Short Haul Air Travelers Aren’t Buying Premium Tickets, May Be a Permanent Change – BNET
Premium air traffic numbers are looking a bit better on long haul, but short haul travel is still feeling the pain.

Southwest Rings in the New Year with an Aggressive Denver Push – BNET
Southwest isn’t giving up on Denver – in fact, it’s kicking up its efforts there. People in Colorado are lucky.

a new year brings new air travel security rules – AntiBride.com
My first post for AntiBride in the new year talks about the newest security rules.

Allegiant’s Unique Aircraft Order Highlights A Different Model – BNET
Allegiant just ordered 18 new planes, 5 simply for parts, and they probably paid less for all these planes than you would for a single new 737-800. Oh yeah.

US Airways Nearly Achieves Unit Revenue Growth in December – BNET
Positive revenue growth? Not quite, but we’re almost there. It’s nice to see.

Getting “Cranky” Over the Parasite Blogger Myth – Starkman & Associates Blog
Eric Starkman has a very nice piece on the legitimacy of blogging vs traditional media, and Cranky features prominently.

Don’t Fly Cranky, Fly WITH Cranky Concierge! – AirlineReporter.com
I spoke with David Parker Brown about Cranky Concierge and he likes what he sees.

Airline Financials Should Get a Boost From Stellar Operational Performance – BNET
November was just a great month for airline operations, and that’s bound to result in a nice cost savings.

Ethics has been a hot topic in the world of blogging lately, and after a recent discussion in the comment section on a post, I thought it was time for me to put things in writing.

See, I’ve always had what I consider to be a strong code of ethics when it comes to the blog (and in life as well, but that’s a different story), but I’ve never bothered to put it out there in writing. Why? No reason. I just didn’t do it. But now that I’ve seen more interest in this subject, and the feds have started to regulate disclosures, I thought it was a good to put this out there. I’ve also decided to strengthen it a bit, so if you’re looking to get me to write about your product, I’d recommend reading this first.

But before I put it up, I want to discuss it with you guys, my readers. Take a look at what I have so far, and please share your ideas in the comments section. I’d like to have this up with a link from the homepage within the next week. So here’s what I have:

For the purpose of this code, “free and/or discounted products and services” refers to anything offered to me for free or for a discount simply because of my status as a blogger.

• I will never trade favorable press for free and/or discounted products and services. I will always write the truth, and that may or may not be good for your product/service.
• I will only accept free and/or discounted products and services if they come from someone with whom I have an existing relationship. I can only feel comfortable accepting free and/or discounted products and services from organizations which I know understand the rules that I’ve set. If they haven’t spent time building a relationship, then there isn’t enough trust built up for me to accept anything.
• Providing me with free and/or discounted products and services doesn’t mean I will write about them. If you ask before giving anything, I will do my best to let you know if I think I will write about it or not, but that’s still not a guarantee.
• Please do not provide unsolicited free and/or discounted products and services. Contact me first to avoid wasting your time.
• I will not accept free or discounted transportation for a personal trip.
• When I write about free and/or discounted products and services, I will always disclose who gave them to me, what the discount was, and when they were given to me.

That’s what I have so far. Now let’s hear what you have to say.

Please keep in mind that I am going for something realistic here. Would I like to turn away every offer of something free and/or discounted? Absolutely, but nobody is paying to read this site, and the ad revenue hardly covers the cost of a ticket. Without these opportunities, I wouldn’t necessarily be able to cover things that I want to cover for you.

So, let’s try and create a good, solid code of ethics that is also realistic. Leave your comments below.

If I told you that two of the largest low cost carriers in the Asia Pacific region got together to form an alliance, that would be pretty big news, right? Well, that’s what is happening now as Jetstar and Air Asia have decided to link up. This is big news, but for passengers, it’s not news at all. This is going to be a behind-the-scenes link for now, but I wouldn’t rule out bigger changes up front later on.

