It’s been a quiet week on BNET this week, and that’s because they were busy launching a completely revamped site. So they locked us out while they made the changes, but now it’s back and better than before. Instead of being a contributor on BNET Travel, I now have my own blog called Headwinds (BNET Travel is gone). I’ll continue to post at the same rate as before, but you’ll now only see my posts. I would, however suggest browsing the other blogs as well, because there is some great stuff in there.

So make sure you update your bookmarks. The old industry.bnet.com/travel site is so 2009. Start using this link from now on:
http://www.bnet.com/blog/airline-business
And the new RSS feed is:
http://www.bnet.com/blog/airline-business?mode=rss

Southwest’s Chronic Flight Delays Are Getting Worrisome – BNET Headwinds
Southwest had another month with a fair number of flights delayed more than 70 percent of the time. With the DOT’s increasing focus, they’re going to need to work on this.

Delta Woos N.Y. Fliers as Chicago Shuttle Targets UAL, AMR – Bloomberg
Bloomberg ran a piece about Delta moving into the LaGuardia-O’Hare market with full force. I see this as an attempt to “win” New York, so it’s targeting American more than anyone else.

How Southwest Made Hay With “Bags Fly Free” – BNET Headwinds
Southwest keeps getting more creative with selling its bags fly free prop. This time, it’s a ground ops agent getting in on it.

US Airways Pilot Dilemma Spills Into the Courts -BNET Headwinds
The US Airways pilot brawl is heating up, and management has been dragged in. Now the airline want clarification on what the heck it’s supposed to do.

United-Continental Merger: Suspicions Confirmed as Exec Team Leans Toward Continental – BNET Headwinds
John Tague is out, and Continental is starting to take over.

How Social Media Can Save Airlines Time and Money – BNET Headwinds
There’s a lot of debate about whether or not social media is worth. I say yes, and the benefit can be quantifiable.

Delta announced a big increase in flights in New York and Washington this week, and I’m having trouble figuring out how they’re making this happen. Something doesn’t smell quite right, especially in Washington, but I can’t get a straight answer on this. One thing does seem to be clear. The slot swap would have been better for the consumer.

Delta is adding flights in New York, but that’s not a surprise. It’s the increase at Washington/National that has me perplexed. As we all know by now, Delta and US Airways were trying to arrange a slot swap where Delta would give most of its slots to US Airways at National in exchange for US Airways slots at LaGuardia. That was shot down, and now the airlines are fighting the feds in court for permission. You would think that Delta would stick with the status quo pending the court outcome (even if it is a long way away), but that’s not the case. Delta will be adding 27 daily flights to nine cities from National while only killing off service to one city.

Which cities? Here’s the list:

All these changes happen on October 31, but where the heck is the net increase of 25 slots coming from each way? Delta is, as usual, being tight-lipped about the whole thing, but I did get spokesperson Trebor Banstetter to say:

Our slot portfolio at [National] includes slots that had been subleased to other airlines and are now available for Delta’s use, which is how we’re able to add the additional flights without making reductions other than [Huntsville].

Hmm, the plot thickens. Now, who would have been leasing a big chunk of slots from Delta? Trebor wouldn’t tell me, but come on. How many options are there? I mean, it has to be US Airways, right? Nobody else has that big of a chunk of slots that it would be able to hand back and still maintain a viable operation. Delta must have had these slots leased out to US Airways on a longer term deal, and now Delta wants them back. That’s very interesting if true. It means that besides not getting the rest of Delta’s slots that it was giving away in the deal, US Airways may have lost even more slots than that.

This gets even more interesting when looking at planned service changes. I tried to see if US Airways was cutting flights, and I found some. US Airways had previously said that it would begin flying from National to Ottawa, Montreal, Tallahassee, and Birmingham in October. I no longer see those anywhere in the schedule. That would account for some of the slots. I find myself wondering where the rest are coming from.

The strange thing is that these flights were announced fairly recently. So either US Airways was counting on the slot swap going through or it was expecting to be able to use the existing leased slots for that purpose. But US Airways isn’t talking about this either. I suppose I’m not surprised. It probably wouldn’t be something that US Airways would want to publicize. Delta’s the one who blew this up into a big announcement.

