This is a great question, because I’ve wondered it myself for quite awhile. This gave me the chance to reach out there and see if I could get any more detail. Sure enough, I could. Let’s start with the question.

. . . I booked my tickets last week and got an interesting email from the online travel service this week that my return flights had been changed by the airline. The departure and arrival times were changed by 1-3 minutes, for the most part making the flights a bit longer. For example, my departure from Buffalo was changed from 4:30 to 4:27 (or it might have been the other way around).

Why would Delta make such small changes to the flights? I’m a private pilot and come from a family of pilots, so I’m familiar with airspeed versus ground speed, but there’s no way they can predict the weather nearly two months out; and I know about flying at maximum economical speed as opposed to maximum possible speed, so I’m wondering if the rising fuel prices have caused them to adjust their speeds a bit to save fuel. But that is just a wild guess.
Perry

This happens on all airlines, but I’ve certainly noticed it happening more frequently on Delta than others. You think your flights are all set and then you get a schedule change notice saying that the arrival time has moved by a minute or two. Why the heck are they doing this?

I went to Delta for the official response and was told this:

. . . when the schedule is first published, it’s not operationally sequenced, so small adjustments are made on certain routes – basically massaging the departure and arrival times slightly for the best operational efficiency and connectivity. As your reader noted, these are minor, a minute here and there.

In other words, when Delta first puts the schedule out there, it’s not perfectly timed to fit into the entire system. Little tweaks of a minute or two can make a difference. That sounds really nebulous, so let me try to fill in the blanks.

A schedule is put out there nearly a year in advance. Often, that won’t be the final expected schedule. Major tweaks happen along the way, but the big ones are usually done when you’re a few months out. There might be some new routes added since the schedule was first put out there. Some routes could be cut, frequencies could change, etc. So at a large airline like Delta, when the schedule firms up, they might find that tweaks of a minute or two on other routes can help.

There are a few other reasons I can think of that would make this worth doing. Look at it through the eyes of the reservation system. This is more of a small change than a big one, but let’s say that Delta flies from Buffalo to Tampa via Atlanta and it takes 4h32m. Then let’s say that US Airways can get you there in 4h30m. If there are a lot of people that fly that route, it might make sense for Delta to find a way to shave 3 minutes off the connection time. That could make it the fastest way to get from Buffalo to Tampa and it could actually have an impact on bookings. Of course, you only do this for larger markets.

There is also the issue of weather. Airlines use historical weather patterns to determine how long flights will take. For example, winds are much stronger in the winter than the summer, so a flight from JFK to LAX is scheduled to take longer in the winter. It’s possible that as weather data comes in, the airlines make slight changes to adjust to the new expectations.

The last reason I can think of for this is simply one of airport issues. Let’s say that Buffalo has construction going on this winter. Delta might want to lengthen the expected flight times to account for the potential ground delays, even if it’s just a few minutes.

I’m sure we have some readers who know more about this than I, so feel free to chime in below.

Southwest Learns the Dangers of Unbridled Enthusiasm With Its Frequent Flier Relaunch – BNET Headwinds
Southwest is excited about its new frequent flier program, and it should be, but not everyone feels the same way. Southwest, however, isn’t acknowledging that and it really should.

Making Your Travel Agenda More Efficient – Intuit Small Business Blog
One way to save money is by being smart with your travel budget, but you can also save money be just being more efficient with how you spend your time traveling.

Airlines vs. Airports: Virgin Atlantic Stiffs Heathrow After Icy Shutdown – BNET Headwinds
Virgin Atlantic is withholding all landing fees from Heathrow until it knows the result of the inquiry into what happened during the snow storm in December. This is not a great plan.

In the Trenches: Going Corporate – Intuit Small Business Blog
We’ve ramped up our small business efforts at Cranky Concierge, and it’s already paying off.

Southwest Keeps ‘Em Happy, but Its Late Flights Are Starting to Stack Up – BNET Headwinds
Southwest is not running the best operation these days, but its reputation keeps people happy anyway. I don’t know how long that can continue if things don’t improve.

Cranky Flier Radio Interview With Brett Snyder – Ask Mr Credit Card
I spent 90 minutes doing an interview with Ask Mr Credit Card about the industry. We talked a lot about current events and some of my personal background. If you’ve got time to kill . . .