For those who aren’t familiar, Air Asia is the monster of the low cost carrier world in Southeast Asia. They started out with a couple used 737s, but they’ve now grown into a behemoth. They should be flying 100 airplanes by the end of this year, most of which are A320s. They have plenty more on order as well, effectively trying to turn themselves into the Asian version of Ryanair (though, funny enough, unlike Ryanair, with European-built airplanes). They’ve also recently started Air Asia X for long haul low cost flying with A330s. (Strange fact: Air Asia X inexplicably sponsors the Oakland Raiders despite a) them not flying anywhere on this continent and b) the Raiders absolutely sucking.)

Jetstar has taken a different path. They are a very rare specimen – a successful low cost airline within an airline. They are a part of Qantas and are about half the size of Air Asia in terms of fleet. They have a bunch of A320s buzzing around Australia, and they added long haul flying on A330s. They’ve grown their Jetstar Asia (and Jetstar Pacific in Vietnam) product in the same region as Air Asia, but they don’t actually overlap that much.

Jetstar started the consolidation party by merging with Valuair a few years back. You’ll still see Valuair flying airplanes but the branding is Jetstar these days. Now, Jetstar is getting together with Air Asia, but it’s not like you think.

This alliance is supposedly all about cost savings. They’re going to get together to try to build purchasing power for fuel, ground handling, airplanes, and more. The airplane piece is particularly interesting in that they’re really going to try to push the development of the successor to the 737 and A320 airplanes. They want the next generation so they can drive down costs.

There are some really good points in a blog post over at Plane Talking covering the announcement. Air Asia is really focused on driving down costs – lower costs means they can lower fares and stimulate travel. They’re gonna make money on volume. And it’s been working for them so far.

This does put an abrupt end to the rumors swirling about Air Asia and Virgin Blue coming together to create an ultra low cost carrier in Australia. That’s probably a good thing. There’s already a blood bath in that country, so they don’t need any more rock bottom fares.

All eyes are now on Tiger Airways, the biggest competitor in the region. Tiger not only flies around Southeast Asia, but they opened up an Australian division as well. They don’t appear to be making money on that, and this is likely to put more pressure on them. If Air Asia and Jetstar can lower costs and fares, that can’t be good for Tiger.

Now, will this spill over into a customer-facing alliance? I don’t see why it wouldn’t some day. Though Qantas has done a good job with Jetstar, why not join forces with Air Asia and let the leader in the space run your low cost carrier? Keep a stake and watch your fortunes rise. But for now, there’s nothing to announce on that front. We’ll see how long it takes.

Mesa Air Group has finally filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after a very long downhill slide. I imagine that there’s not a single person in the airline industry surprised by this move. What does this mean for you, the traveler? Nothing. Yet.

This is a Chapter 11 filing, so Mesa is hoping to restructure itself and slash its fleet from 177 to 101 airplanes (PDF). I spoke with Paul Skellon, VP of Mesa’s go! subsidiary, and he assured me that this isn’t like most bankruptcies you see. They have enough cash to cover their operation so they don’t actually need any debtor-in-possession financing. It seems that this filing is all about breaking contracts – they want to ditch a bunch of airplanes that they aren’t using and get lower rates on the ones they’re keeping.

Right now, Mesa has 177 airplanes to its name. Incredibly, a whopping 52 of those are parked:

• 20 Beechcraft 1900 19 seat turboprops haven’t been used for a long time
• 3 Bombardier Dash-8 turboprops have joined them
• 17 Bombardier CRJ-200 50 seat jets are sitting in the desert
• 12 Embraer ERJ-145 50 seat jets are parked

In addition to that, United will be ending its contract for 7 Dash 8s and 18 CRJ-200s in the near future. Mesa says it wants to ditch those 76 airplanes. That will leave them with a mere 101 airplanes left as follows.

