As you know, I was at Media Day for US Airways yesterday, but when I read this article from Reuters, I began to wonder if I was in the wrong place. I didn’t hear anything that could lead to the headline stating “US Airways CEO see airline industry heading down.”

Oh sure, they got the quotes right, for the most part. But they were taken completely out of context.

Did Doug say, “Our industry is in a mess, if you haven’t noticed”? Yeah, well I remember him saying “Our industry is a mess” but that’s close enough. But what wasn’t cited here was that Doug was talking about the industry from a general perspective, not at this current moment. And it had nothing to do with the economy. And as we know, this industry IS a mess and always has been.

Did Doug say, “We’re about to head into what looks like another downturn”? Yep. But he was referring to the economy, not the airline. Doug went on to confirm that the airline hadn’t seen any weakness so far, despite the economic indicators that are out there.

Wow, just a brutally twisted report. It’s going to take me some time to get my full post on this together, but I should have it for Monday. Until then, why don’t you keep yourselves entertained with this giant rat.

This rat was outside airline headquarters yesterday as part of a protest involving US Airways labor groups. Next time the unions ask for a raise in the face of $100 oil, I think US Airways can just say the rat took all the money. I hear he works for ExxonMobil.

When I first put up the link to Cranky Gear online, I figured I wouldn’t sell too much of it. Turns out, at least some people are interested. I started asking people to send in pictures wearing their Cranky gear, and sure enough, they have. I’m going to have to create a page of Cranky Gear around the world, or something like that. So, if you purchased Cranky Gear, take pictures and send them in!

As you can see below, we’ve even got some kids in on the act already.

Then a friend sent some pictures of himself posing down the mountain from Christ the Redeemer in Rio.

His wife was not to be left out. Here she is in front of Leblon beach with Ipanema in the distance.

Tomorrow, I’ll be heading to US Airways Media Day, so there’s a good chance I won’t post again until Monday. I’ll be back with all kinds of fun US Airways info later on.

You might be surprised to know that it’s not just airlines that can get the Cranky Jackass award. Today, I have the pleasure of awarding it to Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, the girls who say that being so hot got them banned from Southwest for life.

Sounds ridiculous, right? Well, it is. But this irresponsible piece of journalism from a Tampa news station proves that it must have been a slow news day when it happened. The girls claim that they were harassed from the moment they got on board, and at the end of the flight they were met by law enforcement and banned for life from flying Southwest. Why? Because they’re “decent looking.” Don’t believe me? Watch the video yourself, complete with camera panning head-to-toe in order to give you a good look.

Now, last time Southwest had a sex scandal, they ignored it and it blew up to epic proportions. The girl with the short skirt, Kyla Whats-Her-Face, even got herself invited to a Richard Branson party for Virgin America. When they finally did respond, it was a day late and a dollar short. The damage had been done. So you knew Southwest wouldn’t make that mistake again, and it was exactly their response this time that even made me consider writing about this event.

First, they put out a press release with all the facts from the point of view of the crew members involved as well as uninvolved passengers on the flight. Also, I received a quick response from Southwest spokesperson Paula Berg when I asked for more details. She immediately pointed me to an updated story from the same person who filed the original report. This one presented Southwest’s side of the story.

As you might imagine, they have a very different interpretation of events, and one that I find to be far more believable. They say the girls (or at least one of them) got angry that someone was in the bathroom so long. They pounded on the door, and when asked to stop acting that way, they refused. When the person came out, words were exchanged, at the very least. Once they landed, they took them off the plane and canceled the return on their tickets, giving them a refund for that fare. Oh, and Paula added, “the two ladies are not ‘banned’ from ever traveling on Southwest in the future.” Sounds a lot more plausible to me.

But what’s really interesting here is that they fought the YouTube video with a response video of their own from spokesperson Brandy King.

She may very well be a good spokesperson behind the camera, but she didn’t come off very well in front of it. The content was fine, but she fumbled and stumbled her way through the minute-long video. I still like the proactive effort, but really, the entire time I was watching this video, I kept thinking two things.

1. Nice strategic placement in front of the picture that says “A beautiful way to fly.” Hah.
2. If Southwest decided to ban pretty people from flying, Brandy King wouldn’t be able to fly her own airline

Despite the fumbling in the video, I think this was handled pretty well by Southwest. It’s nice to see them learn from their past mistakes. A look at the 900+ comments on that news story shows that most people side with the airline on this one (but definitely not all). My favorite comment? “I didn’t know Paris and Nicole were still friends?!!”

Looks like US Airways has decided to match United’s effort to charge $25 to check a second bag. Raise your hand if you’re surprised. Hey you . . . yeah, the guy over there in Sheboygan . . . put your hand down. Nobody should be surprised by this.

If you buy your ticket from today forward and travel after May 5, you’ll pay $25 for that second bag. There are some important differences between the United policy and the US Airways policy, so definitely take note.

US Airways will not exempt refundable fares. Any fare pays. Oh, and this applies to the entire US Airways system and not just domestic flying like under United’s policy. First Class passengers and Elite frequent flier members will be exempt, of course, and so will active military personnel, unaccompanied minors, and “those checking assistive devices.” I assume that means a wheelchair or something else “assistive.”

