This week was Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP) week over at BNET. Grant applications for this year’s program are rolling in, and I look at some of the best and worst. The federal government offers up this money to help small airports build up service in their area. Some take better approaches than others, and some come off as downright greedy.

Elko Applies to SCASDP for More Service to Reno
It’s SCASDP week here at BNET Travel. I’ll be looking at a new airport grant request every day. Today, it’s Elko and it’s odd request for more Reno flights.

Escanaba Looks to SCASDP for Marketing Funds
A new airline, new connecting hub, and two months without service. Escanaba wants a SCASDP grant to help tell the community what’s happening.

Dubuque Looks to Expand Its Unique Marketing Plan with SCASDP
An airport with a frequent flier program? That’s the kind of innovation the SCASDP should be supporting.

Midland Applies to SCASDP for More Flights to the West
Midland/Odessa has flights from American, Continental, and Southwest, but apparently that’s not enough. They want more to the West.

Bangor Wants SCASDP Grant for More New York Service
Bangor already has year-round service to the New York area. Why is it trying to get funds for even more?

I first saw the news on TechCrunch a couple days ago. Once I noticed Kayak’s Keith Melnick and Steve Hafner confirm it in the comments section, I figured it was true. American has decided to stop participation in Kayak. After reading the blog post and many of the misinformed comments that followed, I figured I’d give a little primer on how Kayak works and why this move shouldn’t change your opinion of whether to use it or not.

Kayak, Sidestep, Mobissimo, and PriceGrabber Travel, the site I ran until we shut it down last year, are (were) all metasearch sites, or aggregators. (Yes, there are more out there as well.) The basic idea is like that of any shopping comparison site. Kayak (and the others, but I’ll stick with Kayak from now on) doesn’t sell anything itself. It aggregates fares from a variety of sources. Here’s an example of a result I just pulled up on Kayak (the AA relationship doesn’t end until August 1).

When the user finds the flights that he wants, he picks the “seller” he wants to buy from and Kayak sends him over to that seller. In this case, it’s either AA.com or Orbitz, but Kayak works with a bunch of them. (I believe Orbitz/CheapTickets are the only big air providers other than airlines, but that’s a story for another day.)

Anyway, in this case AA.com looks cheaper because the fee includes all booking fees, and the airline site almost always has none (excluding US Airways). Of course, the online travel agent (OTA) usually has one (except for Priceline).

How does Kayak make money? They get paid a little bit when they send you over to the seller or they get paid more when the purchase is actually completed (like a traditional commission). They also make money off advertising, but that’s not relevant to this discussion. (I’ve really got to stop using so many parentheses.)

Now, according to American (via BudgetTravel):

Kayak/Sidestep has advised American Airlines that they will no longer display our content.

We are disappointed and hopeful that this issue can be resolved in the near future so that American Airlines will again display on the Kayak/Sidestep sites.

Hmm, this doesn’t sound right. But then I noticed Kayak chief Steve Hafner’s comment on TechCrunch and it makes sense of what’s going on. He said:

American asked us to suppress search results from competing websites as a condition to displaying their fares. This is simply not something that Kayak will do. Imagine Sony telling Best Buy that they couldn’t sell Panasonic?

Now this quote is hardly using an apples-to-apples comparison. It would be like Sony telling Best Buy that they couldn’t sell Sony products provided by third party resellers. But the point I take from this is that American says it will participate in Kayak only if no results from OTAs are displayed for their flights. Kayak told them to take a hike.

Why does Kayak want results from Orbitz or other online travel agents in the first place? Backfill. It’s hard to develop a relationship with every airline, and some don’t ever want to participate, so Kayak would have an incomplete offering if it couldn’t fill in the blanks with an online travel agent. In some cases, this means that results from multiple sellers will be displayed. American doesn’t like that so they’re walking away.

TechCrunch inaccurately states that “American Airlines has a particular beef with Kayak because it tends to show AA flights through its partnership with Orbitz instead of directly from American. That means American has to pay a double tax, once to Kayak and once to Orbitz.”

It is possible that some flights are being shown through Orbitz and not AA.com, but my last search showed the opposite was true. The reality is that American and Orbitz have different connections with different data transfer speeds to Kayak, so different numbers of flights results get returned. So you will have some occasions when one seller shows up and not the other, but ideally they would both show up on each flight. This is good for you, because sometimes you can find one site happens to be cheaper than the rest.

If Kayak is, in fact, suppressing results from AA.com and only showing Orbitz because they can make more off Orbitz, then that is absolutely inexcusable. I would be surprised to see that happening.

One thing that seems certain is that American would never pay a double fee, unless Kayak has instituted some sort of listing fee and that would surprise me. Payment historically hasn’t been upon display but rather when the click occurs or when the purchase occurs. AA will either pay Kayak directly or Orbitz will pay Kayak and American will pay Orbitz its usual commission. Those are the only options. Maybe the Kayak guys will read this and can offer some clarification if that’s not true.