• 6 Bombardier Dash-8s with US Airways
• 8 Bombardier CRJ-200s with US Airways
• 5 Bombardier CRJ-200s with go!
• 22 Embraer ERJ-145s with Delta
• 2 Embraer ERJ-145s subleased out
• 20 Bombardier CRJ-700s with United
• 38 Bombardier CRJ-900s with US Airways

Now, the question is this . . . will they survive? It’s in the hands of the judge. United and Delta have been ending contracts with Mesa as quickly as possible, so you know they’d be happy to walk away and have someone else take over this flying. An April 2009 prospectus last year noted that if either Mesa or its codeshare partners (US Airways, Delta, United) file bankruptcy, the other party can terminate. Paul Skellon wasn’t able to comment on whether this clause was still in effect, and my calls to other people at Mesa went unanswered. I heard back from Brian Gillman, Mesa’a EVP, General Counsel, and Secretary and he confirmed that those bankruptcy clauses are unenforceable. They are only included in case the laws change in the future.

This is a bit of a gamble for Mesa. Even if they don’t need the money and they can get around the bankruptcy clauses, they still need the bankruptcy judge to agree to let them break their contracts. The largest unsecured creditors are aircraft lessors and owners: Wells Fargo, Bombardier, Embraer, and GE, companies that all have larger relationships with Delta, United, and US Airways. Would any of them really be adversely impacted if Mesa disappeared? Probably not. They could just find someone else to do the flying. I wonder how the judge will feel about this.

I could see ExpressJet jumping at the chance to operate the ERJs in exchange for a long term deal with Delta. And Republic and SkyWest/ASA would probably fight for at least a piece of the business as well. I just don’t see who wins by having Mesa survive except for Mesa itself. If the judge decides not to let them break contracts, then this could turn ugly.

That, of course, doesn’t mean Mesa won’t come out of this in the end. Even if Mesa doesn’t make it out, I imagine that one piece will survive – go!, the one piece that isn’t involved in the bankruptcy filing. Now that go! and Mokulele have combined in a joint venture, they’ve become the only major competitor to Hawaiian within Hawai’i. Maybe Island Air would be interested in stepping up, but really, there is room for a second airline and right now, that’s go!

If you’re booked on a Mesa-operated flight, I wouldn’t worry. I asked Delta, United, and US Airways if they were allowing people to change from Mesa-operated flights to other flights. As expected, they aren’t. Nothing is changing . . . yet.

So we’ll see how this bankruptcy case goes. It’s definitely a unique situation, and I’m curious to see how it plays out.

Updated 1/7 @ 1257p to reflect Mesa’s comment on the bankruptcy clause in contracts

I don’t like to dwell on these end-of-year facts and figures too often, but sometimes I think it’s worth pausing to take a look. For example, let’s take a look at airline safety in 2009. It was actually a very safe year. There were 30 fatal “airliner” accidents that ended with 758 people being killed (1 on the ground). That sounds like a lot, right? We’ll break it down further after this slideshow from Aviation Safety Network, which highlights the accidents of the year.

Airliner Accident Review 2009

View more presentations from Aviation Safety Network.

So, of those 30 accidents (which may seem like a huge number), only 11 involved passenger flights. And of those, many were in the usual places you would expect – the ones without a strong safety leadership culture. There was one in Rwanda, one in Papua New Guinea, and one in Indonesia. I believe having at least one accident is required in Indonesia every year. There was an old TU-154 that crashed in Iran and a little Embraer 110 that went down in the Amazon. There was also that Yemenia A310 that crashed in the Indian Ocean off Africa.

Some accidents involved runway overruns and were mostly survivable. The Turkish 737 that landed hard in Amsterdam is one example, as was the Bangkok Airways ATR-72 and the Mashad IL-62. But that brings us to the big two.

The biggest, of course, was the Air France flight that plunged into the Atlantic off the coast of Brazil. We still don’t know what caused that one, and we may very well never know.

The other? The Colgan Air (Continental Connection) Dash-8 that went down in Buffalo. That, of course, was caused by a combination of pilot error, fatigue, and bad weather.

So when it comes right down to it, 2009 was a very safe year. You were much safer flying than, well, eating airline food, especially if it was prepared by LSG SkyChefs in Denver. (That’s a whole different, disgusting story.)