JetBlue Blames Airport Construction for Late Flights. Um, No – BNET Headwinds
JetBlue is another airline that’s been struggling to run on time, and the excuse has been airport delays. I’m not so convinced.

Ever since Delta took over Western 25 years ago (wow), the airline has flirted with the City of Angels. Delta would ramp up, then pull back again, only to ramp up again. Now we see Delta has started to add flights again by adding frequencies to San Francisco and starting Sacramento flights. Yesterday, the airline announced it had become the official airline of the World Champion Los Angeles Lakers. Does this mean Delta is looking to give LA a shot again?

It looks like United has decided that its seasonal flight from Denver to London will be seasonal no more . . . in a bad way. The flight won’t be coming back this summer, and instead the airline will use that Heathrow slot for a fourth daily trip to Washington/Dulles. I know a lot of people are shaking their heads wondering why United would choose to add yet another flight to Washington instead of sticking it out in Denver, but there are some good reasons, some more obvious than others.

The Impact of Demand
When it comes to domestic flying, travelers care primarily about price and schedule. If an airline has frequent flights in a market, it’s going to punch above its weight, so to speak. But when you start talking about long haul flying, the equation changes. Most people become less time sensitive and the nonstop isn’t quite as important.

For a 1 hour flight, you want to see flights going hourly all day long. For a five hour flight, you’d like to see flights going at least 4 or 5 times a day. And for a 10 hour flight, well, the schedule doesn’t matter nearly as much. When you’re traveling that far and changing so many time zones, you just expect to have a long travel day.

If we look at the Denver-London flight, it originally left Denver at 655p and arrived London at 1050a. Now, if you want to fly United, you’ll have to leave at 355p, go through Washington and arrive at 1010a. Sure, it causes you to lose some time but it’s really only about 2.5 hours. In the scheme of things, that doesn’t matter that much.

So there are viable connecting options on United and that’s likely to keep most of the United fliers happy enough that they won’t leave. The only better option is the British Airways nonstop, but if you’re tied to Mileage Plus and Star Alliance, you probably won’t be defecting. American miles don’t do much for you if you live in Denver.

On top of that, many of the people who would connect through Denver can either go through San Francisco or LA in the west along with Chicago and Washington in the east. Sure, some of the smaller mountain towns won’t have one stop service anymore, but there’s not huge demand for that.

So on the demand side, while travelers would like to have a nonstop, United isn’t going to lose a ton by not having it. Could it gain in the way of higher fares? Sure, that’s possible, but that also doesn’t mean it’s the best use of that airplane.

The Trade-off
The issue is figuring out if there’s a better way to use that airplane and that slot. For United, the opportunity to put another flight in Washington for a total of 4 daily makes sense. There is a lot more demand for flights to London from Washington than there is from Denver, but that’s not all. The shorter flight time from the East Coast to London means people are somewhat more time sensitive. For example, there is a morning flight that goes to London as well as three at different times in the evening, and that makes a difference when the flight time is only 6 hours and you have 2 fewer time zones to cross.

United also faces stiffer competition in Washington. Besides BA’s three daily flights there, Virgin Atlantic has one as well. While BA and Virgin both have flights leaving at 640p, United can now bracket its current 6p flight with one at 7p. It makes for a very compelling schedule and it allows United to spread thing out for better connecting opportunities as well.

Best and Highest Use
Another thing to consider here is aircraft. United was using a 777 on the flight from Denver, but it can use a 767 from Washington. That frees the 777 to fly longer, more profitable missions. Then again, maybe United will pull it out of service to refit the seats to the new standard. Either way, the 767 probably makes for a better match with demand in Washington and freeing up a 777 is a big deal. They don’t just grow on trees.

In the end, my guess is that Denver-London did ok in the summer but not “ok” enough. United doesn’t risk losing a lot of demand because of the connecting opportunities, so it might as well move the fleet around to where it can be more profitable. My guess is that the 787 will make Denver-London look a lot more compelling when it finally gets delivered. But until then, there are better ways to use the airplanes in the fleet. You may not like it in Denver, but it does make a lot of sense.

[Original photos via Wikimedia Commons users Janusz J. and AgnosticPreachersKid/CC-BY-SA-3.0]

A lot has been written about American’s fight with Orbitz, Expedia, and now Sabre, but I still don’t think that it’s been made very clear for “normal” people. Why can’t you book American on Orbitz and Expedia? What does Sabre have to do with you, the traveler? In the end, there shouldn’t really be an impact on travelers, but the current fighting is putting a temporary wrench into things. It will pass, eventually.