One thing that does seem clear is that by killing the slot swap, the feds have made things worse for Washington fliers. No low cost carriers are coming in to the market (other than JetBlue via its separate American swap), and instead, Delta is just putting slots on competitive routes.

Delta is not starting service on any routes that are unserved today. These all at least have one nonstop airline and some have two or even three without Delta in the mix. Most of the routes overlap with US Airways. It’s almost as if Delta is now trying to pick a fight. Meanwhile, cities like Tallahassee and Birmingham will continue to only have connections now that US Airways seems to have pulled the flights. Those towns must be really angry.

There’s still a lot more to this story. What is the deal with these leases? Why is Delta now somehow thinking that it’ll be a big player in Washington? What’s the end game? Could this just be a political ploy to add service to key senatorial markets? I haven’t quite figured it out yet. I feel like I haven’t even scratched the surface on this one.

It’s a rare day when I agree with what Virgin America is doing, but I have to say that they’ve made some really strong changes to the Red inflight entertainment system. My guess is that this should help them bump up their ancillary revenues, and they desperately need that to happen.

The big change is that there is now inflight shopping via Red. It’s a natural extension when you have internet, personal screens, and a captive audience. The shopping is powered by SkyMall, so the next time you need a toilet paper iPod holder or wine glass holder necklace, you know where to go. Come on, admit it. You love flipping through the SkyMall catalog on the plane. And you know you’ve been tempted to buy something while flying but couldn’t pull the trigger because you had to wait until you hit the ground, by which time you’d already realized it was a bad idea.

But now, you won’t have to wait. And as if that’s not enough, you’ll earn frequent flier points when you buy something. Two points per dollar, so that means you’ll get 460 points when you buy that foot tanner. I believe they’ll be running a special offer as well. Buy terminal space at Chicago O’Hare, give it to the airline, and you’ll get quadruple points!

I’m still not sure why SkyMall is so compelling. Maybe it’s the thin oxygen-deprived air, but now Virgin America will help you act on your impulse. It’s about time they make Red earn its keep. Red ain’t cheap. But just in case the thin air isn’t enough to get you to open that wallet, Virgin America will help push you along by getting you drunk.

That’s right. Another feature of the new Red is an open bar tab. It’s not actually just a bar tab. Basically, anything you purchase during the flight – movies, food, drinks, etc – will go on a tab and then you swipe your card once to pay for everything. This avoids the annoyance of having to whip your card out regularly, and it will undoubtedly encourage people to spend more. Why do you think bars allow people to keep tabs? Because when you don’t pay every time, you drink more.

Drunk people + crazy shopping opportunites = ancillary revenue gold!

As Allegiant has shown quite nicely, you don’t need to make money flying airplanes as long as you can make up for it elsewhere.

[O'Hare Photo via Flickr user Incase]

Many of you have already heard that in its contract of carriage, Southwest has now decided that mechanical issues are outside the airline’s control. How do I know? Because I’ve received more email from readers on this issue than any other, I believe. It’s amazing how this has grabbed people’s attention. The reality of this, however, is not as dire as many are suggesting. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like this move, but due to Southwest’s policies, this doesn’t change much.

Who cares if Southwest considers a mechanical problem under its control or not, right? You should, actually. Airlines make clear distinctions on how much they’ll help stranded customers depending upon whether it was due to circumstances within the airline’s control or not. Here’s a handy chart explaining what’s within airline control and what isn’t, traditionally.

It’s relatively straight forward. If it’s something that an airline can have control over, then it’s the airline’s responsibility. But what’s the difference for passengers? If something is within an airline’s control, then the airline will generally pay for hotels and meals while you’re waiting. The airline will also, in many cases, put you on another airline if available. If the event is outside an airline’s control, then you’re on your own. The airline will get you out when it has a seat available on its own flights, but that’s about it. You’re entitled to a full refund in both cases, assuming there’s a cancellation or excessive delay.