Whichever “CEO of a competing travel site” leaked this information to TechCrunch appears to have an axe to grind with Kayak. Just remember this. If you go to Kayak, you may not see AA.com, but you’ll still see those flights from Orbitz. Save $6 and go directly to AA.com to book, but don’t think that the Kayak results will now be incomplete. If you liked shopping there before (and I know there are mixed feelings on that one), this shouldn’t change your mind.

When it comes to technology, Alaska tends to be ahead of the curve when compared to other airlines. Their latest release? They now have a low fare calendar that shows you the lowest fares for an entire month for both your outbound and return.

This isn’t exactly a new idea; British Airways, for example, has had it for quite a long time and Southwest has had its “Shortcut” for some time as well, but anything that can be done to improve the booking process is a welcome addition.

You enter your search criteria just as you would on any site. Then when you select the low fare calendar, it brings up this view:

Pretty easy, and if your dates are flexible, it can save you good money. But your dates have to be really flexible for this to matter. I mean, if you’re putting together a weeklong summer vacation, you might be able to switch weeks, but I don’t know how helpful it is for the majority of people. That’s probably why it’s not the default search on their website.

For me, there are better ways to do this. I think you can get a lot of the benefit by using the implementation that JetBlue and Virgin America use. They show you the flights for the days you chose, but at the top they have tabs with the lowest price on the three days on either side of your date, like this.

But hey, this IS an improvement over what they have now, and I would like to commend them for actually showing the price including taxes on that first page. My only real complaint is that when you choose your flights, it takes you to the old page that shows the roundtrip flights by price. Personally, I prefer the search by schedule that shows lowest fares on all the outbound and then return flights. It’s easier to put options together. Fortunately, you can still get there by clicking again from the search by price page, but that takes yet another click.

So, nice work by Alaska, but nothing revolutionary here. I’d like to see something with more filtering options than just First Class so you can really find the lowest fare on flights that would work for you on each day. One of these days, we’ll get there.

I saw this post from Gulliver noting that Emirates has decided to remove all paper from the seatback pockets of its A380 to save weight, and I couldn’t stop laughing. It seems to me that if the airline was really that concerned about fuel burn, it could probably do without the onboard showers for First Class passengers.

The plane has 489 seats, and this moves apparently saves 4.4 pounds (2 kilograms) per seat. So that means they’ll save about 2,100 pounds per plane. In case you were wondering, the plane weighs just over 1.2 million pounds at its max takeoff weight, so this isn’t much. But that being said, it will save something, and every little bit counts.

Now, I understand that they’re planning on offering all that paper content on the video screen instead, so it does make sense, but I still can’t get past the whole shower thing. In case you missed it, Emirates will be offering showers for First Class passengers. It is said that the airline will have to bring 1 tonne of water for this purpose, and guess what? One tonne is 2,200 pounds. That’s effectively the weight of all those paper products that are being removed.

So, if you’ve crammed yourself into coach and your seatback video doesn’t work, you can take comfort in the fact that at least First Class passengers can shower onboard. Or not.

Once again, it appears that those north of the border have figured out a better way to raise money . . . charge for new services instead of ones that are currently free. The latest comes from WestJet, which has announced it will begin offering seat assignments for a fee.

WestJet currently uses a model we don’t see much of here in the US. You can’t reserve a seat at the time of booking on WestJet. But, when you check-in, you can pick your seat. This is different from Southwest which doesn’t ever assign a seat and just has you pick when you get onboard. Of course, check-in behavior for both airlines is the same. People try to check in as early as possible so they can get the best seats.

Now on WestJet, you will be able to reserve a seat any time prior to after booking for $10 (I assume that’s US or Canadian money.) For $15, you can reserve an exit row seat. Not a bad deal, huh? It’s funny how perspective changes how you view a fee.

If an airline currently offers me a seat assignment for free (or a first bag, or really anything), it makes it a lot more annoying when they take that away. It’s a reduction in value, and that doesn’t go over well. On the other hand, when an airline offers me something that previously wasn’t available, I think it’s great.

Legacy carriers in the US have a problem in that a lot more stuff used to be included in the fare than is the case with someone like WestJet. But that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Air Canada has done a great job of adding value by charging for things that previously weren’t available. Yes, they’ve charged for things that were free as well, but at least they’ve tried to add value.

So, is there anything bad about this? Well, I had one reader say that if you buy a sale fare, you can’t pay to reserve a seat. That doesn’t make sense. Charge more for sale fares if you’d like, but why turn away money? I’m not sure what the full story is there.

Other than that, if I fly WestJet, I’m probably happy about this, because I’d rather be able to select my seat ahead of time for that nominal fee. If someone doesn’t want to pay the fee, however, that person is probably not so happy because now all those people that pay the fee will take away seats that could have previously been had by checking in early. Still, it’s a net positive for the airline’s customers, and it’s a net positive for the income statement as well.