I’m not quite sure why unaccompanied minors don’t have to pay, but the rest of the exemptions make sense. We all knew this was inevitable, especially for an airline like US Airways. The good news? Um. I don’t think there is any good news for travelers here. I’m sure the PR spin is that this will help keep base fares lower in the face of rising fuel costs, or something along those lines. Ultimately it’s just another way to extract money in the face of $100 oil.

The good news for me is that I get to head over to US Airways Media Day on Thursday, so I’m looking forward to hearing more about what they’re working on.

Looks like Ryanair’s upgrade went well, and the site even came back up a day early. When I read through the page describing the benefits of the upgrade, one thing stood out.

You can now check-in for your flight online up to 5 days in advance of travel. If both your flights happen to be within 5 days, you can check in for both of them. Interesting.

It used to be that if you had checked in for a flight with most airlines, you were somewhere in the airport. Gate agents could be pretty sure that if they showed a certain number of people checked-in, they could expect them to show up, unless they were on a delayed connecting flight. Even then, it was easy for the agents to predict how things would go. That was really helpful on oversold flights.

But then people started having the ability to check in from home. All of a sudden, people could show up as checked-in, but they could have been stuck in traffic or had a last minute change of plans so there was a better chance they wouldn’t show up. It made it harder to predict how full an aircraft would be.

Now, you can check yourself in 5 days prior to your flight. Imagine all the things could happen in that time? Yet now, people will check in 5 days in advance on Ryanair, because it’s still first come, first serve seating. So, even if you think your plans might change, you’re not going to take a chance that you get stuck with a late boarding number. So they can expect even less certainty.

This makes me think. What’s the point of having you check in at all?

If you need to book a ticket, change your ticket, or view your reservation on Ryanair in the next few days, you better hurry up. Starting tonight (Friday, Feb 22) at 10pm GMT (11pm on the Continent), Ryanair will completely shut down its booking engine while it upgrades it. The site won’t come back up until Monday, Feb 25 at 11p GMT. During that time, you won’t be able to:

• Make a booking online
• Make any changes to an existing booking online
• Review your flight itinerary online
• Check-in online for any flight (fees will be waived to check-in at the airport)
• Get any information from Ryanair - they’re shutting down their call centers the whole time

I have to say, I can’t remember ever seeing a system upgrade go like this before. Knowing Ryanair, this was probably the cheapest way to do the upgrade, so they signed on to just shut everything down. Hopefully when it comes back up, they’ll have better luck than other airlines who have recently tried to upgrade. Keep your fingers crossed, and if you’re traveling this weekend, get there earlier than normal to deal with the long lines that are likely to occur.

It’s been awhile since we’ve heard about any new routes from Virgin America, so when I saw a press release saying that they were applying to fly from LA to Cabo, I felt compelled to write.

Cabo?!? Are they really that desperate to find a place to fly?

This is the second time they’ve jumped in on a route after Frontier has abandoned it. The first was LAX-SFO, and that one hasn’t fared too well so far. At least, that’s the case through the DOT’s recently released November data. The airline only filled 58.7% of seats on that route that month. (Other markets don’t look so good either - the best is LAX-JFK with 68.7%, and JetBlue will be starting that soon.) And this isn’t just historical. I’m assuming that trend is continuing because I’ve seen a lot of cheap fare sales coming out of the airline lately.

So, we’ve seen them shift away from their original transcon idea more toward the short hauls, and now they’re going international. It seems to me they’re just throwing ideas against the wall and seeing what sticks, because this doesn’t seem to be a very cohesive plan.

Why would an airline that has shown interest in serving major business markets all around the US decide to go to an already over-served, leisure-oriented Cabo market? Have they run out of good options in the US already? This does not make sense. They’re flying to a short-haul vacation market that has the added complexity of being international. That means you need to arrange for customs and immigration, and you have to hope that your homegrown IT system can handle international travel. Oh, and those low fares? They don’t look so low after you pile on those international taxes. And of course, live tv doesn’t work down there either.

Maybe it really is just a case of “jumping on the opportunity.” The bilateral agreement with Mexico allows for three carriers from each country to fly this route. Currently, Alaska and American both fly it twice daily from the US and Mexicana flies it from Mexico. Frontier has been flying it, but they’re giving up and that’s why this new authority is available. United has applied for it with the possibility of connections throughout California, and now Virgin America has jumped in with only a couple connecting opportunities that are already well-served.

But as I’ve said earlier, this market really doesn’t need another carrier in it. CEO David Cush says “Since it was a low-cost airline that is giving up the right to fly to Cabo, we think it would be ideal for another low-cost carrier to take its place.” Um, so since it was a low-cost airline that failed in Cabo, does that mean another low-cost carrier should follow in its footsteps?

After that statement, he should have added, “Look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey.” Yes, as a friend of mine said, this a prime example of the Chewbacca Defense. That’s right. It just does not make sense.