So why do I say that this isn’t as big of a deal here for Southwest? Southwest doesn’t put people on other airlines anyway. If you have a problem on Southwest, you’re waiting for the next seat on a Southwest flight or you’re taking your refund elsewhere. So it’s really just an issue of meals and hotels, not nearly as big of a deal but still important.

For all airlines, the contract of carriage is the binding document regarding air transportation, so this move in Southwest’s contract of carriage (PDF) is worrying, but Southwest also has its Customer Service Commitment (PDF) which outlines what it will do when things go wrong.

The Customer Service Commitment clearly states:

. . . if circumstances within our control, such as aircraft “swaps,” cause you to miss the last possible flight (or connection) of the day to your destination,
our Customer Service personnel have the authority to arrange for overnight lodging. We will find a hotel or motel as near to the airport as possible, and at no additional cost to you. We may also arrange for ground transportation to the overnight facility.

If the cause of your inconvenience is not within our means of control, we will do our best to assist you by securing a discounted rate at a hotel or motel at or near the airport.

With the underlying definition of “circumstances within our control” being clarified, it does make me wary. If a flight cancels because a plane breaks and there are no more flights that day, Southwest is now clearly not obligated to put you in a hotel for the night. Whether that holds up in practice or not remains to be seen, but it’s certainly a concern.

Southwest says that it simply clarified the definition of this in its contract of carriage but that it didn’t intend to change policies. That may be true, but from a legal perspective, that doesn’t appear to be the case.

[Updated on 7/28 @ 1234p: Southwest has listened to everyone and further clarified its contract of carriage to say mechanical difficulties from other entities. Smart move. Read the post on the Southwest blog at http://www.blogsouthwest.com/blog/southwest-airlines-addresses-misinterpretation-regarding-contract-carriage]

[Original photo via Flicker user swanksalot]

Those wacky People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) people are up to their usual tricks, and now they’re dragging airlines into it. This time, they’ve sent a letter to Hawaiian Airlines asking them become the official airline of Sea Kittens. What the heck is a sea kitten? That’s how they want to brand fish in order to stop people from fishing. Seriously. Is there any way I could make up something so dumb?

PETA’s pitch is to have Hawaiian wrap an airplane to promote saving sea kittens, and in exchange, the PETA folks will sing the praises of Hawaiian to their fellow members. They’ve even mocked up the plane, but in doing so, they’ve proven that they have worse Photoshop skills (at left) than even the United/Continental merger team. You’d think they could have at least mocked it up on an aircraft type that Hawaiian operates and not a 737.

To counter such a silly proposal, I’m making my own pitch. Hawaiian, don’t do this and the rest of the world will not think you’re insane. And to help this cause, I’m giving Hawaiian some publicity of my own here. Fly Hawaiian!

I’m all for the ethical treatment of animals, but PETA goes way above and beyond. PETA thinks fishing should just simply stop. As someone who had a great day a couple weekends ago catching 27 delicious salmon (along with my brother, at right, and 7 others), I couldn’t disagree more. Fish tastes great and it’s good for you. Are there abuses in the fishing world? No doubt. Responsible, sustainable fishing needs to be encouraged, but a wholesale end to fishing? Gimme a break.

While I do support the ethical treatment of animals, I find it very hard to support PETA. This is the group that compares eating meat to enslaving black people and beating women. I’m never a fan of extremists, regardless of which side they’re on (unless, of course, it’s the pro-aviation extreme). People eat meat, and it’s not going to change. A lot of people like eating meat. A lot of Hawaiians like eating things that are supposed to be meat (spam). So this campaign isn’t going to fly.

The idea that Hawaiian would do this is just laughable. Fishing is big business in Hawai’i and it’s an important part of the culture. There are over 3,000 commercial fishers in the state and it brings a lot of revenue in. Would Hawaiian really want to do something that would hurt its core business of transporting Hawaiians? Uh, no. Maybe Hawaiian would do something to support the end of whaling or something, but . . . wait, no they wouldn’t. They’re starting service to Japan soon. That’s not a good business move either.

In the end, this seems like another desperate attempt by PETA to get press coverage. I suppose I’m obliging.

[Original cat photos via Flickr users brokinhrt2 and PJLewis]