. In fact, they went so far as to detain the American pilots of the Embraer in the country until the investigation was complete.

As more and more details come out, this account appears to be false, and the complete violation of civil liberties is frightening. The pilots have now been detained for 2 months at a hotel in Rio. They have been able to interact with family, but that is all.

In the meantime, more evidence has come out pointing to air traffic control, not aerobatics, as a major problem here. According to this article by Sharkey, the Embraer pilots has initially filed for an altitude of 36,000 ft but air traffic control has them flying at 37,000 ft instead. Meanwhile, the Gol aircraft had filed to fly at 41,000 ft, but they were being held at 37,000 ft as well. Tapes on the Embraer show that the pilots tried to contact air traffic control 19 times and they were unsuccessful each time.

After the crash, the air traffic controllers in Brazil went into a frenzy protesting the dangerous working conditions and problematic systems in use. The unrest went far enough that the head of the country’s air traffic control was recently reassigned.

Now, though it appears air traffic control was a major problem in this accident, it clearly was not the only one. As in all accidents, a trail of problems led up to the final outcome. For example, had the traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) functioned and been followed correctly, the pilots could have avoided each other even despite the air traffic control failures.

That being said, perhaps the most disturbing thing here is how the pilots have been treated. There is little reason to believe at this point that the pilots committed a crime. In fact, they have not been charged at all in this mess. They are simply being held against their will in defiance of Brazilian law. If that’s not enough to disturb anyone, then how about this . . . according to Joe Sharkey’s blog, the general response in the country can be summed up as “Payback for Guantanamo! Serves them right for being Americans.”