Do they have a strategy right now that I’m missing? Someone please help me see the light, because it’s looking pretty dark to me right now. From what I can tell, the best success they’ve had is with their tiny first class cabin. It would seem to me that you’d want to start focusing on what’s worked for you instead of going into a market where first class isn’t going to matter at all.

Anyone else out there seen Lufthansa’s Quick Boarding? I saw it on TravelPost’s blog and I’m not sure how I missed it before.

It appears that at some gates in Frankfurt, Munich, Berlin/Tegel, Dusseldorf, Hanover, Hamburg and Bremen (yes, all in Germany), you don’t need one of those fancy gate agents to get you on the plane. Nope. You can just board yourself. I’m told it looks something like this.

Ok, maybe not. But this picture (the original, by the way, is from the excellent New York State Archives) shows that this is not a new idea. Back in 1934, these people were boarding subways exactly the way Lufthansa is now boarding aircraft. So what took airlines so long to do this?

Lots of things. Security probably played a role, as did the fact that you would need a lot of these scattered throughout the airport. I imagine that automation is important too. Just dropping a token isn’t going to ensure people are getting on the right flights.

The way Lufthansa has it set up, you take your boarding pass and scan it in the turnstile. That unlocks it and you can board. Once you’re through the turnstile, it spits out your boarding pass stub for you to keep. If you’re on the waitlist, you can watch a monitor showing who has cleared and gotten themselves a seat. If you’re one of the lucky ones, you can swipe your temporary boarding pass (saying you’re on the list) and it will spit out a new one for you. Nice.

I’m not sure how this works if you check-in online and print your boarding pass. Actually, I’m guessing it doesn’t since it requires a magnetic stripe, but it’s a start.

You can get more info and pictures (real ones) here.

Readers of the TSA’s blog know that the agency has recently decided to roll out a program in Salt Lake City that has different lanes for different types of travelers. As you can see at left, passengers will have three different choices. While the idea seems to be a good one, and I never have a problem with trying new things, I don’t think this one is going to end well.

The idea here is that when you get to the checkpoint at Salt Lake City, you will see the signs for Families/Special Assistance, Casual Travelers, or Expert Travelers. As you can imagine, the family line will take the longest as people take forever to get their remove their kids from their bags, stack laptops on top of each other like a Jenga game, and pour liquids into their shoes . . . or something like that. The expert lines are meant for the business traveler who knows the drill and has everything ready by the time he or she reaches the front of the line. All sounds great, right? Not so fast.

The biggest problem here is that there’s no enforcement - just self selection and that won’t work.

It would be great if everyone acted like my friend Benet Wilson over at Towers and Tarmacs. Benet may be a pro traveler, but when she has her daughter, she’d go in the slow line. Something tells me not everyone will be so kind. Instead, people will just act in their own self interest.

Let’s say you’re traveling on Sunday afternoon. You can bet there will be a ton of families, so that line will be long. What will stop someone from going to the other shorter lines? Not much. And what about the business traveler who thinks he’s a pro, but in actuality completely forgets to pull out his laptop and liquids? That’ll slow things down.

I just see too many problems here unless someone is going to regulate the flow of passengers. The good news is, however, that this is just a test. If it works, then cool. We’ll see it elsewhere, I’m sure. If not, well, it’ll go away and we’ll forget that it ever happened.

There’s really nothing surprising in the announcement that US Airways has taken a couple steps to devalue its Dividend Miles program. I mean, every airline has been doing this, but US Airways has come up with a unique and seemingly logical way to make it happen - making people only earn the miles they fly.

There were actually two changes. The first one involves eliminating the minimum mileage. So if you fly that 214 miles from Washington/National to New York/La Guardia, you’re going to earn, well, 214 miles. Until this change, anything below 500 miles still got you 500 miles. As you can imagine, people flying short flights aren’t going to be happy about this one, so that primarily impacts those flying in the Northeast. But for me, this change makes sense. Sure, it sucks that you used to earn more miles and now you don’t, but logically I can understand it.

I shouldn’t say that. Let’s be honest. Frequent flier programs like these don’t make sense at all. They reward people for flying miles and not for being profitable. So someone who pays $200 every week to fly roundtrip from LA to New York gets 250,000 miles and top tier in the frequent flier program while someone who pays $200 to fly every week from LA to Phoenix doesn’t even reach 40,000 miles, enough for only Silver status. The person flying to Phoenix is definitely more profitable and therefore more valuable so why aren’t they rewarded that way? If you can forget about that problem and assume that the programs make sense, then handing out miles as they’re flown should make sense as well.

The second change is the introduction of a fee for award travel booked within 14 days of travel. They’re actually charging less than others, but that doesn’t make it any better. Personally, I really hate this one. I mean, for the airline, this is a toss up. On one hand, you can be relatively sure that someone who books within 14 days isn’t going to take a seat away from a paying customer, so you’d think you’d want to reward that type of behavior. On the other hand, someone who books within 14 days is more likely to need to take the trip, and they’re more likely to actually pay the higher close-in fare for travel. You know airlines hate when someone uses their miles instead of buying an expensive last minute ticket. This is a way for them to get some of that money back, even if it shouldn’t be theirs to take.

So there you go. A couple changes that shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, no matter how much you dislike them.