The first thing to understand is that this fight is NOT with retail sites like Orbitz and Expedia. Yes, they are now involved and do not currently show American’s flights, but it’s not their fight. The real fight is between American and the reservation systems (known as global distribution systems, or GDSes) that retail agencies like Orbitz use to make bookings. (It’s no coincidence that the company that owns two of those systems also owns Orbitz – see why they’re involved?)

Here’s the current lay of the land when it comes to airlines bookings.

As you can see, when you book with an airline directly, you eliminate the middleman, the GDS. That middleman, of course, costs money and the airlines pay for it, so airlines like when you book direct. But that’s not the only reason they like when you book direct. The airlines are also unhappy that the middlemen haven’t been very progressive at including ancillary fees (bag fees, priority boarding, etc) in the reservation process to make them easier to sell. They really want there to be a shopping cart, something that is ubiquitous everywhere else on the web today. In addition, they want the ability to be able to vary those fees for frequent fliers. If you’re an elite member, they don’t want to try to charge bag fees, for example. The GDSes just aren’t providing this quickly enough, so it’s time to fight.

But the airlines (at least, the legacy airlines) know that you aren’t going to just go straight to the airline to book every time. That’s good for your basic leisure traveler, but what about complicated itineraries involving many different airlines? Or what if you have a corporate travel agent that books everything for you? The retail sites and travel agencies are still important. The airlines just want to change how they exchange data with those companies.

With data transfer being so cheap and easy today, what the airlines are proposing, and American is taking the lead with, is that they set up a direct connection to cut out the GDSes. That saves money for the airline and it provides the ability to better sell their ancillary products in the process. Makes sense. So here’s what they want.

You’ll notice that there are now a lot more lines coming directly from the airline reservation systems. In reality, there is an XML data connection that the airlines will have sit on top of their systems (I spoke in depth with Farelogix about this, one of the companies that creates these). That connection will then be offered directly to the agencies, retail sites, and even the GDSes. Why the GDSes? They aren’t just going to to go away. Let’s say you need to go from LA to Mfuwe, Zambia. To get there, you might fly American part of the way, but you’ll need to fly on Proflight Zambia from Lusaka. You think they’re going to have a direct connection set up? Yeah right. They’ll still rely on the GDSes, at least for awhile.

But as you can see, I’m not just talking about the GDSes as the intermediaries but suggesting there could be others. If the GDSes wanted to get with the times, they could corner the market on being the intermediary. They could collect direct connections, combine it with traditional connections, and all would be good. They would just have a new way of connecting with the airlines, they would be able to handle the new “merchandising” that airlines have gone to in the last few years, and the costs would drop dramatically. But since they’ve been mostly fighting this (I think Amadeus may be the most open to it), that opens the door for others to step in.

Sure, the big online travel agents and corporate agencies could afford to take the direct connections and do the development work themselves, but not everyone can afford that. What about the little guys? For that, Farelogix (they aren’t alone) has actually created a basic front end system that an agency can download and use with ease. The agency just needs to get the airlines with direct connections to open the spigot and they’re ready to go. Farelogix can even integrate with the GDSes so that they can mix flights from those systems along with direct connections so that it’s all easy for the user to see in one place. As you might imagine, the GDSes don’t like this, so they won’t let most agencies actually mix their results like this. But technically, it’s completely possible.

Can you really compare all these different feeds? Yep. There are a lot of scare tactics being used out there to make people think that a direct connection is going to mean that every airline will offer information differently and you’ll never be able to compare. That’s bull. The big legacy carriers have actually created the Open Axis Group which has a standard airlines can use. (No, I don’t recommend using “axis” in any name when people are fighting.) That makes it easy to start integrating new airlines into a single interface as they create direct connections.

It’s just like you see on sites like Kayak or Fly.com. They take data from multiple sources and display it for you in one interface. The only difference is they don’t do the booking – they send you to each site to do it. This new fight just takes it one step further.

In the end, it’s the reservation systems that stand to lose the most here, and you as a consumer don’t stand to lose anything. If anything, you stand to gain when these new systems start allowing for more robust shopping cart capabilities to help you buy everything you need before you go.